Preterism & Creationism

[Guest]

I've read books both for and against the old-earth position. These include the books just mentioned. They are perfect examples of perception. One person sees "documentation" and the other sees "claims. One sees "baseless attacks" while the other sees a well thought out "refutation". If we have a strong opinion on the subject, we approach topics like this with a worldview that causes us to readily accept or reject one side or the other. Recognizing the bias up front and consciously trying to be objective is hard. What we think is "clear" often becomes less so when we take of the glasses of our preconceptions.
D.

[Guest]

I'm befuddled how my otherwise intelligent friends who rationally apply logic and hermeneutic to Scripture somehow can't grasp the basic concept that "yom" being interpreted as "indeterminate period of time" instead of "24 hours" is a literal interpretation issue and does not require that you apply symbolism to "yom." "Indeterminate period of time" is not figurative -- it is simply another possible literal definition. I've argued this basic point over and over with the same people and they just don't get it.

There is no need to take yom as a 24hr day every time it is said. However, it seems that every time I have spoken to someone that holds the OEC view, they accuse me of being "overly literal" when I simply use the context of the word to understand it's meaning.

The fact is, just because the word "can" be interpreted more than one way, does not mean that we can ignore the context that it is in and interpret it to fit our views. Exodus 20:9-11 is a perfect example of this. In my opinion it is irrefutably stated that the earth was created in six days. Every time I bring this up, it is mentioned that the word yom can be interpreted in other ways. But no one has ever answered how it can be interpreted any other way in this context.

Exo 20:9-11- <b>Six days</b> shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in <b>six days</b> the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

How, <b>in this context</b>, is it possible for God to be using yom as an indeterminite period of time?

Maybe I'm just dense. I just can't see it.

God bless,
Derek

[Guest]

There is no need to take yom as a 24hr day every time it is said. However, it seems that every time I have spoken to someone that holds the OEC view, they accuse me of being "overly literal" when I simply use the context of the word to understand it's meaning.

The point that I am making is that "context" is in the eye of the beholder. Our worldview determines our context.

Ever been to a magic show? Seen a rabbit pulled from a hat? Seen him levitate a ball? Doves appear from an empty scarf? A lady cut in half and put back together again? Why does this fascinate us? Because we know it can’t really happen. If he made the ball float in mid-air, we look with wonder. If he made it fall, we laugh. We know about gravity. But why is it we know these other things can’t really happen. It is because it is outside our experience and education of how the world works. Our view of the world does not include things appearing out of thin air or dismembered bodies getting out of a box and walking away. This worldview causes us to interpret and accept or reject all the things we come in contact with.

If we know that the earth is a globe, the context of the "four corners" becomes figurative. If we know that time began with mass, then our context of "before the beginning of time" may become literal. No matter what creationist camp you fall in, we all read into the text what we believe it says...even though it might not really be there.

In order to properly study Genesis, you have to go back to the beginning. By this, I mean that you go back to what the Bible says, and not base your interpretation on what the Bible says plus what you have been told it means. Let me give you an example of why. We all have vivid images in our mind of the Angels singing to the shepherds in Bethlehem. We remember how Christ fell under the load of the cross. We know that it never rained before the flood and a water canopy once existed over the earth. We know that the ark was made of gopher wood and is on Mount Ararat, and that Sampson’s strength failed when Delilah cut his hair. The problem with all of this is that it is not in the Bible.

We are not told that the angels sang or that Christ fell under the weight of His cross. (Three of the Gospels don’t even mention that He carried it, and the one that does, John, does not mention that someone else did.) We are not told the name of the exact mountain that the ark rested on, and Delilah is not the one that cut Sampson’s hair. All of these things are things that we have been told the Bible says, and that is what we think of when we read the passages. We may read that that the Angels "said", but the mental picture is of a heavenly Hallelujah Chorus.

Exo 20:9-11- Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

How, in this context, is it possible for God to be using yom as an indeterminite period of time?

The context that is so clear for you may not be the same context that an opposing worldview has. The OEC camp might explain the context this way. This verse is referring back to the pattern of the creation week. In other places, the Israelites were told to give their fields one year off out of every seven. It is a pattern based on the original. A pattern and the original do not have to be identical though. The earthly temple is said to be patterned after the visions of the heavenly temple. Does that mean that the heavenly one is forced to be a certain way because of how it is set up here?

I like the Exodus passage. I think that any creation interpretation has to deal with it. If it were not for this passage, I'd probably buy into the Historical Creationism interpretation more. The sticking point for that interpretation is not the use of the word "day" here, but the phrase "the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is".
D.

[Guest]

Ever been to a magic show? Seen a rabbit pulled from a hat? Seen him levitate a ball? Doves appear from an empty scarf? A lady cut in half and put back together again? Why does this fascinate us? Because we know it can’t really happen. If he made the ball float in mid-air, we look with wonder. If he made it fall, we laugh. We know about gravity. But why is it we know these other things can’t really happen. It is because it is outside our experience and education of how the world works. Our view of the world does not include things appearing out of thin air or dismembered bodies getting out of a box and walking away. This worldview causes us to interpret and accept or reject all the things we come in contact with.

Doesn’t this idea support the YEC more? When one looks at the earth it appears old, but it actually isn’t. YEC aren’t looking at the world and then deciphering the Bible. They are reading the Bible and then trying to decipher the world around them.

If we know that the earth is a globe, the context of the "four corners" becomes figurative. If we know that time began with mass, then our context of "before the beginning of time" may become literal. No matter what creationist camp you fall in, we all read into the text what we believe it says...even though it might not really be there.

Even though one might read into the text that doesn’t change the truth of the text. There has to be a right answer, whether or not we know it yet is still why we are debating. Nobody here questions whether or not Jesus rose from the dead because the text clearly spells it out for us, so why do we have such an issue with the days in Genesis? Is it solely because the earth looks old?

In order to properly study Genesis, you have to go back to the beginning. By this, I mean that you go back to what the Bible says, and not base your interpretation on what the Bible says plus what you have been told it means. Let me give you an example of why. We all have vivid images in our mind of the Angels singing to the shepherds in Bethlehem. We remember how Christ fell under the load of the cross. We know that it never rained before the flood and a water canopy once existed over the earth. We know that the ark was made of gopher wood and is on Mount Ararat, and that Sampson’s strength failed when Delilah cut his hair. The problem with all of this is that it is not in the Bible.

We are not told that the angels sang or that Christ fell under the weight of His cross. (Three of the Gospels don’t even mention that He carried it, and the one that does, John, does not mention that someone else did.) We are not told the name of the exact mountain that the ark rested on, and Delilah is not the one that cut Sampson’s hair. All of these things are things that we have been told the Bible says, and that is what we think of when we read the passages. We may read that that the Angels "said", but the mental picture is of a heavenly Hallelujah Chorus.

Those are interesting examples, but it seems to me that we are not debating what one remembers a passage as being read, we are debating the actual written text are we not?

The context that is so clear for you may not be the same context that an opposing worldview has. The OEC camp might explain the context this way. This verse is referring back to the pattern of the creation week. In other places, the Israelites were told to give their fields one year off out of every seven. It is a pattern based on the original. A pattern and the original do not have to be identical though. The earthly temple is said to be patterned after the visions of the heavenly temple. Does that mean that the heavenly one is forced to be a certain way because of how it is set up here?

I find it interesting that the OEC camp keeps using literal passages to define other verses as being used as an analogy. It seems to me the Israelites had no problem understanding the commands to harvest 6 years and take a year off. They understood the command as being literal. If the commandment in Exodus is supposed to be an analogy than does that mean we work six days and then on the seventh we can relax for a thousand years?

I like the Exodus passage. I think that any creation interpretation has to deal with it. If it were not for this passage, I'd probably buy into the Historical Creationism interpretation more. The sticking point for that interpretation is not the use of the word "day" here, but the phrase "the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is".

To me the OEC camp has more explaining to do than just defining what the word “day” is meaning. Since they believe each day was an age, they have problems with the creation make up. Plants can’t exist without the Sun, or the birds and insects. Also, I think there is an issue of observing today’s world full of sin and trying to place that worldview on a world without sin.

[Guest]

Doesn’t this idea support the YEC more? When one looks at the earth it appears old, but it actually isn’t. YEC aren’t looking at the world and then deciphering the Bible. They are reading the Bible and then trying to decipher the world around them.

The "but actually it isn't" is the key. One's worldview can make them see the same thing differently. And I would disagree with you that the YEC camp looks at the Bible in some kind of vacuum without any outside influences. There is a reason it is called "Scientific" Creationism. If you have never read Whitcomb and Morris' "The Genesis Flood" that popularized this interpretation, I'd highly recommend it. A huge percentage of the book is an appeal to science to back up their interpretaiton.

Even though one might read into the text that doesn’t change the truth of the text. There has to be a right answer, whether or not we know it yet is still why we are debating. Nobody here questions whether or not Jesus rose from the dead because the text clearly spells it out for us, so why do we have such an issue with the days in Genesis? Is it solely because the earth looks old?

I'm not saying that the text doesn't have a proper interpretation or that there is no right answer. My point is that we often interpret the text based not just on the text but based on the context that our worldview provides as well as what we have been taught it says and has to mean. Where the Bible gives us lots of detail and is very clear, you find those things mentioned in the creeds. There really isn't much disagreement about them in orthodox Christianity. Where well meaning Christians can disagree, the often do so. I think part of the problem *is* the appearance of age. Things look old. Geology and astronomy tell is it is. Us normal blokes may not understand the science, but we understand things like tree rings and ice cores. This effects our worldview.

Those are interesting examples, but it seems to me that we are not debating what one remembers a passage as being read, we are debating the actual written text are we not?

But how many times have you heard it said that God spoke everything into existance. He said, "Let there be...." and POOF! it appeared. Yet closer scrutiny of the text tells us that He seperated things that were there, planted the trees, and made not just man, but the animals and birds out of dirt. I've heard many sermons that were supposed to be based on the text, but were really based on someone's interpretation of the text.

I find it interesting that the OEC camp keeps using literal passages to define other verses as being used as an analogy. It seems to me the Israelites had no problem understanding the commands to harvest 6 years and take a year off. They understood the command as being literal. If the commandment in Exodus is supposed to be an analogy than does that mean we work six days and then on the seventh we can relax for a thousand years?

I am not sure I would call it an analogy. I like the word "pattern" better. I think the six days that you work is literal. The six years that you plant is literal. But that does not force the thing that is the inspiration for the pattern to be identical. Besides, if Iwas a devout OEC, I'd argue that an interpretation of longer than 24 hours is not a figurative use of the word, but literally one of its definitions.

To me the OEC camp has more explaining to do than just defining what the word “day” is meaning. Since they believe each day was an age, they have problems with the creation make up.

There are many different interpretations that believe in an old earth. The day=age interpretation is just one. There are also those that believe that the days were 24 hours, but not necessarily consecutive. Day 2 came after Day 1, but not necessarily the following day. There are also those that hold that the day was the day that God said "let there be", but the creation process took longer. Some say that the time was different from an earthly perspective, but the physics are over my head. We also have more than one interpretation of the earth being created "in the beginning" with some unknown amount of time between then and Day 1. I cover about a dozen or fifteen different interpretations in my lecture. Almost all of them are "old earth".

Plants can’t exist without the Sun, or the birds and insects. Also, I think there is an issue of observing today’s world full of sin and trying to place that worldview on a world without sin.

Kinda like saying that since our cursed plants today require X that they had to have required X before the curse?
D.

[Guest]

The "but actually it isn't" is the key. One's worldview can make them see the same thing differently. And I would disagree with you that the YEC camp looks at the Bible in some kind of vacuum without any outside influences. There is a reason it is called "Scientific" Creationism. If you have never read Whitcomb and Morris' "The Genesis Flood" that popularized this interpretation, I'd highly recommend it. A huge percentage of the book is an appeal to science to back up their interpretaiton.

But what came first the chicken or the egg? Did they look at the earth and said there must be have been a world wide flood and then interpreted the passage as being so or did they read the bible about there being a world wide flood and then decided to use science to back that up? Without having read the book I have a feeling it was the latter. OEC’s interpret it using the former.

I'm not saying that the text doesn't have a proper interpretation or that there is no right answer. My point is that we often interpret the text based not just on the text but based on the context that our worldview provides as well as what we have been taught it says and has to mean. Where the Bible gives us lots of detail and is very clear, you find those things mentioned in the creeds. There really isn't much disagreement about them in orthodox Christianity. Where well meaning Christians can disagree, the often do so. I think part of the problem *is* the appearance of age. Things look old. Geology and astronomy tell is it is. Us normal blokes may not understand the science, but we understand things like tree rings and ice cores. This effects our worldview.

You know man once thought the appendix was useless and can be cut out and thrown away, but now they know more. Just because something appears to look a certain way at first doesn’t mean that is the way it was designed.

But how many times have you heard it said that God spoke everything into existance. He said, "Let there be...." and POOF! it appeared. Yet closer scrutiny of the text tells us that He seperated things that were there, planted the trees, and made not just man, but the animals and birds out of dirt. I've heard many sermons that were supposed to be based on the text, but were really based on someone's interpretation of the text.

Kinda like Psalm 33: 6-9 –
6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
And by the breath of His mouth all their host.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;
He lays up the deeps in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the LORD;
Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.
9 For He spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast.

I am not sure I would call it an analogy. I like the word "pattern" better. I think the six days that you work is literal. The six years that you plant is literal. But that does not force the thing that is the inspiration for the pattern to be identical. Besides, if Iwas a devout OEC, I'd argue that an interpretation of longer than 24 hours is not a figurative use of the word, but literally one of its definitions.

If they both aren’t literal, why make the comparison at all? Why not just say work six days and rest on the seventh, just like he did in Leviticus with the years?

There are many different interpretations that believe in an old earth. The day=age interpretation is just one. There are also those that believe that the days were 24 hours, but not necessarily consecutive. Day 2 came after Day 1, but not necessarily the following day. There are also those that hold that the day was the day that God said "let there be", but the creation process took longer. Some say that the time was different from an earthly perspective, but the physics are over my head. We also have more than one interpretation of the earth being created "in the beginning" with some unknown amount of time between then and Day 1. I cover about a dozen or fifteen different interpretations in my lecture. Almost all of them are "old earth".

So, are you saying that even though Genesis clearly separates the things being created into individual days, whether they are long or short, that those days actually didn’t exist at all? It was just heaped together into one big creation event. That seems like one would be stretching scripture to fit their worldview.

Kinda like saying that since our cursed plants today require X that they had to have required X before the curse?

I don’t see the plants being cursed in Genesis. The ground was cursed and that is when the thorns and thistles came into being. It’s more like saying because we see animals eating other animals today, it must have been that way before the fall where scripture implies that only plants were given as food before the fall. Scripture in now way states or implies that animals were killing each other, so how can we deduce that they were devouring each other before the fall, especially when death is considered an enemy to be destroyed.

Plants on the other hand were given as a food source, and so we can deduce that they must be able to reproduce somehow. We can see how they reproduce today and deduce that is how it must have been prior to the fall, because plants were not a part of the curse and were designed to be eaten.

[Guest]

We are not told...Delilah is not the one that cut Sampson’s hair.

Why should we be told that she was not the one, when the scripture declares that she was the one who cut his hair.

When Delilah saw that he had told her all his mind, she sent and called the lords of the Philistines, saying, "Come up this once, for he has told me all his mind." Then the lords of the Philistines came up to her, and brought the money in their hands. She made him sleep upon her knees; and she called a man, and had him shave off the seven locks of his head. Then she began to torment him, and his strength left him. Judges 16:18,19

When I read this statement, without justification, about Delilah not being the one to have cut Samson's hair, it causes me to question the validity of your other statements with regards to the topic of creation.

[Guest]

But what came first the chicken or the egg? Did they look at the earth and said there must be have been a world wide flood and then interpreted the passage as being so or did they read the bible about there being a world wide flood and then decided to use science to back that up? Without having read the book I have a feeling it was the latter. OEC’s interpret it using the former.

In the modern era, it started with a presupposition. The presupposition was "assisted by" the divine "revelations" or visions of the founder of the Seventh Day Adventists. It would be a genetic falacy to say that it is the wrong interpretation because of that, but that is where the current flood-geology model originated. I cover the previous interpretations of the ramifications of the flood in my lecture. The current approach was considered a "new" one. Prior to the 1960's the most fundamentalist and literal Bible colleges and churches were preaching and teaching an old-earth interpretation. They were not convinced otherwise by a new sermon from the Bible, but from the scientific "evidence" presented by Whitcomb and Morris. The fact that most of that evidence has now been discounted by even the creationists has had no real impact on the popularity of the interpretation.

YEC's often believe that they view the world through the lens of the Bible and that OEC's view the Bible through the lens of science. But both try to use both to prove their point. Both cases sound very convincing when you "preach to the choir", so to speak. Yet Proverbs tells us that the first to present his case seems right until another comes to examine him. Most people have never objectively studied the strengths of alternate interpretations of Genesis or Revelation. When they do, they find that things are not quite as clear as they initially believed.

You know man once thought the appendix was useless and can be cut out and thrown away, but now they know more. Just because something appears to look a certain way at first doesn’t mean that is the way it was designed.

I assume that you are referring to things appearing old. If the earth was just made to look old, then men are left being deceived about the actual age. Why would God tell us that His unseen atributes can be seen in creation when the modern interpretation holds that it is deceptive and full of cruelty?

Kinda like Psalm 33: 6-9 –
6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
And by the breath of His mouth all their host.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;
He lays up the deeps in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the LORD;
Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.
9 For He spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast.

He spoke. It was done. Easy to draw a cause and effect relationship there and think that all that happened was God speaking. The text tells us differently though. He spoke and then we are told that actions were performed. To focus on the first and ignore the latter is the definiton of removing something from its context.

If they both aren’t literal, why make the comparison at all? Why not just say work six days and rest on the seventh, just like he did in Leviticus with the years?

Why does God or Jesus set an example for us at all when all they have to do is command it and it would be just as valid? I don't know.

So, are you saying that even though Genesis clearly separates the things being created into individual days, whether they are long or short, that those days actually didn’t exist at all? It was just heaped together into one big creation event. That seems like one would be stretching scripture to fit their worldview.

No. I don't know of any OEC interpretations that believe in some big event where everything happened. Lots of OEC interpretation believe that the universe was created "in the beginning". Different seperate things then happened in a sequence. Some believe in an approach where some of the events overlapped others. I'm not sure that would be the majority opinion though. You may find some disagreement with the timing of the sequence, or was the sun "made" on the 4th day or just "made to appear" or "made to govern". I haven't found a lot of disagreement in the belief in a sequence or that "days", however you choose to define them, actually ocurred.

Kinda like saying that since our cursed plants today require X that they had to have required X before the curse?

I don’t see the plants being cursed in Genesis.

OK. Maybe not cursed plants (although some believe that the "whole creation groans"), but the plants in a "cursed" world. My point is that many people, YEC and OEC alike, hold that the world was a much different place before the fall. Yet they look at how things are now to prove how they had to be before the fall.

The ground was cursed and that is when the thorns and thistles came into being.

Perfect example. God created and planted a garden. We don't know what it was like outside the garden, but I'm sure that God's Garden was probably better after He finished it then whatever naturally existed before. We are told that Adam was going to get kicked out of the garden and basically have to "start with his own dirt", to quote an old joke. He was going going to face thorns and thistles. Again, his punishment was not ocurring in the garden, but outside it. Where are we told that God created new things at the fall? Where are we told that thorns and thistles didn't already exist outside the garden? How much of the curse would have had meaning when God told them what it was if Adam and Eve had no point of reference for these "new" things?

It’s more like saying because we see animals eating other animals today, it must have been that way before the fall where scripture implies that only plants were given as food before the fall.

I'm note sure that the logic is as you describe it. Some things have a very short life cycle. If one holds that "death came to all men" also applies to the animal world, then you are forced into an interpretation where the fall had to happen relatively soon after (or during) day 7. The OEC approach is made up of those that believe that animal death occurred before the fall as well as those that don't hold to that. Remember, the dating of Adam is not really in dispute. If you hold that the days are 24 hours but not contiguous days, it is consistant to believe that anything prior to day 6 is old, but the animals date to the same 24-hour period as Adam. I don't know of anyone that believes that animal death occurred before the fall because it occurs now. I think that those that believe it do so because they are convinced of evidence of it.

Compare the interpretation of Revelation where there are parallel passages. The same thing is said more than once, but a subsequent time also adds a new piece. Now if these are parallel passages, they speak of the same event. Why can't the "you can eat all the fruit" and "you can eat all the fruit and animals" passages be similar? Also, think for a second. Noah spent years building an ark. He then spent what must have seemed like an eternity tending all the animals. Remeber that, in most cases, there was only one male and one female of each "kind". Now after this ordeal, they all get off the boat and God "modifies" the animals so that they now eat each other. Why bother carrying a pair of each kind onto the ark if, as soon as they get off the boat, half of them eat the other half?

The point is that we see the world around us now. If someone asserts that before the fall or before the flood that it was totally different, I'd think that the burdon of proof in on the person or group making that claim.

Scripture in no way states or implies that animals were killing each other, so how can we deduce that they were devouring each other before the fall, especially when death is considered an enemy to be destroyed.

Death is our enemy. But it is part of God's plan. If it occurred before tday 6, then God must have thought it was "good"...part of His plan. It is an argument from silence, on of the weakest kinds, that since the Bible doesn't say that something existed then it must not have. Some would argue that where Scripture doesn't say that is didn't and "evidence" exists to show that it occurred, that we need to go with the affirmative evidence where there is no evidence to the contrary.

Plants on the other hand were given as a food source, and so we can deduce that they must be able to reproduce somehow. We can see how they reproduce today and deduce that is how it must have been prior to the fall, because plants were not a part of the curse and were designed to be eaten.

Not sure I get the correlation. How does something being a food source relate to its ability to reproduce?
D.

[Guest]

When I read this statement, without justification, about Delilah not being the one to have cut Samson's hair, it causes me to question the validity of your other statements with regards to the topic of creation.

What part of "she called a man, and had him shave off the seven locks of his head" seems unclear? I'd say that the text supports the "justification" that someone other than Delilah did it.
D.

[Guest]

YEC's often believe that they view the world through the lens of the Bible and that OEC's view the Bible through the lens of science. But both try to use both to prove their point. Both cases sound very convincing when you "preach to the choir", so to speak. Yet Proverbs tells us that the first to present his case seems right until another comes to examine him. Most people have never objectively studied the strengths of alternate interpretations of Genesis or Revelation. When they do, they find that things are not quite as clear as they initially believed.

I’m not saying both don’t try to use the bible and science to prove their point, but they both go about it differently. It’s like the bible tells you Jesus rose from the dead. You then go to the grave and there is no body. So, you prove the bible was correct by investigating the evidence. This coincides with the YEC view. The OEC view would be to find an empty grave where Jesus’ body should be and then conclude that is what the bible was telling us. These are two totally different ways to approach it and they affect they way you view scripture.

I assume that you are referring to things appearing old. If the earth was just made to look old, then men are left being deceived about the actual age. Why would God tell us that His unseen atributes can be seen in creation when the modern interpretation holds that it is deceptive and full of cruelty?

But my point is that just because something looks a certain way, doesn’t mean it actually is. Don't you think a great flood would alter the appearance of the earth? Take fossils for instance. If one looked at a fossil they would say that looks old, but I can show you a picture of a fossilized hat. It may look old, but the actual item is not. Sometimes appearances may seem deceiving, but they just being misinterpreted.

He spoke. It was done. Easy to draw a cause and effect relationship there and think that all that happened was God speaking. The text tells us differently though. He spoke and then we are told that actions were performed. To focus on the first and ignore the latter is the definiton of removing something from its context.

Actions because God spoke, but he spoke nonetheless and I don’t see how a preacher who states that God spoke something into existence is not taking scripture literally when that is obviously stated in the Psalm passage I quoted.

Why does God or Jesus set an example for us at all when all they have to do is command it and it would be just as valid? I don't know.

That doesn’t answer the question of why God used the comparison. He does things for a purpose does he not? Even when Jesus was setting an example for how we should live, it was done for a purpose. Yes, he could have just commanded everyone to behave a certain way, but he didn’t. If God stated in Leviticus to harvest 6 years and do not harvest on the 7th year without using an example to go by than why not do the same in Exodus?

No. I don't know of any OEC interpretations that believe in some big event where everything happened. Lots of OEC interpretation believe that the universe was created "in the beginning". Different seperate things then happened in a sequence. Some believe in an approach where some of the events overlapped others. I'm not sure that would be the majority opinion though. You may find some disagreement with the timing of the sequence, or was the sun "made" on the 4th day or just "made to appear" or "made to govern". I haven't found a lot of disagreement in the belief in a sequence or that "days", however you choose to define them, actually ocurred.

To start mixing up the days doesn’t make since. If God told us the order in which he created why would anyone think it should be different? Unless your using outside views to reinvent the wheel so to speak.

OK. Maybe not cursed plants (although some believe that the "whole creation groans"), but the plants in a "cursed" world. My point is that many people, YEC and OEC alike, hold that the world was a much different place before the fall. Yet they look at how things are now to prove how they had to be before the fall.

How am I looking at things now and trying to prove that is the way before the fall? Everything I have stated lines up with the way scripture lays it out. The scripture tells me that man was without sin before he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then man ate and now he has sin resulting in death. So, if I look at man dying now why should I conclude that it was any different before the fall? The only reason is because scripture tells me that human death didn’t come before sin, it came after.

Perfect example. God created and planted a garden. We don't know what it was like outside the garden, but I'm sure that God's Garden was probably better after He finished it then whatever naturally existed before. We are told that Adam was going to get kicked out of the garden and basically have to "start with his own dirt", to quote an old joke. He was going going to face thorns and thistles. Again, his punishment was not ocurring in the garden, but outside it. Where are we told that God created new things at the fall? Where are we told that thorns and thistles didn't already exist outside the garden? How much of the curse would have had meaning when God told them what it was if Adam and Eve had no point of reference for these "new" things?

Why would the “whole creation groan” if that is the way it was designed?

I'm note sure that the logic is as you describe it. Some things have a very short life cycle. If one holds that "death came to all men" also applies to the animal world, then you are forced into an interpretation where the fall had to happen relatively soon after (or during) day 7. The OEC approach is made up of those that believe that animal death occurred before the fall as well as those that don't hold to that. Remember, the dating of Adam is not really in dispute. If you hold that the days are 24 hours but not contiguous days, it is consistant to believe that anything prior to day 6 is old, but the animals date to the same 24-hour period as Adam. I don't know of anyone that believes that animal death occurred before the fall because it occurs now. I think that those that believe it do so because they are convinced of evidence of it.

Compare the interpretation of Revelation where there are parallel passages. The same thing is said more than once, but a subsequent time also adds a new piece. Now if these are parallel passages, they speak of the same event. Why can't the "you can eat all the fruit" and "you can eat all the fruit and animals" passages be similar? Also, think for a second. Noah spent years building an ark. He then spent what must have seemed like an eternity tending all the animals. Remeber that, in most cases, there was only one male and one female of each "kind". Now after this ordeal, they all get off the boat and God "modifies" the animals so that they now eat each other. Why bother carrying a pair of each kind onto the ark if, as soon as they get off the boat, half of them eat the other half?

The point is that we see the world around us now. If someone asserts that before the fall or before the flood that it was totally different, I'd think that the burdon of proof in on the person or group making that claim.

I would say the burden of proof lies on the person who is trying to justify outside evidence to interpret scripture. Say for example, if someone said that animals always feared humans, but scripture plainly tells us that animals did not fear us until after the flood. They would have to convince me that the scripture actually was saying something different.
I don’t get what you are trying to convey with the Noah example. If you’re implying that I said that animals were changed after the flood than you are wrong. My point on the animals is that to imply that just because we see something a certain way today, doesn’t necessarily imply that is the way it was before the fall. It even gets more dangerous when someone tries to use outside evidence to reinterpret scripture to fit with that evidence.

Death is our enemy. But it is part of God's plan. If it occurred before tday 6, then God must have thought it was "good"...part of His plan. It is an argument from silence, on of the weakest kinds, that since the Bible doesn't say that something existed then it must not have. Some would argue that where Scripture doesn't say that is didn't and "evidence" exists to show that it occurred, that we need to go with the affirmative evidence where there is no evidence to the contrary.

I would agree with that point when the comparison is fair. Do you think it is fair to go with the affirmative evidence when the world you are comparing with wasn’t the same as it is now? Meaning man did not die, snakes did not crawl on their bellies, pain was less in child birth, and thorns and thistles didn’t grow (at least where man planted anyway).

Not sure I get the correlation. How does something being a food source relate to its ability to reproduce?

The correlation is that the plants had to reproduce; otherwise the food source becomes finite. Also, God tells us that the plants are seed bearing showing us that they have the ability to reproduce.