Genesis -- Young vs. Old Earth

[Guest]

Just curious since you mentioned about animal death...How would you interpret this verse in Genesis 1: 29,30:

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Why doesn't God say, "That for all the creatures he gives them the other creatures to feed on"? In fact, he doesn't even give humans the animals to eat until after the flood.

It's curious, but it doesn't say they didn't eat meat.

Excerpt (from http://www.noble-minded.org/sarfati_review.html)
Derek Kidner (Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series) makes the following observation: “The assigning of every green plant for food to all creatures must not be pressed to mean that all were once herbivorous, any more than to mean that all plants were equally edible to all. It is a generalization...” In other words, this verse cannot be taken in a completely literal sense, for then it would be saying that all plants (large and small, aquatic and non-aquatic, etc.) were eaten by all animals, which is clearly not the case. So it must be a generalization. I think [we] should admit that this is at least one possible interpretation.

Besides, I don't think we have to show that man ate meat before the fall for their to be death. Didn't God create all wonderfully fit for their purpose? If God made some creatures as natural predators, then isn't it fair to believe they might have actually had prey? If not, then are the features of predators a coincidence? If not, then does that support evolutionary theory?

Also, why is animal death immoral? Are they soulful? Are we assuming something about death of creatures that the bible doesn't tell us? We were made in the image of God, but not the animals.

Genesis 9: 1-3

1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

Again, it's "possible" that man didn't eat meat before the fall, but that doesn't negate animal death. But, here's one response in any event:

The post-flood account in Genesis 9:1-4 is best explained as a re-issuing of the same general lordship over creation that was given to Adam prior to the Fall. Notice that the command to "be fruitful and multiply" is identical with that given to Adam (Gen. 1:26). The fact that the mandate given to Noah, who is here pictured as a second inaugurator of the human race, includes the giving of all creatures for food, not just plants, suggests that the same mandate was given to Adam before the Fall.

It is doubtful that the permission to eat meat recorded in Genesis 9:3 must be interpreted as the first time that God authorized such a diet, since it would appear that animals had been killed at least for sacrificial purposes as early as Genesis 3:21 (the divine provision of animal skins for Adam and Eve) and 4:4 (the sacrifice of Abel). Kline argues that "what Genesis 9:3 actually authorized was the eating of all kinds of meats, thus removing the prohibition against the eating of unclean animals that had been instituted for Noah's family within the special symbolic situation in the ark-kingdom."fn

[fn: Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Overland Park, KS: Two Age Press, 2000), pp. 54-56. Kline interprets the bringing of seven pairs of each clean animal into the ark as a typological anticipation of the theocratic kingdom of Israel, where the holiness of God demanded that the clean-unclean distinction be observed (Genesis 7:2-3; 8:20; cp. Leviticus 11:44-47; 20:25-26).]

[Guest]

Quote:
I am not aware of a really good understanding of Ex. 20:11 outside of the YEC understanding. The Lord really seems to directly compare it to a literal 7-days. It really does damage to the text in my opinion to see it otherwise. How are we to understand anything if terms can be this elastic within one sentence?


I think I have the same understanding of Ex. 20:11 that the YEC does, but just not that it matters how long the 7 days was. Alluding to creation to establish the Sabbath doesn't necessitate a strict literal interpretation of yom that requires 24 hours. I think it's pressing the criticism too far to suggest that this matter devolves into a throwing up of our hands as to any textual understanding. I don't see this issue as central to the faith or to salvation for sure, but it is central to intellectual honesty and worthy of pursuit.

So you believe God in one breath to mean "day" as millions (billions?) of years and in the next a 24hr day?. They are in direct comparison to one another in the context. I don't see a way around this. Could you maybe elaborate on your understanding of the verse?

Here's how I see it: "<b>six days</b> shalt thou labor and do all thy work: But the seventh day etc....for in <b>six days</b> the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day..."

I don't see how it is possible from this context to understand it any other way. At least not without reading into the text something that isn't there.

I am assuming you interpret yom to mean a 24hr day when applied to man's work week in this verse. Would you not agree that the context would have us interpret the same when applied to creation in the same sentence? Is it not from the context that we interpret this word to distinguish it's different meanings? (in Noah's day etc...)

How does this context allow for millions or billions of years? If we don't interpret the word from its immediate context how are we to interpret it? (here's where the throwing up of the hands begins )

I have heard YEC acknowledge the role of the Tree of Life as the apparent means by which Adam would have lived forever had he not sinned and been banished from the Garden.

I don't understand the tree of life to have held some magical power that kept Adam and Eve alive any more than I think the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was poisonous or something. I think eating of the tree (of life) was an act of faith that God required them to do. A way of trusting in Him if you will.

So I do not believe that the animals ate of the tree of life anyway. I honestly haven't thought about their mortality much. The fall happens so quickly in the bible that there isn't much to look at there.

God does seem to illustrate something in the covering of Adam and Eve with the animal skins in Gen. 3:21 as opposed to their own covering in 3:7. I have understood this (I don't think alone) that God may have in fact shown them in the killing of those animals what was a consequence of their actions. Adam had named all these creatures and then one has to die as a result of his actions. Of course I am speculating a bit here.

I also think that it is significant that this is the first time in the scriptures that something dies. (well besides whatever happened between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 lol)

"For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." (Rom. 8:22)

This passage seems to fit with what happens when death entered the world. With thorns and thistles and all. I think that much more than mortality happened at the fall. The whole creation was effected. Unless I am reading this text wrong. (which is highly possible )

Also, if sin and evil pre-existed Adam, then why not death?

I am not sure where in the bible it says sin and death pre-existed Adam. Perhaps you could show me. I only see over and over God saying it is <b>good</b> (until the fall of course).

I cannot see billions of years of death and suffering, be it animals or anything being called "good" by God.

There is also the problem of carnivorous animals. It would appear that animals were herbivores before the fall as well. Gen. 1:30.

I would contend that the idea of millions of years of death before the fall is in fact what is "foreign to scripture". It is simply not there.

I will try to read some of the links you provided though I have to say I doubt I will hit them all. I will especially read the crtique of AIG. Also I think I may be hitting some points in this that have been covered. Sorry for the redundancy.

I don't see this issue as central to the faith or to salvation for sure, but it is central to intellectual honesty and worthy of pursuit.

I agree on both points wholeheartedly.


God bless you,
Derek

P.S. I just noticed this cool little "topic review" thing under my response. That's neat. I have always opened a new window to look at that. Neat. Does anyone know if there is a way to <b>spell check</b> on here?

[Guest]

Not as an appeal to authority, but it negates the view that only dishonest evolutionists who want to negate God or irrational naturalists can believe in OEC theory.

Notable Christians Open to an Old Earth Interpretation

This document has been primarily compiled by Lane Coffee, RTB Volunteer Apologist

• John Ankerberg
  Gleason Archer
  John Battle
  Michael Behe
  Henri Blocher
  James Montgomery Boice
  William Jennings Bryan
  Walter Bradley
  Jack Collins
  Chuck Colson
  Paul Copan
  William Lane Craig
  Millard Ericksen
  Robert Gange
  Norman Geisler
  John Gibson
  Robert Godfrey
  Guillermo Gonzales
  Victor Hamilton
  Hank Hannegraff
  Jack Hayford
  Fred Heeren
  Charles Hodge
  Walter Kaiser
  Meredith Kline
  Greg Koukl
  C. S. Lewis
  Paul Little
  Ken Matthews
  Patricia Mondore
  J. P. Moreland
  Robert Newman
  Greg Neyman
  Mark Noll
  J. I. Packer
  Nancy Pearcey
  Perry Phillips
  William Phillips
  Mike Poole
  Vern Poythress
  Bernard Ramm
  Jay Richards
  Pat Robertson
  Hugh Ross
  John Sailhammer
  Fritz Schaefer
  Francis Schaeffer
  C. I. Scofield
  Chuck Smith Jr.
  David Snoke
  Lee Strobel
  Ken Taylor
  Bruce Waltke
  B. B. Warfield
  Gordon Wenham

[Guest]

So you believe God in one breath to mean "day" as millions (billions?) of years and in the next a 24hr day?. They are in direct comparison to one another in the context. I don't see a way around this. Could you maybe elaborate on your understanding of the verse?

Here's how I see it: "six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work: But the seventh day etc....for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day..."

I don't see how it is possible from this context to understand it any other way. At least not without reading into the text something that isn't there.

I am assuming you interpret yom to mean a 24hr day when applied to man's work week in this verse. Would you not agree that the context would have us interpret the same when applied to creation in the same sentence? Is it not from the context that we interpret this word to distinguish it's different meanings? (in Noah's day etc...)

How does this context allow for millions or billions of years? If we don't interpret the word from its immediate context how are we to interpret it? (here's where the throwing up of the hands begins )

Dr. Gleason L. Archer
"By no means does this demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six 'days,' any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days."? 
"it would seem to border on sheer irrationality to insist that all of Adam’s experiences in Genesis 2:15-22 could have been crowded into the last hour or two of a literal twenty-four-hour day."?

I honestly haven't thought about their mortality much. The fall happens so quickly in the bible that there isn't much to look at there.

That sort of begs the question, doesn't it?

God does seem to illustrate something in the covering of Adam and Eve with the animal skins in Gen. 3:21 as opposed to their own covering in 3:7. I have understood this (I don't think alone) that God may have in fact shown them in the killing of those animals what was a consequence of their actions. Adam had named all these creatures and then one has to die as a result of his actions. Of course I am speculating a bit here.

Yes, I think there's as much speculation in much of modern theology on this subject as in origin of Satan or hell or other issues. I find it hard to remember where I learned much of what I "believe" on a number of biblical topics. It's hard to separate sometimes.

I also think that it is significant that this is the first time in the scriptures that something dies. (well besides whatever happened between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 lol)

"For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." (Rom. 8:22)

This passage seems to fit with what happens when death entered the world. With thorns and thistles and all. I think that much more than mortality happened at the fall. The whole creation was effected. Unless I am reading this text wrong. (which is highly possible )

I always believed that child birth pain and work began with the Fall, but the text said that they were "increased," which leads to another question -- how can Eve's pain in childbirth have been increased at the fall if there wasn't birth before the fall -- is there anything in the bible that necessitates that we even believe that Adam and Eve were alone at the fall? I think we have to be careful with our assumptions and the conclusions we leap and cling to when the bible is silent on a subject.

I am not sure where in the bible it says sin and death pre-existed Adam. Perhaps you could show me. I only see over and over God saying it is good (until the fall of course).

I said sin and evil, not sin and death -- how about John 8:44?

I cannot see billions of years of death and suffering, be it animals or anything being called "good" by God.

As Steve has often pointed out, we have an odd view that suffering is bad. Besides, I didn't say suffering -- I only posit death. What makes you think animal death is any more "not good" from God's perspective than plant death? Do you think that none of the natural processes such as respiration and the like took place in pre-fall Eden ?

There is also the problem of carnivorous animals. It would appear that animals were herbivores before the fall as well. Gen. 1:30.

From http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... /rev2.html
Psalm 104:20-21 seems to confirm that carnivorous animals were part of God's plan (since Psalm 104 parallels Genesis 1, one can argue these carnivorous animals existed before the fall of man.

When God gave man meat (Genesis 9:3) he did not say anything about changing the animals’ diet. One could infer from this omission that the former guideline for animals (Genesis 1:30) was applicable only in Eden or was not completely forbidding carnivorous activity among animals. If Genesis 1:30 were forbidding all carnivorous activity, why does it only refer to the life types man would be interacting with inside Eden (land and airborne animals, see also Genesis 2:20) and not ocean dwelling creatures? To get really technical, read Genesis 1:29-30 again and notice how it is not forbidding anything, but seems to be a recommended guideline. Also, since God specifically told man he could eat meat in Genesis 9:3, here is another obvious point that the death of animals is not inherently evil.

Now consider how Genesis states Eve’s childbearing pain was increased after the fall. This tells us two things: 1. There was pain before the fall; and 2. She may have had children before the fall. Also realize that pain is a defense mechanism, so it can not be a construct of evil.

on CS Lewis
The existence of pain in the animal kingdom especially troubled Lewis, who devoted an entire chapter to the subject in The Problem of Pain. Theologians, he noted, had previously attributed the origin of animal suffering to the Fall of man. But the scientific evidence that carnivorousness was “older than humanity” had led Lewis to conclude that evil had manifested itself long before Adam in the law of tooth and claw. To account for this fact, he postulated a hypothetical pre-Adamic fall, in which Satan corrupted the world and caused animals to live by preying on one another.
Source: The Acworth Letters - Summary at http://www.apologetics.org/acworthletters4.html

I would contend that the idea of millions of years of death before the fall is in fact what is "foreign to scripture". It is simply not there.

But, it's not precluded, and if something not precluded by Scripture fits with our observed universe, why can't it be true?

[Guest]

An interesting list of verses for study

Scriptures Related To Creation

Compiled by Dr. Hugh Ross

Posted 01-23-2001

Scriptures expressing that God is the Creator

Genesis 1:1 Genesis 22:17 Nehemiah 9:6
Job 9:3-12 Psalm 8 Psalm 24:1-2
Psalm 33:6-9 Psalm 65:5-13 Psalm 74:12-17
Psalm 89:5-12 Psalm 90:2-6 Psalm 104
Psalm 121:2 Psalm 124:8 Psalm 134:3
Psalm 136:3-9 Psalm 146:6 Proverbs 3:19-20
Isaiah 44:24-25 Isaiah 45:7 Isaiah 45:12
Isaiah 45:18 Isaiah 48:13 Jeremiah 10:12-13
Jeremiah 27:5 Jeremiah 32:17 Jeremiah 33:2
Jeremiah 51:15-16 Amos 5:8 Zechariah 12:1
Matthew 19:4-6 Mark 10:6 Acts 4:24
Acts 17:24-28 1 Corinthians 8:6 Revelation 4:11
Revelation 10:6 Revelation 14:7

Scriptures describing the characteristics of this creation (including its inhabitants, death, decay, its temporality, etc.) and its relationship to the Creator

Genesis 1 Genesis 2 Genesis 15:5
Genesis 22:17 Exodus 20:8-11 Deuteronomy 11:21
1 Chronicles 16:30-34 Job 8:11-19 Job12:7-10
Job 14:5,7-12 Job 23:8-10 Job 26:7-14
Job 28:1-11 Job 36:27-37:3 Job 38-41
Psalm 37:1-2 Psalm 93:1-4 Psalm 96:10
Psalm 104 Psalm 135:6-7 Psalm 139:1-18
Psalm 147 Psalm 148 Proverbs 8:22-31
Proverbs 24:30-31 Proverbs 30:24-31 Ecclesiastes 1:3-10
Ecclesiastes 3 Ecclesiastes 8-12 Isaiah 40:21-22
Isaiah 42:5 Isaiah 44:2 Isaiah 49:5
Isaiah 50:2-3 Isaiah 51:13-16 Isaiah 55:10
Jeremiah 5:22 Amos 9:5-6 Romans 5:12
2 Corinthians 4:16 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 1 Timothy 4:3-4
Hebrews 1:10-12 Hebrews 11:3 1 John 2:17
Revelation 3:14

Scriptures that describe time as being created by a transcendent Creator

Ephesians 1:4 Colossians 1:15-20 2 Timothy 1:9
Titus 1:2 1 Peter 1:20

Scriptures that describe times when God intervenes in the physical realm (miracles)

Exodus 7:18 Exodus 8:13 Joshua 10:1-15
Judges 4-5 2 Kings 20:8-11 Job 5:9
Psalm 105:26-36 Proverbs 16:33 Isaiah 38:7-8
Matthew 2:1-16 John 1:1-2 John 1:10
John 2:6-10

Scriptures describing the relationship between the Sabbath and creation

Exodus 20:8-11 Exodus 31:14-17 Exodus 35:2
Leviticus 23:3 Leviticus 25:3-4 Deuteronomy 5:12-15
Hebrews 4:1-11

The existence and character of God is revealed through creation

Psalm 19:1-6 Psalm 50:6 Psalm 97:6
Psalm 98:2-3 Psalm 119:64 Isaiah 40:25-28
Habakkuk 2:14 Habakkuk 3:3b Acts 14:17
Romans 1:18-23 Romans 2:12-16

God compares the eternality of Himself and His covenants to the endurance of creation. God also contrasts His eternality with the temporality of creation.

Psalm 72:5-7 Psalm 89:37 Psalm 102:25-27
Psalm 119:89-91 Psalm 125:1-2 Isaiah 51:6
Isaiah 54:10 Jeremiah 33:22 Jeremiah 33:25
Daniel 12:3 Micah 6:2 Matthew 5:18
Matthew 24:35

Scriptures describing what is to come in the New Heavens and New Earth

Psalm 95:11 Isaiah 34:2-5 Isaiah 60:18-21
Isaiah 65:17-25 Isaiah 66:22 Habakkuk 3:6
Matthew 22:23-32 Matthew 25:41,46 Mark 12:25-27
Luke 20:34-38 John 14:2-4 Romans 8:18-25
1 Corinthians 2:9-11 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 1 Corinthians 6:3
1 Corinthians 6:13 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 1 Corinthians 15:35-58
2 Corinthians 4:17-18 Hebrews 4:1-11 2 Peter 3:3-13
1 John 2:17 1 John 3:2-3 1 John 3:8
Revelation 3:12 Revelation 7:13-17 Revelation 20-22

[Guest]

Dr. Gleason L. Archer
"By no means does this demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six 'days,' any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days."?
"it would seem to border on sheer irrationality to insist that all of Adam’s experiences in Genesis 2:15-22 could have been crowded into the last hour or two of a literal twenty-four-hour day."?

He (God) says "Ye shall dwell in booths seven days: all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths: that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of Egypt:..."

He doesn't say "you shall dwell in booth seven days so that everyone shall know that you dwelt in the wilderness 40 years." But this sentence is structured not unlike the six days verse in Ex. 20. He there says " <b>Six days</b> shalt thou labour etc...for in <b>six days</b> the Lord etc..."
In the above mentioned passage He says "you shall <b>dwell in booths</b>...will know that I made Israel to <b>dwell in booths</b>. It's the same kind of thing. Dwelling in booths in mentioned twice, both times talking about the same thing. Six days in mentioned twice speaking both times of six normal days.

I am not sure how the quote you posted answers the question. How are we to interpret the use of yom here? If not by the immediate context then how? Surely not by our presuppositions, but by the text.

Quote:
I honestly haven't thought about their mortality much. The fall happens so quickly in the bible that there isn't much to look at there.


That sort of begs the question, doesn't it?

I don't think so. I am just stating a fact. Do you disagree?

God does seem to illustrate something in the covering of Adam and Eve with the animal skins in Gen. 3:21 as opposed to their own covering in 3:7. I have understood this (I don't think alone) that God may have in fact shown them in the killing of those animals what was a consequence of their actions. Adam had named all these creatures and then one has to die as a result of his actions. Of course I am speculating a bit here.


Yes, I think there's as much speculation in much of modern theology on this subject as in origin of Satan or hell or other issues. I find it hard to remember where I learned much of what I "believe" on a number of biblical topics. It's hard to separate sometimes.

Still a valid point though. Is in not? If not, why. Do you think that God just arbitrarilly did this, or that it had some signifigance? It is the first mention of death in the entire bible. And in the context, this seems to be very signifigant.

is there anything in the bible that necessitates that we even believe that Adam and Eve were alone at the fall?

Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve had children before the fall?

I said sin and evil, not sin and death -- how about John 8:44?

Sorry for the misquote. I don't see how this scripture proves that sin was in the world before Adam. It simply makes a statement about the devil. God's creation was good before sin. Are you saying that there was sin in the world before Adam?

me-I would contend that the idea of millions of years of death before the fall is in fact what is "foreign to scripture". It is simply not there.

you- But, it's not precluded, and if something not precluded by Scripture fits with our observed universe, why can't it be true?

Ex. 20:11 would seem to preclude it.

God bless.
Derek

[Guest]

I wasn't asking where it said he used his finger (though I think that's an anthropomorphism of God, as I doubt he has what we would call a finger). Your point, however, was that he used the finger to refer to a week, which it does nowhere.

I was referring to the 10 commandents that God wrote which uses the 7 day comparison, which obviously you don't believe the second 7 days actually means 24 hour days.

You need to explore some of the OEC views more closely -- they follow a more biblical approach (at least Hugh Ross at reasons.org) in my opinion than YECs in my opinion, who adhere mostly to logical arguments or philosophical theology. Actually, I'm not sure the idea of an old earth began with Darwin (see below), but was an assumption at the time that they relied upon. Besides, even if they were the source of the notion, it doesn't disprove it. I certainly don't bear any greater degree of respect for a lab coat than a cloak. However, it doesn't negate the pertinence of their observations, and they aren't suspect just because they wear lab coats.

quote from Jack Collins
[Another] false claim is the idea that Christians changed their interpretation of the days in order to make peace with Darwinism. As a matter of fact, most of the interpretive options came into play before 1850 - and Darwin¹s Origins of Species came out in 1859. The big factor for many in the church was the new geology that began in the 1700s which seemed to most to prove that the earth was much older than a few thousand years. And if someone wants to make the counterclaim, 'You see, that just proves that geology is naturalistic, too,' he has to come to grips with the simple fact that most of the early geologists were devout Christians who were far from being naturalistic...

So, let me ask you this...just like you say the Bible doesn't go as far as to infer a literal week how then does the Bible infer long ages without question?

me - I mean let's take for example the creation week. If we look at it through man's science they would say there is no way that could happen. You can't have plants before the sun and the insects. Even the birds came before the land animals which according to modern theory it is the other way around.

What is OEC theories on the creation layout? How do they explain the light on day 1 through 3 and how do they explain how plants survived and reproduced without the Sun or insects?

Man's science is God's science. I'm not saying believe "modern theory" of science as taught in high school textbooks, but there are honest scientists who have answers for those questions provided you are free in your theology to accept a long day, which I have still no real reason not to. How long did Adam wait for Eve? Did he have time in 24 hours to name all the animals, to realize something was missing and need Eve, how could he say "finally" a help meet if it was only 24 hours? A long day answers not only what we observe in science, but also what we see in Scripture.

I wouldn't necessarily say that Man's science is God's science. God seems to defy natural laws in several miracles that he performs...walking on water...changing water into wine...stoping the earth from rotating, etc.

As far as Adam and Eve go...Do you believe Adam and Eve were full adults when they were created or were they both babies grown to be adults? The reason I ask is because it would appear that, if they were full grown adults then some amount of knowledge would of had to be instilled into them in order to survive...like walking, talking, etc. Just curious what your view is on that.

I still think that's reading something into it -- first, where's God "fixed" ? Is he bound to the physical? by Time? Andy why do we assume "light" when referenced to God isn't also some form of anthropomorphism? It's just a stretch to avoid something YECs are uncomfortable to consider in my opinion. Believe in an old earth does NOT necessitate ANY evolutionary theory. In fact, it is the YECs of the creationists that believe in a form of evolution (over a short time period to acommodate problems with the need for rapid speciation in their post-ark theories).

Doesn't the verse in Revelations sort of explain the process of light when it is emitted from God? However, in Revelation he is not going to seperate the light because there will be no night

As far as YEC's believe in a form of evolution..yes, but only microevolution. Meaning that humans are getting taller over time because tall people marry tall people. However, they would never say a human would grow wings because humans do not have the genetic information to grow wings.

I also don't see the problem of rapid speciation between animals of the same kind. It didn't take us very long to create a extremely wide variety of dogs.

I agree with you, but it's a straw man argument and doesn't apply to YEC vs. OEC (one in which YECs always try to respond to OECs as if they were trying to disprove God or Creation) -- evolutionary and popular scientists are being even less honest intellectually and live more by faith than even the YECs in my opinion, but just because they use poor methods, doesn't mean all bible-believing, evangelical scientists follow that criticism.

I agree that you are not trying to disprove God or Creation, but you are trying to disprove that Creation could not have happened in 6 literal days using man's science, are you not?

[Guest]

It's curious, but it doesn't say they didn't eat meat.

Excerpt (from http://www.noble-minded.org/sarfati_review.html)
Derek Kidner (Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series) makes the following observation: “The assigning of every green plant for food to all creatures must not be pressed to mean that all were once herbivorous, any more than to mean that all plants were equally edible to all. It is a generalization...” In other words, this verse cannot be taken in a completely literal sense, for then it would be saying that all plants (large and small, aquatic and non-aquatic, etc.) were eaten by all animals, which is clearly not the case. So it must be a generalization. I think [we] should admit that this is at least one possible interpretation.

However, it appears to be a generalization for eating plants and not a generalization for eating meat. Also, one must consider, just because you see something as it is today doesn't mean it was there before the fall. For example when God cursed the ground:

Genesis 3:18a - 18"Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;"

This was a result of the curse and therefore concluding that it wasn't there before. This also means that just because animals eat each other today doesn't necessarily mean they ate each other before the fall, unless the Bible specifically states that, which it doesn't.

Besides, I don't think we have to show that man ate meat before the fall for their to be death. Didn't God create all wonderfully fit for their purpose? If God made some creatures as natural predators, then isn't it fair to believe they might have actually had prey? If not, then are the features of predators a coincidence? If not, then does that support evolutionary theory?

I guess that's assuming the features of predators were actually used in the same way before the fall, which is not stated. There are animals that have predatory features, but use them only for eating tough plants like the Panda Bear. It has sharp teeth for eating cane.

Also, why is animal death immoral? Are they soulful? Are we assuming something about death of creatures that the bible doesn't tell us? We were made in the image of God, but not the animals.

Good questions..don't know. As far as I know the Bible doesn't give that answer. I just know that before the fall, the death of animals was never mentioned or hinted at. It also appears from the quote in Genesis 9 that eating animals was forbidden. After all, why grant access to something if they already had it?

Again, it's "possible" that man didn't eat meat before the fall, but that doesn't negate animal death. But, here's one response in any event:

The post-flood account in Genesis 9:1-4 is best explained as a re-issuing of the same general lordship over creation that was given to Adam prior to the Fall. Notice that the command to "be fruitful and multiply" is identical with that given to Adam (Gen. 1:26). The fact that the mandate given to Noah, who is here pictured as a second inaugurator of the human race, includes the giving of all creatures for food, not just plants, suggests that the same mandate was given to Adam before the Fall.

It is doubtful that the permission to eat meat recorded in Genesis 9:3 must be interpreted as the first time that God authorized such a diet, since it would appear that animals had been killed at least for sacrificial purposes as early as Genesis 3:21 (the divine provision of animal skins for Adam and Eve) and 4:4 (the sacrifice of Abel). Kline argues that "what Genesis 9:3 actually authorized was the eating of all kinds of meats, thus removing the prohibition against the eating of unclean animals that had been instituted for Noah's family within the special symbolic situation in the ark-kingdom."fn

[fn: Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Overland Park, KS: Two Age Press, 2000), pp. 54-56. Kline interprets the bringing of seven pairs of each clean animal into the ark as a typological anticipation of the theocratic kingdom of Israel, where the holiness of God demanded that the clean-unclean distinction be observed (Genesis 7:2-3; 8:20; cp. Leviticus 11:44-47; 20:25-26).]

I guess that might be possible, but it still doesn't show that eating meat was allowed before the fall because the first sacrifice was after the fall.

Good discussion. I appreciate your responses. Take care.

[Guest]

He (God) says "Ye shall dwell in booths seven days: all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths: that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of Egypt:..."

He doesn't say "you shall dwell in booth seven days so that everyone shall know that you dwelt in the wilderness 40 years." But this sentence is structured not unlike the six days verse in Ex. 20. He there says " Six days shalt thou labour etc...for in six days the Lord etc..."
In the above mentioned passage He says "you shall dwell in booths...will know that I made Israel to dwell in booths. It's the same kind of thing. Dwelling in booths in mentioned twice, both times talking about the same thing. Six days in mentioned twice speaking both times of six normal days.

I am not sure how the quote you posted answers the question. How are we to interpret the use of yom here? If not by the immediate context then how? Surely not by our presuppositions, but by the text.

Well, the only point here is that parallelism is not necessarily literally an exact one-to-one but when in remembrance especially or in typification, there is rarely one-to-one correspondence, but instead used to convey a truth. So, maybe the truth is that God's creation was perfect -- maybe he portrayed creation in 7 sequences for the exact reason to give us something to realize its perfection in a 7 day (otherwise arbitrary) week so that we regularly can pause and reflect on the perfection of his creation and on the perfection of God as we work out creation in his will.

So, there is a sentence structure argument that yom is 24 hour day, but the "immediate context" is not the only context that is important -- there is surrounding context (consider the most proximal use in the text Genesis 2:4 where yom is also used to refer to the "generations" of the heavens of the earth when they were created -- the "day" (yom) in which the Lord made the earth and the heavens -- here clearly not a 24 hour day unless scripture contradicts itself, and other contextual issues we must synthesize in the whole of scripture and natural revelation). Cultural context is important, historical context is important, etc.

I honestly haven't thought about their mortality much. The fall happens so quickly in the bible that there isn't much to look at there.

That sort of begs the question, doesn't it?

I don't think so. I am just stating a fact. Do you disagree?

I'm sorry -- I misunderstood you here. I understood you to mean quickly in the days of creation when you seem now to have meant quickly in that there's not much scripture dealing with what happened before it. I understand now, and you're right, but this is even more of a reason we shouldn't be dogmatic about the 24 hour day. Like other things such as hell and origin of sin, origin of satan, etc., there's not much to hang a hat on and we should be therefore more flexible in allowing it to fit what IS clear in Scripture and natural observation.

God does seem to illustrate something in the covering of Adam and Eve with the animal skins in Gen. 3:21 as opposed to their own covering in 3:7. I have understood this (I don't think alone) that God may have in fact shown them in the killing of those animals what was a consequence of their actions. Adam had named all these creatures and then one has to die as a result of his actions. Of course I am speculating a bit here.


Yes, I think there's as much speculation in much of modern theology on this subject as in origin of Satan or hell or other issues. I find it hard to remember where I learned much of what I "believe" on a number of biblical topics. It's hard to separate sometimes.


Still a valid point though. Is in not? If not, why. Do you think that God just arbitrarilly did this, or that it had some signifigance? It is the first mention of death in the entire bible. And in the context, this seems to be very signifigant.

Sure, it's valid and reasonable, but not determinative. There is clearly significance in the first mention of death in the bible, but that doesn't mean it's the first time it ever happened. The first mention of the rainbow in the bible is probably not the first time it appeared in the sky. Besides, the first human death resulting from sin is not the same thing as the scripture requiring that there was no prior death that was less significant.

Is there anything in the bible that necessitates that we even believe that Adam and Eve were alone at the fall?

Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve had children before the fall?

I just don't know. The bible doesn't tell us.

I said sin and evil, not sin and death -- how about John 8:44?


Sorry for the misquote. I don't see how this scripture proves that sin was in the world before Adam. It simply makes a statement about the devil. God's creation was good before sin. Are you saying that there was sin in the world before Adam?

Sin may have pre-existed Adam -- that doesn't mean that sin had entered the earth yet. I don't know much about the origin of sin itself.

me-I would contend that the idea of millions of years of death before the fall is in fact what is "foreign to scripture". It is simply not there.

you- But, it's not precluded, and if something not precluded by Scripture fits with our observed universe, why can't it be true?


Ex. 20:11 would seem to preclude it.

I don't see Ex 20:11 as precluding it -- one man's interpretation of it might.

[Guest]

Quote:
It's curious, but it doesn't say they didn't eat meat.

Excerpt (from http://www.noble-minded.org/sarfati_review.html)
Derek Kidner (Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series) makes the following observation: “The assigning of every green plant for food to all creatures must not be pressed to mean that all were once herbivorous, any more than to mean that all plants were equally edible to all. It is a generalization...” In other words, this verse cannot be taken in a completely literal sense, for then it would be saying that all plants (large and small, aquatic and non-aquatic, etc.) were eaten by all animals, which is clearly not the case. So it must be a generalization. I think [we] should admit that this is at least one possible interpretation.


However, it appears to be a generalization for eating plants and not a generalization for eating meat. Also, one must consider, just because you see something as it is today doesn't mean it was there before the fall. For example when God cursed the ground:

Genesis 3:18a - 18"Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;"

This was a result of the curse and therefore concluding that it wasn't there before. This also means that just because animals eat each other today doesn't necessarily mean they ate each other before the fall, unless the Bible specifically states that, which it doesn't.

Your point on thorns and thistles is fair, but even that doesn't mean it wasn't there in some measure before, but now in greater measure or for different effect. Also, would you rather build theology around the fact that something's not mentioned in the text and conclude, therefore, that it not only is new after the fall but also that it is significant?

Quote:
Besides, I don't think we have to show that man ate meat before the fall for their to be death. Didn't God create all wonderfully fit for their purpose? If God made some creatures as natural predators, then isn't it fair to believe they might have actually had prey? If not, then are the features of predators a coincidence? If not, then does that support evolutionary theory?


I guess that's assuming the features of predators were actually used in the same way before the fall, which is not stated. There are animals that have predatory features, but use them only for eating tough plants like the Panda Bear. It has sharp teeth for eating cane.

It's just not stated at all, but comparing perfect predators that God created (unless you believe in evolution) to panda bears is odd -- also, why the change for animals? Why would panda bears keep their teeth for cane, but other creatures start eating meat? Why the change for them? Did Adam's sin somehow infect all animal kind? These problems all go away if we eliminate but a weak textual criticism by allowing for a day to mean what it clearly "can" mean in other scripture.

Quote:
Also, why is animal death immoral? Are they soulful? Are we assuming something about death of creatures that the bible doesn't tell us? We were made in the image of God, but not the animals.


Good questions..don't know. As far as I know the Bible doesn't give that answer. I just know that before the fall, the death of animals was never mentioned or hinted at. It also appears from the quote in Genesis 9 that eating animals was forbidden. After all, why grant access to something if they already had it?

see my earlier response addressing this subject

Quote:

Again, it's "possible" that man didn't eat meat before the fall, but that doesn't negate animal death. But, here's one response in any event:

The post-flood account in Genesis 9:1-4 is best explained as a re-issuing of the same general lordship over creation that was given to Adam prior to the Fall. Notice that the command to "be fruitful and multiply" is identical with that given to Adam (Gen. 1:26). The fact that the mandate given to Noah, who is here pictured as a second inaugurator of the human race, includes the giving of all creatures for food, not just plants, suggests that the same mandate was given to Adam before the Fall.

It is doubtful that the permission to eat meat recorded in Genesis 9:3 must be interpreted as the first time that God authorized such a diet, since it would appear that animals had been killed at least for sacrificial purposes as early as Genesis 3:21 (the divine provision of animal skins for Adam and Eve) and 4:4 (the sacrifice of Abel). Kline argues that "what Genesis 9:3 actually authorized was the eating of all kinds of meats, thus removing the prohibition against the eating of unclean animals that had been instituted for Noah's family within the special symbolic situation in the ark-kingdom."fn

[fn: Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Overland Park, KS: Two Age Press, 2000), pp. 54-56. Kline interprets the bringing of seven pairs of each clean animal into the ark as a typological anticipation of the theocratic kingdom of Israel, where the holiness of God demanded that the clean-unclean distinction be observed (Genesis 7:2-3; 8:20; cp. Leviticus 11:44-47; 20:25-26).]


I guess that might be possible, but it still doesn't show that eating meat was allowed before the fall because the first sacrifice was after the fall.

silence doesn't negate it.

Good discussion. I appreciate your responses. Take care.

same here.