Uncommon Descent _{Serving The Intelligent Design Community}

Is this slam at Young Earth Creationists fair?

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 18, 2013

Creationism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Is this slam at Young Earth Creationists fair?

James McGrath says

Young earth creationists are notorious for two things (among others):

a handful of them have obtained a PhD in a relevant scientific domain, doing research the legitimacy of and basis for which they intend to repudiate as soon as they have the letters after their name, with the sole aim of adding legitimacy to the ideology that they adhered to before ever studying science; and they claim that the overwhelming consensus of those who have PhDs in biology, genetics, paleontology, geology, and other relevant scientific domains is wrong, and that these experts are untrustworthy.

They cannot have it both ways.

No?

I’m definitely not a YEC myself, but Louis Pasteur was trained in a system that accepted, on the authority of countless experts, spontaneous generation. And then, in a famous experiment, in the same year that Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, he destroyed the idea:

This not only settled the philosophical problem of the origin of life at the time but also placed on solid ground the new science of bacteriology, which relied on proven techniques of sterilization and aseptic manipulation.

Guess he shouldn’t have been allowed to do that.

And why do I drink pasteurized milk, not Darwinized milk, to this day? What did Darwin ever do for humanity that was of any similar value?

By the way some think the YECs (and anyone who thinks the universe shows evidence of design) shouldn’t be allowed to get degrees.

(Translation: Welcome to the neighbourhood, O’Leary. Just because you bought the house legally and took possession peacefully doesn’t, of course, mean you can live here in peace … Me: No? Then we need another civil rights movement pronto. I’ll start it today. Another day, I will explain why I am not YEC. A different story. – Denyse O’Leary)

Comments

Andre @50
TJGUY Very nice responses, but let us start with this? Do you understand what perfect means? How much time have you spent on understanding everything about perfection? We can interpret English meanings of words in and out of context but we may not do so with Hebrew, the original language that God’s word was written in, and always remember it is God’s word. Old Hebrew text only use the word “tov” What does “good” mean? The first use of this word is in Genesis chapter one where calls his handiwork “good”. It should always be remembered that the Hebrews often relate descriptions to functionality. The word tov would best be translated with the word “functional”. When looked at his handiwork he did not see that it was “good”, he saw that it was functional, kind of like a well oiled and tuned machine. In contrast to this word is the Hebrew word “ra”. These two words, tov and ra are used for the tree of the knowledge of “good” and “evil”. While “ra” is often translated as evil it is best translated as “dysfunctional. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_good.html So your task to start with, what is the difference between good and perfect?
Andre, thanks for your responses. You separated the issues in different posts and that makes it easier to follow. Thanks. First, in post 50, you bring up the translation of the Hebrew word “tov” which is translated “good” in the Bible. . Here is an excerpt from an article on the AiG website about this word: “In Genesis 1:31 God’s appreciation formula (good—Genesis 1:4, 12, 18, 21, 25) is modified in order to show that His creation is not just good but very good. Verse 31 states “all that He had made” instead of just individual items such as light (v. 4). When good, tov ???? , is accompanied by very, me’od ????? , it is an absolute superlative implying much more than a beautiful creation. . In their commentary on Genesis, the respected nineteenth century Old Testament scholars Keil and Delitzsch, experts on biblical Hebrew, commented on Genesis 1:31: By the application of the term “good” to everything God made, and the repetition of the word with the emphasis “very” at the close of the whole creation, the existence of anything evil is absolutely denied . . . (Keil and Delitzsch 1886, p. 67)” . I read what Jeff Benner says on his website. I don’t really know who he is, but I tend to trust the experts who over time have poured hours of study into the translation of the Bible and they always translate it “good”. If it should be translated functional, then you would think the experts would agree so I have some questions about his claim. . Also, he simply asserts that “It should always be remembered that the Hebrews often relate descriptions to functionality.” Even if this is so, I don’t see how it should influence our translation of Genesis 1. The clear meaning of Scripture seems to be “good” as opposed to simply “functional”. The dysfunctional part came about as a result of man’s sin at the fall. This has been the traditional understanding throughout most of history. . If Mr. Benner is right, then he has come up with an amazing insight that has been hidden from Jewish and Hebrew scholars all through the centuries. If he is right, it seems strange that God was unable to clearly communicate through the written word for all these years! If this is true, what else might we be missing in the Bible? . Every word has various meanings. Usually a main meaning and then sub meanings, but simply because it can have various meanings does not mean we are free to decide which meaning it should have in a particular passage. The author’s intent is most important. His description of God’s created world and the results of the fall fit quite well with the meaning of “tov” as “good” rather than “functional” in my view. You may disagree. . Just curious, but what reason do you give for saying the tree of good and evil should best be translated the of function and dysfunction? Why is “ra” best translated as dysfunctional? . What evidence do you have to back up this claim and why don’t scholars agree with you? If “Ra” is usually translated as “evil”, then there is a good reason for that. . It is the main meaning of the word which means that you need a good reason to discard it and choose a different meaning. . The Bible says that God’s creation, when finished, was “very good”. I’m willing to drop the word perfect as long as you are willing to admit that “very good” would not encompass evil, death – the last enemy, suffering, disease, pain, etc. I would say it was near perfect, but certainly it was not heaven and humans did have the capacity to choose evil. That seems to be your point in saying that it was not perfect. . I’ll grant you that point, but that doesn’t mean you can fit in all that other stuff under the meaning of an “almost perfect” world that God Himself declares to be very good. . Sin, sickness, suffering, and death are things that God is seeking to do away with. They are not very good in any sense of the word no matter how you try and spin it. They do not exist in heaven because they are not good. In fact, as I mentioned, death is the “last enemy”. God hates sin, evil, and wickedness. Jesus healed the sick. And suffering, although God is able to use it to bring about good, is not good in and of itself in any way. Jesus’ suffering on the cross was the ultimate in suffering and it was necessary only because of sin, which God hates. It is never presented as something that is good, let alone “very good”. tjguy_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT}

tjguy:
Andre:
Adam named the animals using terms that described their carnivorous activity. What did Adam name these animals? Lion: ‘a?ri?y/’arye?h; in the sense of violence ...
This I think is your strongest argument.
Really? I thought this was among the weakest. What evidence is there that Adam spoke Hebrew? Whatever language Adam used when he named the animals was surely lost at Babel, if not before. I would not think that the Hebrew names for these animals had any relation to whatever Adam originally called them.sagebrush gardener_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Andre: your post @ 56 brings up a point: is God being inconsistent when he decrees that meat can be eaten (see Genesis chapter 8) or is he adapting to what mankind's needs are? Darwin questioned why some animals are venomous, and wondered if this was part of God's creation. Consider that existing features [of animals] were put to a different use from what was originally purposed. It's obviously not possible to establish for a certainty how things were in the distant past by observing the present. Conditions have changed. But we do have a clear statement from the past, namely Genesis 1:29, 30: “And God went on to say: ‘Here I have given to you all vegetation bearing seed which is on the surface of the whole earth and every tree on which there is the fruit of a tree bearing seed. To you let it serve as food. And to every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving upon the earth and in which there is life as a soul I have given all green vegetation for food.’” This does not mean that vegetation was merely the ultimate basis for food supply through a chain of animal life. Obviously it was not the case with humans because later when they were to begin to get some nourishment from animal flesh they had to be given a special concession. (Genesis 9:3) Further, during the Flood of Noah’s day, eight humans and ‘flying creatures and all moving animals of the ground’ were obliged to live on vegetable matter exclusively for more than a year. (Genesis 6:17-21) And the fact that Isaiah 11:6-9 and 65:25 specifically state that former predators will be at peace with other animals, and the lion will eat straw like the bull, would seem to confirm that animals and humans were meant to be vegetation eaters. As for the many predators being suited for the chase and the kill, what about humans? They have shown an extremely efficient talent for attacking and killing their fellowman. Does that argue for humans’ being designed that way from the beginning? Yet, it's plausible to believe that humankind and animal kind were originally designed to live at peace with one another and to get their nourishment from vegetation. That original purpose will be restored during the Messianic Kingdom. We will have to wait and see how those prophecies are fulfilled.Barb_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

One last thing on meat, Genesis 8:21 "And the LORD was pleased with the aroma of the sacrifice and said to himself, "I will never again curse the ground because of the human race, even though everything they think or imagine is bent toward evil from childhood. I will never again destroy all living things." I don't think a God that says; NO MEAT! is going to let us know how the aroma of burnt flesh (braaivleis where I come from) pleased Him. That God is inconsistent and I'd rather not worship him because I have to ask Hey God what's it gonna be? He might change the rules again tomorrow who knows? Maybe next week he wants everyone to be vegetarian again (I'm married to one). I don't trust that God! Do you?Andre_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

TJGUY Last thing for the day; God is the unchanging standard, the unmoved mover, You have to explain to me how such a being can curse the world with death and then brag about how he uses death to feed the animals that he never intended in feeding meat in the first place! That god is of double standards if you ask me and certainly not worth following! God says No meat! and then he says hey check me feeding them animals meat, I rock! That's not the God of the Bible! He is the unchanging standard!Andre_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

TJGUY Genesis 1:29 "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb producing seed that is on the whole earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree producing seed: it shall be food for you;" It is true that God says to us he gives us all the greens as food, but lets be clear there is no prohibition on eating flesh anywhere. If it was then it would be said. God does not deceive. Also remember "the life is in the blood" means we may not drink blood again no prohibition on eating flesh.Andre_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

TJGUY Chayyah http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/2421b.htm It's literal translation is beast. Genesis makes a clear distinction between Chayyah (Beasts) and Beh?ma (Herbivores), God does not mislead, God is truth.Andre_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

OT: Today on the Michael Medved Show, Stephen Meyer Will Discuss Darwin's Doubt - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/today_on_the_mi_2073511.html the second hour of the Michael Medved Show. That's 1 PM Pacific Time, 4 PM Eastern. - Listen live here: http://www.michaelmedved.com/bornagain77_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

TJGUY Your second point about the ground being cursed, I talk about it in my article, this makes God nothing more than a vindictive and angry knob spiting the people for ruining His "perfect creation" Is this even consistent with God of the bible? I beg to differ, God is not vindictive, spiteful or petty. God is just and its perfectly explainable that his seperation from his creation would increase the growth rate of weeds, BTW weeds do serve a purpose. From an agricultural publication http://farmprogress.com/blogs-even-weeds-serve-purpose-5043Andre_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

TJGUY Very nice responses, but let us start with this? Do you understand what perfect means? How much time have you spent on understanding everything about perfection? We can interpret English meanings of words in and out of context but we may not do so with Hebrew, the original language that God's word was written in, and always remember it is God's word. Old Hebrew text only use the word "tov" What does "good" mean? The first use of this word is in Genesis chapter one where calls his handiwork "good". It should always be remembered that the Hebrews often relate descriptions to functionality. The word tov would best be translated with the word "functional". When looked at his handiwork he did not see that it was "good", he saw that it was functional, kind of like a well oiled and tuned machine. In contrast to this word is the Hebrew word "ra". These two words, tov and ra are used for the tree of the knowledge of "good" and "evil". While "ra" is often translated as evil it is best translated as "dysfunctional. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_good.html So your task to start with, what is the difference between good and perfect?Andre_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Did pain exist before the fall? Pain was part of God’s original creation and therefore creation was not perfect. The passage above clearly states that God increased pain not give us a new sensation or experience that did not exist. Genesis 3:16 “Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”
Let’s remember that in the new heaven and earth, God tells us that there will be no more pain. This seems to indicate that pain would not have been part of God’s “very good” world. In other words, it seems like it is something to be remedied and fixed and done away with. There are two different words for pain used in Gen. 3:16.
Copied from AiG website: “Both words have similar definitions, meaning “pain” and “sorrows” with other connotations like “hurt” or “labor.” So, their differences are miniscule. But really there is a two-fold aspect to this pain. There is physical pain in the actual birthing process (most mothers can attest to this) and mental anguish (e.g., sorrows) associated with having children in a sin-cursed world. Consider that Eve not only went through the pain of child bearing during delivery, but she also had to endure the loss of Abel, her own son, slain by his own brother. Consider also Mary, who saw her son Jesus die on the cross. So, there are two prongs to this, and, of course, seeing one of your children die is an extreme example. But it would be rare, if not impossible task, to find a mother who has not seen her children suffer in some manner, from starvation to sickness, cuts, scrapes, and so on.”
The article goes on to say that going from a pain free state to a state of pain in childbirth would constitute an increase in pain – zero to whatever. Same with emotional pain. But there is perhaps a better way to look at it. Note that as soon as they sinned, they experienced emotional pain. They knew they were naked and they were ashamed. They knew they had blown it big time. And when God came to see them, they hid – more emotional pain. So, when the Lord spoke to the woman and said that she would have increased pain and sorrows in childbearing, this is not to be taken as compared to the pre-Fall point, but from the Fall to the point when the Lord spoke. She began feeling pain due to sin, but then Lord revealed there was much more to come (greatly increase the pains). And, of course, it finally results in death.
Another section copied from the AiG article: “But this brings up another point: what changed during the Fall to result in pain? There are actually several possibilities, such as: 1. Sensation, as a whole, intensified at the Fall to permit pain. 2. Innerworkings of the body (e.g., the pelvis bones for childbearing) no longer function as originally designed, causing increased sensation. 3. Potential design changes at the Fall (e.g., pelvic bones for childbearing) resulted in increased sensation. 4. God no longer upholds the world in a perfect state so that extreme sensation can now be felt resulting in pain. [Recall that while the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years, their clothes did not wear out and their feet didn’t swell (Deut 8:4; Nehemiah 9:21) Remember that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were in the fiery furnace where no flame affected them (Daniel 3:27)? Moses died at 120 years old, and yet his eyes were not dim and his natural vigor was not diminished (Deut34:7)? With God upholding everything in a perfect state, there would have been no pain.] In fact, pain may be a combination of these or other factors in a post-Fall world.”
Andre said:
Why a perfect creation is not Gospel and why it matters If God’s initial creation was perfect and humans managed to bungle it up then Jesus would be nothing more than God’s plan B for us because it means that His design was flawed from the onset and he had to create a backup plan. On the other hand if creation was perfect and we never sinned because Adam never ate from the tree and there was no death ever in this supposed “perfect creation” then there could never have been a resurrection. Part of God’s original plan involved the defeat of evil. According to the Bible, Satan, God’s highest created angelic being, rebelled against God, taking one third of the angels with Him. These beings attempt to deceive human beings into following them into rebellion against God. Jesus Christ came to earth as part of God’s original plan to defeat evil and redeem mankind. God has a higher purpose for this creation than the prevention of evil and suffering. The Bible indicates that evil and suffering provides believers with a means to witness to others, including angels, about our faith. Suffering also produces patience and endurance and conforms us to the image of Christ, the purpose for which we were created. God will not restore original paradise He will destroy it and He will create everything new. If God’s original creation was indeed perfect as some believe then there would be no reason to destroy it, God can just restore it. The Bible is clear God will destroy this good, very good and not so good creation and will create a brand new perfect creation. If two of God’s perfect creation have been corrupted it pretty much says that the designer sucks! Worse still if He is also perfect and His perfect creations became tainted so can He! The evidence however suggest that we where not created perfectly and there is a reason for that, That reason is free will.
God uses both of these words to refer to what will happen in the future. In Acts 3:21, He uses the word “restore”. “until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.” (most certainly a reference to Is. 11 & 65.) And in other passages He uses the word “destroy”. It seems that God will completely destroy what now exists and create a new heaven and earth which will be a restoration of what originally existed in many ways. God’s original plan before He even created the world was to send Jesus to redeem mankind from their sins. Eph. 1:4 “even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.” This shows that God’s plan of redemption had already been established before creation. This plan of salvation was in place before He even created the universe. Like you said, humans had the potential to sin – in other words, they had free will. If you think the Designer sucks for creating humans with free will as opposed to creating a world full of suffering, pain, disease, evil, and death, well I guess you are welcome to your opinion. Personally, if that was the world the Creator made, I would think that Designer sucks. Likewise, you seem to be saying that free will is a flaw. So for you, a perfect creation would have been one that had robots instead of humans with free will? I guess it depends on whether you believe free will was a flaw or not. They had the potential to choose right or wrong, but they themselves were created without sin and in a perfect relationship with God. Does this mean they were imperfect? Humans certainly didn’t ruin God’s plan and to claim they did is to bring slander God’s character because you are saying that there was nothing He could do about it. The Bible is clear that God cannot sin or change so we needn't worry about Him losing His perfection. It is true that God had a higher purpose for this creation than preventing evil and suffering, but still that doesn’t mean that evil and suffering existed from the beginning as a result of His inability to create a perfect world. These things later came into the world just as God knew they would.
What does Jesus have to say about his role in this? When Jesus spoke with Martha he had the following to say; John 11:25 “Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life” It is crystal clear that from the start there has been a perfect plan and not a perfect creation. Had it been a perfect creation tainted by humans then it would have been perfectly reasonable that Jesus would have said. “I have become the resurrection so I can save you”
Try as I might, I fail to see how this verse has anything to do with whether the creation was perfect or not or why Jesus would have should have said what you claim if the original creation was perfect. Sorry, can you please explain this more?
In Conclusion Believing that God’s original creation was “perfect” in every way; that had no weeds, no diseases, no suffering, and no death is incorrect. In reality, the “perfect paradise” paradigm fails in its lack of biblical support and also in the underlying assumptions that it forces upon a “Christian” worldview. Under the “perfect paradise” paradigm, God is relegated to the position of a poor designer, whose plans for the perfect creation are ruined by the disobedience of Adam, Eve and the angels!
Only if you disregard the clear teaching of Scripture that shows He planned for the redemptive work of Jesus before He even created anything.
In this “perfect creation” idea God is now forced to come up with ” His plan B,” in which He vindictively creates weeds, disease, carnivorous animals, and death to get back at humanity for their sin. This also contradicts the Biblical teaching that God stopped with creation on day six because God would have had to biologically change all the animals so they may become carnivores, this would mean that God had to extend creation and that is blatantly false. In contrast, the universe was created with a perfect purpose, in which human beings are to choose good from evil and bring glory to God.
No, all He has to do is carry out Plan A as He planned all along. Nothing took Him by surprise. Funny how you view His punishment for sin as being vindictive, but are completely comfortable to say that God is the author of pain, suffering, bloodshed, disease, and death, and that He is completely good and His creation was "very good". Somehow, that doesn't seem logical to me. Is He a good, loving, and trustworthy God who created everything “very good?” Does that fit with pain, suffering, bloodshed, disease, and death? Not in my book. As a righteous God who hates sin and must punish sin, He is certainly more than justified in bringing a curse on the world and on humans who rebelled. Isn't a righteous God who punishes sin far better than a God who creates a world with pain, suffering, bloodshed, disease, and death? Maybe that is a matter of opinion, I don't know. I know where I stand on that issue. God would not have had to biologically change all the animals because even carnivores can live on plants and do eat plants sometimes. Certainly changes did take place in the biological world and we don’t know exactly how God did that. The Bible is not clear on that. He could have created the ability for self-defense and offense as latent genes that simply needed to be switched on at some point. He could have created them with the genetic diversity that would allow these things to evolve through adaptation and natural selection over time. He could have manually made the changes in each organism as well. After all, He created them all in 3 days so it would not have been a problem for Him to do that. So I really don't see a problem here. Sure, we are to choose between good and evil. Adam did this but made the wrong choice! He made the first choice – the choice to trust God or believe the serpent and trust his own discernment. But none of that means that evil had to exist from the beginning.
The perfect purpose as opposed to “perfect creation” states that God created the universe as a temporary place, in which evil and suffering fulfill the will of God toward a higher goal than just to give us pleasure or a supposed perfect creation for his creatures to live in.
OK, that may very well be the case, but why couldn’t it be like this? God created the universe as a temporary place, into which evil and suffering made an entrance when man sinned. In this fallen world, evil and suffering fulfill the will of God toward a higher goal than just to give us pleasure, but even evil and suffering can be used by God to bring about good and bring glory to His name. This could be true regardless of whether the original creation was perfect or not. As you know, the global flood is representative of the future global judgment that God will bring on this earth. It was truly a catastrophic event and would have created havoc with the earth’s geology. There is absolutely no way to believe in a global flood while at the same time viewing the rock layers it would have created as evidence for millions of years of slow uniformitarian geological processes, unless you take a very unscientific view of what the flood was like.
From AiG: “In the New Testament we read that the Creator and Saviour of the world became flesh and dwelt among us. In Acts 10:38 we are told that Jesus, our Creator “went about doing good.” Some of the good things Jesus did were, for example, feeding the hungry, healing diseases, giving sight to the blind, stopping natural disasters, and raising the dead. The healing ministry of Jesus was a confrontation of evil, suffering, and death. His good work of healing ministry was one that served and benefited humanity. However, the problem here for those who believe these things were part of God's original creation is this: If these things are all “very good”, why does Jesus do good works to try and counteract them? Why is eliminating them viewed as “doing good”?”
So, Andre, if Adam’s sin did not bring physical death into the world, if it didn’t bring weeds and disease into the world, if it did not bring a curse on the earth itself, then what in the world did it do? How was the earth cursed? What does it mean that weeds and thistles will come forth if they already existed? Did his sin bring only spiritual death? Perhaps the original creation was not perfect in the sense that heaven is perfect, but we can know that there was no pain, no crying, no death, and no curse. God dwelled there in the Garden and men had fellowship with God and there was no sin. At least it was perfect in this sense. I’m not sure what sense it would not have been perfect except perhaps the fact that in heaven, humans will no longer even have the capacity to sin in heaven. They will be completely justified and free from sin! I believe God’s presence will be more fully felt in heaven than it was in the Garden as well. Certainly, we’re told about the heavenly city of Jerusalem and about streets paved with gold, etc. so that would be another difference, but as far as the things that the two places have in common, both seem "very good" to me. Yet if one is filled with death, pain, suffering, disease, and sin, how can it truly be "very good"? That is what does not make sense to me. These things just seem to be opposite each other and I personally am not able to reconcile them in light of the clear statements God makes. I know there are still scientific problems for the YEC view, but no side has all the problems solved. I like the YEC view because I think it fits with Scripture and with the character of God the best. God bless!tjguy_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

How perfect was creation really? Weeds, death, pain and suffering existed before the fall ... and is a man made ideology that contradicts the Bible. I will elaborate on this as we analyze what scripture really says. Weeds & Work Weeds had a purpose in God’s creation and existed before the fall of man, if there was not any weeds why did we have to subdue the earth and cultivate and tend to the garden? If it was perfect why do all this work? 1. Genesis 1:28 “Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and subdue it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.”
I assume by pointing out this verse, you think that the word “subdue” means there was evil or bad things in the creation. But I take issue with that assumption for a couple of reasons. The command to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, subdue it and have dominion over it was given to humans. It implies populating the earth as well as using the resources God has given to us – so farming, education, commerce, even science where we discover God’s design and use it for our benefit. It also implies that we are to be caretakers of God’s world. I don’t believe that evil, weeds, bloodshed, disease, etc. can be induced simply from the use of these words especially give the clear pronouncement that everything is “very good”. The second point I would make is that the mandate was given not only to Adam but to all mankind. It has never been revoked. God knew the future. In Gen 2:24 where God performs the first wedding, he tells Adam and Eve that they should leave their parents. Why would He say that? They had no parents to leave? Obviously He gave those instructions for future generations. He knew what would happen when Adam sinned so even if you are right in saying the words “subdue” and “Rule” definitely imply imperfection, does it necessarily follow that imperfection existed at that time? Personally, I don't think so. The amount of time that the world was perfect would have been extremely short so it would make sense that this dominion mandate would be given in a way that would apply to all. So, unless you are looking for problems, I don’t see this as a problem at all.
3. Genesis 2:15 “Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.”
So cultivating and keeping it means that there were weeds? Sorry, but again, I don't follow. Aren’t we stretching things a bit here to fit our preconceived notions given what God clearly says in Gen. 3:19 that weeds came later? Neither “cultivating” or “keeping” necessarily implies weeds – again, unless you are looking for a way to find weeds before the curse. These words seem to me to imply pruning the trees, tilling the soil to get it ready for planting crops, harvesting the crops, pulling up not weeds, but seedlings of the plants that God created, etc. There was work to be done, but it didn’t necessarily entail weeds.
Did plants die before the fall? Some animals only eat the roots of plants, thus the whole plant would have died, in addition sea animals eat diatoms and microscopic plants killing entire organisms, it is clear that plant death existed already by the fifth and sixth day of creation.
As you know, the Bible teaches that “the life of the flesh is in the blood.” (Leviticus 17:11). Thus, animals which the Bible describes as having the ‘life principle’ (i.e. nephesh in the Hebrew) are those that are not only air (nostril) breathers but also those with blood. Adam became a “living soul/being” (nephesh chayy?h) when God breathed His spirit into him. However, plants do not have the breath of life in them. Nor do they have blood. Neither plants nor invertebrates are ever referred to as nephesh chayyah in the Bible. For more detail on this, please see the article entitled “The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe—Hugh Ross’s errors on plant death in the Bible”. It is important to remember that ‘no death before sin’ applies to what the Bible calls death, which is not always the way modern biologists use it. The Bible doesn’t talk about plants dying, even though modern biologists do. Rather, the Bible talks about plants withering. SO plant "death" is not a problem for the ‘no death before the fall’ doctrine.
Did animals die before the fall? The text on creation event of animals does not explicitly say if these animals are herbivores or carnivores but we can understand what the Hebrew word for beast means, that word is; chayah. When we examine the word as it is used in the Bible it is clear that the Genesis account is referring to carnivores the very same verse also makes a distinction between carnivores and herbivores by including a, herbivore (cattle) and then a beast (chayah). If the animals where all herbivores cattle could be left out because they would have been included as chayah.
These can also be divided into wild animals and domestic animals. Plus, even though the wild animals are called chayyah, it does not mean that in the beginning they ate meat. In fact, Genesis says exactly the opposite thing. Gen. 1:30.
“And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens 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.”
It is pretty clear to me at least what God is saying. He says He has given “to every beast of the earth(chayyah) and to every bird of the heavens, …everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” Interesting that He says “EVERY beast of the “EARTH”! and “EVERYTHING that has the “BREATH OF LIFE”! (nephesh chayyah) And notice this: “I have give “EVERY” green plant for food.” What does this imply? That there were no poisonous plants - yet! Interesting!
Adam named the animals using terms that described their carnivorous activity. What did Adam name these animals? Lion: ‘a?ri?y/’arye?h; in the sense of violence Hawk: sha?la?k; Bird of prey Eagle: nesher; to lacerate Owl: cha?mas; to wrong do violence to, treat violently do wrongly He named them exactly by his observations of their activities, that he saw first-hand before the fall. It is reasonable to conclude that animal death did exist before the fall based on the names of the animals.
This I think is your strongest argument. But given the predominance of the other evidence that supports ‘no death before the fall’, I am not persuaded. Here is what I would say about this. God did create carnivores on day 6, but that doesn’t mean they were carnivores from the beginning. In fact, God clearly tells us they were not. So I start from that position. Even today, there are examples of some carnivores that can survive on plants. This means that there had to be some point where these wild beasts changed from plant eating to meat eating, because the fossil record(most of which would have been laid down during the flood), shows clear evidence of this. The fall seems to be the best explanation for this. As far as the names Adam used for the animals, there are two possibilities to understand this. First of all, the names in the Hebrew Bible for specific animals came after the Flood. This means that we don’t know if they were the original names Adam chose or not. I tend to favor that explanation, but I guess one could argue that God gave Adam insight into the nature of the animals when he named them. Another point that supports the ‘no death before the fall’ which I see you didn’t refer to is the allusions to the Garden of Eden in Isaiah 11:6–9; 65:17–25 where it says “the wolf will lay down with the lamb”. etc. These passages provide further confirmation that there was no carnivorous activity before the Fall. In one common eschatological view, agreeable to many old-earth creationists, they speak of a future restoration (Acts 3:21). The picture painted is one of peace and tranquillity. We are told that ‘the wolf will dwell with the lamb’ and ‘the lion will eat straw like the ox’, etc. ‘They will not hurt or destroy’ and ‘they shall do no evil or harm’. Even if it one allows for this to be language of poetry, which is debatable, but even if that were true, would not these passages indicate AT THE VERY LEAST that there is something wrong, unpleasant or imperfect about animals killing and eating each other? Would it be consistent for the God who inspired the writing of Isaiah 11 and 65 to use millions of years of carnivorous activity as a method of creation, and then declare it to be ‘very good’?
Again quoted from AiG website: “Actually, these passages indicate very specifically that carnivorous activity is an evil—that is, a physical rather than a moral evil. The Hebrew word translated ‘hurt’ in the KJV of Isaiah 11:9 and 65:25 is raa. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the most frequent translation of this word is ‘do evil’. Other translations include ‘afflict’ and ‘do wickedly’. It is related to ra, the usual word for ‘evil’ in the Old Testament—and that includes both moral and physical evil. As for the word translated ‘destroy’ in the KJV in Isaiah 11:9 and 65:25 (shachath), the core meaning is ‘mar’ or ‘corrupt’. No wonder carnivorous activity has no place in the new creation!” “Isaiah 11:6–9 ends with the words, ‘They will not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.’ Summarizing this passage, Nigel Cameron writes: ‘Essentially it has two thrusts of teaching—it implies that there is, in fact, something fundamentally awry in the animal kingdom; that the predation and animosity which characterise it are not as they should be. And, secondly, it asserts that it is man’s religious condition that is responsible for this state of things; the absence from the earth of the “knowledge of the Lord”. Human sin and evil in nature are interconnected in a relation of cause and effect.’ ”
There is a full treatment of these two passages at the following link which gives further convincing evidence for the ‘no death before the fall’ idea. http://creation.com/the-carnivorous-nature-and-suffering-of-animals
Adam also knew what death was and this is evident when God said to Adam; Genesis 2:16-17 “But the LORD God warned him, “You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.” It is absurd to think that God would say something to Adam that he did not understand, has never seen or never experienced. It is clear Adam fully understood what death was he witnessed it first hand in the task God gave him in naming ALL the animals.
Of course Adam knew what death was, but again, I think you make too much of this. I don't think it necessarily means that he actually witnessed death in the animal world firsthand. God obviously created Adam with a whole range of vocabulary words that he already knew the meaning of from the beginning. Death would have been one of those words. Otherwise, how could God have had any kind of communication with Adam at all if he had to learn a language and the meaning of the words by experience?
God boasts about feeding the Carnivores The Bible indicates that God Himself is implicated in the death of animals. First, God killed animals to clothe Adam and Eve after the fall and then killed many animals during the flood. God set up the system of animal sacrifice for atonement of sin. In addition, scripture tells us that God created carnivores (chayah) on day 6. Contrary to a “perfect creation” doctrine, the scriptures indicate that God provides food for the carnivores of the Earth, therefore condoning the death of some animals for the survival of others. If animal death was not part of God’s “perfect creation” I very much doubt He’d be bragging about it!
You are not being fair here. This happened AFTER the fall. For that matter though, God is also implicated in the death of humans. So what? What is important is what He tells us in His Word. And He clearly tells us they were all vegetarian in the beginning. God is the author of life! He is pro life, but death is the punishment for sin. Sure, God killed an animal in the Garden of Eden, but that was not wrong. That was after Adam sinned and was a clear demonstration to them of the fact that sin brings death. As you well know, it set the stage for the idea of substitutionary animal sacrifices for our sins that eventually led up to the death of God’s Son Himself – whose death also was orchestrated by God! Again, His killing of animals was all post-Fall, so I see no problem with this. In the passages you quoted, He is showing Job His power, superiority, and glory over all creation. He is showing that He takes care of the needs of the animals and cares for them as well. God is the great Provider!tjguy_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Andre, may I respectfully interact with your criticisms of YEC theology? I recognize this is a hot issue and tempers sometimes flare. Both sides hold their views with a passion and each side believes they are right. I was reprimanded for sharing my views on the past, but that’s OK. If you can share yours, then I hope I will be granted the freedom to present mine as well. I’m not an authority on the issue, but I have graduated from Bible college and have a Masters from a seminary. I work as a missionary pastor in Japan and have a real passion to protect the authority of God’s Word. I would have no problem with an old earth if that is what God tells us in His Word, but I do not believe that is what He tells us. Please bear with me. Like Bevets said, I’m not attacking you, but just interacting with your views as a fellow believer seeking God’s truth. You said
Genesis 1 and 2 is the description of God’s creation event, not once does He say that His creation was or is perfect, God said it was good, very good and not so good, this is a far cry from the statement “Perfect Creation.” The that God’s creation was perfect is non-biblical.
Andre, the point you bring up here about being “not good” seems a bit misleading. Here is why. Eve was created on the 6th day BEFORE the creation was finished. The creation of man on day 6 is fleshed out a bit in chapter 2 where we see that God created Adam directly from the dust and Eve from a rib in his side. But yes, before the creation was finished, as should be expected, there were still some things that were not yet “good”. Eve seems to have been the last thing created and when she was created from Adam’s rib, THEN and only then, did God rest and pronounce the creation “very good.” So this objection of yours does not seem very persuasive. Also, I take issue with your claim that weeds, death, pain, and suffering existed before the fall. The Bible clearly says that weeds were sent as a result of the Fall – as a punishment for sin. I’m not sure how you can get around the clear implications of the text.
Gen. 3:17-19 state the following: “And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
Andre, first of all God Himself tells Adam here that the ground is cursed “because of you.” And He says “thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;” The clear implication is that it didn’t bring forth these things up until that point. Now his physical work will become more demanding and tiring – “by the sweat of your face”. And also, please notice that Adam is told that he will return to dust. So physical death too is clearly seen to be a part of the curse. If you try to argue that man would have naturally died before this, then the judgment pronounced on them by God loses all meaning. Death is clearly listed here as a consequence of their sin. This shows us that God had more than spiritual death in mind when he warned them not to eat the fruit in Gen. 2:17. He also meant physical death. The NT backs this up. It refers to both physical and spiritual death as having been brought about through this act of disobedience (Romans 5:12–14; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45). In the fourth century a fierce debate broke out in the early church between a British monk by the name of Pelagius and a Roman theologian in North Africa named Augustine. Pelagius believed that Adam’s sin did not result in the corruption of his nature nor did it result in natural death as Adam was created mortal. He had some other strange beliefs as well. In the year AD 418, the Council of Carthage condemned the teachings of Pelagius as did the Council of Ephesus in AD 431. The Council of Carthage even stated: “Whoever says, that Adam was created mortal, and would, even without sin, have died by natural necessity, let him be anathema”. Pretty strong words. They were very clear on this. Adam was born immortal and his sin resulted in physical death. This was the traditional belief of the Church all throughout history until the 19th and 20th century when rationalism and uniformitarianism began to have sway even in the Church. The early church fathers are virtually unanimous on their belief in a young creation. And the few who weren’t young-Earthers had other seriously unorthodox teachings. Even Augustine who is often quoted in support of old earth ideas, believed in a young earth that God created instantaneously. He allegorized the interpretation, but his young earth views were clear. See Creation and Time by Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor. See also chapters 3–5 of David Hall’s Holding Fast to Creation (Oak Ridge, TN: The Covenant Foundation, 2001) and Fr. Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation and Early Man (Platina, CA: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2000). Rose (1934–82) was an Eastern Orthodox monk and therefore an expert on the writings of the Church Fathers.tjguy_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

I confess I soon lose my way when I try to follow those who walk delicately among “types” and allegories. A certain passion for clearness forces me to ask , bluntly, whether the writer means to say that Jesus did not believe the stories in question, or that he did? When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that “the Flood came and destroyed them all,” did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his son’s wives, that is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I would have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s there days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the ”coming resurrection?” If lots wife was not turned into a pillar of salt, the bidding those who turn back from the narrow path to “remember” it is, morally, about on a level with telling a naughty child that a bogy is coming to fetch it away. Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the dominations of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him? ~ Thomas Huxley Our science of evolution won its greatest triumph when, at the beginning of the twentieth century, its most powerful opponents, the Churches, became reconciled to it , and endeavored to bring their dogmas into line with it. ~ Ernst Haeckel In the YEC view there are significant hermeneutical consequences. While the doctrine of creation pales in significance to salvation, it is also far more important than how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I dont think anyone has been uncivil. Civility should always be remembered, but it should not inhibit discussion.bevets_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Did the flood happen? Jesus specifically talks about Noah and the flood, either everything Jesus said is true or nothing, it can not be both. So yes I believe it, apart from the geological evidence, the designer of the universe himself spoke of it matter of factually.Andre_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Re: all the above comments, as I was saying . . . "A careful reading of the Bible, with consideration of symbolism, context, the literary purpose of specific passages, current scientific knowledge, and the text itself leaves, it seems, significant open questions about what, precisely, the biological conditions were and how broadly they held prior to the Fall." Lots of interesting discussion. Lots of open questions. I think a couple of things drive people to be dogmatic about this or that interpretation of ancient text: (i) a general desire to be right and know what one is talking about, and (ii) a belief that many other doctrinal points, perhaps even one's own salvation or the evidence for God, intimately depend on the particular interpretation put forward. (i) is understandable and there is value in knowing what one is talking about and being right, so far as it goes. As long as it doesn't lead to arrogance or contention. (ii) I have found is simply not the case in most instances. In the few religious-based discussions I have participated here on UD -- age of the Earth, worldwide flood, whether God has a physical body, whether we each have some underlying eternal 'intelligence' not created by God -- it simply does not matter to one's larger doctrinal position or one's salvation or one's ability to defend the existence of God. Don't get me wrong, these things are very interesting and I enjoy debating a good nuance as much as the next person. But what I don't think is helpful is the occasional tendency to view every doctrinal debate as a zero-sum game in which a line must be drawn in the ground and nothing ceded. There is, at least in the Christian faith, a hierarchy of doctrine, from the highest and most encompassing, to the lowest and least applicable. Some might focus so much on a particular doctrinal point that they even self-identify with that point (Young Earth or Old Earth) for example. But, using again this particular example, the age of the Earth probably doesn't even make the top 10 in terms of important Christian doctrines. Anyway, good discussion and I'm not trying to shut down any discussion, just commending the civil approach to it. There are many wonderful doctrinal topics that are interesting and useful to discuss -- as long as we keep them in the broader context and don't allow them to overcome what it means to follow the higher doctrines.Eric Anderson_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Well said Andre! Furthermore, it seems to me God did not intend Earth to be as good a place as heaven. The first Earth could not be perfect relative to the new Earth in Revelation... I didn't realize this till you said it. Thanks!scordova_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 On this thread I have pointed out that the interpretation is widely held both in the general population and among Hebrew scholars, and you characterize my case as 'personal belief'. I suppose it is a personal belief in the same sense that your position is a personal belief, but I dont think YEC should be so lightly dismissed.bevets_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

And bevets, I wholeheartedly disagree with you that your YEC interpretation is as solid as you think it is!,, And since I do not care one way or the other what you personally believe in this particular matter, as it does not pertain to anyone's salvation as far as I can tell, I'll let this dog lie since it means so much to you and other YECs to believe as you do and no matter what evidence I produce, much like neo-Darwinists, it will not matter anyway to you..bornagain77_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

I am presenting my case. Please do not perceive it as an attack. I agree that a personal relationship supersedes biblical knowledge, but this does not leave room for a contradiction between the two. Matthew 5.17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. see also: Denny Burkbevets_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

I would also like to point out one more very important thing that gets lost in these debates as to whose interpretation of scripture is more sound. What did Jesus himself say about scripture?
John 5:39-40 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Jesus himself held that getting to know Him personally is what is primary for us since it is He who gives us eternal life and not the scriptures that give us eternal life.,,, I like how our enduring StephenB put it:
'Other than Christ, no other religious leader was foretold a thousand years before he arrived, nor was anything said about where he would be born, why he would come, how he would live, and when he would die. No other religious leader claimed to be God, or performed miracles, or rose from the dead. No other religious leader grounded his doctrine in historical facts. No other religious leader declared his person to be even more important than his teachings.' - StephenB - UD Blogger
And although, unlike my both my brothers who have had one, I have not had a deep 'personal experience' like this following lady did,,,
Have You Experienced Jesus - Episode 8 - video Excerpt: Kay Sorenson a former Las Vegas Singer at the age of 46 had an amazing born again experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNcXkMxQjDU&feature=player_detailpage#t=400s
That sort of searching is what I envision the primary mission of the christian life to be. i.e. to get to know Jesus personally.,,, I do not envision the Christian life as knowing the Bible better than everyone else so as to win debates but I envision learning more about Jesus personally through the Bible and through living life in general. Without that emphasis it is all vain!bornagain77_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 As is the case with the primary Genesis text, the response to Barr (and Williamson) neglects the obvious and milks the niggling edges. I believe the choice comes down to accepting the scholarly consensus of empirical observation versus the scholarly consensus of linguistic analysis. One side will have to make concessions. I think the meaning of the text is clear and there is reason to be skeptical of the 'scientific' consensus.bevets_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Related notes: Seven Days That Divide the World (John Lennox) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y-AGFfKZFM&feature=player_detailpage#t=1574s Age of the universe – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyOZRMIe768 Also of note: Old Earth Creationism and the Fall, William Dembski - Christian Research Journal, volume 34, number 4(2011). Excerpt: My solution (to Theodicy) in my book “The End of Christianity is to argue that, just as the effects of salvation at the cross reach both forward in time (saving present day Christians) and backward in time (saving Old Testament saints), so the effects of the fall reach forward in time as well as backward. What makes the argument work is the ability of God to arrange events at one time to anticipate events at a later time.,,, http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAF4344.pdf Please also see Dr. Demsbki's observation that 'the Garden of Eden' was a place that was uniquely set apart in Genesis: Finding a Good God in an Evil World - William Dembski http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf Moreover, it has been pointed out that insisting the “‘good’ creation meant no plant or animal death” before 'the fall' gets in the way of sound Biblical exegesis, Perfect Creation Vs. Perfect Plan http://www.thetruthenquirer.blogspot.com/2013/04/perfect-creation-vs-perfect-plan.htmlbornagain77_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

There is another portion of the letter, “neglected”, to quote where Barr clarifies his position: The only thing I would say to qualify this is that most professors may avoid much involvement in that sort of argument and so may not say much explicitly about it one way or the other. But I think what I say would represent their position correctly. However, you might find one or two people who would take the contrary point of view and are competent in the languages, in Assyriology, and so on: it’s really not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as of appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is. Notice Barr says that the conclusion he drew upon was “not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence,” which by itself demolishes the argument that the YECs are making that their interpretation is demanded by the Hebrew text itself; not to mention he adds that most of the professors would tend to avoid this issue not saying anything on the topic on one side or the other. He then adds that he “thinks” he represents the position of the others in his field, but that indicates that he really doesn’t know. Ultimately, he ends up making several qualifications; as such, his letter cannot be cited as viable support for the young earth position. http://evolutionid.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/yecs-misquoting-hebrew-scholars-on-the-genesis-interpretation/ also see: Whitefield, Rodney. Genesis One and the Age of the Earth: What Does the Bible Say? Available online at: http://www.creationingenesis.com/Genesis_One_and_the_Age_of_the_Earth.pdfbornagain77_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr So far as the days of Genesis 1 are concerned, I am sure that Professor Barr was correct... I have not met any Hebrew professors who had the slightest doubt about this. ~ Hugh Williamsonbevets_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT}

DATCG Quick reply on Isaiah: (a) Predictions about a glorious future don't necessarily imply a perfect past, especially as Isaiah's theme is a completely new heavens and earth. (b) Few notice that the emphasis in those passages is not on nature, but on peaceful habitation - the Israelite dream of each man dwelling in safety in his inheritance under his own vine and fig-tree. So look at the passage - it's not about carnivores and herbivores, but about carnivores and livestock (currently prone to being trashed by passing wolves etc) or children (prone to get killed when you thought they were playing safely in the yard). (c ) The passages are overtly metaphorical because they include human death (the man who dies at 100 will be thought young), which was not present in Eden and will certainly not be present in the parousia. Incidentally I broadly agree with Andre's overview - emphasising, though, that the creation that includes predation and so on was and is "very good" - and was viewed as such for the first 1500 years of Christian theology, until the fallen creation teaching began to get around ... but that's another story I've told elsewhere.Jon Garvey_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT}

correction above, dialect = languageDATCG_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

Andre, Not to get into a prolonged argument on Genesis, but why did Isaiah say the future will have carnivores laying down with herbivores? The wolf and the lamb will feed together? The Lion will eat straw like the ox? Plus Jesus said, "only God is good." Maybe "good" loses some meaning in English. If only God is good, Jesus has a point to make. Was meaning lost in translation from Hebrew or Aramaic to Greek, to English? I don't know. But find it interesting. You're writing off biblical verses as metaphorical, but assuming Adam named all the animals? Why? How do you know he named them? What if the names came later for animals like the Lion? Just some thoughts. Remember, there's been a Flood. If you believed Adam named all the animals. Did he name them in Hebrew? A dialect passed down after Noah? Shem? If you believe these names were by Adam. Do you believe in the Flood? Just curious. I'm not certain of any of this. But think these historic issues are hard to decipher. If I apply your logic, then Yom does mean Day and 6 days creation. That'll be all my comments on this off topic subject. I think the real issue on this post is discrimination on the part of McGrath. And his bad assumptions lead to stereotyping, oppression and less freedom. Leads to less science, not more. More labeling and mocking, not real discussion.DATCG_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

Supplemental notes:
Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables - Scott Aaronson Excerpt: "Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!" http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
and from relativity:
"The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/
bornagain77_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT}

I've always been puzzled at how dogmatically YECs cling to their belief in a recent creation. I simply do not, and have not ever, seen Genesis as mandating a recent creation. In fact though many times people will say that YECs are merely interpreting the Bible literally, I find that OECs can be best described as the ones who are most closely reading the Bible 'literally'. Dr. Ross, who has, besides being attacked by dogmatic atheists, been angrily attacked by YECs (Ken Ham comes to mind), makes this point in several of his videos and books. A book of his that directly addresses this issue is,,
A Matter Of Days http://books.google.com/books/about/A_Matter_of_Days.html?id=KqQDAAAACAAJ
And in the following video Dr. Ross maintains that he is indeed reading the Bible consistently,,
,,, 'And if you're curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events' Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere; video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236
Rich Deem also has some excellent resources defending a OEC view of the Bible:
Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days - Rich Deem http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html
But what strikes me as most peculiar in these debates is that the Christian Theist has, by far, as far as time itself is concerned, the stronger position. If it were not for the fact that YECs have to constantly wage, IMHO, a losing battle defending their, again IMHO, unnecessary YEC position then they could easily win any debate with atheists as far as time itself is concerned. First off only Theism holds that that there was a beginning, i.e. that God created time as well as everything else. And that is exactly what all our scientific evidence now shows,,
“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” - Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston - paper delivered at Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday party (Characterized as 'Worst Birthday Present Ever') https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/ Big Bang Theory - An Overview of the main evidence Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Ironically, instead of YECs embracing the 'Big Bang' and using it as the devastating piece of evidence it is against the atheists' position, the atheist merely has to focus his attention on the fact that YECs cannot scientifically defend their YEC position, and hammer away on that. This is simply not how it should be. The atheists, since they are in fact the ones who, for thousands of years, had consistently maintained that the universe has always existed, and that time (and space) was infinite, should be the ones who would be greatly ashamed to even bring up the concept of time to a theist because,,,
The Rolling Stones - Time Is On My Side http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIE2GAqnFGw
Moreover against YECs, the atheist, instead of defending the fact that he cannot account for the fact that the finely-tuned universal constants are invariant throughout time,,,
“There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,” says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. “These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are.” http://www.space.com/2613-scientists-question-nature-fundamental-laws.html Psalm 119:89-91 Your eternal word, O Lord, stands firm in heaven. Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created. Your regulations remain true to this day, for everything serves your plans. Latest Test of Physical Constants Affirms Biblical Claim - Hugh Ross - September 2010 Excerpt: The team’s measurements on two quasars (Q0458- 020 and Q2337-011, at redshifts = 1.561 and 1.361, respectively) indicated that all three fundamental physical constants have varied by no more than two parts per quadrillion per year over the last ten billion years—a measurement fifteen times more precise, and thus more restrictive, than any previous determination. The team’s findings add to the list of fundamental forces in physics demonstrated to be exceptionally constant over the universe’s history. This confirmation testifies of the Bible’s capacity to predict accurately a future scientific discovery far in advance. Among the holy books that undergird the religions of the world, the Bible stands alone in proclaiming that the laws governing the universe are fixed, or constant. http://www.reasons.org/files/ezine/ezine-2010-03.pdf
Instead the atheist ends up using these invariant universal constants, which he can't account for in the first place, against the YEC to argue for an old earth. It is completely bizarre that an atheist could use what is completely devastating to his position to his advantage. bornagain77_{June 19, 2013
June
06
Jun
19
19
2013
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.