Doublethink

[RickD]

The YEC belief is that all carnivores weren't carnivores before Adam's sin. So they ate plants.
And plant life isn't the same as 'soulish' animal life, so saying that plants died before sin, isn't the same as animal death. In a YEC worldview.

I remember in the debate with Hugh Ross and Ken Ham a while back, on the Ankerberg show, Ross brought up the point about plants dying, and Ham looked dumfounded. So I think ham rethought his belief about 'no death before Adam's sin', to mean no nephesh death before Adam's sin.

[Jac3510]

The YEC belief is that all carnivores weren't carnivores before Adam's sin. So they ate plants.
And plant life isn't the same as 'soulish' animal life, so saying that plants died before sin, isn't the same as animal death. In a YEC worldview.

I remember in the debate with Hugh Ross and Ken Ham a while back, on the Ankerberg show, Ross brought up the point about plants dying, and Ham looked dumfounded. So I think ham rethought his belief about 'no death before Adam's sin', to mean no nephesh death before Adam's sin.

You do realize that YECs have been making that point for decades at least, if not longer, right? I have materials from back in the 60s saying as much. It is very uncharitable for you to suggest that Ham just rethought his belief in light of Ross' critique.

[theophilus]

And theophilus,
Please tell us where the bible says HOW the earth was created, as you asserted earlier.

I didn't say it tells how the earth was created, I said it tells how long it took to create it.

The Bible does not say there was no death before the fall, that is just your interpretation.

Here is what the Bible says.

Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
(Romans 5:12 ESV)

How can this be interpreted to mean anything else except that there was no death before the fall?

I am using the Bible as a history book. It tells us what happened and how long it took.

No it does not, please point to the passage where it says exactly how old the Earth is.

I wasn't talking about the age of the earth but how long it took to create it. Six days.

Comparing a creation perspective to worshiping Baal is downright disgusting and I ask you again how can you profess Jesus' name while at the same time be lying about another's creation perspective and then vilifying people's faith in God, will you dodge my question again.

When you form your own creation perspective rather than believing what God has told us in the Bible you are accusing God of lying.

[RickD]

The YEC belief is that all carnivores weren't carnivores before Adam's sin. So they ate plants.
And plant life isn't the same as 'soulish' animal life, so saying that plants died before sin, isn't the same as animal death. In a YEC worldview.

I remember in the debate with Hugh Ross and Ken Ham a while back, on the Ankerberg show, Ross brought up the point about plants dying, and Ham looked dumfounded. So I think ham rethought his belief about 'no death before Adam's sin', to mean no nephesh death before Adam's sin.

You do realize that YECs have been making that point for decades at least, if not longer, right? I have materials from back in the 60s saying as much. It is very uncharitable for you to suggest that Ham just rethought his belief in light of Ross' critique.

Call it whatever you want Jac. I remember in the debate, Ham had no answer for Ross on the point. Ham stated there was NO death before Adam's sin. And when Ross started to explain that at the very least, plants, and parts of plants had to die for animals to eat, Ham was dumfounded. If Ham had known the answer "for decades", then that would've been a good time to explain it.

[Jac3510]

I'd have to see the debate. Perhaps he was dumbfounded that Ross was so ridiculously misrepresenting his position. Whatever Ham's familiarity with YEC, I'm far more frustrated that someone like Ross would repeat such an asinine objection. *shrug*

edit:

In any case, though, my point to you stands. Saying Ham was "dumbfounded" is an interpretation any way you cut it. Moreover, it is an uncharitable interpretation, and as you know, that's the one thing about the YEC/OEC debate that boils my blood the most. It's what I've harped on the most, and it's why I don't bother with this debate, namely, the constant OEC demonization of YECs. You tend to return with a to quoque, of course, but that only proves my point.

[Philip]

and so death spread to all MEN because ALL sinned

And so to whom did death spread?: "to all MEN".

And because WHO sinned?: "All MEN"

Did the ANIMALS sin and then death spread to them as well? Can ANIMALS sin? Does Scripture say that animals suddenly formed carnivore/herbivore, predator/prey relationships due to MAN'S sin? Where does it say this? Hint: NO WHERE!

In Genesis 2:16, where God warns of the consequences of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, WHO does He say will die? "... YOU shall surely die." When does He say that death would take place? "In the DAY that you eat of it ..." Did Adam and Eve die that DAY, PHYSICALLY? No, so it is talking of a spiritual death but certainly also with physical consequences. But it is certainly not talking about an immediate death as in war or as a carnivore kills its prey. This is reading into the text that which it does not say to fit an interpretation (in this case, YEC) that one has.

Also, where are we told that animals did not have predator/prey relationships prior to The Fall? Where are we told they didn't die prior to the fall? If only a man can sin, how does allowing animal deaths punish that man - where there is an unlimited supply of animals and their offspring for the use and exploitation by men? And how is death punishment to animals - creatures without eternal spirits?

[RickD]

RickD wrote:
And theophilus,
Please tell us where the bible says HOW the earth was created, as you asserted earlier.

theophilus wrote:
I didn't say it tells how the earth was created, I said it tells how long it took to create it.

Yes you did. It was in your opening post. I'll underline it for you:

If we don’t believe what the Bible says about how the earth was created how can we expect others to believe what it says about how to get to heaven?

It seems like a very important point you were trying to make. Please either explain where the bible says how the earth was created, like you wrote, or explain what you meant to say.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:The Bible does not say there was no death before the fall, that is just your interpretation.

theophilus wrote:
Here is what the Bible says.

Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
(Romans 5:12 ESV)

Theophilus wrote:
How can this be interpreted to mean anything else except that there was no death before the fall?

I'll show you how it can be interpreted that way.

Romans 5:12
" Therefore *, just as through one man sin entered into the world...

The word "world" is translated from kosmos. Kosmos can mean, "The inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family".

I believe it means "humanity" and not "earth", because sin had already entered the earth, when Satan entered. Satan was the first "sinner". You would agree that Satan was in the garden, which was in the earth, before Adam sinned, correct? So "world" cannot mean "earth".

continuing with Romans 5:12
"and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because * all sinned -"

This is referring to a specific kind of death...death through sin. Of all the creatures on the earth, man is the only creature that sins. So, death through sin(not all death), entered the world of humanity, when Adam sinned.

So, that's how it is interpreted to read that way. In order to be interpreted in a way that means all death entered the earth when Adam sinned, one has to read into the text, with a preconceived belief. The text simply does not say that animal death entered the earth when Adam sinned.

theophilus wrote:
When you form your own creation perspective rather than believing what God has told us in the Bible you are accusing God of lying.

Let me fix that for you theophilus:

When you form your own creation interpretation, rather than believing what my interpretation of what God has told us in the Bible you are accusing God of lying.

See how it really sounds like you are equating your interpretation with scripture itself?

[RickD]

Jac wrote:
I'd have to see the debate. Perhaps he was dumbfounded that Ross was so ridiculously misrepresenting his position. Whatever Ham's familiarity with YEC, I'm far more frustrated that someone like Ross would repeat such an asinine objection. *shrug*

Maybe you should've seen the debate before you accused me of being uncharitable. That would've been the charitable thing to do.

Jac wrote:
In any case, though, my point to you stands. Saying Ham was "dumbfounded" is an interpretation any way you cut it. Moreover, it is an uncharitable interpretation, and as you know, that's the one thing about the YEC/OEC debate that boils my blood the most. It's what I've harped on the most, and it's why I don't bother with this debate, namely, the constant OEC demonization of YECs. You tend to return with a to quoque, of course, but that only proves my point.

Jac, it wasn't intended as uncharitable. Dumbfounded means "being surprised or caught off guard". From Ham's reaction to Ross' point, Ham was caught off guard, because he(Ham) had no reply to the point Ross made. Yes, it was my interpretation that Ham was dumbfounded. But it wasn't meant as uncharitable.

So the way I see it, you uncharitably interpreted my interpretation as uncharitable. That my friend is...uncharitable.

[Jac3510]

Come on Rick, you know what I'm getting at. Don't play like you don't. "Dumbfounded" has connotations, which you underscored by suggeseting that Ham suddenly went back and rethought his position. Your implication was that had never thought of the reality of plant death, that Ross had somehow scored some points on him. The further implication is that Ham's response (about plant death not being biblical death because plant's don't have a nephesh) is contrived, an attempt to explain something.

That's why I said your interpretation is uncharitable. You should know better. In fact, I think you do. Were I to be a bit uncharitable myself, I might say you were just looking to score some cheap points against your YEC brethren.

[RickD]

Come on Rick, you know what I'm getting at. Don't play like you don't. "Dumbfounded" has connotations, which you underscored by suggeseting that Ham suddenly went back and rethought his position. Your implication was that had never thought of the reality of plant death, that Ross had somehow scored some points on him. The further implication is that Ham's response (about plant death not being biblical death because plant's don't have a nephesh) is contrived, an attempt to explain something.

That's why I said your interpretation is uncharitable. You should know better. In fact, I think you do. Were I to be a bit uncharitable myself, I might say you were just looking to score some cheap points against your YEC brethren.

Jac, I told you I wasn't being uncharitable. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine.

Jac wrote:
The further implication is that Ham's response (about plant death not being biblical death because plant's don't have a nephesh) is contrived, an attempt to explain something.

Jac, my response here:

And plant life isn't the same as 'soulish' animal life, so saying that plants died before sin, isn't the same as animal death. In a YEC worldview.

was a direct answer to what Philip wrote here:

So what did they all of those carnivores eat? Tofu? What about plant death? Plants are living things.

I was actually being charitable, by saying that YECs don't believe plants didn't die before Adam sinned. I was just explaining the YEC belief in this instance, without adding my opinion to the belief. Paul had a question. I gave him the YEC answer to the question. Nothing more.

[RickD]

And theophilus, here's a quick video from WLC about Was There Animal Death Before Adam's Sin.

[PaulSacramento]

and so death spread to all MEN because ALL sinned

And so to whom did death spread?: "to all MEN".

And because WHO sinned?: "All MEN"

Did the ANIMALS sin and then death spread to them as well? Can ANIMALS sin? Does Scripture say that animals suddenly formed carnivore/herbivore, predator/prey relationships due to MAN'S sin? Where does it say this? Hint: NO WHERE!

In Genesis 2:16, where God warns of the consequences of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, WHO does He say will die? "... YOU shall surely die." When does He say that death would take place? "In the DAY that you eat of it ..." Did Adam and Eve die that DAY, PHYSICALLY? No, so it is talking of a spiritual death but certainly also with physical consequences. But it is certainly not talking about an immediate death as in war or as a carnivore kills its prey. This is reading into the text that which it does not say to fit an interpretation (in this case, YEC) that one has.

Also, where are we told that animals did not have predator/prey relationships prior to The Fall? Where are we told they didn't die prior to the fall? If only a man can sin, how does allowing animal deaths punish that man - where there is an unlimited supply of animals and their offspring for the use and exploitation by men? And how is death punishment to animals - creatures without eternal spirits?

Yes, I agree.

[PaulSacramento]

And theophilus, here's a quick video from WLC about Was There Animal Death Before Adam's Sin.

Yep, I agree with WLC on this too.

[RickD]

And theophilus, here's a quick video from WLC about Was There Animal Death Before Adam's Sin.

Yep, I agree with WLC on this too.

Paul, if you didn't know already, WLC has said that as far as his age of the earth/creation beliefs, he's somewhere between Theistic evolution and progressive creationism. So, you and I would probably agree with most of what he says on this. And, without me knowing for sure, and I probably shouldn't assume this, but from what I know from hearing WLC speak, he believes in a literal, historical Adam.

[RickD]

It seems my assumption was correct. WLC does believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defender ... ript/s9-03

We have been thinking about the Literal Interpretation of Genesis chapter 1 and I suggested last time that the arguments on behalf of the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1 are not compelling. We saw that, although the narrative does talk about historical persons – principally God himself as well as Adam and Eve,