Fall of Man and OEC's?

[RickD]

Dallas, what do you think about the answers that have been posted for your original question?

That animals are incapable of sinning. So, what you guys are saying is that physical death was inevitable. But, when Adam sinned, it caused a "Spiritual death" and not a physical death, right?

Dallas, as I see it, Adam's sin brought spiritual death , and God took away Adam's access to the tree of life, as a blessing, so Adam would not have to live forever physically, while being spiritually separated from God. And, again Adam's sin did not bring death to animals. Like Canuckster said, read Romans, chapter 5, and then tell us what that says to you.

[Kurieuo]

Dallas, just incase it wasn't obvious... and you're wondering why the fuss over Romans 5. This is what many YECs use to argue that death did not occur in creation until the fall. Unless you have other Scripture you wish to have the majority of Day-Age/OECs here comment on?

[Dallas]

I'm on a phone so I can not quote very fast .

I read Romans 5 like you were telling me to do, put animal death in there as well. It didnt make sense to me whatsoever.

This might be a little off topic but, jason lisle said the fall of man was before, from what they think, eve's first menstral cycle. So, could that be still applied to animals dying? There were a lot vegetables, fruit, etc... for every thing to eat, possibility for animals still to die in that period of time?
Note, that is a question im curious about

-Dallas

[RickD]

This might be a little off topic but, jason lisle said the fall of man was before, from what they think, eve's first menstral cycle. So, could that be still applied to animals dying? There were a lot vegetables, fruit, etc... for every thing to eat, possibility for animals still to die in that period of time?

Dallas, do you have a link that explains what you're talking about here? Maybe if we see what you're referring to, we can understand what you're asking.

[Dallas]

Can't link, but i can show you were to find it.

Go to you youtube and type in Jason Lisle. Once everything is loaded scroll down to a vid that says CARM interview with jason lisle. I dont remember how far into the vid, but its in there.

[RickD]

Dallas, I started to listen, and a little over a minute into the video, Lisle was spouting off his tired rhetoric about if death wasn't the penalty for sin...I dont know if I'll be able to listen to a half hour of this guy.

[Dallas]

I'm sorry.

[RickD]

Well thankfully, the point you're talking about was about 8 minutes into the video. In regards to God's punishment for Eve sinning, the bible says Eve's pain in childbearing would increase. Lisle says that she didn't have to have given birth already. Lisle says that her pain could have increased from zero. That just makes no sense. Dallas, in another part of the video, the interviewer asks lisle what he thinks about a 13 billion year old universe. Lisle keeps talking about naturalism and an old universe, like one has to believe in naturalism, if one believes in an ancient earth. That's completely dishonest on his part.

[RickD]

Lisle is certainly good for a laugh, if nothing else. In the video from around 13:25-13:40ish, while talking about the flood, and John Baumgartner's scientific model for how the flood might have occurred, Lisle says this:" It's a scientific model, and we're speculating about the past, so we can't be dogmatic about it. We do know from scripture that it was global."

This guy is a real trip. In one sentence he says "we can't be dogmatic about it". And in the very next sentence, he makes the DOGMATIC statement, "we know from scripture that it was global".

It's hilarious when he says it.

[Canuckster1127]

Dallas, I'm glad you see that Romans 5 makes no sense when you include in it animal death. That's the point. Most YEC proponents arrive at their conclusion that when you look at Genesis 3 and the fall, and then look at Romans 5:12 that OEC or anything else other than the narrow YEC view can't be accepted because without death entering into creation (meaning all forms of physical death for animals or humans). By your reading through Romans 5 with that sense applied you've come to understand or see for yourself (without any of us having to tell you what to think) that applying that verse in that manner rips it out of context. Romans 5 is speaking of death as it applies to humanity. It may include physical death for man, but it's not speaking of animals at all unless you make animals the equivilent of man's spiritual existence.

That's the thing about prooftexting and building up concepts and ideas; if the manner that you're using the prooftext doesn't align with the context of the larger portion of scripture that you're pulling it from, then no matter how spiritual it sounds or how desirable it seems, you're not pulling your understanding from the scriptures, you're imposing your thoughts and desired ends upon the scripture and making it dance to your own tune. It's something to be very aware of and don't just accept doctrines that have a string of individual verses behind then that you can't go back and read the larger passage and confirm that that context of those verses is remaining intact.

That true of anything, including OEC claims. I'm biased of course as I've come to some conclusions but I think if you do that, you'll find that there are many things that are claimed and appealed to by hardcore YEC proponents that just don't add up when you look at the broader themes of Scripture that they appeal to their isolated verses to support.