OEC and YEC's

[GrayPilgrim]

Here is the place for you to discuss things in house with other creationists!

[dizzle]

Steadele I would love to see more of you in this topic. Please feel free to come and discuss.

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 07:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105058#post105058)
Dee Dee Warren:

Steadele I would love to see more of you in this topic. Please feel free to come and discuss.

:hi: Hey Dee Dee thanks for the invite. Ill watch this thread and try to contribute, though I fear most people here know more than I do. But Ill definately try to make a contribution:thumb:


By the way.........what aspects of OEC/YEC are we discussing?
Anything specific in mind or just general stuff?



Russ

[GrayPilgrim]

I just wanted to get a discussion started. So you can go whichever way you would like.

[Warcraft3]

05-22-2003 @ 10:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105193#post105193)
GrayPilgrim:

I just wanted to get a discussion started. So you can go whichever way you would like.

Cool. I just wanted to let you know Ill be posting some thoughts this weekend, cause I think this section might turn out to be a very valuable one. Ill post some stuff (hopefully) tomorrow.




Russ

[dizzle]

Here is a major problem I have with OEC. To me, Genesis very clearly states that there was no animal death from carnivory before the fall. If we are to believe that the fossils predate the fall you have carnivory and cancer and dreadful diseases before that time. That is in contradiction to the principles of Romans 8.

While I do not divide over this issue at all, I agree it has far reaching and important implications. In the same way I do with futurism. I feel it is in obvious error, but I do not divide.

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 01:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106496#post106496)
Dee Dee Warren:

Here is a major problem I have with OEC. To me, Genesis very clearly states that there was no animal death from carnivory before the fall. If we are to believe that the fossils predate the fall you have carnivory and cancer and dreadful diseases before that time. That is in contradiction to the principles of Romans 8.

While I do not divide over this issue at all, I agree it has far reaching and important implications. In the same way I do with futurism. I feel it is in obvious error, but I do not divide.

Hey there Dee Dee:thumb: I have thought alot about this issue since my viewpoint on it has changed 180 degrees during the last several years or so. I really want to post my response now but my girlfriend wants to go get donuts from Krispy Kreme:yummy:

So Ill post a bit later on tonight. I am really looking forward to this discussion:joy:

Ill be back.



Russ

[Sher]

Today @ 01:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106510#post106510)
steadele:

... but my girlfriend wants to go get donuts from Krispy Kreme:yummy:

/ot Oh :poke: Could you be any more mean? :wink: ........ Where's ours? :lol:

[$cirisme]

I consider myself YEC, but only as much as I consider myself Molinist. (Read: somewhat resonable--but won't debate it, and won't commit to it, yet)

I am looking forward to this. :smile:

[dizzle]

Me too!!

[Wesley's son]

OEC present

[Warcraft3]

Here is a major problem I have with OEC. To me, Genesis very clearly states that there was no animal death from carnivory before the fall.
I think that within the garden of Eden there was no carnivorous activity, but I think that outside of the garden there was. I think that the focus of that section in Genesis 1 is Adams role as a caretaker of the earth. Thus I see God specifically mentioning vegetation as the foundation of the food chain, not necessairly as a diet restriction for animals. At the bottom of the food chain is vegetation, and we need to take care of it or all will suffer.

So I guess I see the focus here as being Adams stewardship, not diet restrictions.


If we are to believe that the fossils predate the fall you have carnivory and cancer and dreadful diseases before that time. That is in contradiction to the principles of Romans 8.
I do not see suffering as necessairly connected with the fall. I believe that suffering before the fall is consistent with Genesis. For one thing I see God telling Eve that He will greatly increase her suffering, not that He will introduce suffering. Also I find Gods command to Adam to subdue the earth to imply that there was something to subdue. What I mean is, I believe this implies that the creation was not perfect and would have resisted Adams control and so he was going to have to work for it.

I see the very existance of the garden of Eden itself an indication that the earth was a dangerous place for Adam and Eve. God put them in a protected environment precisely because there were dangers outside in the world. I believe that Adam and Eve could have exeprienced physical death in the garden, but God provided a supernatural means for keeping them alive..........the tree of life.

I do not believe that man needs to be restored to paradise, but rather that we need to be delivered from it. The creation does not groan for deliverance because of carnivores or thorns, but because of sinful man. I believe the only ones who experienced death as a result of the fall, was man.


While I do not divide over this issue at all, I agree it has far reaching and important implications. In the same way I do with futurism. I feel it is in obvious error, but I do not divide.

I would like to discuss these issues further with you, as I find you a good debater with a good attitude. What I have written above was very a sketchy description of my position without too many details or scripture. I hope to get more in depth with specifics as you make comments or ask questions.


Russ

[Socrates]

Dee Dee has nailed one of the major problems with all old-earth views. Despite many detractors going on about "biblical literalism" (and ignoring the reasoned grammatical case YECs make as well as the fact that it was the view of the historic church), the issue of sin-death causality is at least as important.

Indeed Genesis 1:29–30 clearly points to an original diet of vegetarianism for both humans and animals.

‘And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.’

This was before Eden was even mentioned, so it is a worldwide phenomenon. This is further supported by God’s permission to Noah after the Flood to eat meat (Genesis 9:3):

‘Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.’

This makes no sense at all unless Noah had previously been only vegetarian as Genesis 1:30 teaches. Again, no hint that this was merely an Edenic phenomenon, since the Flood was about 1500 years after mankind had been expelled from Eden. And since Noah was vegetarian, then it's totally logical that the previous verse was teaching that animals were as well. But carnivory in animals began after the Fall—see Did God create carnivory? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0927ep4.asp#carnivory) for some explanations.

[Sher]

Hi Russ,

I'd be interested in your Biblical support for carnivorous activity outside the garden.

And for re:For one thing I see God telling Eve that He will greatly increase her suffering, not that He will introduce suffering.

But isn't this a bit nitpicky (no insult intended ... I lack a better word there)?

Gen 3:16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Does God saying He was going to give her a great amount of sorrow presuppose that there was sorrow to begin with? Or is it more likely that He is going to just give her a large amount to begin with? There is also a conjuntion there ... so "greatly multiply" (or whatever words depending on your particular version) would also modify "your conception" ... but Eve hadn't conceived up to that point. YLT also bears up to this point:

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband is thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.'

I'd be interested to hear your take on this, Russ. Please don't take my verbage as being negative towards you ... I am looking forward to calm Science discussion in here between brothers/sisters ... :teeth:

:angel:

Sherry, YEC ... but not a scientist :teeth:

[Omega Red]

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


Genesis 1:29-30 would account for the reason why we have vestigial organs such as the appendix, but the organ is also explained through evolution. This passage sounds like part of what God wanted man (mankind) to do with regards to dieting. Specifically God drew up a simple contract for the first “spiritually awakened or fully conscious” man; Adam (& Eve) had a number of things to follow (Genesis 2:15-17) and they didn’t. Hence sinning. Sin, as I was lead to believe from my Latin/Greek teacher way back when, was also used in archery meaning to miss the mark. Adam & Eve had some simple rules to follow and they missed the mark that God set them.

As for the beasts, a question that I’d like to raise is “was there any place world wide with enough local bio-diversity to supply all the essential amino acids (aa)?”. Now if the original contract between God and Adam was for him to be vegetarian, we can assume there must have been all the essential aa’s in local vegetation for Adam and Eve to survive in the garden of Eden. But what about the rest of the world? These aa’s take time to accumulate through the trophic layers and become readily available in higher organisms. A simple question then, would a tiger have enough time or the benign characteristics to mope around a jungle as a fruitarian? Also how does anyone envisage Adam & Eve’s fall directly affecting animal behaviour – like killer whales toying with seal-pups before they eat them? So IMHO it seems that man was given God’s idea of what would constitute a good diet, does it mean they (mankind, beast & birds) followed it? Yes, but perhaps for a short time only.

[Omega Red]

“If we are to believe that the fossils predate the fall you have carnivory and cancer and dreadful diseases before that time. That is in contradiction to the principles of Romans 8.”


This idea of suffering (synonyms: pain, distress, agony) is a particularly interesting one for the debate of whether it occurred before Adam & Eve’s downfall. Usually our thoughts conjure up some protracted illness or willful torturing. In my mind I do associate a lot of emotion with the word suffer. It seems quite likely that man and/or animals would have experienced some form of pain before the downfall. For example Adam gets hungry: receptors send info between the brain and the stomach (enzymic activity, nothing to digest), send impulses back to the brain via nerve cells, Adam goes and finds food, satiated the nerve impulses stop. Simplistic, but does show the activation/use of nerve cells. Did Adam ever experience being burned by fire, treading barefoot on a pine cone? These would also trigger pain, but not necessarily in a willful torment kind of way, rather in a warning don’t do that kind of way. For animals this is reflected in Glenn Miller’s essay on Predation (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/predator.html) goes into a lot of depth on disassociating the emotion in suffering related to the occurrences of pain and says "So, 'nature' is not at all indifferent to minimizing suffering--it is a positive goal in the predatory venture." Not to be taken out of context I will say that his article was considering suffering in the animal kingdom post-Eden.

I believe that Adam was the first man capable of committing willfull torture because he was the first "fully awakened" man that could realise how his actions affected someone else. And this is why there probably was no "suffering" in this sense before Adam & Eve's downfall.

[Omega Red]

... but probably pain.

One day I might get the hang of these posting things. Anyway, would like to hear someone else's take. Brother to brother/sister, so to speak.

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107675#post107675)
Omega Red:

Genesis 1:29-30 would account for the reason why we have vestigial organs such as the appendix, but the organ is also explained through evolution.

But it wouldn't account for why someone would make the mistake like that. The appendix is NOT vestigial, because it is rich in lymphatic tissue and plays an important role in the immune system esp. in the neonatal stage. See www.answersingenesis.org/docs/357.asp

This passage sounds like part of what God wanted man (mankind) to do with regards to dieting. Specifically God drew up a simple contract for the first “spiritually awakened or fully conscious” man; Adam (& Eve) had a number of things to follow (Genesis 2:15-17) and they didn’t.

They were the first man and woman who ever lived, and were the ancestors of all others (Gen. 3:20, 1 Cor. 15:45).

Hence sinning. Sin, as I was lead to believe from my Latin/Greek teacher way back when, was also used in archery meaning to miss the mark. Adam & Eve had some simple rules to follow and they missed the mark that God set them.

This is correct.

As for the beasts, a question that I’d like to raise is “was there any place world wide with enough local bio-diversity to supply all the essential amino acids (aa)?”.

The vegetation was cursed at the Fall. Before then, it probably had enough, so that spiders could live indefinitely on pollen caught in their webs, as they can do only for a limited time now -- see www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_spiders.asp

Also how does anyone envisage Adam & Eve’s fall directly affecting animal behaviour – like killer whales toying with seal-pups before they eat them?

I've already cited some principles which can be applied on a case-by-case basis at http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0927ep4.asp#carnivory

[Omega Red]

Socrates

Sorry to post and run, but I’m about to leave for a conference in Hiroshima and then jump on a plane back home to England for a 2 week break. I found the article on the “lion that wouldn’t eat meat” very interesting. It also mentions the lion’s diet as containing milk and raw eggs (which both provide some essential amino acids). So how would the lion obtain milk and eggs around the time of the garden of Eden? Would the act of eating raw eggs be one of predation? And I can’t imagine a fully grown lion still suckling, but then maybe there are some cases?

Anyway, thanks for the info on the appendix - I think I need to head back to the biology class :teeth: Still had the image of enzymic activity for cellulose breakdown, shows what limited research can do to the mind! As for the first documented case of Adam and Eve being the first to ever live - any insights on the Nehphilim which survived the flood? Views on this (http://www.dangoor.com/74068.html)?

Cheers once again.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 08:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107931#post107931)
Omega Red:

Sorry to post and run, but I’m about to leave for a conference in Hiroshima and then jump on a plane back home to England for a 2 week break. I found the article on the “lion that wouldn’t eat meat” very interesting. It also mentions the lion’s diet as containing milk and raw eggs (which both provide some essential amino acids). So how would the lion obtain milk and eggs around the time of the garden of Eden? Would the act of eating raw eggs be one of predation?

The eggs were probably unfertilized, as most eggs used for food are.

And I can’t imagine a fully grown lion still suckling, but then maybe there are some cases?

Possibly, but the main point is that lions NEED not eat meat, and neither do dogs -- they are fed veges in Indonesia even today, because meat is so expensive. Probably in the pre-Fall world, they would not have needed even the milk and egg supplements.

Anyway, thanks for the info on the appendix - I think I need to head back to the biology class :teeth: Still had the image of enzymic activity for cellulose breakdown, shows what limited research can do to the mind! As for the first documented case of Adam and Eve being the first to ever live - any insights on the Nehphilim which survived the flood? Views on this (http://www.dangoor.com/74068.html)?

The link was broken. But if it refers to the Nephilim in
Numbers 13:33, the word seems to be derived from naphal (to fall). So it could have become a generic term for large people, just like we refer to a Goliath or a Titan.

[Wesley's son]

The teeth of herbivores and the teeth of carnivores are quite different, to serve the processing of the different diets of each type of animal. Why don't lions have the same teeth structure as cows?

[Wesley's son]

...off immediate topic, but within the confines of the thread..


The age of the universe being 15 billion years was calculated by various Jewish scholars (studying the first chapter of Genesis) centuries before the 20th.

"Nechunya (1st century AD) and DeMin Acco (13th century AD)
used the 42-letter name at the start of Genesis
to calculate that the Age of Our Universe should be
42 x 1,000 Divine Years,
and that a Divine Year should be 365 x 1,000 years,
so that the Age of Our Universe should be
42 x 1,000 x 365 x 1,000 = 15,330,000,000 years,
a figure that is consistent
with present-day astronomical observations and calculations. "

- from http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/Torah.html#Ezekiel


As an OEC I find it fascinating that modern science is just now (only about 50 years ago) discovering what ancient people (studying God's word) already knew.

PS. I am not using the above quote as an all-in-all proof of the old age of the universe. I was also aided in my persuasion of the validity of OEC by reading Genesis and the Big Bang By Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He has an article on the age of the universe here: http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

[Socrates]

Wesley's son:The teeth of herbivores and the teeth of carnivores are quite different, to serve the processing of the different diets of each type of animal. Why don't lions have the same teeth structure as cows?Oh, but according to www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2_lion.asp lions NEED not eat meat, and the atheistic evolutionist Rufus Atticus has an avatar of a cow eating a rabbit.

As I have already pointed out, the general principles to decide such questions are explained at www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0927ep4.asp#carnivory

And once more, Dee Dee and I have presented Scriptural arguments that that animals were orginally created vegetarian. So we should decide what our primary authority should be -- the Bible or man's fallible ideas about our current cursed world.

Wesley's son:As an OEC I find it fascinating that modern science is just now (only about 50 years ago) discovering what ancient people (studying God's word) already knew.

PS. I am not using the above quote as an all-in-all proof of the old age of the universe. I was also aided in my persuasion of the validity of OEC by reading Genesis and the Big Bang By Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He has an article on the age of the universe here: http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.htmlThe non-christian Schroeder's appeal to kabbalistic fantasies means nothing. It still distorts the meaning of the text, which should be understood plainly not twisted by numerological nonsense. See also this critique of his Schroeder's bizarre compromise theories www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4355news8-1-2000.asp

Orthodox Christian commentators such as the Church Fathers and the Reformers, and even traditional Jewish historians such as Josephus, hadn't the slightest doubt that the earth was merely thousands of years old -- see my post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=53088#post53088

[Wesley's son]

Today @ 09:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108462#post108462)
Socrates:

Wesley's son:The teeth of herbivores and the teeth of carnivores are quite different, to serve the processing of the different diets of each type of animal. Why don't lions have the same teeth structure as cows?Oh, but according to www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2_lion.asp lions NEED not eat meat, and the atheistic evolutionist Rufus Atticus has an avatar of a cow eating a rabbit.

As I have already pointed out, the general principles to decide such questions are explained at www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0927ep4.asp#carnivory

And once more, Dee Dee and I have presented Scriptural arguments that that animals were orginally created vegetarian. So we should decide what our primary authority should be -- the Bible or man's fallible ideas about our current cursed world.

Wesley's son:As an OEC I find it fascinating that modern science is just now (only about 50 years ago) discovering what ancient people (studying God's word) already knew.

PS. I am not using the above quote as an all-in-all proof of the old age of the universe. I was also aided in my persuasion of the validity of OEC by reading Genesis and the Big Bang By Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He has an article on the age of the universe here: http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.htmlThe non-christian Schroeder's appeal to kabbalistic fantasies means nothing. It still distorts the meaning of the text, which should be understood plainly not twisted by numerological nonsense. See also this critique of his Schroeder's bizarre compromise theories www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4355news8-1-2000.asp

Orthodox Christian commentators such as the Church Fathers and the Reformers, and even traditional Jewish historians such as Josephus, hadn't the slightest doubt that the earth was merely thousands of years old -- see my post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=53088#post53088

Umm...I intended to ask why did the Lord give differing animals differing mastication tools. The AIG link only states that lions can eat a vegtable only diet and live. Great, so can humans. But my question was not addressed.

I don't think the Lord just arbitrarily gave the lion sharp inscisors and the cow flattened molars and left it at that.

Dr. Schroeder did not come to his interpretation of Genesis on his own. The commentaries he draws from are hundreds of years old. And he does not employ the Kabbala like a mystic or magician would (which would be reprehensible indeed); rather it is a reference to the Talmud and the Torah. Furthermore Dr. Ross on his Reasons site states that except on one point, Dr. Schroeder's creation theology is sound. see here -> http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/p9401.shtml?main

While perusing Reasons.org I found this tidbit that seems to be at odds with placing Josephus as a YEC.

"Many of the early church fathers and other Biblical scholars interpreted the creation days of Genesis 1 as long periods of time. The list of such proponents includes the Jewish historian Josephus (1st century); Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, apologist, and martyr (2nd century); Origen, who rebutted heathen attacks on Christian doctrine (3rd century); Basil (4th century); Augustine (5th century); and, later, Aquinas (13th century), to name a few.1-5"

with the references here:

Free, Joseph. Archaeology and Bible History. (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1950), pg. 50.
Augustine. "The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Books Four and Five," in Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation. edited by Johannes Quasten, Walter J. Burghardt, and Thomas Comerford Lawler. Number 41, St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis. translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor. Volume I, Books 1 - 6. (New York: Newman Press, 1982), pp. 13~148.
Augustine. "The Confessions, Book XIII, chapters 48-52, in Great Books of the Western World, volume 18, Augustine. edited by Robert Maynard Hutchins. (Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 1952), p.124.
Augustine. "The City of God, Book XI, chapters 7-8, 30-31" in Great Books of the Western World, volume 18,Augustine. edited by Robert Maynard Hutchins. (Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 1952), pp. 326, 339-340.
Aquinas, Thomas. Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Volume One. edited and annotated by Anton C. Pegis. (New York: Random House, 1945), pp. 680-681.


I really encourage you to check out his (Schroeder's) article I linked to in my previous post. It may clear a few things up.



:smile:

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108536#post108536)
Wesley's son:

Umm...I intended to ask why did the Lord give differing animals differing mastication tools. The AIG link only states that lions can eat a vegtable only diet and live. Great, so can humans. But my question was not addressed.

It was in the link. But my question was not addressed, e.g. why don't you believe God's revelation that He created animals and humans vegetarian

I don't think the Lord just arbitrarily gave the lion sharp inscisors and the cow flattened molars and left it at that.

No, this could have been turning on latent genetic information at the Fall, or perhaps the lion did have this information expressed at creation but used these sharp teeth for plants, as do pandas and pacus.

With your moniker, you might be interested in what the real John Wesley said -- he was very clear that originally, there was no carnivory -- I cited him in this post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=49433#post49433

While perusing Reasons.org I found this tidbit that seems to be at odds with placing Josephus as a YEC.

[quote]"Many of the early church fathers and other Biblical scholars interpreted the creation days of Genesis 1 as long periods of time. The list of such proponents includes the Jewish historian Josephus (1st century); Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, apologist, and martyr (2nd century); Origen, who rebutted heathen attacks on Christian doctrine (3rd century); Basil (4th century); Augustine (5th century); and, later, Aquinas (13th century), to name a few.1-5"

:rofl: You didn't check out the post I linked to did you? :whack: It was actually a direct response to that very claim by Ross. But I actually cited several of the people Ross mentioned and showed that Ross was misleading. His supporters such as Wienerdog and Steadele agreed that Ross was not accurate in the above. Simply put, there is not a trace of a long-creation-day interpretation in any of these, and they were explicit YECs.

I really encourage you to check out his (Schroeder's) article I linked to in my previous post. It may clear a few things up.

And I encourage you to check out the link to the critique. I fail to see why the opinions of an unsaved Jewish scientist should mean so much. He relies on fruitloopy Kabbalistic numerology, while I rely on Paul's teachings on death coming through sin (Romans 5:12-19, 8:20-22; 1 Cor. 15:21-22,26,45), and Jesus's claim that people were there "from the beginning of creation" (Mark 10:6).

[Sher]

/ot Even with opposing "sides" of Creation Science ... It's nice to see a sarcasm free discussion ... for once :thumb:

Carry on :rockon:


:angel:

[Warcraft3]

Sherbear:

Hi Russ,

I'd be interested in your Biblical support for carnivorous activity outside the garden.

I am not sure if I see either view directly supported by scripture. If there was a time when the diets of animals changed, then why is it not mentioned? I would think this would be important info for Adam and Eve to know and I wonder why it is left out. From my view point it makes sense since I do not believe the purpose of the verses in Genesis 1 is restricting diet. But from a YEC viewpoint, I have trouble understanding it for the following reason: If God was making comments to Adam specifically about the diets of man and animals, and then after the flood God makes mention of mans dietary change, then why is there no mention of carnivorous activity either after the fall or after the flood? I find it hard to believe that it simply is not mentioned. Thus, I believe it is not mentioned because nothing did change with respect to the animals diet after the flood or after the fall.


“ For one thing I see God telling Eve that He will greatly increase her suffering, not that He will introduce suffering. ”


But isn't this a bit nitpicky (no insult intended ... I lack a better word there)?

Perhaps a bit.........

Gen 3:16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Does God saying He was going to give her a great amount of sorrow presuppose that there was sorrow to begin with? Or is it more likely that He is going to just give her a large amount to begin with?
Well I could see it taken either way, but here is why I take the view I do. God says he will greatly multiply her sorrow, which implies to me that Eve knew exactly what sorrow was (although perhaps a much lesser version within the protected environment of Eden). He also tells Eve that now she will concieve in "pain", causing me to believe that Eve knew full well what pain was (and how unpleasant it is) and had experienced at least some "pain" before. I liken this to when God told Adam "in that day you will surely die". Adam knew full well what physical death and spiritual death were, and knew it was a negative thing for him.


There is also a conjuntion there ... so "greatly multiply" (or whatever words depending on your particular version) would also modify "your conception" ... but Eve hadn't conceived up to that point. YLT also bears up to this point:

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband is thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.'

Well up to this point Eve had not yet given birth. But I belive that even if they had not sinned, they would have still had sex and eventually she would have given birth. I think that God would have supernaturally eased the pain though while they were still in Eden.

I'd be interested to hear your take on this, Russ. Please don't take my verbage as being negative towards you ... I am looking forward to calm Science discussion in here between brothers/sisters ...

I do not take it as negative in the least, and I will try to get into more detail tomorrow, since its late and i should sleep.




Russ

[Sher]

Today @ 11:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108608#post108608)
steadele:

Sherbear:

I am not sure if I see either view directly supported by scripture. If there was a time when the diets of animals changed, then why is it not mentioned?

Oh ... :poke: You're gonna make me open my Bible program now, aren't ya? :lol:

Gen 3:17-19 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return."
Here, we do see a change in diet for humans ... or at least a change in how the diet would be satisfied. Herbs of the field, not beef of the cow :lol:

Of course, that changed later after the Flood ... where permission was given to eat meat.

Thus, I believe it is not mentioned because nothing did change with respect to the animals diet after the flood or after the fall.

Or it is possible that it isn't mentioned (if it is indeed not mentioned ... I'd have to review honestly) ... because Scripture is intended for man ... not beast ... so dietary changes for animals might not have been recorded for that very reason. :shrug:

Well up to this point Eve had not yet given birth.

And that is really one issue I have with saying the whole pain/sorrow thing ... if increase of sorrow is applied as previous sorrow ... than increase of pain in childbirth has to be applied as well because of the conjunction ... it applied to both with the AND ... but we know that Eve had not given birth. If it doesn't apply to that, then it can't apply to the other .. because of the conjunction

And I still see the word study re: "days" with ordinal/cardinal numbers and morning/evening as very persuasive for Biblical proof of the 6 days of Creation ... which definately negates for me a creation over a vast period of time ... or "goo to you via the zoo" (which I had to add because it makes me :lol: each and every time)

I do not take it as negative in the least, and I will try to get into more detail tomorrow, since its late and i should sleep.

Sweet dreams!

:angel:

P.S. Forgive me for editing your color green ... it was too hard on my eyes to preview :smile:

[Wesley's son]

To Brother Socrates,

--concerning the diet of the animals before the Fall/Flood

I am in complete agreement with Bro. Russ' statement in an earlier post.

"I think that within the garden of Eden there was no carnivorous activity, but I think that outside of the garden there was. I think that the focus of that section in Genesis 1 is Adams role as a caretaker of the earth. Thus I see God specifically mentioning vegetation as the foundation of the food chain, not necessairly as a diet restriction for animals. At the bottom of the food chain is vegetation, and we need to take care of it or all will suffer."

--concerning Ross' employment of the early father's as long-day believers.

Thanks for the heads up. I did not know that.


--concerning death beginning after the Fall-through sin

Adam body didn't expire after their disobidience. So was God failing to make good on his promise of death. No, the death from disobidience was a spiritual one, a severing of relationship with the Lord.

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108633#post108633)
Wesley's son:


[Other points noted :thumb:

--concerning death beginning after the Fall-through sin

Adam body didn't expire after their disobidience. So was God failing to make good on his promise of death.

Not at all, when you understand the Hebrew. The literal translation of Genesis 2:17 is ‘dying you shall die’. This is best explained by taking the promise of death in an ingressive sense. That is, a verbal form that designates the beginning of an action, state or event. In other words, the focus is on the beginning of the action of dying, which results in the translation ‘... for when you eat of it you will surely begin to die.’

I heard Peter Sparrow, Australia's Creation Bus man, give this analogy: if a branch is chopped off a tree and it falls onto hard concrete, one can say that it’s already dead, cut off from the source of life. But the process of physical death takes some time¯the cells in the leaves will continue to photosynthesize for several days at least. Similarly, when Adam sinned, he immediately cut himself off from the Source of life, but the dying process took 930 years

No, the death from disobidience was a spiritual one, a severing of relationship with the Lord.

This is simply not the effect of the punishment. Genesis 3:19 says:

‘In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.’

How on earth is this punishment merely "spiritual death"? Also 1 Corinthians 15:21–22 states:

‘For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.’

Here again, the death brought by Adam's sin is contrasted with the resurrection brought by Christ. Since no Christian denies that Jesus rose physically from the dead (a spiritual resurrection would not empty the tomb!), logically Adam's death must also have been physical.

[dizzle]

This is exactly what I hoped for in this section. I do hope you guys continue and start other threads as well.

[Socrates]

:angel: Of course -- Steadele, Wienerdog, and Wesley's Son are all true Christians who genuinely believe in the authority of Scripture, so there is plenty of common ground here :thumb:

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 05:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108760#post108760)
Socrates:

:angel: Of course -- Steadele, Wienerdog, and Wesley's Son are all true Christians who genuinely believe in the authority of Scripture, so there is plenty of common ground here :thumb:

Quite true Socrates:thumb: I am enjoying this discussion and will be responding to Sherbears post and also your post later on today.

We have plenty of common ground indeed as believers. :cheers:

Now back to the debate......:fight:


Russ

[Warcraft3]

Sherbear:

I had a responce to your latest post, but alas, I lost it:bawl:. I will post my reply some time early this evening.

**I have not forgotten about you Socrates,:whip: I will respond as soon as I am done with the post to Sherbear.**




Russ

[dizzle]

The Board Monster ate it!!!!

[Sher]

Today @ 07:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109451#post109451)
Dee Dee Warren:

The Board Monster ate it!!!!

ARGH ... that has been happening a lot lately ...

My suggestion is to click on your reply, "select all" and "copy" before you preview (if you have windows, I don't know how this would work on a Mac) ... if the Board Monster gets it ... you can click back ... and paste from your clipboard

:angel:

~ Sher

/ot does anyone ever roll-over and look at the "attitude message" in posts?

[Warcraft3]

Sherbear:

***All previous statements by myself are in red while sherbears statements are in blue.***

I am not sure if I see either view directly supported by scripture. If there was a time when the diets of animals changed, then why is it not mentioned?



Oh ... You're gonna make me open my Bible program now, aren't ya?
But of course :thumb:

Scripture Verse: Gen 3:17-19 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return.


Here, we do see a change in diet for humans ... or at least a change in how the diet would be satisfied. Herbs of the field, not beef of the cow
:lol: Yes indeed. I think this "diet change" in humans is an important point. Ill get back to this in a bit.........

Of course, that changed later after the Flood ... where permission was given to eat meat.
Yes another diet change for humans. Scripture does seem to indicate a diet change for humans in these verses. When you take all three instances(the fruit in the garden, then the herb of the field, and finally the declaration about meat after the flood)
of God speaking to man about his diet you do get a strong implication that God is speaking about mans actual (assuming man obeys of course) diet. Now, if I assume that when God is speaking in Genesis 1:30 He is declaring the exact diet of the animals, then i find it strange that He does not mention the change in diet from non-meat to meat. Thus I said,
Thus, I believe it is not mentioned because nothing did change with respect to the animals diet after the flood or after the fall.
And you replied,
Or it is possible that it isn't mentioned (if it is indeed not mentioned ... I'd have to review honestly) ... because Scripture is intended for man ... not beast ... so dietary changes for animals might not have been recorded for that very reason.
If the drastic change in the animals diet is not mentioned, then why is it mentioned in chapter 1? Moreover, since God does mention three different diets for man and the first (the one they ahd while in the eden environment) time He does mention it, He also says something about the animals.......Then I would expect a declaration about the change in the animals diet to follow that of mans, just like in Genesis 1:30. But it is not mentioned at all. I believe it is not mentioned because Genesis 1:30 is not actually a description of the diet of animals. I believe the context is established in Genesis 1:28 as God instructing man in his role as a stewart of the earth.


Well up to this point Eve had not yet given birth.



And that is really one issue I have with saying the whole pain/sorrow thing ... if increase of sorrow is applied as previous sorrow ... than increase of pain in childbirth has to be applied as well because of the conjunction ... it applied to both with the AND ... but we know that Eve had not given birth. If it doesn't apply to that, then it can't apply to the other .. because of the conjunction
Actually alot of translations simply say "pain" or "sorrow" in childbirth and do not separate the two. So lets assume for now that it simply is referring to the pain of conception only, without some other general "pain" or "sorrow".

Now since Eve had not yet given birth, how could her pain be increased? Well I believe that had Eve concieved while in a pre-fall state that things would have been much easier for her. Thus I see God saying that the potential pain would be increased. Also the fact that God uses the word "pain" implies to me that Eve knew exactly what pain was and had experienced it at least enough to know it was not pleasant. I see this theme of increased suffering and pain continued in verses 17 - 19.

And I still see the word study re: "days" with ordinal/cardinal numbers and morning/evening as very persuasive for Biblical proof of the 6 days of Creation ... which definately negates for me a creation over a vast period of time ... or "goo to you via the zoo" (which I had to add because it makes me each and every time)
Yes the days are quite another matter entirely. I have heard it said that days 2-7 are worded slightly differently than day 1. I believe Schroeder in fact makes this argument. If I remember it correctly the view is that the text says, "first day" but after that it says "a second day" "a third day" etc. I am not saying that this argument is air tight, but I have heard many arguments back and forth on this issue, and I am not sure the nature of the days is set in stone within the context of the creation account.

And yes the phrase "goo to you via the zoo" really is quite funny.
Im going to end my post here, because Im on the phone and it really is quite distracting.....

P.S. Forgive me for editing your color green ... it was too hard on my eyes to preview

Yeah Ill have to try the dark green next time, it was a bit hard on the eyes.


Russ

[Sher]

Thanks Russ ... that was very insightful and interesting :thumb:


:angel:

[Warcraft3]

Hey Socrates, sorry I did not get to post a reply to you tonight as I said I would. I will make a reply to your post my first TWEB priority tomorrow night. :thumb:



Russ

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 09:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109536#post109536)
SherBear:

Thanks Russ ... that was very insightful and interesting :thumb:


:angel:

Thanks Sherbear.


Russ

[wienerdog]

I think that God's "vegetarian mandate" in Gen 1:29-30 was said to Adam and Eve before they had sinned. Gen 2 goes into further detail by saying that before they sinned, they lived in the garden of Eden. Therefore, I conclude that this description only applied within Eden. The various passages in the Bible regarding the death wrought by sin are modified by their context to refer to human death. I don't see any biblical grounds for extending it to include animal death.

I don't think Soc really demonstrated on the discussion thread about the Church fathers that they didn't believe that the days of creation were long periods of time. Last time I checked, he said that they believed the creation days corresponded to the ages of world history (1000 years each); and I responded that only Irenaeus represents it this way. The rest, as far as I know, simply state that that the days of creation are 1000 year periods. Of course, they could have meant that they corresponded to 1000 year periods, but they don't say so.

[Warcraft3]

wienerdog:

Hey man long time no see (in a thead that we are both posting in anyway:smile: )

Good to have ya here!! I do enjoy your posts and hope I see more of them.

:thumb:

Russ

[dizzle]

NOTE: Sorry about referring to everyone in the third person but that is the only way I could respond to different posts without being confusing


Okay I had stated:


Here is a major problem I have with OEC. To me, Genesis very clearly states that
there was no animal death from carnivory before the fall. If we are to believe
that the fossils predate the fall you have carnivory and cancer and dreadful
diseases before that time. That is in contradiction to the principles of Romans
8.

Russ had said:


I think that within the garden of Eden there was no carnivorous activity, but I
think that outside of the garden there was. I think that the focus of that
section in Genesis 1 is Adams role as a caretaker of the earth. Thus I see God
specifically mentioning vegetation as the foundation of the food chain, not
necessarily as a diet restriction for animals. At the bottom of the food chain
is vegetation, and we need to take care of it or all will suffer.

But that is not what the text says, and it misses the counterpart in the NT.

Let me explain.

Genesis 1:28-31 – God blessed them and told them, “Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. Be masters over the fish and birds and all the animals.” 29 And God said, “Look! I have given you the seed-bearing plants throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. 30 And I have given all the grasses and other green plants to the animals and birds for their food.” And so it was. 31 Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was excellent in every way. This all happened on the sixth day.
The context is the entire earth. It was the entire earth that the animals were created over, and the entire earth that mankind was to multiply, fill, and subdue. And in this context, the vegetarian diet is proscribed for all the animals in all the earth. Russ later brought up that the diet change for man is mentioned later (meaning all man, not just in the Garden which then leads to the analogous conclusion here) but that the diet change for animals is not mentioned, and sees that as significant. I do not because the focus after the Fall is on God and man. The animals and creation fall into the background. There is no purpose to mention it. Here the focus is the harmony of the very good creation.
So I guess I see the focus here as being Adams stewardship, not diet
restrictions.

But that does not mean that the details such as diet restrictions would be incorrect.

I do not see suffering as necessarily connected with the fall. I believe that suffering before the fall is consistent with Genesis. For one thing I see God telling Eve that He will greatly increase her suffering, not that He will
introduce suffering. Also I find Gods command to Adam to subdue the earth to
imply that there was something to subdue. What I mean is, I believe this implies
that the creation was not perfect and would have resisted Adams control and so
he was going to have to work for it.

Are you then saying that “suffering” would have been part of God’s “very good” creation? And cancer and vile diseases? The pronouncement to the woman does teach that there was suffering before the fall, especially since it refers to childbirth which she had not yet done. And to subdue means to rule and take dominion. It does not have to imply active resistance, but merely brining the land and earth under man’s control. It is neutral. And Russ had said that he saw that this implied that Adam and Eve knew what suffering was before the Fall. Well they didn’t know what nakedness was, the fall imparted to them the knowledge of evil, which they did not have before. Intuitively we know that suffering and death is evil. This is something that they did not know before, it was knowledge given at the fall when “their eyes were opened.”

Also I think this view does not do justice to the redemptive story and context. Paul tells us that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs having been subjected to the curse. He does not refer to just an expulsion from the Garden into a world that was already groaning and laboring.

Romans 8:20-22 – For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

The creation (the whole world) was subjected to frustration and bondage to decay. The world outside the garden changed. This same creation is groaning to be liberated.

I see the very existence of the garden of Eden itself an indication that the earth was a dangerous place for Adam and Eve. God put them in a protected
environment precisely because there were dangers outside in the world. I believe
that Adam and Eve could have experienced physical death in the garden, but God
provided a supernatural means for keeping them alive..........the tree of life.

I cannot comment there since you are arguing from an assumption and silence. Not automatically wrong, it is just hard to argue for or against. I do know that the Bible says that God pronounced his creation very good and that the curse is described upon being the whole earth. If nothing changed outside the Garden, it was not much of a curse.

I do not believe that man needs to be restored to paradise, but rather that we need to be delivered from it. The creation does not groan for deliverance because of carnivores or thorns, but because of sinful man. I believe the only ones who experienced death as a result of the fall, was man.

Then why is the consummative imagery of the Bible filled with paradise symbolism if it something to be delivered from and not restored to? God specifically says that the ground was cursed because of Adam which contradicts what you just said, and this must mean the ground outside the Garden or it would make no sense. So the ground outside the garden was very different than it is today, and has been cursed.

I would like to discuss these issues further with you, as I find you a good debater with a good attitude. What I have written above was very a sketchy
description of my position without too many details or scripture. I hope to get
more in depth with specifics as you make comments or ask questions.

Thank you very much. I do not debate these issues very often, and am not on the level with this stuff that I am on eschatology.

Socrates pointed out regarding the vegetarian diet:

This was before Eden was even mentioned, so it is a worldwide phenomenon. This is further supported by God’s permission to Noah after the Flood to eat meat (Genesis 9:3):

“‘Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you
the green plants, I give you everything.’”



This makes no sense at all unless Noah had previously been only vegetarian as
Genesis 1:30 teaches. Again, no hint that this was merely an Edenic phenomenon,
since the Flood was about 1500 years after mankind had been expelled from Eden.
And since Noah was vegetarian, then it's totally logical that the previous verse
was teaching that animals were as well.

And I agree.

SherBear said:

And I still see the word study re: "days" with ordinal/cardinal numbers and morning/evening as very persuasive for Biblical proof of the 6 days of Creation ... which definitely negates for me a creation over a vast period of time ...

And I agree. It takes an awful lot of explaining away and hermeneutical gymnastics to get around that one. Which of course is why I am a preterist, and do not understand why all YEC are not.

[Warcraft3]

Dee Dee:

Good post. Between you, Socrates, and Sherbear I see I will have my hands full.......:juggle:

And I wouldnt have it any other way :cool:

Ill respond as soon as I send Socrates a short reply as I promised yesterday.



Russ

[Socrates]

Today @ 07:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=110337#post110337)
wienerdog:

I think that God's "vegetarian mandate" in Gen 1:29-30 was said to Adam and Eve before they had sinned. Gen 2 goes into further detail by saying that before they sinned, they lived in the garden of Eden. Therefore, I conclude that this description only applied within Eden. The various passages in the Bible regarding the death wrought by sin are modified by their context to refer to human death. I don't see any biblical grounds for extending it to include animal death.

SherBear pointed out that Adam's vegetarian diet persisted after he was expelled from Eden (Genesis 3:17–19) and I showed that it was still in existence till God gave Noah permission to eat meat after the Flood (Genesis 9:3). Dee Dee has just pointed out that Romans 8:20–22 refers to a futility to which the whole creation was subjected to. So since the human vegetarian diet was instigated at Genesis 1:29 with no hint that it was confined to Eden, then the next verse must be teaching the same for animal diets.

I don't think Soc really demonstrated on the discussion thread about the Church fathers that they didn't believe that the days of creation were long periods of time. Last time I checked, he said that they believed the creation days corresponded to the ages of world history (1000 years each); and I responded that only Irenaeus represents it this way. The rest, as far as I know, simply state that that the days of creation are 1000 year periods.

Lactantius also said the same thing. So please find one who states what you claim. In fact, this is impossible, since they all agreed that the earth was <6000 years old when they wrote, so there is simply no room for 1000-year-long creation days.

And in that thread, I conclusively proved that Church Fathers that Ross had explicitly stated as believing in long creation days believed nothing of the kind :whack:

Of course, they could have meant that they corresponded to 1000 year periods, but they don't say so.

But you'll find that they DO say so. You will never find them saying that the creation days WERE millennia.

[Warcraft3]

Yesterday @ 02:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108677#post108677)
Socrates:

Wesleys son said:

[quote]--concerning death beginning after the Fall-through sin

Adam body didn't expire after their disobidience. So was God failing to make good on his promise of death.


And Socrates responded:
Not at all, when you understand the Hebrew. The literal translation of Genesis 2:17 is ‘dying you shall die’. This is best explained by taking the promise of death in an ingressive sense. That is, a verbal form that designates the beginning of an action, state or event. In other words, the focus is on the beginning of the action of dying, which results in the translation ‘... for when you eat of it you will surely begin to die.’

I heard Peter Sparrow, Australia's Creation Bus man, give this analogy: if a branch is chopped off a tree and it falls onto hard concrete, one can say that it’s already dead, cut off from the source of life. But the process of physical death takes some time¯the cells in the leaves will continue to photosynthesize for several days at least. Similarly, when Adam sinned, he immediately cut himself off from the Source of life, but the dying process took 930 years

Okay Socrates says two things here that I agree with (yes you heard me right I do indeed agree) "you will surely begin to die" and also Socrates statement "the dying process took 930 years"
Now I agree with these two statements. The part where I do not agree is this. Why were they going to physically die? Well I would say that the physical death was simply an after affect of the spiritual death they died that day. Notice that God specifically mentions the tree of life after the fall. I believe this is a critical statement, (Genesis 1:22-24; NIV version)

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Notice that they were not guaranteed physical death because of the fall itself. Had they been allowed to partake of the tree of life they would have lived forever (in a sinful, spiritually "dead" state). God actually placed a cherubim and a flaming sword to prevent them from eating of it, pretty serious stuff.

So I see the spiritual death occuring as a direct result of the fall, but the physical death was because of a decision God made after the fall. ****As a side note I also think the fact that only man was given such a thing as a "tree of life" implies that only man was not meant to suffer physical death in the pre-fall world. The animals were not given a special means of avoiding death because they were not meant to live forever****



Wesleys son (by the way are you really Wesleys son?:shifty: ) also said:
No, the death from disobidience was a spiritual one, a severing of relationship with the Lord.


And Socrates responded:
This is simply not the effect of the punishment. Genesis 3:19 says:

“ ‘In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.’ ”
Now I agree that physical death to MAN was an after affect of the fall, but not DEATH IN GENERAL. Only man had the tree of life and was meant to live forever. So physical death was an after affect of the spiritual death.

Socrates also added:
How on earth is this punishment merely "spiritual death"? Also 1 Corinthians 15:21–22 states:

“ ‘For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive

Here again, the death brought by Adam's sin is contrasted with the resurrection brought by Christ. Since no Christian denies that Jesus rose physically from the dead (a spiritual resurrection would not empty the tomb!), logically Adam's death must also have been physical.

Yes spiritual and physical death came to man as a result of the fall, but the animals did not experience spiritual or physical death as a result. They can not experience spiritual death, and since they were not spiritual beings they were not meant to live forever in the first place (via the tree of life).

I would think that since God mentions animals all thorughout the scripture, that such a fundamental change in the earth or animals would be mentioned, but it is not. Now I know everyone is thinking at this point, "The earth is not mentioned? What about verse 19 you heretic?" Dont worry Ill get to it in my post to Dee Dee............


Russ

[Warcraft3]

Dee Dee said:

Okay I had stated:

“
Here is a major problem I have with OEC. To me, Genesis very clearly states that
there was no animal death from carnivory before the fall. If we are to believe
that the fossils predate the fall you have carnivory and cancer and dreadful
diseases before that time. That is in contradiction to the principles of Romans
8. ”



And then she quoted me:


I think that within the garden of Eden there was no carnivorous activity, but I
think that outside of the garden there was. I think that the focus of that
section in Genesis 1 is Adams role as a caretaker of the earth. Thus I see God
specifically mentioning vegetation as the foundation of the food chain, not
necessarily as a diet restriction for animals. At the bottom of the food chain
is vegetation, and we need to take care of it or all will suffer.

Dee Dee then responded:

But that is not what the text says, and it misses the counterpart in the NT.

Let me explain.
Yes please do :teeth:


Scripture Verse: Genesis 1:28-31 – God blessed them and told them, “Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. Be masters over the fish and birds and all the animals.” 29 And God said, “Look! I have given you the seed-bearing plants throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. 30 And I have given all the grasses and other green plants to the animals and birds for their food.” And so it was. 31 Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was excellent in every way. This all happened on the sixth day.

And then Dee Dee commented:

The context is the entire earth. It was the entire earth that the animals were created over, and the entire earth that mankind was to multiply, fill, and subdue.I agree with everything you just said.

And in this context, the vegetarian diet is proscribed for all the animals in all the earth.
Here is where we part company. The context is the whole earth, but the focus is still on Adams stewardship of the "whole earth." I agree the context is the whole earth, but the purpose of that context is related to stewardship.

Russ later brought up that the diet change for man is mentioned later (meaning all man, not just in the Garden which then leads to the analogous conclusion here) but that the diet change for animals is not mentioned, and sees that as significant. I do not because the focus after the Fall is on God and man. The animals and creation fall into the background. There is no purpose to mention it. Here the focus is the harmony of the very good creation.
But the creation is mentioned in verses 17-19. Ill get back to this point in a second......I agree with you that the focus is on God and man after the fall, but I also think this focus applies before the fall as well. When God begins speaking to man in vese 28 He is giving man instructions, then in verses 29 and 30 He is giving man information to help him fulfill these instructions. So I believe the purpose in God pointing out vegetation (with respect to animals) to Adam is to bring his focus on those things that are most important to him fulfilling the commands given in verse 28. Thus my view of the "bottom of the food chain" argument.

Now as to verses 17-19 in chapter 3......
Here the focus is (in my view continuing from genesis 1) on God and man. Yet God mentions the earth (thorns and thistles, etc). Now why does He do this if the focus is on God and man and not the earth? Because mans relationship to the earth had changed as a result of the change in the relationship with God. No longer would man be in the garden...No longer would things be easy...No longer would man be protected. So the ground was "cursed....for your sake" because now sinful humans would be ruling over the creation, instead of the pre-fall humans. So the earth was cursed with sinful humans as caretakers.

I also said:
“ So I guess I see the focus here as being Adams stewardship, not diet
restrictions. ”
And Dee Dee replied:
But that does not mean that the details such as diet restrictions would be incorrect.
Correct, it does not necessarily imply what I am saying it does.

I also said:
“ I do not see suffering as necessarily connected with the fall. I believe that suffering before the fall is consistent with Genesis. For one thing I see God telling Eve that He will greatly increase her suffering, not that He will
introduce suffering. Also I find Gods command to Adam to subdue the earth to
imply that there was something to subdue. What I mean is, I believe this implies
that the creation was not perfect and would have resisted Adams control and so
he was going to have to work for it. ”

And Dee Dee responded:

Are you then saying that “suffering” would have been part of God’s “very good” creation? And cancer and vile diseases?
LOL This one always gets me in trouble with the YEC people. Yes I do think it was part of the "very good" (not "perfect") creation. Keep in mind that before Adam and Eve had sinned, that Satan had already fallen. So sin was already present in creation before the fall of man. I believe mankind is the vessel that God is using to conquer evil through once and for all. I also believe that without suffering and death, things would have been too easy for mankind. There would not have been much work involved in "subduing" a world which was completely complient. So, yes I do think that "suffering" and death was part of the creation. If it was not then I see no purpose for a "tree of life".

Now, God told man that he would "die" if he ate the tree of knowledge. I agree that God is referring to both spiritual and physical death here. Notice that Satan tells Eve, "You will not surely die". She knew exactly what death was and believed the lie she was told by Satan. I believe Adam and Eve knew exactly what death was, both spiritual and physical.

Dee Dee also said:
The pronouncement to the woman does teach that there was suffering before the fall, especially since it refers to childbirth which she had not yet done. And to subdue means to rule and take dominion. It does not have to imply active resistance, but merely brining the land and earth under man’s control. It is neutral. And Russ had said that he saw that this implied that Adam and Eve knew what suffering was before the Fall. Well they didn’t know what nakedness was, the fall imparted to them the knowledge of evil, which they did not have before. Intuitively we know that suffering and death is evil. This is something that they did not know before, it was knowledge given at the fall when “their eyes were opened.”
I addressed some of the points in this statement earlier in this post, so I will only address what remains.
Correct, they did not know that they were naked. But they did not have a discussion about being naked with either God or Satan. In fact it is not mentioned except in chapter 2 verse 25 as a comment by Moses. So they did not discuss being naked, but they did discuss death and the statement of "increaseing" her suffering implies a degree of suffering before the "increase" after the fall.
Dee Dee also said:
Also I think this view does not do justice to the redemptive story and context. Paul tells us that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs having been subjected to the curse. He does not refer to just an expulsion from the Garden into a world that was already groaning and laboring.


Scripture Verse: Romans 8:20-22 – For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

The creation (the whole world) was subjected to frustration and bondage to decay. The world outside the garden changed. This same creation is groaning to be liberated.
Notice it says, "was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. "
Now the creation was subjected to "bondage" in hope. In hope of what? In hope that it would be brought into the freedom of the children of God. That freedom is the "redemption of our body". This redemption occurs because of the cleansing from sin, and I believe the conquering of sin is creations destiny. I believe when there is a new heaven and earth this will be realized, but not before. I see the creation groaning because of sinful man, that is the "decay" or "bondage" it is subjected to.

I also stated:
“ I see the very existence of the garden of Eden itself an indication that the earth was a dangerous place for Adam and Eve. God put them in a protected
environment precisely because there were dangers outside in the world. I believe
that Adam and Eve could have experienced physical death in the garden, but God
provided a supernatural means for keeping them alive..........the tree of life. ”
And Dee Dee responded:

I cannot comment there since you are arguing from an assumption and silence. Not automatically wrong, it is just hard to argue for or against. I do know that the Bible says that God pronounced his creation very good and that the curse is described upon being the whole earth. If nothing changed outside the Garden, it was not much of a curse.
I think the curse was the earth being "subjected" to the bondage of having sinful humans in a position of "dominion" over it. We certainly have caused much damage to it because of our many sins and shortcomings.

I also said:
“ I do not believe that man needs to be restored to paradise, but rather that we need to be delivered from it. The creation does not groan for deliverance because of carnivores or thorns, but because of sinful man. I believe the only ones who experienced death as a result of the fall, was man. ”



And Dee Dee responded:
Then why is the consummative imagery of the Bible filled with paradise symbolism if it something to be delivered from and not restored to?
The first "paradise" was one where sin was present. And man was a somewhat naive creature with regard to sin. The next "paradise" will be one where sin is conquered, and those with free will have already made their choice. Those who are present with God will be those who have been redeemed because of Christs sacrifice. This "paradise" is very different from the Edenic one, thus my statement "we were delivered from paradise." Maybe i should word it differently in the future.

Dee Dee also said:

God specifically says that the ground was cursed because of Adam which contradicts what you just said, and this must mean the ground outside the Garden or it would make no sense. So the ground outside the garden was very different than it is today, and has been cursed.
I believe the only thing that changed at the fall was man. God stayed the same, the earth stayed the same, the animals stayed the same, and the vegetation stayed the same. But man had changed. He was now sinful. He had willingly disobeyed God. And to have such a creature in dominion over you is a curse indeed.

I also said:
“ I would like to discuss these issues further with you, as I find you a good debater with a good attitude. What I have written above was very a sketchy
description of my position without too many details or scripture. I hope to get
more in depth with specifics as you make comments or ask questions. ”

And Dee Dee said:

Thank you very much. I do not debate these issues very often, and am not on the level with this stuff that I am on eschatology.
You are still probably beyond me when it comes to debating. I would say that I probably do not know as much as you do, so I am just doing my best here trying to answer some very difficult questions that you have asked.

Dee Dee also said:

Socrates pointed out regarding the vegetarian diet:

“ This was before Eden was even mentioned, so it is a worldwide phenomenon. This is further supported by God’s permission to Noah after the Flood to eat meat (Genesis 9:3):

“‘Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you
the green plants, I give you everything.’”

This makes no sense at all unless Noah had previously been only vegetarian as
Genesis 1:30 teaches. Again, no hint that this was merely an Edenic phenomenon,
since the Flood was about 1500 years after mankind had been expelled from Eden.
And since Noah was vegetarian, then it's totally logical that the previous verse
was teaching that animals were as well. ”



And I agree.

I agree that Noah was a vegetarian before the flood, as were all who were obedient to Gods commands. But I am sure that there were people who disobeyed this command before the flood, just as they had disobeyed other commands.

I disagree with the statement "it's totally logical that the previous verse was teaching that animals were as well" since this is using the statement to Noah as a cross reference for this verse. Since animals are not mentioned along with Noah, there is no cross reference within scripture for verse 30.

Then Dee Dee said:

SherBear said:

“ And I still see the word study re: "days" with ordinal/cardinal numbers and morning/evening as very persuasive for Biblical proof of the 6 days of Creation ... which definitely negates for me a creation over a vast period of time ... ”

And I agree. It takes an awful lot of explaining away and hermeneutical gymnastics to get around that one. Which of course is why I am a preterist, and do not understand why all YEC are not.

Well that is a different topic alltogether. I believe there are things in the text which indicate that the days are not 24 hour days, but that will have to wait until a later post.

You have worn me out Dee Dee and made my brain hurt.

:cheers:


Russ

[dizzle]

Russ, I want to point out one quick flaw that I noticed cause sometimes it takes me a long time to get back to things.....

You had said that Eve must have known what "death" was because God had told them that death would result if they ate the fruit. But you then argue that physical death was not the result of eating the fruit but spiritual death. Your logic would require that Eve knew experientially what spiritual death was. So it is possible for God to speak of a punishment that they did not "know' in that way right? So that seems to drastically undercut that portion of your argument.

Also, (egad! I know I said just one thing...) when we keep the topic to general "suffering" it is easy to just say that it could have been part of the original creation because that somewhat sterilizes what we are talking about. But what about specific dreadful diseases that existed in the animal world, in the rest of the earth outside the garden. What possible purpose would there be in that? And how could that be very good?

Now, I will say that I found a lot of your statements very well presented, better than I have heard in a long time, so my compliments there.

[Warcraft3]

Okay here is a quick response to one of the points you raised:

Dee Dee said:


Russ, I want to point out one quick flaw that I noticed cause sometimes it takes me a long time to get back to things.....

You had said that Eve must have known what "death" was because God had told them that death would result if they ate the fruit. But you then argue that physical death was not the result of eating the fruit but spiritual death. Your logic would require that Eve knew experientially what spiritual death was. So it is possible for God to speak of a punishment that they did not "know" in that way right? So that seems to drastically undercut that portion of your argument.


Well it did not take you long to ask that question. Usually people do not notice it that quickly, but you picked up on it fast. So here is the response I usually give people to that point......

Okay for now lets assume that the phrase "dying you shall die" is referring exclusively to spiritual death **(I think it is possible it may actually be referring to both spiritual and physical death here since the spiritual "death" did cause a future physical death---but for now lets ignore this point)** and is solely focusing on that aspect.

When people today talk about being "dead" spiritually we get a certain mental picture of what kind of a state they would be in. An atheist who has never been spiritually "alive" or a Christian who has never been spiritually "dead" still understands to a degree what "spiritually dead" means. We arrive at such an understanding because we know what physical death is and use this to understand the analogy.

So while Adam and Eve had not experienced physical or spiritual death at this point, they nonetheless could understand (to a degree) what spiritual "death" would be like by drawing on their understanding of physical death.

So God described what would happen to them if they disobeyed by using a term that they were familiar with, "death".


Russ

[wienerdog]

Before responding to Soc's post, I would say that I suspect that the death wrought by sin is both physical and spiritual death. But it's the physical and spiritual death of human beings. I do not believe that it is merely spiritual death, but I have a hard time excluding this and thinking it's merely physical death.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112321#post112321)
wienerdog:

Before responding to Soc's post, I would say that I suspect that the death wrought by sin is both physical and spiritual death. But it's the physical and spiritual death of human beings. I do not believe that it is merely spiritual death, but I have a hard time excluding this and thinking it's merely physical death.

Who is excluding anything? Only most OECs who claim it's merely spiritual death, including Hugh Ross. However, Calvin and Wesley agreed that the death was physical, and that's what the Bible talks about.

Calvin (Genesis, 1554; Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, UK, p. 180, 1984):

‘And therefore some understand what was before said. “Thou shalt die”, in a spiritual sense; thinking that, even if Adam had not sinned, his body must still have been separated from his soul. But since the declaration of Paul is clear, that “all die in Adam, as they shall rise again in Christ” (1 Cor. xv. 22), this wound was inflicted by sin. …Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.’

Wesley (On the Fall of Man, Sermon 57 (Genesis 3:19), 1872; http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-057.stm ):

‘Why is there pain in the world; seeing God is ‘loving to every man, and his mercy is over all his works?’ Because there is sin: Had there been no sin, there would have been no pain. But pain (supposing God to be just) is the necessary effect of sin. But why is there sin in the world? Because man was created in the image of God: Because he is not mere matter, a clod of earth, a lump of clay, without sense or understanding; but a spirit like his Creator, a being endued not only with sense and understanding, but also with a will exerting itself in various affections. To crown all the rest, he was endued with liberty; a power of directing his own affections and actions; a capacity of determining himself, or of choosing good or evil. Indeed, had not man been endued with this, all the rest would have been of no use: Had he not been a free as well as an intelligent being, his understanding would have been as incapable of holiness, or any kind of virtue, as a tree or a block of marble. And having this power, a power of choosing good or evil, he chose the latter: He chose evil. Thus “sin entered into the world”, and pain of every kind, preparatory to death.’

[dizzle]

Russ, I do not get any kind of mental picture of physical death when I envision spiritual death which is nothing like physical death really. I think the fact that you are conceding that an exact understanding is not necessary severely undercuts that point.

I think the Trinity is a good example. We have nothing with which to compare it really for there is no corresponding reality in our frame of reference. But we can describe it. The same thing with death in Eden. They could know what it is without experentially knowing what it is. They could know that it would be not being conscious. I can explain unconsciousness to a person who has never knocked out. They can understand it becasue they are conscious. Death can be understood simply from the frame of reference of not being alive since alive is something that is already understood.

I guess I am saying that at first blush that point seemed good (and I have never heard it made before I confess) when you scratch at it just a little bit, I really do not think that is a good point at all. Of course you may disagree.

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 11:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112321#post112321)
wienerdog:

Before responding to Soc's post, I would say that I suspect that the death wrought by sin is both physical and spiritual death. But it's the physical and spiritual death of human beings. I do not believe that it is merely spiritual death, but I have a hard time excluding this and thinking it's merely physical death.

No YEC that I know does. Perhaps you ran into some unusual ones.

[Warcraft3]

DeeDee:



Russ, I do not get any kind of mental picture of physical death when I envision spiritual death which is nothing like physical death really.
Well, I mean it is an analogy, so it is going to be different. But I still think it is a good analogy if one has a picture of physical death.

I think the fact that you are conceding that an exact understanding is not necessary severely undercuts that point.
Maybe, but I am not going to try and twist my viewpoint to get out of a possible weakness. I could change my story and say, "Okay the main thing that God is referring to is physical death...." but I am not going to do that. I still think the main focus was on mans spiritual death, with physical death being a secondary result. I will admit though, that I think the phrase "dying you shall die" may be referring to both types of death in the same verse. I am not sure, but I do think it is a possibility.

I think the Trinity is a good example. We have nothing with which to compare it really for there is no corresponding reality in our frame of reference. But we can describe it. The same thing with death in Eden. They could know what it is without experentially knowing what it is. They could know that it would be not being conscious. I can explain unconsciousness to a person who has never knocked out. They can understand it becasue they are conscious. Death can be understood simply from the frame of reference of not being alive since alive is something that is already understood.
Maybe. I mean, of course, God could have supernaturally revealed His meaning to them even if there was no physical death. So that is an argument which does provide a "loophole" (well I see it as a loophole :teeth:) around my viewpoint. But I still think the fact that God specifically used the word "die" implies an inherent understanding on the part of the listener. So I think their experience with the outside world (outside of Eden) provided the context to understand death.

I guess I am saying that at first blush that point seemed good (and I have never heard it made before I confess)
:thumb: Hey thanks DeeDee for the.....
when you scratch at it just a little bit, I really do not think that is a good point at all. Of course you may disagree.
......complime.......:bawl: Oh, wait, nevermind


You lure me in making me think I made a good point and then dash my hopes in one fell swoop.

Bad Dee Dee Bad:ddw: :whip:


Of course, I disagree with you that it is not a good point. But I would not call it a great point though. It is a good point, but not a great point and I do not expect the multitudes of YECs to come flocking to me to convert to my view over it. :bow: :solly:

But I do think it is consistant with my overall view on what was happening in Eden and outside of Eden. In fact I think overall, my view answers more questions than YEC does.


Russ

[Warcraft3]

I just wanted to add something to my last post that I could not add because I had too many images......

But I do think it is consistant with my overall view on what was happening in Eden and outside of Eden. In fact I think overall, my view answers more questions than YEC does.


:tongue:

[Wesley's son]

Genesis 22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, R90 knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the R91 tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He R92 drove the man out; and at the east R93 of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim R94 and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the R95 tree of life.


It seems to me that the path to immortality only existed in the Garden and more specifically on one tree. The Lord prevented A & E from eating of it and living forever. No other fruit of any other tree is listed as granting this death protection.

It seems to me that death for the rest of the world was already present before the fall. No animal is said to have access to the life fruit, even within the Garden. I think death came for A & E, not from any changes the Lord made to Earth, but because they and the rest of mankind never had an opportunity after the Fall to consume the life fruit.

[dizzle]

I am the Hit and Run Queen, it appears.....

It is quite possible that the Tree of Life would only grant this "immortality" once mortality became possible. It cannot be dogmatically read either way.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 12:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112546#post112546)
steadele:

But I do think it is consistant with my overall view on what was happening in Eden and outside of Eden. In fact I think overall, my view answers more questions than YEC does.

Amazing that Josephus, none of the Church Fathers and none of the reformers agreed if it were so clear. Rather, even the minority who allegorized the days of creation (e.g. the Alexandrian school of Origen and Augustine) were outspoken YECs. It's also amazing that conservative commentators started reading OEC and TE ideas into Scripture only after Endarkenment-inspired uniformitarian geologists claimed for ages far greater than a plain reading of Scripture would indicate.

[dizzle]

Russ, egad!!! I didn't mean to compliment and take it away!!! I will say that I have never heard that one before, so you did make me think for a bit. I hate having to work to prove a point :whip: Don't you know I am always right :ddw: :rofl:

[wienerdog]

Dee Dee and Soc: When I commented on the death wrought by sin, I was just clarifying my position by saying that I don't think it just refers to the physical death of human beings. I didn't mean to imply that you or anyone holds a contrary position.

[wienerdog]

Oops. Made a squooshie.:joy:

[wienerdog]

:bunny: Wow, I don't remember eating that!

[wienerdog]

To my little Soc puppet! :wink:
wienerdog: I think that God's "vegetarian mandate" in Gen 1:29-30 was said to Adam and Eve before they had sinned. Gen 2 goes into further detail by saying that before they sinned, they lived in the garden of Eden. Therefore, I conclude that this description only applied within Eden. The various passages in the Bible regarding the death wrought by sin are modified by their context to refer to human death. I don't see any biblical grounds for extending it to include animal death. ”

Socrates: SherBear pointed out that Adam's vegetarian diet persisted after he was expelled from Eden (Genesis 3:17–19) and I showed that it was still in existence till God gave Noah permission to eat meat after the Flood (Genesis 9:3). Dee Dee has just pointed out that Romans 8:20–22 refers to a futility to which the whole creation was subjected to. So since the human vegetarian diet was instigated at Genesis 1:29 with no hint that it was confined to Eden, then the next verse must be teaching the same for animal diets.
As a description, the vegetarian diets of those within Eden would continue if they left Eden. Herbivores remained herbivores. I disagree that there is no hint that the vegetarian diet was confined to Eden. Gen. 1:29 was spoken to humanity on the sixth day of creation. Genesis 2 qualifies this by stating that the humanity in question was Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Since these are describing the same thing, any aspect of one also applies to the other.

I don't believe that Rom. 8:20-22 is referring to the fall of humankind. At least, I'm unaware of any biblical evidence tying these themes together.

wienerdog: “ I don't think Soc really demonstrated on the discussion thread about the Church fathers that they didn't believe that the days of creation were long periods of time. Last time I checked, he said that they believed the creation days corresponded to the ages of world history (1000 years each); and I responded that only Irenaeus represents it this way. The rest, as far as I know, simply state that that the days of creation are 1000 year periods. ”

Socrates: Lactantius also said the same thing. So please find one who states what you claim. In fact, this is impossible, since they all agreed that the earth was <6000 years old when they wrote, so there is simply no room for 1000-year-long creation days.
Let me answer this with a question: if the genealogies clearly lead to a creation event circa 4000 BC, why did all of the Church fathers who gave a date place it 2000 years earlier at 6000 BC? My answer is that they believed Christ's first advent initiated the seventh day (although many also believed the seventh day was the coming age), and that the first six days were the six 1000 year periods leading up to this. Of course 6000 years is a "young earth," but 1000 year long creation days are "day-ages." They were young earth, day-age creationists.

And in that thread, I conclusively proved that Church Fathers that Ross had explicitly stated as believing in long creation days believed nothing of the kind.
Well, I disagree that you proved this. No offense.

wienerdog: “ Of course, they could have meant that they corresponded to 1000 year periods, but they don't say so. ”

Socrates: But you'll find that they DO say so. You will never find them saying that the creation days WERE millennia.
I have found that they simply describe the days of creation as periods of 1000 years each. I do not find them stating that the days of creation correspond to periods of 1000 years each.

By the way, what the heck does "whinge" mean? Is that an Australian term or something? I've never heard it.

[Socrates]

Socrates:

Lactantius also said the same thing. So please find one who states what you claim. In fact, this is impossible, since they all agreed that the earth was <6000 years old when they wrote, so there is simply no room for 1000-year-long creation days.

Wienerdog:Let me answer this with a question: if the genealogies clearly lead to a creation event circa 4000 BC, why did all of the Church fathers who gave a date place it 2000 years earlier at 6000 BC? Simple -- because they used the inflated LXX chronology. The article http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv12n1_chronology.asp has a table of the differences, and shows that the Masoretic chronology is the original.

For instance, check out Josephus' figures at www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-1.htm , and you'll see that they are very close to the LXX. His total figures are in the title ‘Book 1, containing the interval of three thousand eight hundred and thirty-three years. From the Creation to the death of Isaac.’ There isn't any room for any long creation days or gaps in the genealogies.My answer is that they believed Christ's first advent initiated the seventh day (although many also believed the seventh day was the coming age), and that the first six days were the six 1000 year periods leading up to this. Of course 6000 years is a "young earth," but 1000 year long creation days are "day-ages."No, no, nein, nyet -- missing the point AGAIN. They said that the six days of Creation CORRESPONDED to the six 1000-year periods. I have shown this typology explicitly stated by Irenaeus and Lactantius. So it's up to you to demonstrate that ANY of the Fathers took the six CREATION days as millennia.They were young earth, day-age creationists.It makes no sense what you say, as well as being totally undocumented (I've shown that Hugh Ross is a completely unreliable guide about this). The six days of creation were clearly regarded as history, and typological. The certainly knew that the sea and air creatures didn't appear in some 5th milllennium of Earth history, for example, and that man had just appeared around 1000 BC. Note also, if the six days were each 1000-year periods, then Creation would have been about 10,000 BC.I have found that they simply describe the days of creation as periods of 1000 years each. OK, WHERE. And I mean primary sources, not just from Ross.I do not find them stating that the days of creation correspond to periods of 1000 years each. Then please re-read my post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=53088#post53088 where I document it for Irenaeus. Also, Lactantius is crystal clear about the typology (Divine Institutes 7:14):

‘Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six-thousandth year is not yet complete. … Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, “In thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day [Ps. 90:4]”’

BTW, this also contradicts what WD said about Christ initiating the 7th day. Lactantius and Irenaeus said that we hadn't finished the sixth day, and Christ's SECOND Advent would initiate the 7th day. That's why we will find no age estimate of >6000 years -- they all believed that the Earth was younger than that, even Augustine. And since Lactantius said "the six-thousandth year is not yet complete", it is disgraceful that Ross cites him as another day-age advocate (Creation and Time, chapter 2).By the way, what the heck does "whinge" mean? Is that an Australian term or something? I've never heard it.It's actually a British term but common in Australia. Maybe the admins should add that to the list of terms used in their rule about complaining, bellyaching etc. about mod decisions :yx:

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 03:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113766#post113766)
wienerdog:

Oops. Made a squooshie.:joy:




Yesterday @ 03:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113773#post113773)
wienerdog:

:bunny: Wow, I don't remember eating that!

I love you Wienerdog!!!

[Warcraft3]

DeeDee:



It is quite possible that the Tree of Life would only grant this "immortality" once mortality became possible. It cannot be dogmatically read either way.

Wait a second here.......

If God put the Tree of Life there to grant them immortality once mortality became possible......

And mortality became possible only after the fall, when man was then in a sinful state........

Then why did God prevent them from eating from it after they had sinned?

If they had no need of it before the fall, and after the fall they were not allowed to eat of it because they had fallen, then why was it there in the first place?

This does not make much sense to me. But if I take the viewpoint that man was mortal from the beginning (IOW death was part of creation from the beginning) then the situation makes sense.

I find the YEC explanation of the Tree of Life to raise more questions than it answers.


Russ

[Warcraft3]

Socrates:

Amazing that Josephus, none of the Church Fathers and none of the reformers agreed if it were so clear.

I find many things in the first 3 chapters of Genesis to be rather unclear. There are many verses which seem strange to me and seem to make some interesting implications. I personally think that an Old earth view of Genesis has less ananomlies within the text than a 24 hour view does. I do not think either position is crystal clear, just that one view explains more of the text than the other. For now I will let wienerdog deal with the issue of the early fathers, since I think he is doing a good job and I am still involved with Dee Dee. Maybe Ill jump:joy: in later.



Russ

[wienerdog]

06-01-2003 @ 11:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114567#post114567)
Dee Dee Warren:

I love you Wienerdog!!!

Ha! I'd like to see some of you guys attract women by crapping on the floor! I rule! Woo-hoo!

[Sher]

Today @ 09:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115546#post115546)
wienerdog:

Ha! I'd like to see some of you guys attract women by crapping on the floor! I rule! Woo-hoo!

:rofl:

[Warcraft3]

**Notice**
This will be my last post in this thread until sometime after June 22. I have to go away with the Reserves for two weeks and I need tonight and tomorrow to pack and get ready. So I will see you all when I get back.


Russ

[TheFiveSolas]

Russ,

Thanks for your service! See you when you get back.

[Warcraft3]

Just bumping this thread so I can continue discussion later on today....I kind of forgot about it for a while.


BUMP!!!


Russ

[Warcraft3]

06-05-2003 @ 12:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118084#post118084)
TheFiveSolas:

Russ,

Thanks for your service! See you when you get back.

Oh yeah by the way...............you are quite welcome!! I love serving my country even though sometimes I hate the work I have to do.


Russ

[dizzle]

Yes Russ, thank you!

[Jedidiah]

If it is alright with you guys I would like to join the discussion. I am OEC, but do not think the issue of age is worth division.

I believe Dee Dee is on the right track pointing out the problem of death before the fall. If there was no death before the fall we have a significant problem with an old earth. I agree with Steadele that the answer to that problem is the Tree of Life. We read, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” There is only one explanation given as to how death was brought about, removal of the access to the Tree of Life. In order to stop man from living forever, He was removed from the garden and thus from the Tree of Life. The existence of the Tree of Life tells me that there was death, and it was a possibility for man.

I will be satisfied with this one issue for now. Thanks.

beeman