Preterism & Creationism

[Guest]

I plant a garden. Pretend I have a green thumb and it is a wonderful garden. You come to my garden. I tell you that you can eat of all the fruit and vegetables there, but don't touch the kiwi. How is that a "command" that you can eat nothing else? ???

So, if a cow is walking in your garden are you going to be okay that I killed it and ate it, when you specifically told me to only eat the fruits and vegetables? I know if it was my garden I wouldn’t be pleased because I never said you could.

I agree that it can be interpreted that way. But when we get to heaven and find out for sure, will you protest that "you" could not have referred to Noah alone if that is the case? It can be inferred that since some animals are afraid of us now and since God told Noah that his ark full would now be afraid of "you", that "you" means today as well. It might be true, but it is a weak argument. What about all the animals that are not afraid of us?

First of all, I wouldn’t protest because who am I to protest against God? That would be like me calling God a liar. Are you trying to compare domesticated animals to wild animals?

I'm not defending their interpretation. It was wrong. But it was based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Wasn’t claiming you were defending their interpretation. I just was trying to show you that one doesn’t need outside evidence to get a correct interpretation.

Like a literal approach?

I wouldn’t say literal approach…more like a literary approach in how to read in context, know when a vision is being told, an analogy is being used, or when something should be taken literally or as an allegory.

Very unlike having Ken Ham, or Hugh Ross telling us how different things force the text to be interpreted different ways.

More like reading 101.

I beleive that all outside evidenvce, properly interpreted, will support the correct interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is perfect. Our interpretation of it is not guaranteed to be so. Many people do not see the difference though.

Again…what comes first? The outside evidence or the scriptures? What is the foundation that all evidence should be judged by? If we don’t have a foundation than all the outside evidence can be interpreted anyway someone wants it to be. That is why evolution came into play.

I don't know Hebrew, so I have to look it up. "Shanah" is " to repeat, do again, change, alter". It is used only one time in Genesis, at Gen 41:32. "And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass." "Dor" is defined as "generation" and is never used in any of Moses' writings.

Actually, here is the definition I have for "Dor": -

dowr or (shortened) dor {dore}; from 'duwr' (1752); properly, a revolution of time, i.e. an age or generation; also a dwelling:--age, X evermore, generation, (n-)ever, posterity.

The source I got my info. from is Strong's Hebrew Dictionary

Here is the list of verses attached to this word. Some are listed in Genesis: List

But you are interpreting "all men" to be "all subsequent men". Sin entered into the world "my one man". Did that pass to Eve? The text never says that she is equally guilty of sin and sin entered because of both of them. Eve ate. Adam ate. Then the eyes of both were opened. Seems like Adam's sin ttriggered something. Eve's eyes were not opened until after he ate. IIt is an interesting avenue to explore in light of our preconceptions of what took place.

Why wouldn’t it have been all subsequent men? Even if it didn’t pass to Eve, all the children came because of Adam. So, if all the children had to come from Adam than everyone is subjugated to sin. Which would also stand to reason why Jesus was sinless because he did not come from the seed of man.

The verse I was referring to had to deal with the timing. Did death occur "in the day" that they ate? I believe spiritual death occurred when their "eyes were opened". It was not a process that just began "in the day". I think physical death is less clear. What is the "because" phrase here. Did Adam "die" because he ate? Or is he returning to the ground because that is where he originated? I don't really know that the text supports an interpretation of "by the sweat of your face you will eat bread and you will now return to the ground..." That is what I was always taught. It was taught just as dogmatically as "in the beginning, God created". But when I put aside my preconceptions and started looking at the text without already knowing what it said, some things were not as clear as I had originally thought. Since Adam didn't face the thorns and painful toil until he was kicked out of the garden, could it be said that he didn't start to physically die until then either if physical death is a new thing being introduced by this text and not just referred to? Could his physical demise be related to the fact that he no longer had access to the tree of life? I think the case could be made for that.

True, but I think the access to the tree of life and the physical death curse goes hand in hand. That is why the tree of life was guarded by a flaming sword to prevent them from living eternally. Another thing, why mention the physical death in the curse if they were already intended to die that way?

One other thing to note is to look at how God handles the description of new things in the Bible. He went to great detail to describe the ark, something new to Noah. He went to great detail describing the construction of the temple, something new to Moses. Adam was introduced to all the animals and named them. He was taught how to cate for the garden. But in Genesis 3, God doesn't explain to Adam or Eve what pain is, what death is, what sweat is. I know it is an argument from silence, but it looks like it is worded in such a way that the people in the conversation already have some knowledge of what is being discussed. The terms and concepts are not new to them. That is just the feeling that I get from it. Does it make any sense to beleive that God said, "If you disobey me, you will die. Now I know that you have no concept of the consequences and have never heard of it of seen it before, but I expect the consequences to deter you anyway even though you have no clue what they are." It is this kind of thinking that leads to the weird Gnostic beliefs related to the fall in which teaching Adam the knowledge of (or experience of) good and evil is a good thing. God was "keeping things" from them.

You also have to remember that Adam and Eve weren’t created as children. They were made into full adults. They obviously would have had some amount of knowledge in them to begin with such as communication, how to walk, etc. The knowledge of death could have been instilled into them by God, but we don’t know that. So, let’s take something a little simpler. Since plant life was edible and technically plants are alive (just not in the soul sense), the concept of death might not be too far fetched.

It is easy to push the text too far though. It is like the claim that it never rained before the flood. I'd been taught it. Even said it myself. Then I tried to find a verse that clearly said it. OOPS!

Just like it never mentions animals killing each other…there was never any rain clouds mentioned either.

[Guest]

I plant a garden. Pretend I have a green thumb and it is a wonderful garden. You come to my garden. I tell you that you can eat of all the fruit and vegetables there, but don't touch the kiwi. How is that a "command" that you can eat nothing else? ???

So, if a cow is walking in your garden are you going to be okay that I killed it and ate it, when you specifically told me to only eat the fruits and vegetables? I know if it was my garden I wouldn’t be pleased because I never said you could.

Where did I say "only"? Where did He? That is the point. We take a statement that "you can" and read it as "you can only".

Are you trying to compare domesticated animals to wild animals?

Does "all" mean "all" or not?

I just was trying to show you that one doesn’t need outside evidence to get a correct interpretation.

You are right. But it can help clear up mis-interpretation.

Again…what comes first? The outside evidence or the scriptures?

Is God's truth more evident in one then the other?It would be an easy question to answer if it were not for Romans 1.

What is the foundation that all evidence should be judged by? If we don’t have a foundation than all the outside evidence can be interpreted anyway someone wants it to be.

The foundation for the truth is The Truth. When we start showing Gen. 1 preferance over Rom. 1, is that going justice to the truth?

Actually, here is the definition I have for "Dor": -
Here is the list of verses attached to this word. Some are listed in Genesis: List

Cool source. Had not been there before. Goingto be spending some time there checking it out. I noticed that Moses only used it as "generation", but Job is one of the two books that uses it as "age" in the KJV (others translate it differently). Since many consider Job to be the earliest written book, it might be concievable that Moses could have used it...if Moses wrote and did not compile Genesis.

Why wouldn’t it have been all subsequent men? Even if it didn’t pass to Eve, all the children came because of Adam. So, if all the children had to come from Adam than everyone is subjugated to sin. Which would also stand to reason why Jesus was sinless because he did not come from the seed of man.

Gen 3:20, after the fall and the curse that it resulted in, states "Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living." Notice the "now" and "was". At the point that he called her Eve, she was the mother of something. They we still there in the garden. Her pain in childbirth was going to increase. Increase over something that she had already experienced? If not, how do we know for sure? Some Jewish tradition holds that Eve gave birth before the fall. Personally, I don't know.

Another thing, why mention the physical death in the curse if they were already intended to die that way?

Why mention that you will be cursed with X until you die if the biggest part of the curse was what was going to release him from X? We fight death. But is a release from the toils of this world a bad thing in God's sight...a curse as it were?

You also have to remember that Adam and Eve weren’t created as children. They were made into full adults.

How do we know? I see nothing the the text that says that Adam was a 30-yr old man at his creation. What if he was 14? Would the text allow that? Why not?

Since plant life was edible and technically plants are alive (just not in the soul sense), the concept of death might not be too far fetched.

You are right. But some YEC's don't even go that far. I have no problem with belief that animals or even just the subset of "soulish" animals died before the fall. I don't think the text is dogmatic about it one way or the other. That is why I don't find it a bad thing to look for signs of this elsewhere.
D.

[Guest]

Where did I say "only"? Where did He? That is the point. We take a statement that "you can" and read it as "you can only".

So, what your saying is if I invite you over to my house and say you can eat anything in the refrigerator that everything else in the house is fair game. Sometimes things are implied. Just because you can have everything in the fridge doesn’t give you the right to eat my dog. I would think you would understand the common language in which I am implying the fridge is where you get the food and that is it. It would seem ridiculous if I have to make a list for you of what you can and cannot eat. It would just be easier for me to tell you what you can eat.

Does "all" mean "all" or not?

Sure, all means all, but all of what is the question? Animals start out wild and man is the one who domesticates them. We breed animals to be tame or to have a certain specific trait. We weed out the bad qualities. Wild animals have a natural instinct to fear us. Look at the wolf in which the dog has been breaded from. I don’t see anyone walking with a wolf on a chain.

Is God's truth more evident in one then the other?It would be an easy question to answer if it were not for Romans 1.

The foundation for the truth is The Truth. When we start showing Gen. 1 preferance over Rom. 1, is that going justice to the truth?

I’m going to guess you are referring to these verses:

Romans 1: 18-20 –

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

These verses sound more like giving evidence that there is a God because we are all made in his image. I don’t see how this gives the right to use the evidence to interpret scripture, but only to justify it. The very fact that you are using scripture, to justify using evidence outside of scripture, shows that scripture comes first.

Cool source. Had not been there before. Goingto be spending some time there checking it out. I noticed that Moses only used it as "generation", but Job is one of the two books that uses it as "age" in the KJV (others translate it differently). Since many consider Job to be the earliest written book, it might be concievable that Moses could have used it...if Moses wrote and did not compile Genesis.

Yeah it is a pretty cool site. I like how they give you the verses and where exactly it is used in the verse.

Gen 3:20, after the fall and the curse that it resulted in, states "Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living." Notice the "now" and "was". At the point that he called her Eve, she was the mother of something. They we still there in the garden. Her pain in childbirth was going to increase. Increase over something that she had already experienced? If not, how do we know for sure? Some Jewish tradition holds that Eve gave birth before the fall. Personally, I don't know.

Isn’t the text written as a historical narrative? Notice all of the past tense words being used in that verse and the preceding and following verses…”then to Adam He said”, ”called”, “was”, “Then the Lord God said”, etc. It would be like me telling a story and saying, “Now my wife who was the mother of my two children.” I would be telling my story in the past tense which would be noted by the word “was”. Just because I used the word “Now” doesn’t mean I was talking in the present tense, it just means I was beginning a new thought.

It is true that we may not know for absolutely sure, but I just see having children without sin causing implications for the rest of scripture.

Why mention that you will be cursed with X until you die if the biggest part of the curse was what was going to release him from X? We fight death. But is a release from the toils of this world a bad thing in God's sight...a curse as it were?

Sorry, don’t know exactly what you are trying to get across here. Are you saying death is not a bad thing because it is a release from the toils of this world?

How do we know? I see nothing the the text that says that Adam was a 30-yr old man at his creation. What if he was 14? Would the text allow that? Why not?

Adam’s exact age is not the point. The point is that he obviously had the ability to communicate with God right away. He was able to understand God’s commands clearly. He could have been 3, but it seems unlikely since he was commanded to take care of the garden. I think it is safe to conclude he was older. Even Eve was created older because Adam was searching for a suitable helper. If he was searching for a suitable helper it would seem odd that he would be a small child.

[Guest]

So, what your saying is if I invite you over to my house and say you can eat anything in the refrigerator that everything else in the house is fair game. Sometimes things are implied. Just because you can have everything in the fridge doesn’t give you the right to eat my dog.

But I like hot dogs! To use your analogy, is there is difference between telling the guest "you can help yourself to anything in the 'fridge" and telling them "the only thing that you can eat is what is in the 'fridge"? All I am saying is that it can be viewed two different ways. If I go to your kitchen and help myself to a can of soda from your 'fridge as well as some ice from the freezer, have I abused your hospitality?

Sure, all means all, but all of what is the question? Animals start out wild and man is the one who domesticates them.

Could being reliant on Noah to feed them for a year have gotten them used to humans and God was wanting them to not hang around any more expecting his handouts?

These verses sound more like giving evidence that there is a God because we are all made in his image.

But the evidence is available from nature. It doesn't say that the evidence disappeared at the fall. It is there now. Because the Bible tells us that we can look to it means that we are not placing it above the Bible by doing so.

Isn’t the text written as a historical narrative? Notice all of the past tense words being used in that verse and the preceding and following verses

Most people would agree with that. I tend to think so. But it is also divided into sections that overlap. The Genesis 2 creation events did not occur after Genesis 1's even though both are written in past tense.

Just because I used the word “Now” doesn’t mean I was talking in the present tense, it just means I was beginning a new thought.

You are right. But neither does it force an interpretation of "next".

Why mention that you will be cursed with X until you die if the biggest part of the curse was what was going to release him from X? We fight death. But is a release from the toils of this world a bad thing in God's sight...a curse as it were?

Sorry, don’t know exactly what you are trying to get across here. Are you saying death is not a bad thing because it is a release from the toils of this world?

Death is not always a bad thing. We tend to fear it and try to avoid it, but "graduating" from here is not necessarily a curse.

Adam’s exact age is not the point....I think it is safe to conclude he was older.

He probably was. If we believe that "day" was 24 hours, he would have to be. But there is evidence for the creation maturing. God planted some trees. In other places it says the land produced them. Gen 2:9 says that they grew. Some would infer that time was involved with this. If day 6 were longer than 24 hrs, Adam could have grown as well.

All I am saying is that Genesis, like Revelation, leaves room for interpretation. In fact, Genesis has probably spawned twice as many interpretations as Revelation. The interpretations of both of these books have changes as people's view of the world around them changed. I know I don't know all the answers. When we get to heaven and get a grade on our dogmatically held theology and doctrines, I think there will be some suprise at the grades given out. A lot of people that think they have it all figured out will find that they weren't even in the right class. The Teacher never knew them.
D.

[Guest]

But I like hot dogs! To use your analogy, is there is difference between telling the guest "you can help yourself to anything in the 'fridge" and telling them "the only thing that you can eat is what is in the 'fridge"? All I am saying is that it can be viewed two different ways. If I go to your kitchen and help myself to a can of soda from your 'fridge as well as some ice from the freezer, have I abused your hospitality?

Okay…let’s continue with that analogy in relation to Genesis. I wouldn’t think you abused your hospitality eating from the freezer because it is a part of the fridge. Would Adam have abused the plant privilege if he ate seaweed, just because it came from the ocean? I don’t think so, it still falls under the plant category, just like the freezer falls under the fridge category.
BTW…you shouldn’t eat hot dogs. You know what those are made out or right?

Could being reliant on Noah to feed them for a year have gotten them used to humans and God was wanting them to not hang around any more expecting his handouts?

But you forget…animals weren’t afraid of humans at this point. It was only when God put the fear and terror on them that animals started to disassociate with humans.

But the evidence is available from nature. It doesn't say that the evidence disappeared at the fall. It is there now. Because the Bible tells us that we can look to it means that we are not placing it above the Bible by doing so.

I thought the question wasn’t “Is there evidence in nature?” it was “Can the evidence in nature be used to interpret the Bible?” I don’t believe Romans 1 is giving that authority to nature.

You are right. But neither does it force an interpretation of "next".

Keeping the context in mind…the curse (punishment) has just been given. A new thought is now being introduced. How else would you interpret the word “Now”?

Death is not always a bad thing. We tend to fear it and try to avoid it, but "graduating" from here is not necessarily a curse.

Doesn’t it depend on where you’re “graduating” to? For a believer death is not something to fear because Christ defeated it at the cross, but before we believed it should have been a very fearful thing.

He probably was. If we believe that "day" was 24 hours, he would have to be. But there is evidence for the creation maturing. God planted some trees. In other places it says the land produced them. Gen 2:9 says that they grew. Some would infer that time was involved with this. If day 6 were longer than 24 hrs, Adam could have grown as well.

When Adam was formed he was formed as a man, not as a baby. Also, when Eve was formed she was given to Adam as a wife in Chapter 2:25. This implies that Eve was fully grown and had to have been given some amount knowledge. From the verse where she was formed to when she was given as a wife there was no wording of growth.

All I am saying is that Genesis, like Revelation, leaves room for interpretation. In fact, Genesis has probably spawned twice as many interpretations as Revelation.

In my personal opinion, Genesis leaves less interpretation than Revelation because one is written about things that have already taken place, while the other is a mix of past/present/future events. I do, however, understand your point of people wanting to place multiple interpretations on both books.

When we get to heaven and get a grade on our dogmatically held theology and doctrines, I think there will be some suprise at the grades given out. A lot of people that think they have it all figured out will find that they weren't even in the right class. The Teacher never knew them.

I think God is gracious. I think all he requires of us is to have faith in him. I’m sure he will show us the truth and let the truth weed out the false dogmatism.

[Guest]

Okay…let’s continue with that analogy in relation to Genesis. I wouldn’t think you abused your hospitality eating from the freezer because it is a part of the fridge. Would Adam have abused the plant privilege if he ate seaweed, just because it came from the ocean? I don’t think so, it still falls under the plant category, just like the freezer falls under the fridge category.

Is the "category" just the 'fridge, the 'fridge/freezer combo, or the whole kitchen? Was Adam limited to fruit, fruit & vegies, or anything in the garden?

But you forget…animals weren’t afraid of humans at this point. It was only when God put the fear and terror on them that animals started to disassociate with humans.

That begs the question. Would the text support an interpretation that God caused the animals to enter the ark and, over the course of a year's captivity, they became "associated" with humans and God needed to reverse that? The fact that they can bond with us now would support a one-time event as opposed to some global new law of nature, I would think.

I thought the question wasn’t “Is there evidence in nature?” it was “Can the evidence in nature be used to interpret the Bible?” I don’t believe Romans 1 is giving that authority to nature.

Why should this be a matter of authority? Is truth an unseen quality of God? Can the unseen qualities of God be seen in nature? Is the Bible true? And one true thing be more true than another? Is one interpretation of a true source guaranteed to be more accurate than the interpretation of another true source?

Keeping the context in mind…the curse (punishment) has just been given. A new thought is now being introduced. How else would you interpret the word “Now”?

We could go to this cool new website that I just found... It could be used in a literary sense to suggest that a new subject is being started. Or a literal sense referring to the current specific time. Depends on the context, and your context depends on your interpretational style and worldview. I'm not trying to convince anyone of a particular view, only that there are valid alternatives to the dogmatic flood-geology YEC interpretation allowed by the text.

Doesn’t it depend on where you’re “graduating” to? For a believer death is not something to fear because Christ defeated it at the cross, but before we believed it should have been a very fearful thing.

You are right. I'm discussing this from the perspective of Adam going to heaven. ("Salvation" prior to the law is a whole different topic!) But lets say I committed a crime. I am sentenced to death. I will ultimately face that no matter what. I then come down with a horrible, painful, permenant condition. Could it be considered inhumane to postpone my execution and prolong my agony? Just a thought...

When Adam was formed he was formed as a man, not as a baby.

Chapter and verse, please....

Also, when Eve was formed she was given to Adam as a wife in Chapter 2:25. This implies that Eve was fully grown and had to have been given some amount knowledge. From the verse where she was formed to when she was given as a wife there was no wording of growth.

I believe both Adam and Eve were probably post-puberty, but that is my gut talking and not a specific verse. The only limits to how long Adam slept and how much Eve could have grown and been taught is in your interpretation of "day". Personally, I wouldn't want to take the growth/learning idea to either extreme.

In my personal opinion, Genesis leaves less interpretation than Revelation because one is written about things that have already taken place, while the other is a mix of past/present/future events.

I think is is the very fact that we have history that we can study that has lead to so many interpretations.

I’m sure he will show us the truth and let the truth weed out the false dogmatism.

I like what James Dobson said one time when he hosted a discussion on this with Hugh Ross and Duane Gish. He said that he believed that when all truth was known, there would be no disagreement between science and theology. I agree. I don't think there is real conflict between the two. It is in our understanding of them.
D.

[Guest]

Is the "category" just the 'fridge, the 'fridge/freezer combo, or the whole kitchen? Was Adam limited to fruit, fruit & vegies, or anything in the garden?

In my first statement I said you can have anything in the fridge, which in essence covers the whole fridge. If I meant the whole kitchen I would have said help yourself to whatever is in the kitchen. So, here is the statement from God:

Genesis 1:29 –

29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

What is also interesting to note is that the animals were given a different command in that they can eat every green plant. Why the difference? Unless God was being specific in which kinds of food one could eat. Also, why mention only the plants and not anything else? It seems pretty clear that he only intended seed bearing plants and fruits as a food source.

That begs the question. Would the text support an interpretation that God caused the animals to enter the ark and, over the course of a year's captivity, they became "associated" with humans and God needed to reverse that? The fact that they can bond with us now would support a one-time event as opposed to some global new law of nature, I would think.

If you’re going under the assumption that they kept their natural instinct while in captivity and learned to be associated over time than why didn’t the animals kill each other while they were being loaded on the ark, staying on the ark, or leaving the ark? I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either they are always animals eating each other and people fearing or not. It also wouldn’t make since that God just changed them for a short period of time either because than he should have just reverted them back to their natural instinct the moment the left the ark. Instead he caused them to have terror and fear over humans as though they were never like that to begin with.

Why should this be a matter of authority? Is truth an unseen quality of God? Can the unseen qualities of God be seen in nature? Is the Bible true? And one true thing be more true than another? Is one interpretation of a true source guaranteed to be more accurate than the interpretation of another true source?

Are we talking about “How true a source is?” or are we talking bout “How one true source has the ability to interpret another true source?” Again, I don’t think Romans 1 is giving that authority to nature. Romans 1 is just pointing out that nobody has an excuse because you can see the “fingerprint” of God in things he has made including the invisible attributes that are within us all because we are made in His image.

We could go to this cool new website that I just found... It could be used in a literary sense to suggest that a new subject is being started. Or a literal sense referring to the current specific time. Depends on the context, and your context depends on your interpretational style and worldview. I'm not trying to convince anyone of a particular view, only that there are valid alternatives to the dogmatic flood-geology YEC interpretation allowed by the text.

How is the context, which is obviously all in past tense, explaining the word “Now” to be in present tense? I don’t think worldview has anything to do with interpreting this word. The context of the whole passage is past tense. How does one get the current specific time out of that word?

You are right. I'm discussing this from the perspective of Adam going to heaven. ("Salvation" prior to the law is a whole different topic!) But lets say I committed a crime. I am sentenced to death. I will ultimately face that no matter what. I then come down with a horrible, painful, permenant condition. Could it be considered inhumane to postpone my execution and prolong my agony? Just a thought...

Why is salvation any different for Adam, than it is for you or me? The law was only given to recognize our sin and know the futility of trying to keep it, so that we can realize the need for a perfect sacrifice in Jesus Christ. Faith in God has always been the measurement of salvation.

Hebrews 11:1-2

1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
2 For by it the men of old gained approval.

Adam wasn’t guaranteed to go to heaven. He had to maintain his faith in God. He could have just as easily gone the other way.

As for your example, what is inhumane about it? Is it anybody’s fault that you got the condition? You committed the crime and now you’re just waiting for the punishment. The only inhumane thing is not trying to make you feel more comfortable until your punishment is carried out. Of course, someone higher up may have mercy on you and speed up your punishment date or they maybe giving you more time to realize the consequences of your crime and ask for forgiveness.

Chapter and verse, please....

Genesis 2:7

7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Notice that God formed man and not a baby boy or a child. Also, look at
verse 15:

15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

It doesn’t say after the man grew up God took him to the garden. There is absolutely no indication that Adam was young and grew up. It goes from one scene where God creates a man and then to the next scene where the Bible uses the same wording where God took man to the garden. To imply otherwise is really adding to the text.

I believe both Adam and Eve were probably post-puberty, but that is my gut talking and not a specific verse. The only limits to how long Adam slept and how much Eve could have grown and been taught is in your interpretation of "day". Personally, I wouldn't want to take the growth/learning idea to either extreme.

If you believe Adam and Eve were probably post-puberty, than why did God create them faster than the rest of creation? That is if you believed from a OEC point of view.

I think is is the very fact that we have history that we can study that has lead to so many interpretations.

The thing about history is that we have to rely totally on the person who was there explaining everything to us. This might just be me, but I don’t think God would make his verbiage so secretive that it has taken thousands of years to really understand what he was talking about.

[Guest]

On page 80 of Van Bebber and Taylor's critique of Creation and Time, they take Ross to task for claiming that Adam had to name "all" the animals when "a smaller group of animals was involved". Yet on page 56, they say that "all" has to mean "all" when it says that "all the mountains" were flooded. ALL=ALL unless ALL<>ALL. But of course Ross takes the opposite view.

I went back and read this part of Van Bebber today, and I would like to ask why you see this inconsistency about the word 'all' here. I'll quote this part of Van Bebber for the benefit of other readers who don't have this book.

THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY THAT ADAM NAMED ALL THE ANIMALS or all the birds and mammals. Thus, Dr. Ross's first error is in his claim that God commanded Adam to "name all the animals (the nephesh creatures - i.e., all the birds and mammals.)" [p 51 - emphasis added]. A smaller group of animals was involved: livestock, fish, flying birds, and beasts of the field (Genesis 2:20). Note that Adam was told to name the beasts-of-the-field, not the beasts-of-the-earth (evidently the field-beasts were a sub-set of the larger category, beasts-of-the-earth - Genesis 1:24-25). Various commentators agree that these field-beasts were animals that lived in or near the Garden. Other animals were also excluded from this initial naming event. These include the fish, water-dwelling mammals, and "creatures that move along the ground" (Genesis 1:24, NIV), including most reptiles, insects and many of the small mammals. Thus, a very large number of animals are eliminated from naming on Day Six.

You had said he was making the argument that All is not All in this case. It seems to me, however, that he is not appealing a limited use of the word all. Rather, he is appealing for a reduced count of named animals based upon other phrases. Specifically, by appealing to the words "flying", "-of-the-field", and "livestock".

Another question I have, is how do OEC creationists handle the animal naming issue? It seems the OEC view has animals populated in local regions throughout the whole world, which would greatly complicate Adam's task of naming them all.

[Guest]

This statement deserves a prize ... But "context" is derived by more than just the sentence or book that the word belongs to. Since the text in question is both Biblical and historical, both contexts apply. It is the context of the percieved history of the world (as percieved by the reader) that usually tips the balance in cases like this.

Thanks for your compliment, but I would like be clear about what the word context means and doesn't mean, and how it relates to the true meaning of the passage. It seems that you have used the word context in two different ways. I would just like to be sure that my understanding of what you mean by 'context' is the same as what you have meant by this word. The two options are:

1) The context in regards to the author: It is that which relates to the 'true meaning' of the passage: For example, the sentence, paragraph, chapter, book, genre, etc,.

2) The context in regards to the reader: It is that which relates to how I might percieve what is written: For example, my worldview, past experiences, etc,.

It is true that both senses of the context will affect my understanding of a word or passage, but the true meaning of the passage is not in anyway dependent of the latter context. When I was speaking of context in my statement, I was trying to communicate the context in the sense of option #1 not #2.

[Guest]

What is also interesting to note is that the animals were given a different command in that they can eat every green plant. Why the difference? Unless God was being specific in which kinds of food one could eat. Also, why mention only the plants and not anything else? It seems pretty clear that he only intended seed bearing plants and fruits as a food source.

Your interpretation has a lot of support. There is more than one context that we can (and others have) place(ed) on the text. If there is proof that there were carnivores before 6,000BC then we need to look to see if we have the right context.

If you’re going under the assumption that they kept their natural instinct while in captivity and learned to be associated over time than why didn’t the animals kill each other while they were being loaded on the ark, staying on the ark, or leaving the ark?

I don't know. How did they all show up to begin with? Something more than "nature" was going on.

I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either they are always animals eating each other and people fearing or not.

I haven't decided on a way yet. I don't believe both are true. Just that there are options and open questions.

It also wouldn’t make since that God just changed them for a short period of time either because than he should have just reverted them back to their natural instinct the moment the left the ark. Instead he caused them to have terror and fear over humans as though they were never like that to begin with.

Maybe. We can't assume though that something never exists until the first time the text mentions it.

Are we talking about “How true a source is?” or are we talking bout “How one true source has the ability to interpret another true source?” Again, I don’t think Romans 1 is giving that authority to nature. Romans 1 is just pointing out that nobody has an excuse because you can see the “fingerprint” of God in things he has made including the invisible attributes that are within us all because we are made in His image.

I don't believe that Romans 1 is telling us to trust one over the other. I think we can trust both. I don't think the text takes it any further than that.

How is the context, which is obviously all in past tense, explaining the word “Now” to be in present tense?

If someone was speaking in present tense in the past, what would it look like? Couldn't the text be saying "at this point, Adam called his wife Eve because she was the mother of all the living"?

Why is salvation any different for Adam, than it is for you or me?

When and how did his redemption happen? Was your's the same? Did he have to call upon the name of Jesus?

As for your example, what is inhumane about it? Is it anybody’s fault that you got the condition? You committed the crime and now you’re just waiting for the punishment. The only inhumane thing is not trying to make you feel more comfortable until your punishment is carried out. Of course, someone higher up may have mercy on you and speed up your punishment date or they maybe giving you more time to realize the consequences of your crime and ask for forgiveness.

That wasn't the question. If someone is going to suffer later, is it "mercy" to make them suffer here as well, or could a merciful God speed their demise as an act of mercy? I don't know the answer. I'm just asking the question.

7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Notice that God formed man and not a baby boy or a child. Also, look at
verse 15:

15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

It doesn’t say after the man grew up God took him to the garden.

Is this "man" as opposed to "woman" and "animal", or "man" as opposed to "young man" or "male"? When God created "man" in His image, does that mean that women are not in His image?

There is absolutely no indication that Adam was young and grew up. It goes from one scene where God creates a man and then to the next scene where the Bible uses the same wording where God took man to the garden. To imply otherwise is really adding to the text.

It doesn't tell us how old he was when he was created. We can make assumptions, but that is all they are.

If you believe Adam and Eve were probably post-puberty, than why did God create them faster than the rest of creation? That is if you believed from a OEC point of view.

I don't know if he did. I'm just guessing here. The one time I express an opinion I actually have, I get called on it. LOL

I don’t think God would make his verbiage so secretive that it has taken thousands of years to really understand what he was talking about.

And I don't think he has guaranteed us perfect understanding of anything.
D.