Carnivorous animals before the fall...

[Canuckster1127]

Danny,

You and I are in complete enough agreement as far as the point I'm trying to make. I fully respect your evaluation of the evidence for the precise reason that you are giving it the credit it deserves. Even as we reach different conclusions, at least we are being honest in what we are looking at.

Bart,

You completely lost me. I have no clue why you brought up salvation or soteriology, or where you seemed to get the idea that I was interested in either (in this thread). I'm asking you to conclude with me that DAs position on the validity of the YEC interpretation of Gen 1:30 and Rom 5:12 is logically fallacious. I'm asking you to conclude with me that DAs position, as he stated it, is an argument from silence, not that OEC as a whole is an argument from silence. I'm asking you to retract your statement that this particular aspect of YEC has no direct Scriptural support.

Where, pray tell, did you ever get the idea that I had in mind the salvation of anyone, OEC or YEC, or that I was asking you to comment on either?

I did not make the statement that YEC has no direct scriptural support. I made a specific statement with regard to the position of death before the fall that no one passage leads to the common YEC position and that the conclusion requires the knitting together of passages that do not by themselves standing alone lead to that necessary conclusion. I stand by that.

I chose to expand the comment to soteriology because I've made statements to that effect many times and I felt it was relevant to note given that soteriology rests upon scriptural interpretation and is common within both YEC and OEC. If you don't see the connection, then feel free to disregard it. An argument from silence when it comes to revealed Scripture is more than an argument from silence when it comes to the rules for general evidence and logic. If you accept revealed Scripture as God-given and complete for its purpose, then that which is not addressed is relevant to note and then evaluate on a case by case basis, in my opinion.

We've had this converation before with regard to Rom 5:12 and Genesis and I'll state now as I've stated in the past that it begs the question as to whether individual scriptures support that position when the primary argument pushed repeatedly seeks to combine these passages which in my opinion takes Rom 5:12 grossly out of context. The continued appeal to the combination of those passages as the primary argument for that platform within YEC to me seems to illustrate a concession or admission of sorts that that position cannot be found within any one passage. If not, then why appeal to the more complicated platform as the primary argument? Hermeneutics certainly apply and confuse the issue from either side of the argument.

I certainly believe the YEC position is sincere and sincerely believes that is what Scripture says, in general.

blessings,

bart

[Jac3510]

I did not make the statement that YEC has no direct scriptural support. I made a specific statement with regard to the position of death before the fall that no one passage leads to the common YEC position and that the conclusion requires the knitting together of passages that do not by themselves standing alone lead to that necessary conclusion. I stand by that.

Are you being serious? I didn't say you DID say that YEC has no direct scriptural support. I said:

"I'm asking you to retract your statement that this particular aspect of YEC has no direct Scriptural support."

I've given you TWO verses that, taken by themselves, lead to THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT of YEC beliefs: Gen 1:30 and Rom 5:12. You are just factually wrong.

I chose to expand the comment to soteriology because I've made statements to that effect many times and I felt it was relevant to note given that soteriology rests upon scriptural interpretation and is common within both YEC and OEC. If you don't see the connection, then feel free to disregard it.

I guess I will, because I have absolutely no idea whatsoever how it is relevant at all.

An argument from silence when it comes to revealed Scripture is more than an argument from silence when it comes to the rules for general evidence and logic. If you accept revealed Scripture as God-given and complete for its purpose, then that which is not addressed is relevant to note and then evaluate on a case by case basis, in my opinion.

Which I already dealt with in my discussions with both Danny and you in the notion of trivial truth and the assumption of a position before you come to the text.

We've had this converation before with regard to Rom 5:12 and Genesis and I'll state now as I've stated in the past that it begs the question as to whether individual scriptures support that position when the primary argument pushed repeatedly seeks to combine these passages which in my opinion takes Rom 5:12 grossly out of context. The continued appeal to the combination of those passages as the primary argument for that platform within YEC to me seems to illustrate a concession or admission of sorts that that position cannot be found within any one passage. If not, then why appeal to the more complicated platform as the primary argument? Hermeneutics certainly apply and confuse the issue from either side of the argument.

1. I'm not saying that the COMBINATION of the passages makes the doctrine. I'm saying EITHER ONE of the passages makes the doctrine.

2. I don't care if you do think they have been taken out of context, grossly or not. I'm saying that EITHER OF THESE PASSAGES directly support and conclude with the YEC view in this regard. Thus, you are, again, simply factually wrong. That's not a matter of opinion or interpretation. EITHER Rom 5:12 or Gen 1:30 can be used to prove that there was no animal death before the Fall if the YECs are right about their interpretation. I just think that they are in both cases.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Danny:

"It all has to do on how you translate kosmos. I will concede it can be legitimately translated "mankind," because that is what the lexicons tell me. I don't take that translation because I think it violates the flow, argument, semantics of the passage, etc., but that's another debate. I could be wrong. Now, will you be honest enough to admit that it can be translated "whole earth," as the lexicons provide that as a possibility, too, even if you disagree with that translation because you may think it violates the flow, argument, semantics of the text, etc.?"

[touchingcloth]

Jac - (just to pull back a bit to the initial topic of the thread, if that's ok...) presumably you attribute the time of the fall to being after the appearance of the first human...just curious what you make of the fossil evidence of carnivorous animals that is orders of magnitude older than fossils of the first humans? (Apologies if this has been addressed already)

[Jac3510]

Jac - (just to pull back a bit to the initial topic of the thread, if that's ok...) presumably you attribute the time of the fall to being after the appearance of the first human...just curious what you make of the fossil evidence of carnivorous animals that is orders of magnitude older than fossils of the first humans? (Apologies if this has been addressed already)

Not much, TC. That would only be a problem if I assumed the geological evidence indicated that some fossils are "orders of magnitude older than fossils of the first humans." You have to assume uniformitarianism to get that, which is, at best, a philosophical, not scientific, position. As it stands, I believe in a global flood, which I take as a better explanation for modern geological structures, and thus, for the dating of fossils. Nothing, I presume, you haven't heard before.

[touchingcloth]

Jac - (just to pull back a bit to the initial topic of the thread, if that's ok...) presumably you attribute the time of the fall to being after the appearance of the first human...just curious what you make of the fossil evidence of carnivorous animals that is orders of magnitude older than fossils of the first humans? (Apologies if this has been addressed already)

Not much, TC. That would only be a problem if I assumed the geological evidence indicated that some fossils are "orders of magnitude older than fossils of the first humans." You have to assume uniformitarianism to get that, which is, at best, a philosophical, not scientific, position. As it stands, I believe in a global flood, which I take as a better explanation for modern geological structures, and thus, for the dating of fossils.

Even considering the strata upon strata between the latest dinosaurs and earliest humans?

[Jac3510]

Even considering the strata upon strata between the latest dinosaurs and earliest humans?

Yes. You have to realize that the assumption that strata only get built up by millions of years is a philosophical notion on your part. There's no reason to suppose that the Flood would bury them in the same places.

[touchingcloth]

Even considering the strata upon strata between the latest dinosaurs and earliest humans?

Yes. You have to realize that the assumption that strata only get built up by millions of years is a philosophical notion on your part. There's no reason to suppose that the Flood would bury them in the same places.

Well assuming that strata slowly build up is one part of it, as is dating rocks in the same strata as certain fossil species, as is noticing that certain species of animals (well, whole orders of animals in fact) consistently turn up in deeper strata than others.

There's not reason to suppose that a flood would bury them all in the same place, but there's even less reason to think that one would sort them (and rocks) in this manner.

[dayage]

Romans 5:12-14 becomes important in the conversation about the age of the earth, because many see it as saying that all death was the result of Adam's sin. We will look at the text of chapter five to determine which kind of death is being spoken of.

Some confusion comes from the simple fact that death usually refers to a body. Paul speaks of this kind of death when he refers to Christ's sacrifice (Romans 5:6-8, 10). Yet, Paul speaks of other kinds of death:
Death to sin — Romans 7:4
Spiritual death — Romans 6:16, 7:8-13 and Ephesians 2:1, 5

So, what kind of death is Paul saying came through sin? The text shows us that it is spiritual and only effects humans. Let's look at verse 12:

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"

This death only comes to humans, because we sin. This is "spiritual death." Christians use this term as a description of our relationship towards God apart from salvation through Jesus. Below are some definitions, for this spiritual condition, found in the text:
Romans 5:6 — "we were helpless"
Verse 8 — "while we were yet sinners"
Verse 10 — "we were enemies"

We can also see that it is spiritual by contrasting the causes and effects (of Adam's sin verses Jesus' sacrifice) found in the following verses:
15) By the transgression of the one
Many died

By the grace (of Jesus Christ)
Grace of God and the gift

17) By the transgression of the one

Those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness

Death reigned through the one

Those…will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ

19) One man's disobedience
Many were made sinners

Obedience of the One
Many will be made righteous

21) Sin reigned in death

Grace would reign through righteousness

Looking at these verses I think it is clear. The opposite of this kind of death is grace and righteousness, not bodily resurrection as in I Corinthians 15:20-22. This therefore has nothing to do with physical death or its coming into the animal kingdom.

[Jac3510]

Even considering the strata upon strata between the latest dinosaurs and earliest humans?

Yes. You have to realize that the assumption that strata only get built up by millions of years is a philosophical notion on your part. There's no reason to suppose that the Flood would bury them in the same places.

Well assuming that strata slowly build up is one part of it, as is dating rocks in the same strata as certain fossil species, as is noticing that certain species of animals (well, whole orders of animals in fact) consistently turn up in deeper strata than others.

There's not reason to suppose that a flood would bury them all in the same place, but there's even less reason to think that one would sort them (and rocks) in this manner.

Remember that at the time of the Flood, pretty much all humans were living in the same place. You wouldn't expect to find human fossils buried throughout the stata, especially not on a global scale.

[touchingcloth]

Even considering the strata upon strata between the latest dinosaurs and earliest humans?

Yes. You have to realize that the assumption that strata only get built up by millions of years is a philosophical notion on your part. There's no reason to suppose that the Flood would bury them in the same places.

Well assuming that strata slowly build up is one part of it, as is dating rocks in the same strata as certain fossil species, as is noticing that certain species of animals (well, whole orders of animals in fact) consistently turn up in deeper strata than others.

There's not reason to suppose that a flood would bury them all in the same place, but there's even less reason to think that one would sort them (and rocks) in this manner.

Remember that at the time of the Flood, pretty much all humans were living in the same place. You wouldn't expect to find human fossils buried throughout the stata, especially not on a global scale.

You'd expect them to be in the same (or at least overlapping) strata as their supposed contemporaries, though.

Where is the place where all humans were living at the time of the flood?

[Jac3510]

Romans 5:12-14 becomes important in the conversation about the age of the earth, because many see it as saying that all death was the result of Adam's sin. We will look at the text of chapter five to determine which kind of death is being spoken of.

Some confusion comes from the simple fact that death usually refers to a body. Paul speaks of this kind of death when he refers to Christ's sacrifice (Romans 5:6-8, 10). Yet, Paul speaks of other kinds of death:
Death to sin — Romans 7:4
Spiritual death — Romans 6:16, 7:8-13 and Ephesians 2:1, 5

So, what kind of death is Paul saying came through sin? The text shows us that it is spiritual and only effects humans. Let's look at verse 12:

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"

This death only comes to humans, because we sin. This is "spiritual death." Christians use this term as a description of our relationship towards God apart from salvation through Jesus. Below are some definitions, for this spiritual condition, found in the text:
Romans 5:6 — "we were helpless"
Verse 8 — "while we were yet sinners"
Verse 10 — "we were enemies"

We can also see that it is spiritual by contrasting the causes and effects (of Adam's sin verses Jesus' sacrifice) found in the following verses:
15) By the transgression of the one
Many died

By the grace (of Jesus Christ)
Grace of God and the gift

17) By the transgression of the one

Those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness

Death reigned through the one

Those…will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ

19) One man's disobedience
Many were made sinners

Obedience of the One
Many will be made righteous

21) Sin reigned in death

Grace would reign through righteousness

Looking at these verses I think it is clear. The opposite of this kind of death is grace and righteousness, not bodily resurrection as in I Corinthians 15:20-22. This therefore has nothing to do with physical death or its coming into the animal kingdom.

That's a fine exegesis, DA. Some I agree with and some I disagree with. My point, that I've been making repeatedly, is that the YEC interpretation is possible, the same being true in Gen 1:30. As such, the YEC does NOT take the Bible to be silent on the matter, but actually does attribute animal death to Adam's sin. You have to assume OEC to say it doesn't.

[Jac3510]

You'd expect them to be in the same (or at least overlapping) strata as their supposed contemporaries, though.

"their" is ambiguous. Could you restate?

Where is the place where all humans were living at the time of the flood?

The Middle East.

[touchingcloth]

You'd expect them to be in the same (or at least overlapping) strata as their supposed contemporaries, though.

"their" is ambiguous. Could you restate?

In other words you'd expect to find human remains in at least some corresponding strata with those that dinosaurs are found in, wouldn't you? (Pardon the question, but you're "pure" YEC aren't you, not progressive or anything, just a single act of creation?)

[dayage]

Jac3510,

That's a fine exegesis, DA. Some I agree with and some I disagree with.

If animals do not sin, then this death cannot effect them (Romans 5:12). This is the only reason the text says it effects all men.

Even Kem Ham in a debate with Hugh Ross and Walt Kaiser, on the John Ankerberg Show, admitted that Romans 5:12 only refers to humans.

In context I see no way to make it refer to animals. The whole text is about our relationship (pre and post salvation) with God. Animals cannot be dragged in.

[Canuckster1127]

Jac3510,

That's a fine exegesis, DA. Some I agree with and some I disagree with.

If animals do not sin, then this death cannot effect them (Romans 5:12). This is the only reason the text says it effects all men.

Even Kem Ham in a debate with Hugh Ross and Walt Kaiser, on the John Ankerberg Show, admitted that Romans 5:12 only refers to humans.

In context I see no way to make it refer to animals. The whole text is about our relationship (pre and post salvation) with God. Animals cannot be dragged in.

That's the context of the entire passage surrounding it as well.