Why is young earth so important?

[Jac3510]

Actually it doesn't say that about man ruling over the world. It says that about the garden. "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." (Gen. 2:15) Obviuosly there had to be something to distinquish the garden from the rest of the world.In fact, it would only make sense.

It doesn't say that in 2:15, no. But it does say it in 1:26-28.

And I do agree that the garden was distinct from the rest of the world. If you look at the text of 2:15 closely, it actually appears that Adam was created outside of Eden and then brought into it. I take it that what we are seeing there is that Adam is being shown the difference in an uncultivated vs. a cultivated world; Eden was a "starter set" of sorts, a template, if you will, of what God wanted Adam to do in the rest of the world. That is what He meant by "subdue" the earth.

This also brings into question the encounter with the serpent. The account never references the serpent as being "inside" the garden. In fact, the serpent references the garden as if it is located somewhere other than where this conversation took place. (Gen 3:1)

I don't think you can take "in the garden" as evidence that they were not in it at the time. We both have kids. Haven't you ever been in a grocery store, maybe on the cereal aisle, and said something along the lines of, "Pick any cereal on the aisle you want." I have.

Of course, it'd be clearer with a demonstrative pronoun ("this") rather than just the article ("the"), but it's also well known that the article in Hebrew (and Greek, by the way) can have demonstrative force at times.

All that's to say, I just don't think that the phrase "in the garden" is very strong evidence that Eve and the serpent were not in Eden at the time of their conversation. You can certainly read it that way, but it doesn't seem that way at all, and given the fact that God clearly expels them from the garden later in chapter 3 (the serpent included), it seems that they were in it after all, which is what a rather straightforward reading of the text suggests, anyway.

The Tree of Life was in the garden. God banished Adam from the Garden because the tree of life was there. "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. (Gen. 3:22) It seems evident from the text that the key to life was the tree. Not that the earth was created without death.

Sure, I don't have any problem with that, although I think your last sentence goes too far. There is nothing mutually exclusive about the claim that the world was created without death and that the tree of life was the key. But beyond that, you have the fact that the text itself suggests that there was at least no carnivorous activity, in that animals and man are both clearly presented as herbivores prior to the fall (a fact that is confirmed by later prophets' (i.e., Isaiah) interpretation of Genesis 1). And death itself is presented as the consequence for sin in the text itself. That's beyond debate, so if someone wants to argue that there was already death in the world, they either have to assume it based on the way the operates today (which seems problematic, since the way the world operates today is postfall; that is to say, that approach begs the question), or else they have to justify it from the text itself. But there is nothing in the text of Genesis 1 to suggest that there was any death prior to Adam's sin--just the opposite, in fact, which, again, accords with later prophetic interpretation of Genesis 1.

So, if there was no death in the garden, then how long did Adam live there? A month? A year? 10 million years?

Obviously, the text doesn't answer that question directly, but I think it stands to reason that it couldn't have been very long at all. God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, but they didn't even conceive their first child until after they were expelled from the garden. That should be rather telling.

Thus it would seem that the curse of death upon mankind is directly related to being banished from the Garden.

Certainly, but it's hardly an either/or. Mankind was directly cursed insofar as he was banished from the garden. But that doesn't change the fact that the text presents the entire earth as being cursed as well with him. And, in fact, if you read the text closely, it actually appears that being banished from the garden is a blessing of sorts, because God doesn't want Adam to live forever in his fallen state. The fallen state and its consequences, as outlined in 3:16-19, are the real curse.

[neo-x]

An earth without death would not sustain itself.

[Jac3510]

The Bible seems to say otherwise. And the Bible also tells us that the new heavens and new earth will have no death, so, again, it just seems to me that you're begging the question, neo. I can certainly agree that in a post-fall world, the world can't sustain itself without death. I do not believe that is true in a pre-fall world--in a world in which God Himself sustains all things.

[RickD]

The Bible seems to say otherwise. And the Bible also tells us that the new heavens and new earth will have no death, so, again, it just seems to me that you're begging the question, neo. I can certainly agree that in a post-fall world, the world can't sustain itself without death. I do not believe that is true in a pre-fall world--in a world in which God Himself sustains all things.

Jac, Neo is correct. In this world, death is a necessary part of life. If you're going to argue that the world before Adam's sin didn't need death, the onus is on you to show how it was different than it is now. Where's the evidence that life was incorruptible then, as it will be in the new heaven and new earth? You'd need to prove that different physical laws were at work at that time. Again, sin didn't enter the world when Adam sinned. Sin was already present, because satan, the first known sinner, was the one who tempted Eve. Sin and death entered humanity when Adam sinned. As the wages of sin is death for humanity, the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Unless you're gonna claim the free gift of eternal life is given to all creatures, there's no problem with death(non human) before Adam's sin.

Humanity is the only creature that was offered redemption from sin.

[neo-x]

The Bible seems to say otherwise. And the Bible also tells us that the new heavens and new earth will have no death, so, again, it just seems to me that you're begging the question, neo. I can certainly agree that in a post-fall world, the world can't sustain itself without death. I do not believe that is true in a pre-fall world--in a world in which God Himself sustains all things.

Its a conflict problem. On one side God creates the world perfect, now the problem is many of the said functions of biology occur at bacterial level.If one bacteria is eating another bacteria, then your no-death world of large animals and humans is not death free at all. And chief among the problem is that why would a shark be even made into the shape it looks like and eat grass. A lion's teeth, higher metabolism, are not made for eating grass. There is enough space in between then to break an animal's spine. You can argue against that technicality by showing me a panda skull (as you gave one in an old thread) but you won't reach far with it, because its not convincing at all. Logically it doesn't make sense. If a bacteria eats a bacteria and mantis beheads another mantis during reproduction, then you have death right in there whether you like to believe it or not.

I wish I could entertain this thought, but I simply can not Jac, it literally astounds me that someone of your intellect, which I highly respect actually, can actually believe that stuff.

A planet without death, God may sustain everything but no ones dies, the circle of life breaks, the planet becomes over crowded and eventually becomes full...that scenario without a recycling of the planet does not seem to make sense Jac. If we would have been on an endless plane, I might have had considered this, but the space problem is really a problem.

[Jac3510]

Rick, the onus is not on me to show how the world was different, only that the Bible says it was. I believe I have done that, certainly to my satisfaction, though obviously not to yours. I think that's what the Bible actually says.

Neo, biblically speaking, bacteria don't die. Nor do plants. Don't confuse scientific definitions with biblical definitions. I don't know what the physics will be in the new heaven and new earth. I'm only pointing that your claim that this world requires death (in the biblical sense of animal and human death) begs the question. And if you insist on keeping "scientific" definitions of death, then you're just equivocating on the question.

Sorry so short, y'all. At work. Got to go.

[neo-x]

Neo, biblically speaking, bacteria don't die. Nor do plants. Don't confuse scientific definitions with biblical definitions.

Then you can't make an objective claim on the death in the world, Jac.

Rick, the onus is not on me to show how the world was different, only that the Bible says it was. I believe I have done that, certainly to my satisfaction, though obviously not to yours. I think that's what the Bible actually says.

This isn't a question of onus. The main thing is such a thing is straight against biology and what we have in the bible does not support your claim. And that is the problem you are confusing biblical terms with scientific terms. Theological points on death must not interfere of what's really happening. You can't pick biblical definition of death, as you said and then claim, a no death world. Theology must not guide science, if science is correct. That is my opinion, and seems to make sense to me.

Sorry so short, y'all. At work. Got to go.

See you later.

[Jac3510]

Then you're committing the fallacy of equivocation, neo.

I say, "Biblically speaking, there was no death before the fall." You then take the word "death" in a different sense I do and thereby argue to have disproven my claim. That's the fallacy in question.

I can, and do, make an objective claim about reality. The Bible is correct that, before the fall, there was no death in the world--death in precisely the sense that the Bible understands it. For you to insist that we not read the Bible on its own terms is no better than the atheist insisting that the Bible is wrong because it calls whales fish, and, of course, moden science shows us that whales are actually mammals. Again, same fallacy, because the atheist is taking the term "fish" differently than the Bible is.

It should be evident to you that YECs do not believe that there is absolutely no death in a prefall world in the scientific sense of the word sense we universally affirm that animals ate plants even as we affirm there was no death. Therefore, in your criticism, you either haven't thought very deeply about the position I'm advocating or you're assuming that I haven't thought very deeply about it. The first, of course, is a simple matter to correct--you could simply ask about the biblical vs. modern view of death. The second is a simple matter of being uncharitable.

As far as onus goes, Rick raised the issue, and I so responded. The onus is not on me to show how the world was different. It is simply on me to show that it was different (that is, that the Bible says it was). And in that, I contend that I have done just that--certainly to my own satisfaction.

[neo-x]

On the contrary i have no doubt you have thought about your position i just don't think the position is logical or real.

And jac you're actually confusing the two things on one hand you you say bacteria eating bacteria is not death biblically but you still maintain no death scenario. Unless its not what you are saying the position you hold will ultimately reach this point. You can of course maintain your belief, my original comment was that it doesn't make sense, without death there would be none of this planet, death is death. Either you can have a death free world or you can't. But you can't say bacteria eating bacteria is not death, biblical definition or not, thats simply not true.

[Jac3510]

Again neo, you are just equivocating. I've already responded to your point. Repeating your objection doesn't make it any less off target.

If you want, then, to respond to what I've actually said, feel free. Shy of that, repeating ourselves won't go anywhere, and frankly I expect a bit more from you. It is one thing to agree to disagree. It is quite another to misrepresent the position you are rejecting, especially when that misrepresentation had been corrected more than once.

[neo-x]

The misrepresentation, if there is any, is not intentional at all jac. I will read your posts again ans see if i missed something, and it would be kind of you to correct where i have misrepresentated your position.

[Jac3510]

Here's an example of the misrepresentation:

And jac you're actually confusing the two things on one hand you you say bacteria eating bacteria is not death biblically but you still maintain no death scenario

And here's an example of how I've already dealt with this:

For you to insist that we not read the Bible on its own terms is no better than the atheist insisting that the Bible is wrong because it calls whales fish, and, of course, moden science shows us that whales are actually mammals. Again, same fallacy, because the atheist is taking the term "fish" differently than the Bible is.

Now, you are free to disagree with the biblical definition of death. You are free to tell me that my position misrepresents the biblical definition of death. You are free to disagree for any number of reasons. You are not free to tell me that my position on the biblical definition of death does not allow me to "say bacteria eating macteria is not death biblically but . . . still maintai no death scenario."

That is precisely what my position does allow for. Again, you don't have to agree, but you aren't allowed to say my position is something it is not. That's a blatant misrepresentation.

[neo-x]

So you do agree then that bacteria eating bacteria is death, its just not biblically-death? So death indeed happened factually at least if not biblically?

Other than that Jac, of course you can argue for that point. My comment was simply the way I see things, and to me if death happened even at a microscopic level then death happened. Your fallacy charge is unmerited. I am not using your definitions or assumptions. You can argue that the biblical definition of death you are choosing evades the problem and thats fine, even though I think biblical definition is quite exclusive and theologically driven around man; and does not offer factual truth about death.

Early I was under the impression at first that you were arguing for a no death scenario, and I mean even at bacterial level but when you said you are not then I'm was left unsure...what exactly are the boundaries of what you are arguing for, in terms of death?

Put simply, in your opinion, what creatures death, does include biblically? You have left out the microscopic world, and I am assuming you may do it with insects too since they are not that far...but that is only my guess, I would like to know, if you'd share that is, how do you draw a line, do you mean only humans when you speak of death and the apparent beasts of the field, biblically speaking?

[Jac3510]

I don't have any more of a problem with bacteria "dying" before the Fall than I do with plants "dying" before the Fall. That doesn't say anything against "no death before the Fall."

From a biblical perspective, death is the loss of the nephesh. Plants don't have nepheshim (much less bacteria); that belongs to animals, including humans. You can say scientifically they are alive. You can say philosophically they have souls. You can't say theologically/biblically that they lose their nephesh, their souls, the lives, because they don't have them.

When I say there was no death before the Fall, I mean there was no loss of nephesh. Living creatures lived. They did not die. Plants and bacteria are not, in that sense, alive and do not, in that sense, die.

[neo-x]

Thank you Jac.

When I say there was no death before the Fall, I mean there was no loss of nephesh. Living creatures lived. They did not die. Plants and bacteria are not, in that sense, alive and do not, in that sense, die.

I disagree but thats fine, we'd call it off here. I appreciate the time you gave.