Does OEC...

**burgy** · January 14th 2008, 05:42 PM

There are lots of possible OEC positions. Some might have trouble; others not.

**Vertetuesi** · May 21st 2008, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by KBertsche

The main tension that I see is that most TE's view Adam not as an individual, but as collective humanity. Yet Paul in Rom 5 seems to view him as an individual, and his "one for all" theme doesn't work if Adam is collective. As long as Adam is held to be an individual, I don't see much biblical problem with human evolution. Comments?

I agree Kirk that Romans 5 implies that Adam must have been an individual. But by the same token, doesn't 1 Timothy 2:13 imply that human male and female did not always co-exist? And if so, how does that tally with the idea of human evolution from animals - wouldn't the sexes have always existed concurrently?

**KBertsche** · May 27th 2008, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Vertetuesi

I agree Kirk that Romans 5 implies that Adam must have been an individual. But by the same token, doesn't 1 Timothy 2:13 imply that human male and female did not always co-exist? And if so, how does that tally with the idea of human evolution from animals - wouldn't the sexes have always existed concurrently?

Good point. Paul seems to view the Genesis account of man's creation fairly literally, not as a figurative or symbolic explanation.

**Vertetuesi** · May 30th 2008, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by KBertsche

Good point. Paul seems to view the Genesis account of man's creation fairly literally, not as a figurative or symbolic explanation.

I agree Kirk. However, sticking with Paul for the moment, YECs contend that using no greater degree of literalism than at Rom. 5 and 1 Tim. 2, we can conclude that Paul at Romans 8:20-22 is teaching that Adam's sin/fall impacted the whole of nature, not just humanity. The problem is that all types of OEs are obliged to maintain that the Fall had zero effect on the natural world.

**franktalk** · June 2nd 2008, 11:05 PM

The natural world is the stumbling block. If you agree with Lyell then you must limit your understanding of the world to what we see around us today. I for one will not place these limits on God. I tend to believe that the past is not uniform and does not have to agree with current observations of the world. To shackle God with naturalistic methods makes God a naturalist in the world view of Darwin. I am sorry but the creator is in charge of the creation and not the other way around.

So does the OEC allow for evolution yes, but one must ask the question why? Once observed nature is interpreted by man does it follow that man is now correct? How many times in man's past has he been proven wrong? So many that I would say that we are wrong today. I don't care how many Phd's stand up and agree with each other. In a hundred years another group will toss those guys and say something completely different. How arrogant we are to assume that we have the truth in front of us and we get to see the ultimate unfolding of the universe.

Thinking themselves wise they became fools.

**KBertsche** · June 2nd 2008, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Vertetuesi

I agree Kirk. However, sticking with Paul for the moment, YECs contend that using no greater degree of literalism than at Rom. 5 and 1 Tim. 2, we can conclude that Paul at Romans 8:20-22 is teaching that Adam's sin/fall impacted the whole of nature, not just humanity. The problem is that all types of OEs are obliged to maintain that the Fall had zero effect on the natural world.

Why do you ascribe Rom 8:20-22 to the Fall of Adam? Nothing in the text says WHEN creation was "subjected to futility". Hugh Ross and many other OEC's would ascribe this to the original creation. Some others (e.g. gap theory) would ascribe it to the Fall of Satan. Yes, YEC's ascribe it to the Fall of Adam, but the text does not say this.