post-creation modifications

[brett]

One of my favorite radio talks shows hosts is Greg Koukl. I just recently noticed his article, Death by Design. Since no one has replied to it in a couple of months, I’ve decided to bring up the issue here in this forum. He says his main problem with the young earth position is the problem of certain animals apparently being designed with violent features such as retractable claws, fangs, stingers (such as bees), etc. As he put it:

...God has designed many creatures with features meant solely for taking life or solely for defending against deadly assault...

By this he’s deduced there must have at least been animal death and suffering before the fall.

......And it occurred to me that bees have stingers--or most of them I guess So I asked my friend, "Do you think this bee has a stinger?" And just then the thought struck me: Where did he get that stinger? Well, he got it from God, of course. God gave him the stinger. Then it occurred to me, what was the stinger for? Its purpose is protection. That's obvious. Protection from what? And in a flash of insight I knew there was physical death before the Fall, at least animal death, because God had actually designed some animals as predators and designed others--like the bee--with defense equipment.

He then gives several other examples of animal features that really would serve no purpose in a world not intended to be dangerous or violent—skunk scent glands, angler fish camouflage, spider webs, etc.

These are all design features that are all complex and have one purpose and one purpose only: the destruction of other living things.

So he concludes:


The natural realm is overflowing with examples of particular things that were designed specifically with the capture and killing of prey in mind, therefore they must have been part of the plan in my view.

They aren't an evil part of the plan because God made these things, and then having done so with all the creatures of the world, looked at it all and said that it was a good thing. So the natural law of death that must have been in place before the Fall is not bad, it's a good thing created by God.
......
It seems there is no explanation for these things if there was no physical death in the animal kingdom before Adam's Fall.

He then anticipates the answer I personally would give.

One way to object to my point is to say that after the Fall God created these mechanisms in animals in order to enable them to both capture food and survive. But I don't think this objection really works. First of all you'd have God creating after He was finished with creation, which seems to create a problem.

But my question is, why would this be a problem when the Genesis record gives explicit examples of post-fall physical modifications to humans, animals and plants? The snake was certainly modified.

14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;

Apparently, before the fall, snakes did not go on their bellies. My guess would be they had legs, but I’m open to other suggestions. In fact there are many ancient dragon depictions (chinese dragons come to mind) that basically look like snakes with legs. But regardless of how pre-fall snakes were constructed, the point is they were modified. And since this modification was stated to be more than that which the other animals would receive (and not contrary to), I think we can safely infer there were other modifications to the other animals.

God then mentions a specific modification to humans:

16 To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will (17) bring forth children;......

Apparently, before the fall, women’s physical bodies were constructed in such a way that child birth was not (or at least less) painful. But after the fall, God decided to modify this. Don’t ask me exactly what the change was because I have no idea. And then a specific change to plants is also mentioned.

17 Then to Adam He said, ... Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18 "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; ....

So it would seem that the earth either didn’t produce thorny plants before the fall, or that God decided to modify various plant features after the fall. Bee stingers came to mind after reading this, for thorns are kind of like the plant version of a stinger. And then later on in Genesis, I noticed another interesting modification occuring at the time of the tower of Babel.

1 Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words..... 6 The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. 7 "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech."

How could this be anything but a physical modification? So here’s yet another recorded instance where God physically altered man (a portion of his brain in this case) after the fall.

So this whole ostensible problem of “God creating after day seven” seems to be refuted by the record itself. To reject post-fall physical modifications to plants, animals and men is, in my view, a contradiction of the scripture. I’m really not sure how this whole notion of God not creating or revising anything after day seven came about in the first place. Unless of course one thinks we're still in the seventh day (or age). But the fact that we see God working (recreating, revising) almost immediately after the creation week should at least cast doubts on such an interpretation.

[brett]

Sheesh this place is quiet!

creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek

Anybody here?:candle: Hello?

creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek creek

[DanN1]

The notion that nature was different before the Fall seems absurd to me:

Well for one things snakes today do not eat dust. Which means that when God cursed the snake, what snakes ate apparently was not changed after all.
This lends less credence to the literal interpretation of this curse. Snakes today do not talk either, but this is not mentioned in the curse; so one change the curse mentions did not happen, and one it did not mention did happen? Obviously something is wrong in that understanding.

What did lions eat before the Fall? Did they eat plants or fruit? Did they then have cow-like teeth? Why would they have a body intended for chasing down prey then? And claws? Were they clawless as well, with ruminary stomachs? If they ate plants instead of meat, wouldn't it make sense that plants would "want" to defend themselves from this with thorns, etc? Or did plants only "decide they didn't like being eaten" after the Fall and adopt these traits?
--Were sharks just giant seaweed-munching goldfish?
--Were porcupines just spineless little rats?
--Did scorpions have little bells on their tails instead of stingers?

Was there death at all before the Fall? Even if animals didn't eat each other, what if one climbed a tree for fruit and fell out? Would it be hurt? Would it die? Or just bounce along a fluffy ground? What if an animal bit it's tongue while chewing, would that hurt? So animals didn't have teeth either, maybe, and fruits liquified themselves before being ingested? I mean how much "death and pain" are you trying to deny existed?

Could Eve bear children before the Fall? If so how was this intended to happen if there was no lust or physical attraction? Obviously there wasn't if they didn't realize they were naked... If Eve could bear children, would it be painless? How could it be painless, was she more elastic than people today? If Eve couldn't bear children yet, why was she equipt for it? Or didn't people have genitals? If they didn't, then what was it about themselves they realized was "naked"? If they did, does this mean they were created this way because God knew they would fall from perfection? Maybe you like that idea, and will adapt it to animals saying that they had violent appendages and fangs, but didn't use them yet, God made them with these parts knowing the Fall would happen? Then what do you say of animals purely built for killing, like sharks? Sharks would not have been physically capable of eating anything but meat if they had those teeth from the beginning. The only answer I can see is that they ate meat from the Creation.

Now about the snake, was it a literal snake or was it Satan, who is described as rather serpentine in Revelation? If it was a literal snake, one must take this to mean that all animals could speak, unless God somehow made it speak in that special occasion like he did Balaam's ass... if this is the case then why was Eve not alarmed to hear a snake talking? Or maybe Adam and Eve understood the languages of animals? But we know today from observation that animals do not have the language capabilities mentally of humans, possibly excepting social intelligent animals and even then whether they are intelligent enough to convince a perfect being to disobey God may be doubted. Were animals more intelligent back then? Why would they become stupider?
If the snake was not an actual snake but was Satan, again why was Eve not alarmed to hear it speak? Were fear and suspicion not among man's mental capabilities in this danger-free world? Or were they dormant just like sexual attraction was? If the snake was Satan, how could Satan be cursed to crawl on his belly? This could not have been a literal curse since Satan does not live as a snake does today, eating dust at that. Was it figurative? Does to crawl on his belly mean to be lowly and cursed rather than to literally crawl? Then why is he depicted as a snake who physically crawls? Maybe he wasn't in the form of a snake at all, but the whole description of the "snake" is metaphorical and he was really a humanoid talking to Eve? In this explanation you no longer have one of your examples of "animal change" after the Fall, do you?

What of Babel? Well first of all, how is this evidence for post-Fall changes? Taking that Babel occurred over 1750 years (Ussherian, and far more than that in any other timeline) after the Creation, and that animals are not in the story, what are you trying to use this as evidence for?

[brett]

The notion that nature was different before the Fall seems absurd to me:

Well for one things snakes today do not eat dust. Which means that when God cursed the snake, what snakes ate apparently was not changed after all.

Yikes Dan!.:doh: Nobody is suggesting the change in snakes was a change in their diets from vegetables to dirt. :huh: Dude, go back and read my post. The eating of dirt is just an expression about the fact that snakes now travel on their bellies as opposed to how they traveled before—a modification I don't think anyone denies (unless of course they allegorize the entire story).

Snakes didn’t change because they don’t eat dirt?? Wow! :no: I definitely didn’t anticipate that one.

[DanN1]

What about everything else? How do you explain all those animals which are built completely for killing and eating meat, were they drastically remodified? or later creations? How do you explain what would happen if an animal fell out of a tree? If animals didn't have parts intending for killing before the Fall, did they not have parts for reproducing either? So did Adam and Eve have those parts? If so- why, if Eve wasn't intended to go through the painful birth process, if not- in what sense were they "naked" ?

[brett]

What about everything else? How do you explain all those animals which are built completely for killing and eating meat, were they drastically remodified?

Yep, I think so.


or later creations?

No just modified like the snake, the thorny plants, and even humans. It was all part of the curse. There’s no reason to limit the modifications to only those creatures mentioned.



How do you explain what would happen if an animal fell out of a tree?

I don’t see why that’s a problem. In the millennial kingdom death and dying will have ceased yet animals will still exist. In that day I don’t think tree falling will be a problem, do you?



If animals didn't have parts intending for killing before the Fall, did they not have parts for reproducing either?

No they clearly must have had parts for reproduction.



So did Adam and Eve have those parts? If so- why, if Eve wasn't intended to go through the painful birth process,

The text explicitly says her childbirth pains would be multiplied as a direct result of the curse. And yes, her and Adam had the parts.



if not- in what sense were they "naked" ?

See above.

[Kristian Joense]

For some animals this modification is/was a result of latent genes becuase God forknew the fall.

Other animals propably have had other uses for these organs.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Brett, funny my husband and I were just talking about this and come to the either or conclusion of you or Kristian.

The conversation come up when we were watching these small black water fowl - maybe I can find a picture I have of them. But they have bright green legs so that their legs look like plants when they walk in the water. We both commented on how utterly and inanely absurd it is to believe this is "evolution" in a naturalistic sense. But we also commented that these birds were obviously designed in a way to avoid being eaten. That is why having bright green legs is useful.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I found a picture

[A Beautiful Truth]

We both commented on how utterly and inanely absurd it is to believe this is "evolution" in a naturalistic sense. But we also commented that these birds were obviously designed in a way to avoid being eaten. That is why having bright green legs is useful.

Why is it absurd to believe this is "evolution" in a naturalistic sense when the green legs help it avoid being eaten?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Some things are self-evident. The bird just "happened" to evolve the exact colour needed - I know the explanations etc,(well one bird just happened to have a bit of green, or maybe the legs always had a bit of green, and then the ones with more green reproduced more and before you knew it, all of the legs were all green) and I find it to be a fairy tale for adults. It is on its face absurd as far as I am concerned.

[Abigail]

Why is it absurd to believe this is "evolution" in a naturalistic sense when the green legs help it avoid being eaten?
What strains the creduility is why evolution would have had green legs in it's store cupboard at all. I mean of all things why green legs? Sure if the thinking is we need to keep these green legs for use in the future then one can understand but naturalistic evolution cannot preemt like that so why were those green legs kept in the first place (and of course where did evolution even get them in the first place for they must have been present to have been able to be used).

[Dee Dee Warren]

I would think that primitive humankind that lived in a forest enviroment would have benefited from some green. But I am glad I am not green.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Some things are self-evident. The bird just "happened" to evolve the exact colour needed - I know the explanations etc,(well one bird just happened to have a bit of green, or maybe the legs always had a bit of green, and then the ones with more green reproduced more and before you knew it, all of the legs were all green) and I find it to be a fairy tale for adults. It is on its face absurd as far as I am concerned...

...I would think that primitive humankind that lived in a forest enviroment would have benefited from some green. But I am glad I am not green.



What strains the creduility is why evolution would have had green legs in it's store cupboard at all. I mean of all things why green legs? Sure if the thinking is we need to keep these green legs for use in the future then one can understand but naturalistic evolution cannot preemt like that so why were those green legs kept in the first place (and of course where did evolution even get them in the first place for they must have been present to have been able to be used).

Dee Dee,

"...It is on its face absurd as far as I am concerned" As far as you are concerned is not based on exploring all the science of it, am I wrong? You said elsewhere that your time restrains you from really looking into these sort of things. I really understand. But I wonder at you making statements like these without having given it that nessesary time. Perhaps it is not best to make definative statements about things that you have not had enough time to fully consider.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Perhaps, or perhaps it is perfectly acceptable to have initial conclusions on the knowledge I do have. And those are my legitimate initial conclusions. I have no issue with holding them, I know the basic philsophy behind the mechanics of evolution - I did not misrepresent what the explanation would be above. It was very very simplified but the philosophy was present. We all form conclusions based so far upon what we know. If I waited until I knew everything I would not be able to make a decision for anything. The key is to be willing to change one's conclusions if and when additional information causes one to do so.

My initial conclusion is that if evolution is true, Christianity is false. I may change my view on that. It will be the text that will have to convince me. So far it has utterly failed to do so. I respect that other Christians have come to other conclusions.

Further, as blasphemous as this is to the Altar of Science, I don't think we need tremendous scientitic knowledge to know that some things are absurd. I believe that the creation screams out Creator (and I don't mean it in a guided evolution sense) and that the Creator put this sense of obvious absurdity in our hearts. Can I prove that? No. But not all things are susceptible to empiracal reductionism.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Further, as blasphemous as this is to the Altar of Science, I don't think we need tremendous scientitic knowledge to know that some things are absurd.

Ever heard of quantum mechanics or string theory? I think things we think are absurd often change as we gain knowledge. "Absurd" is perhaps relative to our knowledge.

Even a course in history with a view on period customs lend me support. I recently went to Colonial Williamsburg and learned some rather "absurd" customs of our forefathers. "Absurd" is indeed relative.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And some absurds are universal unless you are a diehard relativist. I granted that things change as we gain knowledge. That does not stop me from having an opinion on what I accurately know.

Charleen, with all due respect you here on the forums have been trying to synthesize your own view, you are not sure where you are going to land. Perhaps you ought to straighten that out before worryng about me. I am not saying that to be rude, though I realize it may sound that way, but what you are doing, in light of the fact that I was very blunt with you to say that for me, right now, this issue is a deal-breaker, is that you are pushing something for which you have no answers. It would be like me convincing someone that the timing statement in the Bible are wrong but without having a satisfactory solution myself. You don't know how this can all fit - and this isn't the forum area to be promoting naturalistic evolution - thus my participation. I have no wish to debate it - to me, it is obviously absurd. Anyone reading that can take it or leave it. I am open to change my mind with further data, but the text is paramount, and I do not presently believe for one second that the text allows it. I said this to Glenn before, if you convinced me of evolution all you would be making is a nonChristian. Thus my concentration on the text - it is the text that rules. In like manner, if I did not find preterism satisfying, at this point, I would have rejected the text - and thus the faith, for personally I find futurism to be untenable. I may change on that in the future. but you have no textual answers for me Charleen, and it is the text that I am interested in.

This thread for me is not a debate. I am stating my opinons and where I am now. It doesn't concern me who agrees or not - it is my view, that is all.

[A Beautiful Truth]

That does not stop me from having an opinion on what I accurately know.

Accurately know scientifically? Do you think if you posted your "absurd" remark in Nat. Sci. that others would be able to defend from science why what you think is absurd is not really absurd? Can you refute them from a scientific point of view? If no, then perhaps it would be wiser to not comment about it in public.


...but what you are doing, in light of the fact that I was very blunt with you to say that for me, right now, this issue is a deal-breaker, is that you are pushing something for which you have no answers.

Pushing? Do I have to know all the answers before I ask questions? Do I have to know what is right before I can say what is wrong? How could I ever advance in knowledge if I were so restrained?

If I had to wait to know what was right before I could say what I think is wrong, then I would never get anywhere. Often we find what is right through the process of elimination. Eliminating a wrong path may lead me that much closer to finding the right one.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Charleen, this is my last post in this thread to you on this. This is my opinion - I don't care who agrees or likes it. I don't have the interest to debate everything in life - and I don't think it is necessary to be able to debate with those who are far superior in science to defend every opinion that I have. I already told you that a majority of it is intuitive, and I don't have to defend that, nor can I. It is one of those things that are not able to be empircally reduced. What I stated as to the explanation was accurate scientifically. Simplistic yes. But accurate. I think I made it pretty clear to you that I was not interested in debate, that is was my opinion, you can toss it if you wish, and you are intent upon pursuing something I thought I made pretty clear I wasn't interested in - debate. It is my opinion - inuitive opinion and an opinion based upon the knowledge that I have. It was a quick remark in a light-hearted manner - Brett wanted some attention to his thread, and I just happened to have this conversation with my husband. I wasn't trying to start some big debate, and it was a comment pretty primarily just directed to Brett for his consideration. I know I dont have the time or interest to get into a big debate, so I wouldn't have posted with that intention. Your disagreement is noted, okay, please stop trying to make it into a bigger deal than it was. This subject is a much bigger deal and interest to you at this point in time than it is to me. And again I say - this is not the forum for naturalistic evolution. I made my comment here to another YEC in the context of YEC belief in a YEC/OEC forum. It was in that context sharing common ground and inuitions.

[Abigail]

If I had to wait to know what was right before I could say what I think is wrong, then I would never get anywhere. Often we find what is right through the process of elimination. Eliminating a wrong path may lead me that much closer to finding the right one.Something you do not afford YEC's like DDW. You insist YEC's be able to prove conclusively from science their view or 'shut-up'

[Jack777]

Interesting.

Evolution is not a fact. There are no scientists on this earth that can prove that evolution is a fact. I think the universe is between 20 and 40 billion years old and the earth is about 1.5 to 2 billion years old based on what science has come up with, but evolution is not a fact. In fact evolution as it is taught is not true at all. There are some large areas of fact that disprove YEC, period. The Bible teaches that the earth is older than 6000 years for one thing.

[Abigail]

The Bible teaches that the earth is older than 6000 years for one thing. Well as I said ...show us how you arrived at that interpretation.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Something you do not afford YEC's like DDW. You insist YEC's be able to prove conclusively from science their view or 'shut-up'

Actually, what I was saying was if you are going to make definative statements about something that you should have taken the time to investigate the matter and consider the opposition's arguments.

Because you don't know my tone and you have in the past mistaken me for one who is malicious, please know that my tone in responding to you is not malicious.

[Abigail]

Because you don't know my tone and you have in the past mistaken me for one who is malicious, please know that my tone in responding to you is not malicious.Charlene, I was not accusing you of being malicious. I was noting what appeared to me as double standards.

I just noted that you made the comment that you should be allowed to voice your opinion even if you didnt have all the answers. I took this to mean that you could voice and support a TE view of origins even though you did not have all the theological answers to the questions this stance would raise. Now a while back I remember you saying that you thought YEC's should stay out of voicing opinions in science since you didnt believe they were able to offer any answers to scientific questions posed by people like Glenn.

[Solly]

1. Accurately know scientifically? Do you think if you posted your "absurd" remark in Nat. Sci. that others would be able to defend from science why what you think is absurd is not really absurd? Can you refute them from a scientific point of view? If no, then perhaps it would be wiser to not comment about it in public.



2. Pushing? Do I have to know all the answers before I ask questions? Do I have to know what is right before I can say what is wrong? How could I ever advance in knowledge if I were so restrained?

If I had to wait to know what was right before I could say what I think is wrong, then I would never get anywhere. Often we find what is right through the process of elimination. Eliminating a wrong path may lead me that much closer to finding the right one.

Charleen, these two comments in the same post contradict each other. You are saying that DD should not say anything she cannot support in Nat Sci, and then you say that you can post without all the answers.
It is not enough to write off other's people's scientific knowledge, just because it does not meet a certain standard, and then claim exemption for your own level of theological knowledge.
If people did not speak until they had all the answers, and all the answers ni the form you need, then no discussions would take place.
As far as this forum is concerned, since it is not a technical forum, people can speak on the knowledge they have, and are not required to have comprehensively researched every view they hold before speaking, either on scientific or theological matters. We are here to learn, after all, and the fact that Glenn or Socrates denounced something in a thread somewhere does not mean everyone must act on the basis of that.

Unbiased pastoral intervention.

Merry Xmas, one and all *snt

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charleen, these two comments in the same post contradict each other. You are saying that DD should not say anything she cannot support in Nat Sci, and then you say that you can post without all the answers.

While I am not always the most clear poster, I believe I did make a fuss about the particular word she used: absurd. That is a definitive statement and would be foolish if she had missed some knowledge that would have prevented her from making such a statement. Using such words about things we may not know enough about often ends up an embarrassment. I speak from personal experience in a variety of circumstances. I am sensitive to it, probably for this reason, and I cringe when I hear others making such statements about something that they have not had the time to fully investigate. She admitted elsewhere she had not had time to fully investigate these sorts of matters.


It is not enough to write off other's people's scientific knowledge, just because it does not meet a certain standard, and then claim exemption for your own level of theological knowledge.
If people did not speak until they had all the answers, and all the answers ni the form you need, then no discussions would take place.
As far as this forum is concerned, since it is not a technical forum, people can speak on the knowledge they have, and are not required to have comprehensively researched every view they hold before speaking, either on scientific or theological matters.

As this is a public forum, I thought the word she choose, specifically "absurd", when referring to a topic she has admitted elsewhere that she doesn't have the time to fully investigate should be cautioned. I apologize if this was wrong to do, but with the crowd of witnesses, I thought it appropriate.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charlene, I was not accusing you of being malicious. I was noting what appeared to me as double standards.

Fair enough.


I just noted that you made the comment that you should be allowed to voice your opinion even if you didnt have all the answers. I took this to mean that you could voice and support a TE view of origins even though you did not have all the theological answers to the questions this stance would raise.

When or if I voice support for TE, I will have considered the aruments and gotten more answers. Right now I am still searching.


Now a while back I remember you saying that you thought YEC's should stay out of voicing opinions in science since you didnt believe they were able to offer any answers to scientific questions posed by people like Glenn.

Yes, indeed. Making statements about scientific facts is different than making theological statments. The science determining the age of the earth is wrapped up in facts. The problem is, when a YEC is wrong on the facts, it can and is verified.

This is not so with theology where things are often not so cut and dry--such as Genesis, Revelation and other "controversial" topics. (Don't get me wrong, I said "often" and not always...)

[Solly]

Outside of the arminianism/calvinism debate, this is the debate most likely to generate more heat than light, such is the personal investment people place in their positions, and their view towards other positions. In fact the arm/calv debate has not resulted in the acrimony that this debate has, since most of us have learnt to walk away.
the main issue I find happening in such threads at the moment, is that you have moved from positions you no longer accept, but you don't know where you will end up. But anyone representing that former position tend sot get short shrift on the basis that they can't argue their case in Nat Sci. But at the moment you can't argue your case in Theology. This is causing some tension, and people need to chill a bit more, and learn to share and understand, rather than claiming or seeking victories, and triumphing over the defeated. Glenn is in the position that he does this stuff for a living. but he is not a theologian and we rarely see him here. Others of us are interested in theology first, and work in other areas. If you can combine the two, all well and good, but i am nopt sure you are a scientist, and therefore able to pronounce on the efficacy of Glenn's views, any more than the rest of us, so in that sense the jury is still out on YEC and OEC. That you are still starting threads seeking to clarify your views is proof of that, even if it includes disatisfaction with YEC. I am disatisfied with YEC; I think Socrates did the cause a great disservice by his behaviour here, and certainly moved me to investigate further. But not having come to another position, I cannot pronounce YEC dead. I remain agnostic on the issue, and welcome input from YEC's OEC's TE's ID's etc. without prejudging them or their position. That, I make the assumption, is a scientific position to take.
And as far as words are concerned, let us not get too upset about them, and show ourselves more Christian in our response to those we feel have insulted us?

[A Beautiful Truth]

But at the moment you can't argue your case in Theology.

When I get one, I'll have thought about it enough to argue it.


i am nopt sure you are a scientist, and therefore able to pronounce on the efficacy of Glenn's views, any more than the rest of us, so in that sense the jury is still out on YEC and OEC.

It does not follow. Because I am not able to pronounce on the efficacy of Glenn's views, does not mean that the jury is still out on YEC and OEC. While I am not sold on Glenn's view, I am sold on an OE. You don't need to be a scientist to see that. What I struggle with is the Biology. If I eventually think that I need to defend a literal Adam scientifically because the theology demands it, I'll dig there. Right now I am trying to figure out if it really needs to be that hard. I'm taking the path of least resistence, so to speak, as far as my time goes.


And as far as words are concerned, let us not get too upset about them, and show ourselves more Christian in our response to those we feel have insulted us?

I'll try to be more Christian, but I have some hard judges, I think.

[Abigail]

The problem is, when a YEC is wrong on the facts, it can and is verified. Charleen, it may appear that YEC is wrong in the facts but maybe the truth is that old earthers have worked from a foundation of wrong assumptions. A good example would be evolution. People who embrace naturalistic evolution assume that there are no barriers to the amount of change something can undergo. Now if God did create kinds with the ability to adapt and survive using natural selection but still with very definite limits to the extent of that change then evolution as in the type embraced by TE's is going to be wrong because of that initial bad assumption. So while it seems to *you* YEC is wrong on the facts, others do not agree


This is not so with theology where things are often not so cut and dry--such as Genesis, Revelation and other "controversial" topics. (Don't get me wrong, I said "often" and not always...)Well, perhaps the same can be said for the scientific view of the earth and origins. Perhaps it is not so cut and dried in that area as we are told by scientists and it is only because we are ignorant of the mountains we do not know and do not understand that we can think we have answers and understanding.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charleen, it may appear that YEC is wrong in the facts but maybe the truth is that old earthers have woked from a foundation of wrong assumptions. A good example would be evolution. People who embrace naturalistic evolution assume that there are no barriers to the amount of change something can undergo. Now if God did create kinds with the ability to adapt and survive using natural selection but still with very definite limits to the extent of that change then evolution as in the type embraced by TE's is going to be wrong because of that initial bad assumption. So while it seems to *you* YEC is wrong on the facts, others do not agree

You are talking three different sciences here: astronomy, geology and biology. Biology is the "softest" of the sciences. I am open on the biology, I have not studied it enough. The astronomy and geology scream OE. Perhaps you should also consider the standard: perhaps it is the YE who have worked from a preexisting foundation, namely, their interpretation of "day".

[Jack777]

The Bible screams OE, but oh well...

Abigail wrote:

"Well as I said ...show us how you arrived at that interpretation."

It is not an interpretation. It is what the Bible says.


Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.



Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?



Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;



Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?



The earth did not exist when the angels shouted for joy. The were in existence in time, space and matter—the universe.



The stars were in existence before the earth was created. There fore, the six days are not days of creation. The Bible teaches the earth was existent before we get to Genesis 1:3. The earth is older than 6,000 years according to the Bible.

[Abigail]

But in Revelation (22:16) Jesus refers to Himself as the bright morning star and we know He was in existence before the world was

[Jack777]

Then again Jesus is the Creator and and the stars are created things.

[Abigail]

Then again Jesus is the Creator and and the stars are created things.Yes He sure is the Creator and we agree on that :thumb: . Why do you say the passage in Job * has to * be speaking of created beings why cant it be speaking of the Trinity persons in some way. Who is talking in Proverbs 8:22-31. I am really not yet set on what I think of the Job passage and would be interested to hear your take on it.

[Jack777]

Hi,

I think it is real stars that the LORD is talking about. It reminds me of the stones crying out or the blood of Abel crying from the ground, all of creation capable of conversation in some way we may not comprehend. I think they really sang together and it means something. Harmonic things, like music are a function of ordered Creation. I think it is cool that in the trillions of galaxies their trillions of stars all sang together.

Proverbs I think is about Lady Wisdom. I know that is not going to sound great to people, but Wisdom is a female and Jesus even said so. I think maybe she is the one in Isaiah 11, I am not certain, but it sure is a good question. I have thought about it a lot. Is that what you are asking about?

[Abigail]

Hi,

I think it is real stars that the LORD is talking about. It reminds me of the stones crying out or the blood of Abel crying from the ground, all of creation capable of conversation in some way we may not comprehend. I think they really sang together and it means something. Harmonic things, like music are a function of ordered Creation. I think it is cool that in the trillions of galaxies their trillions of stars all sang together.
I really dont know, sometimes I think it could possibly be speaking of the Incarnation and the birth of Jesus - the angels did sing in the skies around Bethlehem and I am sure the wise men shouted for joy when they finally found the baby Jesus. Also then sometimes I think the singing and joy is speaking of something like what is going on in Psalm 24. In Job 38:8 we see who made and controls the doors of the sea. In Psalm 24:7 why are they opening up the doors for the King(Christ) ...well perhaps He has been out for a walk in the depths of the sea Job 38:16. He can do anything

Proverbs I think is about Lady Wisdom. I know that is not going to sound great to people, but Wisdom is a female and Jesus even said so. I think maybe she is the one in Isaiah 11, I am not certain, but it sure is a good question. I have thought about it a lot. Is that what you are asking about?I have a few thoughts on this passage but I havent set on it yet.

[Jack777]

I like it because you look for Jesus in the Bible as do I. Thanks for your thoughts on these things. Opening the doors for Jesus because He was walking in the depths of the sea is interesting and I would like the chance to think about that. David talked about being at the bottom of the sea all wrapped up and being set free by God. I think there is a lot to what you see that pertains to Jesus walking on the bottom of the ocean. That expression of His act of Redemption recurs in that context several times in the Bible and has caused me to think about it a lot.