Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:TC - open a thread on the flood. We'll continue our discussion there.

Done

dayage wrote:I did not confuse grammar and syntax. Syntax is one of about four parts of grammar. I wanted to know which aspect you were refering to.

Forgive me. I would have thought by the context of our discussion it was rather clear that we were using the narrower view of grammar. It's a necessary distinction to make when having these discussions. There are a lot of things that are grammatically possible but syntactically questionable, which is the point I was making.

The worldview is not what is important if the context does not allow an interpretation. Besides, I showed above it deals with spiritual death so cannot apply to animals.

Given your "bottom line" comment, it is extremely important. Everyone here can attest that most YECs take Rom 5:12 and Gen 1:30 to teach that there was no death before the Fall. If they are right in their interpretation of the verse--which I realize you deny--then your assertion is factually wrong, because the Bible DOES teach that animal death is directly attributable to Adam's sin.

So, how do you know whether or not the YEC interpretation is right? You have to do an analysis of the passage! In other words, the bottom line is how these verses are to be interpreted. Your bottom line was only the conclusion of your own worldview. That would be like me having said, "The bottom line is that the Bible directly attributes animal death to Adam's sin." You would have rightly objected that such is my interpretation, and, in your view, my incorrect interpretation.

So yes, the view here is very important. The question is how to take the passage. Yet as I told Danny, to be more specific, you don't take YEC first and then interpret Rom 5:12 to teach no death before the Fall. A YEC could go either way on it. However, if Rom 5:12 does teach no death before the Fall, you have to be YEC.

Interpretation comes first, DA.

Jac3510,

On page 8 of this forum I laid out the context for this verse going almost verse by verse through the chapter. So, until you do the same and show why more than humans are intended you have no case. Young-earthers have claimed many things like the firmament means a vapor canopy covered the earth. Athiests claim it means the Jews thought the sky was a solid dome. When it means an expanse (open air) between the ocean and the clouds. Others claim the water of Genesis 1:2 was water from which the solar system was made, instead of water on the planet. You can claim anything, but the context has to back it up.

DA,

You are failing to differentiate between my argument that there was no carnivorous activity before the Fall, which is based on my understanding of Gen 1:30 and Rom 5:12 (and other verses), and my argument that your statement, quoted below, is logically fallacious:

dayage wrote:The bottom line is, nowhere in the Bible is animal death attributed to Adam's sin.

That, from page six. For the last four pages, I have been arguing that THAT statement misunderstands what the core issue is. Danny got it. He agrees with you that my interpretation of Gen 1:30 and Rom 5:12 is wrong, but he at least understands what the core issue is. So long as you hold to the statement quoted, I can't expect to have a rational conversation with you about Rom 5:12. I'm hoping Danny will be here so I can discuss the matter wit him, because he understands what the issue really is. The reason is that he recognizes that the issue is in the interpretation of the verse, which leads us to say whether or not "animal death is attributed to Adam's sin." If I am right about Rom 5:12 (or Gen 1:30), then your statement here is wrong. Thus, your statement ASSUMES OEC. How can a statement that assumes OEC be the bottom line in proving OEC is correct?

If you can recognize the fallacy in that view and wish to recant and restate, perhaps along the lines I have already suggested ("The bottom line is that YECs have misinterpreted passages like Gen 1:30 and Rom 5:12 to teach that there was no death before the fall."), then we can move on with a discussion on particular verses. I hope to have my exegesis for Danny done later today, and I would like you to be able to participate in the discussion as well. But you and I can't do that, however, if you insist on appealing to circular logic to justify your views.

This point isn't a big one, DA, but it is important. I'm sure you can agree that if people can't agree on what the fundamental issues are, they won't get anywhere in conversation.

I'm here Jac

Like I said, should be later today.

While I'm composing, I have a question for you. Since we are talking about Paul's writings, do you agree it is important to understanding broader Pauline thinking--what we might call Pauline eschatology--when we are assessing the meaning of these kinds of statements as part of our contextual studies?

Jac3510 wrote:

Like I said, should be later today.

While I'm composing, I have a question for you. Since we are talking about Paul's writings, do you agree it is important to understanding broader Pauline thinking--what we might call Pauline eschatology--when we are assessing the meaning of these kinds of statements as part of our contextual studies?

Can you be more specific, Jac because for me, while I love Paul dearly, he can at times be a total mystery. I'm of the opinion that the passage we are wrestling with is clear in its message, but am eager to know how you think taking Paul's eschatology into account could change the way we read this statement. Paul's eschatology, for me, is entirely in keeping with the Romans 5:12. The passage oozes Paul's way of thinking, his strident, no-nonsense message.

NM, Danny - if you think I make too much of any particular theological idea, you can tell me.

OK, so Rom 5:12. Forgive the length of this, by the way . . . lots and lots to cover!

First, let's put it in the overall context of the book:

Rom 1-3: The universal Problem of Sin
Rom 3-5: Justification
Rom 5-8: Sanctification
Rom 9-11: Relationship to Isreal
Rom 12ff: Practical app.

It's very important to note that this verse comes at the joint between Paul's discussion on justification and sanctification. He is, if you will, turning a corner. Having proven that everyone was under sin and that works could not save, and thus salvation comes only through faith, he is now in the process of talking about how we ought to live our lives in light of this salvation by faith. The immediate context for this is in 5:1-4, where Paul notes that even though we are saved, we still suffer tribulation and death. Yet are not tribulation and death the result of sin?!? Further, it is very interesting to note that the words "death," dead," and "to die" occur a total of 63 times in the book of Romans. Out of that, 53 times (84%) it appears in chapters 5-8. Clearly, Paul's theme in this chapter is deliverance from death--not eternal, spiritual death. That had been taken care of in the previous section on justification, but rather, the power of physical death.

Thus, the discussion on sanctification has two foundations:

1. We are saved from eternal death and suffering by grace through faith;
2. Yet we still experience temporal death and suffering.

How could this be?

It is evident, then, that Paul is talking about physical death primarily in this entire unit (5-8).

Next, I want to point out that whatever Rom 5:12 is saying, it is the beginning of the argument for this section, and that argument concludes in chapter 8. So I want to actually work backwards. The logical reason is simple. If A->B->C, but C is false, then either A or B (or both) must be false. If C is true, A or B (or both) may also be false, but A and B cannot be true and C be false. It is my contention that if you take 5:12 to refer to the spiritual death of mankind, you necessarily result in a C that is false. Rather, I want to show what Paul's actual argument is, and then show you how he provides the basis for it in 5:12.

Let's skip ahead, then, to Rom 8.:18-22. There, we find these important words:

• I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

The creation can't be humanity, because humanity is part of the sons of God. Rather, we are talking about the whole world, that is, the physical universe. This is, of course, confirmed by other Scripture, where it is clear that the New Creation will be totally unlike the present, something even Ross recognizes.

But notice that this has been going on for a long time. There are only two views: either creation was created "in labor" (to use Paul's analogy), or it "conceived" and "went into labor" sometime after the initial creation. So which is it?

Moving back, note Paul's connection of creation's suffering with our own suffering--which, you will remember, is the theme of Rom 5-8. This is Paul's ultimate answer to the question posed above: if we are already saved from our sin, then why do we suffer for our sin? Answer: because while we may be saved from the eternal ramifications of sin, we still pay the price for the temporal price for our sin (which, by the way, is a thought he restates all over his literature; for one example, see Gal 6:7-8).

Thus, for Paul, Christians have to decide if they are going live a life of sin and embrace what it leads to--death (physical, not spiritual) and corruption in this life, or life and abundance in this life.

We see him picking that concept up exactly in 8:1-15. There, Paul picks up his thought from 7:7ff and proclaims that all Christians are secure in Christ, but that now we have to choose if we will walk in the spirit or by the flesh, the former leading to life and abundance, and the latter leading to death and corruption.

Immediately before that, we come to the controversial passage of Rom 7:7-25, where Paul discusses his problem with sin. Theologians argue whether or not he is presently struggling with sin as a Christian or if he is referring to his pre-Christian struggle. Suffice it to say here that the connection between this and chapter eight requires, I think, the former. Paul is admitting that he has a sin problem even as a believer. And where does that sin problem reside? In his body, that is, in his flesh. His body wants to sin, which leads to his corruption and even physical death. So he laments in v. 24, "who will save me from this body of death!" The answer is in the next verse: Jesus Christ! But he is not talking about justification, for that has already been resolved. He is talking about his future glorification, in which he will receive a body that is not sold under sin, so that he will be free to live as he so deeply desires, a live pleasing to God. Thus, Paul says, since all believers will be raised with this future body, there is now no condemnation for those in Christ (8:1), and it is up to the believer to face the struggle each day of whether he will live by the flesh or by the spirit, and this until "the sons of God are revealed," which will lead to the liberation of the whole creation!

But how did he get to this sin struggle in the first place? In Rom 7:1-7, he is finishing his discussion from chapter 6. He is illustrating that chapter with the law of marriage; once a woman's husband dies, she is free from him and can marry another. In the same way, when a believer dies is identified with Christ, he is baptized by the Holy Spirit into Christ's death, and thus himself dies (cf. Gal 2:20), and is thus free to be with another, namely, Christ. But does that make the law sin? No, Paul says, for it was by the law that we know what sin is--not morally, for that is universal (Rom 1-3), but legally as it relates to God. And with this, Paul makes a very important statement that goes all the way back to our own chapter 5 and even before:

• But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

We should note here that sin cannot kill unless there is Law. Yet God had to give the Law so that we would know what sin was! In fact, it was the Law that gave Christ the legal authority to be our savior, as you well know.

That brings us back to chapter six. The idea there is that we are dead to sin and alive to Christ because of the free gift of salvation. He addresses the question as to whether or not we should sin freely since we are now under grace and the law is dead. Obviously not, he says. We should count ourselves dead to sin and count ourselves alive to Christ, His slaves. But how can we legally do that? Thus the connection to chapter 7, which he illustrates by human marriage.

This leads us to the end of chapter five. How is it that we are dead to sin and alive to Christ? Answer: because of what Christ did on the cross. Just as in one man (Adam) death came to all, so in one man (Christ), life comes to all.

Thus, notice the progression of the argument:

Because of Christ's work on the cross, we are no longer dead to sin, but alive to Christ. We should, then, not live in sin, but live as His slaves. We can picture this by thinking of human marriage; just as when a man dies, his wife is "free," so when we died in Christ, we are free from sin and can live under His sanctifying rule. But there is a problem! Though I may be spiritually alive, I still have this dead body, and sin resides in this dead body. Thus, I am still drawn to my sin every day, being, as I am, in this sinful body of death. So how will God solve that problem? By raising my body in Christ's image, just as He raised my spirit in His image. Thus, I am free to live by that spirit, or I may choose to give into my body's desires and live by the flesh. The former leads to life and abundance; the latter to death and despair.

NOW - if you follow that argument, let's apply this to our particular question, whether or not the "world" in Rom 5:12 is only humanity or all of creation.

Paul, addressing the question of sanctification in light of our physical death and suffering even though we are saved, notes that:

"For just as through one man Sin came into the world and death came through sin, even in the same way death spread to all men, because all men sin." (My translation)

First, note the comparison: sin entered the kosmos (world) through Adam, as if he were a doorway. By the same mechanism, death spreads, as if like a cloud filling up a room, to all human beings, namely, their individual sins. Thus, the emphasis here is on what sin has does: it brings death--physical death (which, remember, is exactly the issue under consideration in this unit, beginning with 5:1-4).

So physical death came into the kosmos the same way it comes to all men. That's the problem chapters 5-8 looks to resolve.

Now, on its face, it seems silly to say that physical death came to mankind in the same way it comes to all men, by sin. If it has come to mankind, it seems to me that it has already come to men (that's what mankind means!). But now let's add two more facts to this that I think are a bit stronger:

1. Paul clearly has Gen 3 in mind. First, the reference is obviously to Adam's original sin. Second, Paul says that "death reigned from Adam until Moses," which certainly makes us think of that terrible refrain in Gen 5, "And he died." I'll leave out for now the more technical discussion on the relationship between the Mosaic law and sin/death, as that has important bearings, but not so much on the identification of the meaning of kosmos.

2. While Paul begins with Gen 3 and the creation is mind, he ends with it as well, as we originally noted in Rom 8. There, Paul looks forward to the liberation of creation, not merely of mankind! Thus, it seems apparent that, for Paul, it was not only over humanity that death reigned at the moment of his sin (when death entered the world), but that death even reigned over all of creation. If one decides that death did not begin reigning over all of creation at Adam's sin, then one must wonder, 1) when did it begin doing so, and 2) what has any of this to do with sin?

So the close connection between sin and death in this unit is unavoidable, and yet, Paul concludes with the liberation of all of creation, including men, and he begins with stating that the kosmos was put under the rule of death . . . Paul's line of thought is far easier to understand, to me, if by kosmos he is referring to the actual world, the whole of creation.

Finally, all of this ties beautifully into the broader rabbinical idea of the day (and even of now!). Judaism spoke then as it does now of the present world and the world to come; the former being characterized by sin and death as a result of Adam's sin, the latter being characterized by life and righteousness as a result of the Messiah's advent. This idea deeply permeates this entire section, as I'm sure you can see. In fact, Judaism speaks of the re-establishment of Gan Eden (The Garden of Eden), which was lost at the Fall, when the Messiah comes, an idea not lost on the NT (cf. Rev 2:7 and Rev 21-22).

All in all, Paul's eschatology drips from these pages. He sees the entire creation as under bondage thanks to Adam's sin, and that it is waiting to be restored. That will happen when the Messiah comes, and when that happens, not only will the Messiah come, but we ourselves will be freed from this body of death in which we now dwell. Our struggle with sin will be over. We will be able to truly live by the Spirit as we now wish to do. Why, then, do we suffer even though we are saved? Because even though our spirits may be in Christ, are bodies are still in this present age, which is what Jesus Christ will return to resolve once and for all. Good news? Talk about GREAT NEWS! I get excited just reading this part of the text. The edification . . . the motivation to serve Christ and to face our tribulations with our heads held high! Yeah, I can see exactly why Paul presented this to answer that great question of why we suffer evil and death in this world.

It truly is a grand message . . . and it means that the kosmos, in Rom 5:12, refers to the entire creation, as does the entire context, not merely to humanity alone. But such is the problem, I think, with much modern theology . . . we consistently put our own selves and our own redemption at the center. We have made our theology--and the Bible itself--man-centered, when nothing could be further from the truth.

The idea of Physical death in Romans 5:12 is not at all clear and there are several things that rule against it.

1. Paul has not discussed Physical death in Romans prior to this point in this epistle, so if we're to now understand the context differently than what he has been discussing previously, it should be evident within the text itself and not attempting to reflect back a comparative, illustrative reference a great distance away from this verse in Chapter 8.

2. The immediate context is about reconciliation. Verses 10 and 11is about how we are reconciled in terms of our position with God. Reconciliation is what brings us to no longer being separated from God. Spiritual death is what separates us from God. Paul is speaking of reconciliation which is God's remedy for our spiritual death.

3. The comparison following which references and compares and contrasts Jesus bringing life verses Adam who brought death through sin. In the passage in Genesis 3 that Jac references that Paul was mindful, the death Adam and Eve experienced at the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge was not physically immediate, despite the fact that God had warned them that the day (assuming the day there is a 24 hour day which a YEC position should assume). Clearly the immediate death that took place was spiritual separation from God. That fits perfectly the context of this passage in Romans which is addressing that spiritual death. If the passage were speaking of physical death to be consistent you'd have to render the life that Jesus brings as an accomplished and experiencable gift as being physical here and now and that obviously is not the case.

4. Note the contrast present shorthly following in Rom 5:21; namely Sin reigned through death, and now grace through righteousness brought (past tense) eternal life. The contrast is between spiritual death vs eternal life. Physical death and eternal life are not an equivilent parallel.

5. In Romans 6, Paul continues to discuss spiritual life. the culmination of the chapter in Rom 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Clearly eternal life is again the topic and the natural contrast is that the wages of sin is spiritual death, that is, separation from God.

6. Jumping forward to Romans 8 and picking on a comparative reference and then attempting to project that back selectively to a previous section as a theme and attempting to elevate that over the immediate context of the passage is not particularly strong exegesis in my opinion and displays a determined end on the part of the exegeter rather than allowing the passage to speak for itself.

Contrary to previous claims, it doesn't require an OEC point of view not to see physical life and further beyond that to life in all of creation in this passage. The OEC contention in this passage doesn't require an elaborate rationalization or stretching forward to a passing reference in Chapter 8 to make Rom 5:12 say something that is clearly outside of the immediate context of the verses and flow of thought present in this passage.

The OEC position doesn't rest it's point of view upon this passage because there's nothing there that ties to physical death. The YEC position, at least as it's been represented here, has to expand the meaning and then selectively apply it conveniently in some places while ignoring or attempting to explain away the inconsistencies that it creates throughout the entire passage. The more complicated interpretation requires a higher burden of proof as the passage in this instance is being used to support a conclusion that appears to me to be greatly outside the original author and audience.

I recognize that others may see this differently and that there are strong christian brothers and sisters who would come to a similar conclusion as to what has been presented elsewhere in this thread. It's a controversial passage. There are 3 spheres of meaning being worked here. I think most agree that spiritual death is involved and included in this passage. The next circle out is Human physical death. The passage flows and makes perfect sense and the anaologies don't require extensice gymnastics with spiritual death, but with physical death included in Rom 5:12 you immediately introduce very difficult issues and you have to see it in some areas and explain why it doesn't apply in others. Going one circle out further and including animal physical death introduces even more difficulties and then requires an explanation as to how animals are relevent unless you're speaking of spiritual life and regeneration in animals which is so far outside of traditional, orthodox christianity as to be absurd on the face.

There's really not an "OEC" position necessary on these verses. The elements the YEC position seeks to introduce and reason backwards from, (whether that is being done consciously or not) simply aren't present in these verses and are not being drawn out from the text. They are being read into it.

It's not a cardinal issue however in the context of the YEC and OEC issues which are best are secondary to the main theme of the text.

1. Paul has not discussed Physical death in Romans prior to this point in this epistle, so if we're to now understand the context differently than what he has been discussing previously, it should be evident within the text itself and not attempting to reflect back a comparative, illustrative reference a great distance away from this verse in Chapter 8.

Given the distribution of the various words for death in this unit compared to the rest of the book, it is evident within the text itself. That Paul has moved on to a different context (from justification to sanctification) is recognized by all commentators. If you don't think that Rom 5 should be consistent with Rom 8, then there is nothing I can do for you. That would be like saying Rom 9 should not be consistent with Rom 11.

2. The immediate context is about reconciliation. Verses 10 and 11is about how we are reconciled in terms of our position with God. Reconciliation is what brings us to no longer being separated from God. Spiritual death is what separates us from God. Paul is speaking of reconciliation which is God's remedy for our spiritual death.

Spiritual death has already been addressed in chapters 3-4. The section is not about how we are reconciled, but the entire unit rather begins with the fact that we are reconciled and answers questions related to it, i.e., then why do we suffer, how can that legally be, why do I struggle with sin, etc.

3. The comparison following which references and compares and contrasts Jesus bringing life verses Adam who brought death through sin. In the passage in Genesis 3 that Jac references that Paul was mindful, the death Adam and Eve experienced at the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge was not physically immediate, despite the fact that God had warned them that the day (assuming the day there is a 24 hour day which a YEC position should assume). Clearly the immediate death that took place was spiritual separation from God. That fits perfectly the context of this passage in Romans which is addressing that spiritual death. If the passage were speaking of physical death to be consistent you'd have to render the life that Jesus brings as an accomplished and experiencable gift as being physical here and now and that obviously is not the case.

I would not grant tat Adam and Eve did not die physically the day they ate of the fruit. As I have said millions of times, it is precisely like the flower that is picked from the ground. It dies immediately, although the decay takes quite a long time to set in. In Adam's case, it took 900 years. In ours, it takes about 70.

The comparison between Adam and Jesus does not have to bring experiential life in my view. If you read more closely my argument, you would see that I said that this entire section answers the question "How is it that we are dead to sin and alive to Christ? Answer: because of what Christ did on the cross. Just as in one man (Adam) death came to all, so in one man (Christ), life comes to all." As I've said repeatedly, the death that came to all men is physical, as is the life that comes to all men. But more to the point, the entire section on sanctification concludes with glorification for a reason: even though I am spiritually alive, my body is still dead. THAT is the problem that sanctification ultimately solves, which is what this unit is about. The Resurrection is very much in Paul's mind as he writes this, which will be absolutely experienced, and from that, we live in hope (elpidos). As I said already, Paul's eschatology drips from these pages.

4. Note the contrast present shorthly following in Rom 5:21; namely Sin reigned through death, and now grace through righteousness brought (past tense) eternal life. The contrast is between spiritual death vs eternal life. Physical death and eternal life are not an equivilent parallel.

See above. You are ignoring what I did say and substituting your own version of my view.

5. In Romans 6, Paul continues to discuss spiritual life. the culmination of the chapter in Rom 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Clearly eternal life is again the topic and the natural contrast is that the wages of sin is spiritual death, that is, separation from God.

I disagree. He is talking about physical death. If Adam had not sinned, he and none of his descendants would have ever died. This, by the way, is one of the reasons people must understand the OT before the go to the NT. It is very evident in the OT--in which Paul was steeped, and from which the theology of this section draws heavily--the sin leads to physical death. Read your proverbs. We must stop "Christianizing" our Bibles.

By the way, this is why I asked Danny how important Paul's eschatology is when interpreting his writings. You have a very clear theological construct you are applying to Paul's words. I think that construct is mistaken. I take the construct I apply from the OT and from Paul's other writings generally. Since there is no way to avoid a construct, the question is where you got the one from that you are applying. For all the preachers' talks on spiritual death, for the life of me, I don't see it expounded on in Scripture . . . I do, however, see a huge preoccupation all throughout the Bible with the physical death and corruption that flows directly from sin..

6. Jumping forward to Romans 8 and picking on a comparative reference and then attempting to project that back selectively to a previous section as a theme and attempting to elevate that over the immediate context of the passage is not particularly strong exegesis in my opinion and displays a determined end on the part of the exegeter rather than allowing the passage to speak for itself.

Assuming the beginning of an argument and the end of that argument don't need to be consistent is even weaker exegesis in my opinion. You would never do that with Rom 9 and 11, Gal 3 and 4, etc. In act, when we do practice this, such as is commonly done with the epistle of James, 1 John, or the Sermon on the Mount, we often end up with terrible exegesis. Why people think that context only means the verse before and not the entire unit in which the section is found I will never understand.

So, what are the fundamental areas of disagreement:

1. Whether the death involved in this passage is spiritual or physical?
2. Is the argument of the entire unit (5-8) relevant to the discussion?

Like I said, I base my exegesis on the flow of the argument. Most OECs I've read ignore it. They look at the fact that Paul has spent chapters three and four talking about the justification of men and assume Paul must be still talking about men. Of course, the problem with that is that only men can be justified, so I don't see how Paul could have said anything else . . .

I'm an exegete. I don't interpret in light of a particular world view. As everyone knows, a YEC is perfectly capable of seeing this as spiritual death of only humanity and it doesn't affect their YEC. There can be no eisogesis of a theological position here. My interest is not in defending a position. It is simply and only reading the text in its context, including its historical context (the rabbinical thought of the day, in which Paul was steeped), its canonical context (broader biblical theology, especially with reference to the OT role of sin), its immediate context (as beginning an argument to explain why Christians suffer), and its broader book-context (the relationship between the fall of man and the bondage of the world). Add to this the objective linguistic issues mentioned, such as the distribution of the words for death and I see a deeply compelling case to take this in the way I've exposed it here.

In short, I think the "OEC interpretation" simply ignores evidence. Bart takes it further by considering that evidence irrelevant and bad exegesis to include it. Each person will have to decide whose view is correct. Being an OEC board, I don't expect to convince anyone I am right, because this passage, by itself, if I am right, overturns the entirety of OEC theology. That, however, isn't really my problem, and it does go to show YEC is directly grounded in the interpretation of key passages of Scripture.

For those who are going to continue to hold OEC, I would simply encourage you to have ready, at least in your own mind, the answers to the questions I suggested throughout my exegesis, such as why the distribution of the words for death in this unit and not the rest of the book, what is the relationship between chapters five and eight and the arguments therein, and if the world did not "go into labor pains" and was not "put into bondage" at the time of Adam's fall (which Rom 5:12, I think, clearly teaches, along with Gen 1-3), then when did that happen? You'd have to assert that God created the world that way, which certainly seems odd to me and, if nothing else, out of step with rabbinical, Jewish, and OT theology generally.

Jac,

I've read back through the thread a bit, and have a question for you based on the Scriptures you dealt with.

Just a short recap: Gen 1:30 states what God gives the animals to eat. Rom 5:12 states that death entered the world through sin. In your earlier post, in justifying that animals would have been included in that death, you say that "kosmos" means the world, and that, by implication, means that death entered at that point also for animals.

My question is why you would exclude plants from the "kosmos"? If plants were given to animals to eat, surely that meant that the plants died in that process?

In the OT sense of the word, plants don't "die" because plants aren't "alive." As you know, life and death in the OT (and the NT, for that matter) is directly related to the nephesh/psuche, and still more so to the breath (ruach/pneuma). Plants don't breath, so plants don't "die" in the same sense of the word.

edit: Consider the Flood:

"I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." Gen 6:7

Where are the plants? God created them, too . . .

And then:

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. " Gen 6:17

Again, no plants, but you see life corrected to that which has breath in it.

Like I said to both Danny and Bart, considering OT theology is very important if you want to understand Paul. If we believe reading the Federalist Papers helps us better understand the Constitution, how much more should the OT inform us on the NT? We need to stop "Christianizing" our Bibles. :p

Jac3510 wrote:In the OT sense of the word, plants don't "die" because plants aren't "alive." As you know, life and death in the OT (and the NT, for that matter) is directly related to the nephesh/psuche, and still more so to the breath (ruach/pneuma). Plants don't breath, so plants don't "die" in the same sense of the word.

No but we know that dinosaurs ate plants AND animals before the fall. We can see that in their dung. And there is no evidence that dinosaurs and man lived together, especially all crammed in on a boat...

I was responding to August's question, G. Concerning your argument, I already had this conversation with Zoe. The issue is the interpretation of texts, not the interpretation of science. If I am right about Rom 5:12, then we need to reexamine what you say science says.

Sola scriptura.

Jac3510 wrote:I was responding to August's question, G. Concerning your argument, I already had this conversation with Zoe. The issue is the interpretation of texts, not the interpretation of science. If I am right about Rom 5:12, then we need to reexamine what you say science says.

Sola scriptura.

Rom 5:12 explicitly talks about humans and not animals.. Also Romans 8:22 states that since the beginning of creation, it has always been in pain (i.e. death).