Death before the Fall

[A Beautiful Truth]

I think the number one issue between YE vs. OE is not the science, but the issue of death before the Fall.

Science has its place, but the YEC's that I have encountered only accept science that fits into their interpretation of scripture. They openly admit this. Therefore, I think it is pretty fruitless to debate science with YEC's.

I will give my science arguments to the seeking unbeliever, therefore, and give theological arguments to YEC who are willing to listen.

I have given an argument that deals with death before the Fall and understanding Romans 8:19-22 in the Christianity forum. I don't know how many here from the Cosmogony Forum go over to the Christianity Forum so I thought I'd mention it.

~Charleen

[Paul]

I would not describe myself as a traditional YEC. I explicated my own position or inclination in the main NS 101 forum.

I do believe in the Flood and the supposed "scientific" evidence against it would have to be as clear cut as 3+7=10 for me to really reconsider how I understand those scriptures but in no case would I come to believe that God has lied or that the scriptures are not inspired in their every single word. I sometimes make a mistake in adding 3 and 7 ... in fact in my own illustration in a post in the main forum, I goofed and assumed 3+7=11 ... which was embarassing but which served to strengthen the point I was making: we cannot trust the operation of our natural faculties more than we trust the words of God.

I think "natural revelation" does have its place. But theology must come first. The data we have from God's own hand in scripture and the teachings that we have inherited from the Apostles is God's word to us. So it ought to have primacy. Our study of "natural revelation" ought to be fit into that or arranged around that -- just as the medievals saw in certain colored flowers signs of the salvation history they knew by faith -- and not the other way around. Lower truths ought to be understood in light of higher truths.

Nevertheless what we see in natural revelation can be an aid sometimes in how we understand supernatural revelation. But the supernatural revelation ought not be made subject to the natural revelation or our understanding of the same.

[trueseeker]

Charleen,

I am a YEC, and I see no conflict with the concept that there was death before the fall, I suppect that there was physical death. Either way, I don't see why you consider that the number one issue between YE and OE perspective. I would say the main difference between YE and OE Christian perspectives is whether the accounts of creation through the tower of Babel are literal or figurative.

Or, you might have a gap or Hugh Ross theory that only the creation account is figurative, but somewhere after that the scriptures become literal.

[bigsplit]

I too have often wondered about the death before the fall of man or death in general. There is one line of scripture in the NT where Christ predicts the destruction of the Temple. I have often heard this particular prophecy used by some to argue that this is evidence that prophecies of the bible have been and are fullfilled. I have no particular argument for or against that particular lesson this scripture implies. However, having read this passage and pondered it long before I knew the history of the temple I drew a conclusion about what Christ was saying that expands the meaning of this statement.

I interpreted "not a single stone left unturned" as Christ understanding and teaching the 2nd law of thermodynamics, long before it was thought up by science. I drew this conclusion because of Christ continual messages against materialism and lust of the flesh. About his insistance that only Spirit is eternal and that all things made of matter will eventually be destroyed. The laws of Thermodynamics after all are not the creation of man, they are laws that dictate the realities of our physical Universe. Jesus must have understood these laws long before scientists did, and I always thought that this was the message Christ had in mind when he spoke those words to his friends.

This brings us back to death before the fall. The fact is the spirit never dies and still doesn't. Death is not a real concern to God, it is the law of the physical Universe that our flesh inhabits. It is man's lack of faith and his/her lust of the flesh which causes death to be the dreaded event that it is. Death is a part of life and to fear death is to fear life. "Ye tho I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil for thou art with me." We know that we walk in the mists of death and we know that oneday our physical bodies will die. The question is do we have faith the spirit is eternal? This poses an even tougher question of if the spirit is eternal what happens to it afterwards? Will I go to heaven or hell? Are there such places? These questions frieghten us and cause us to fear death which is only a transformation.

So to answer the question of death before the fall, there is no such thing as death to begin with as we are all eternal beings and going to heaven. the question is will we get to stay? I believe before the fall there was in fact the transformation from physical to spiritual or earthly death, I have no reason to believe that the 2nd law of thermodynamics did not exist before the fall. I think what changed in the garden that day was those secondary questions arose as to where will my spirit go after I die. It was the mindset of Man that changed not the physical Universe in which mankind lived and was created after the Fall.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Today @ 02:45 AM post located here
trueseeker:

Charleen,

I am a YEC, and I see no conflict with the concept that there was death before the fall, I suppect that there was physical death. Either way, I don't see why you consider that the number one issue between YE and OE perspective. I would say the main difference between YE and OE Christian perspectives is whether the accounts of creation through the tower of Babel are literal or figurative.

Or, you might have a gap or Hugh Ross theory that only the creation account is figurative, but somewhere after that the scriptures become literal.

Trueseeker,

I have appreciated your posts very much in other threads. We agree on a lot.

I think, as a YEC, you are a gem. I have never before met a YEC who also accepted death before the Fall. I hope more will see your reasoning for you are reasoning from scripture.

As for creation, I do take creation literal. In Hebrew, literal includes long ages. The argument about always having an ordinal in a numbered sequence to mean 24 hours is an argument that is not a Hebrew grammar rule. You will see that great Hebrew scholars accept no such rule.

If you look at the Hebrew word for "day" you will also see that it is also translated as "time" in many other verses. There is more to this argument from scripture, but I guess that is a different topic and you probably have heard it before.

As to the flood, you have probably heard the traditional OE argument on that as well which I adhere to. If the "whole earth" had the contextual meaning as what is traditionaly thought of in our world-traveling society, then the famine in Joseph's time extended to South America, South Africa, New Zealand as well, etc. Also, when Paul said the "whole world" had heard about the faith of the Romans, was he referring to even those in China, those who resided in the Andes, and the natives in Austrailia and Irain Jaya? No, I think it is context to Paul's world as it was to Joseph's and as it was to Noah's.

All of mankind resided in Noah's region and did not spread out until after the Tower of Babel, therefore, all of mankind was wiped out in Noah's flood. But you have probably heard all of this before.

I guess, then, the reason I say it is the death before the Fall issue that is the biggest obstacle for YEC is because I probably wrongly assume that the OE "Day" and "flood" arguments have been well understood by the YE camp. I did not feel the death before the Fall issue has been so well explained, so I have purposed to argue this point as the key point. But, you are right, I could be wrong that this is the "central" issue between our camps.

Yours,

Charleen

[trueseeker]

Charleen wrote:
'...I do take creation literal. In Hebrew, literal includes long ages...'

I have discussed the issues with a lot of OEC, but I have not heard any of them say they take the creation story literally. With the exception of a few who have said they will take the creating of Adam on as literal. Which in many ways is what YEC feel is the most important issue, that man was created not evolved and that there was a original Adam and Eve and original sin - the fall. Eliminating these most of us feel changes the centeral theme of the Bible.

Regarding the other events on the days of creation, it is not just because the word YOM is used that YEC feel they must have only been a single day. Also the description of a night and a day on each YOM, and because of the order in which things were created. For example - plants were created before the sun, moon and stars. That could literally be a day before, but how could it literally be ages before?
________________

Charleen wrote:
'...As to the flood, you have probably heard the traditional OE argument on that as well, which I adhere to...All of mankind resided in Noah's region and did not spread out until after the Tower of Babel, therefore, all of mankind was wiped out in Noah's flood. But you have probably heard all of this before.'

Yes, and I don't have a problem with this type of interpretation of the event if it fit with all of the verses describing it, but I don't feel like it does.

Gen. 6:13 '...the earth is filled with violence because of them.'
It seems to me that God is saying men have covered the planet here, and brought their violence with them. It may sound odd, but I think there may have been more people on the earth before the flood, than there are living today. So my perspective is that a local flood wouldn't have destroyed all of them.

Also if it was just a local flood, why would God want Noah to take all the animals? There would have been plenty of animals outside the flood region to migrate back in and repopulate it. Especially birds, why take birds if the flood is only local?

Gen. 7:21-22: 'all flesh that moved of the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life died.'

It just seems to me that the way it is described, it must be the entire earth.

Blessings!

[A Beautiful Truth]

Yesterday @ 05:13 PM post located here
trueseeker:

Charleen wrote:
'...I do take creation literal. In Hebrew, literal includes long ages...'

I have discussed the issues with a lot of OEC, but I have not heard any of them say they take the creation story literally. With the exception of a few who have said they will take the creating of Adam on as literal. Which in many ways is what YEC feel is the most important issue, that man was created not evolved and that there was a original Adam and Eve and original sin - the fall. Eliminating these most of us feel changes the centeral theme of the Bible.

Let me affirm that I also believe that Adam and Eve were literally specially created by God, relatively recently--thousands, not millions of years ago. Adam and Eve had no previous ancestors, no evolutionary line of descent. I also believe this for every species in the animal kingdom. I believe polar bears were created to be polar bears and not even evolved from a single bear pair off the ark. I believe zebras were also specially created and not evolved from a horse pair off the ark, I also believe that lions, tiger, cheetahs were specially created as well and not evolved from a single "cat" pair off the ark. As you can see, I believe in less evolution than most YEC's who attribute these changes from "kinds" off of the ark. You may object to this being called evolution, but it is only the YEC scientists who would call this merely micro evolution. Especially given the time frame off the ark, getting that kind of diversity off the ark is incredible. In five thousand years, if the Lord terries, what will become of humans? (a joke, of course) Besides, I am always amazed that YEC like to even use science. Since they believe their Bible interpretation is right, why do they even care to try to find ways to "bolster" their interpretation through science? Do they think science has any bearing on the believability of scripture? If they do, then their accusations of OEC are hypocritical.

Regarding the other events on the days of creation, it is not just because the word YOM is used that YEC feel they must have only been a single day. Also the description of a night and a day on each YOM,

Trueseeker, I think that you may not have heard the OEC responses to your concerns. For that reason, and not because I am trying to persuade you, I would like to respond to your objections. I want you to know that a Bible believing Christian who holds to an old earth can also believe that the Bible is totally error free. Again, I am not trying to push this or anything, but I don't think you have heard the OE answers.

First, please notice the seventh day. There is no evening, no morning. Would the seventh day also be confined to 24 hours? No--the seventh day continues on as evidenced elsewhere in scripture. While God still works on our behalf, He has rested from special creation. His seventh day of rest will cease when He creates a new heaven and earth.

Also consider the argument that as it starts with evening and ends with morning, this would fit into the "day" pattern given as if to say, there was nothing--evening, then there was something--morning. It is not without the given pattern of "day" and it is reasonable, even if it is not your take on it.

and because of the order in which things were created. For example - plants were created before the sun, moon and stars. That could literally be a day before, but how could it literally be ages before?

It is a matter of the point of view of the observer. Notice that the point of view is specified in Genesis 1:2 from the surface of the waters. From this vantage point, the order in the creation account is understood differently than a YE interpretation which fails to recognize that the events are to be interpreted from this frame of reference.

A quick side note about frames of reference--does the sun rise and set as scriptures say? Well, it does from the vantage point of earth from where the author of the Psalm wrote. Galileo tried to drive this vantage point idea home.

And so it is with Genesis one. The vantage point from the surface of the waters needs to be considered in order to properly interpret--just like the vantage point of the writer of the Psalms. But I dare say if it were not for some key inventions in past centuries, many Bible readers would say that the sun did the moving because "the Bible says so" in the Psalms--it rises and sets--it does the moving.

So, considering now the vantage point of the earth, the order of events is much different than the YE interpretation.

In day four when the sun, moon and stars are mentioned, it says "Let the lights" and "God made" and "God placed" because it was God who had created them--and they show up to the observer on earth on day four after the cloud cover on earth breaks up enough to see them. The writer did not mention them earlier for they were not yet visible from the vantage point of the surface of the earth so the writer here explains, now that the sun, moon, and stars are visible, that it was God who created them.

The light in vs. 3 was orginally from the sun, but the actual sight of the sun was hidden until day four.

And this is again why I wonder that YEC even uses science apologetics. What scientific explanation could they give to what this light could have been? "The glory of the Lord"--perhaps, some energy yet to be fully explained?--could be. But if the Bible cannot be tested scientifically, and you just take it by faith, then you might as well be a Mormon or a Buddhist. Those religions fail scientifically but are taken by faith nonetheless. I needed to know that I can believe in the scriptures, not because I was born into America and America is a Christian country, but because the scirptures could stand up to objective testing and be found true. Ours is the only Holy Book that can stand up to scrutiny. However, the YEC interpretation of the Holy Book cannot. The YE interpretation of Genesis would need to be taken entirely by faith. If it is all by faith, how do you know which religion is right? No, you need to know why you believe. Likewise, do we accept the resurrection because a couple of guys said so? No--we have hard evidence and Paul made a point to give hard evidence. I believe it is the same with creation. If God did it, He is not going to hide what He really did and only show a particular group of Christians called YEC--no--for He made the Heavens themselves to decalare the glory of God so everyone can see. What God has made holds mankind accountable in knowing that there is a God who created--why would He only show YEC's His evidence in creation? As I said, even atheistic scientists see problems with evolution, but there is no such evidence for a young earth.

But our God can be found by those who do not even seek for Him. And our God calls the world into accountability--even scientists. And while non-Christian scientists can see the failures of Darwinian evolution, they do not see the failures of an old earth. It seems if God calls us all to accountability, it should not be just YEC who can see the evidence for a young earth. As I said, even non-YEC scientists who are atheists can see evidence for design against evolution.
________________

Gen. 6:13 '...the earth is filled with violence because of them.'
It seems to me that God is saying men have covered the planet here, and brought their violence with them. It may sound odd, but I think there may have been more people on the earth before the flood, than there are living today. So my perspective is that a local flood wouldn't have destroyed all of them.

Again, the "earth is filled" is Noah's earth. Like the famine in Josephs time spread to Joseph's world, the faith of the Romans spread to all of Paul's Roman world, etc. You must remember that these guys were not world travelers like we are today. The world for them meant something different to them than it does today where we have mapped the whole world.

Also if it was just a local flood, why would God want Noah to take all the animals? There would have been plenty of animals outside the flood region to migrate back in and repopulate it. Especially birds, why take birds if the flood is only local?

For his economy, his sacrifice, his food after the flood. It would have taken a while for the animals to migrate back and God wanted to him to be able to start right back up again. Animals are very important to the kind of society that Noah had. And, remember, since I don't believe in a global flood, I do not believe Noah had to take penguins or other animals that were not in his region.

Gen. 7:21-22: 'all flesh that moved of the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life died.'

It just seems to me that the way it is described, it must be the entire earth.

Well, again, I believe it was Noah's world as in other scriptures the world is spoken of as a region. I do not believe that mankind spread out until the Tower of Babel.

Blessings!

Thank you, you have been a blessing.

~Charleen

[trueseeker]

Charleen wrote:
'... As you can see, I believe in less evolution than most YEC's who attribute these changes from "kinds" off of the ark. You may object to this being called evolution, but it is only the YEC scientists who would call this merely micro evolution. Especially given the time frame off the ark, getting that kind of diversity off the ark is incredible...Besides, I am always amazed that YEC like to even use science. Since they believe their Bible interpretation is right, why do they even care to try to find ways to "bolster" their interpretation through science? Do they think science has any bearing on the believability of scripture? If they do, then their accusations of OEC are hypocritical....'

Well I am quilty as charged. My perspective right now is that the diversity off the ark has been incredible. To me science is observing the physical universe to try and understand our reallity. I accept the Genesis accounts as actual observation of events that happened in the physical universe, and I add my observations, and I struggle to understand exactly what the descriptions meant in Genesis and exactly what my observations mean.

Although I am a YEC, I agree with you that some YEC people are hypocritical in their judgementalism toward OEC people and some evolutionists for that matter who are honestly trying to find the truth as well. I sincerely hope you don't think I fall into the hypocritical category just because I am a YEC and also try to observe the natural universe.
_____________

Charleen wrote:
'...I want you to know that a Bible believing Christian who holds to an old earth can also believe that the Bible is totally error free...'

I do understand what you are saying, and I have heard many OEC interpretations of Genesis. Many OEC are just struggling to understand the descriptions of the events in Genesis like I am. Of course it makes more sense to me, that the descriptions are describing actual days and a global flood, that is why I am a YEC.
_________________

Charleen wrote:
'And this is again why I wonder that YEC even uses science apologetics...I needed to know that I can believe in the scriptures...because the scriptures could stand up to objective testing and be found true. Ours is the only Holy Book that can stand up to scrutiny. However, the YEC interpretation of the Holy Book cannot. The YE interpretation of Genesis would need to be taken entirely by faith. If it is all by faith, how do you know which religion is right? No, you need to know why you believe....'

Your argument is circular here. You say the Bible can stay up to scrutiny, and we should know why we believe, but we YEC shouldn't try to test our interpretation of scripture against science, we should only accept it by faith or reject it.
_____________

Charleen wrote:
'If God did it, He is not going to hide what He really did and only show a particular group of Christians called YEC--no--for He made the Heavens themselves to decalare the glory of God so everyone can see.

Amen. But still not everyone does see.
_____________

Charleen wrote:
'What God has made holds mankind accountable in knowing that there is a God who created--why would He only show YEC's His evidence in creation? As I said, even atheistic scientists see problems with evolution, but there is no such evidence for a young earth.'

I think a fairer statement is that you haven't seen any evidence that is convincing to you. The truth is all of human knowledge is like a blade of grass on a football field, compared to all there is to know. And much of what we think we know is incorrect. I suppect that God will open our eyes one day to reveal a lot more understanding of our existance. And none of us will have had it exactly right.

I won't carry on further point by point, but I do understand what you are saying. If I didn't interpret Genesis the way I do, I would think that the universe was much older than I do from a YEC stand point. The main and most important evidence to me that the earth is young is because of my personal interpretation of the description of events in Genesis. You and others may see that as foolish, ignorant, unscientific, having blind faith, but I freely admit it anyway.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Today @ 05:58 PM post located here
trueseeker:

Although I am a YEC, I agree with you that some YEC people are hypocritical in their judgementalism toward OEC people and some evolutionists for that matter who are honestly trying to find the truth as well. I sincerely hope you don't think I fall into the hypocritical category just because I am a YEC and also try to observe the natural universe.

No, indeed.

Charleen wrote:
'And this is again why I wonder that YEC even uses science apologetics...I needed to know that I can believe in the scriptures...because the scriptures could stand up to objective testing and be found true. Ours is the only Holy Book that can stand up to scrutiny. However, the YEC interpretation of the Holy Book cannot. The YE interpretation of Genesis would need to be taken entirely by faith. If it is all by faith, how do you know which religion is right? No, you need to know why you believe....'

Your argument is circular here. You say the Bible can stay up to scrutiny, and we should know why we believe, but we YEC shouldn't try to test our interpretation of scripture against science, we should only accept it by faith or reject it.

No, I probably did not explain myself well enough. What I meant was that to take the YE interpretation of the Genesis order of events is to take the account by faith for most scientifically aware YEC understand that the YE interpretation is a far cry from non-YEC science.

For example:

In the YE interpretation, the earth was created *before* the sun and stars. Only YE scientists and YE Christians believe this. This is not made evident by investigation of the natural world, otherwise you would see it evidenced for the world to see. It seems, then, that it is indeed by faith for there is no natural explanation for this descrepency.

In non-YE science the earth formed out of a solar nebula. See, the material of earth is made up of exploded stars--"star dust" if you wish. Therefore your flesh even has the elements that were made in the cores of stars that had burned and gone nova--all before earth was created.

This fits well within the OE interpretation that believes that In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth to mean everything including stars, planets, etc. The Genesis order of events after that are only focused on earth and, as I said, what the observer would see from the vantage of earth's surface...

There are other examples as well if you would like to hear them...

Charleen wrote:
'What God has made holds mankind accountable in knowing that there is a God who created--why would He only show YEC's His evidence in creation? As I said, even atheistic scientists see problems with evolution, but there is no such evidence for a young earth.'

I think a fairer statement is that you haven't seen any evidence that is convincing to you. The truth is all of human knowledge is like a blade of grass on a football field, compared to all there is to know. And much of what we think we know is incorrect. I suppect that God will open our eyes one day to reveal a lot more understanding of our existance. And none of us will have had it exactly right.

Yes, but....the heavens declare the glory of God...and God is at least knowable in part, being understood through what has been made, so that man is without excuse. Again, if only YEC could see it, then how are those who study cosmology "without excuse"?

I won't carry on further point by point, but I do understand what you are saying.

Thank you for understanding.

If I didn't interpret Genesis the way I do, I would think that the universe was much older than I do from a YEC stand point. The main and most important evidence to me that the earth is young is because of my personal interpretation of the description of events in Genesis. You and others may see that as foolish, ignorant, unscientific, having blind faith, but I freely admit it anyway.

Because I think you are wrong does not mean that I also think you are foolish. If this were a salvational kind of issue, if we were debating Christianity, I would approach this differently. I feel no need to even sway you from your YE position because you are already a Christian and that is what is paramount. Please don't think I think you are foolish or ignorant. And being scientific, last I checked, was not one of those core issues. Having blind faith--well, you don't have blind faith when it comes to the resurrection, at least you shouldn't, so what does it matter if your faith is "blind" when it comes to creation--it really doesn't matter. Your faith is in Him and I respect you, I would not belittle you!

~Charleen

[grmorton]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[Dee Dee Warren]

Moderator Notice

Glenn you and I have discussed this. You do not fall within the parameters of this section. I will PM you your restored post if you like.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[PanTerra]

Very interesting post, Grmorton. That was a lot to chew on.

[grmorton]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[Dee Dee Warren]

Moderator Notice

***If you would like to take issue with this notice do not address it in this thread as that will just get you in more trouble.***
Contact the forum moderator or an Administrator in Private Message.
If you feel you must repetitively complain, whine, or otherwise publicly bellyache, please take it to the Locker Room unless told otherwise.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[A Beautiful Truth]

grmorton,

I had started a thread by the same title, "Death before the Fall" in the Christianity forum and laid out an argument from Romans 8. If you are permitted in the Christianity forum, perhaps you could dig out that thread and contribute there?

~Charleen