A response to the "No Death Before the Fall" article

[Jbuza]

Kurieuo Wrote
Not in light of the fact Abel made a fat sacrifice to God.

That is true, and also God killed an animal to make clothing for Adam and Eve. Not sure what this means as far as carnivores go.
----------------
Gen 1:30 And to all the animals of the earth . . . . I give every green plant for food.
Kurieuo Wrote
Again, this is not a commandment. This is really all I wish to emphasis. God is simply saying what He gives them to eat, which does not mean they must eat such food, for if they prefer to work for other food I'm sure they could have. If one believes this is a commandment as to what to eat, and only what to eat, I think too much is being read into this passage.


Not to sure, I don't think it is unreasonable to think there was no death before the fall, especially in light of the fact that we see from the passage in Isaiah that when God returns and rules again, that carnivorism will stop. I don't think this has anything to do with the age of the earth. I agree as long as we can agree on the important things the age of the earth matters little.
--------------
Kurieuo Wrote
And "unscriptural", "heretic" and the like are claims I'm sure you are aware YECs love throwing at OEC


It's kind of silly isn't it. I think there are things that are unscriptural about the arguments on both sides, because a strong, convincing case cannot be made for either just from scripture. I think basically YECs interpret very plain and literally and question the interpretations of science, and OECs harmonize what they believe to be true from science with what they know to be true from scripture. I do not see why death before the fall or no death before the fall couldn't exist in either case. Certainly a God who can create a world can sustain it as he pleases.

[Kurieuo]

Again, this is not a commandment. This is really all I wish to emphasis. God is simply saying what He gives them to eat, which does not mean they must eat such food, for if they prefer to work for other food I'm sure they could have. If one believes this is a commandment as to what to eat, and only what to eat, I think too much is being read into this passage.

Not to sure, I don't think it is unreasonable to think there was no death before the fall, especially in light of the fact that we see from the passage in Isaiah that when God returns and rules again, that carnivorism will stop. I don't think this has anything to do with the age of the earth. I agree as long as we can agree on the important things the age of the earth matters little.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it logically impossible that there was no death before the fall. Yet, I fail to see such a belief in Scripture and see many doctrines (e.g., resurrection of the dead), and passages in Scripture, which oppose the doctrine of there being no death pre-fall.

To state something here I think is relevant... It was previously stated by or heavily implied that of course I would disagree with "problems" with there being "no death pre-fall" since I am OEC. Yet, I do not disagree with it because I am OEC, anymore than a Christian believes in Christ because they are Christian (a Christian believes in Christ because they saw the truth!). So while it is not inconceivable to believe "no death pre-fall" is true, I disagree with such a doctrine for I fail to see how it can be true. My disagreement is based upon my evaluation of there being perhaps a trinkle of Scriptural support for it, with very strong Scriptural evidence swinging in the other direction against it. So while my beliefs may be harmonious with OEC beliefs, I wasn't always OEC, and therefore if my OEC belief is even relevant it is not why I believe death existed pre-fall.

And "unscriptural", "heretic" and the like are claims I'm sure you are aware YECs love throwing at OEC

It's kind of silly isn't it. I think there are things that are unscriptural about the arguments on both sides, because a strong, convincing case cannot be made for either just from scripture. I think basically YECs interpret very plain and literally and question the interpretations of science, and OECs harmonize what they believe to be true from science with what they know to be true from scripture. I do not see why death before the fall or no death before the fall couldn't exist in either case. Certainly a God who can create a world can sustain it as he pleases.

It is good to hear that from you, especially so since I know you are passionately YEC. I too think it is silly, but then I think it is great people are so passionate about Scripture and God despite the mud-slinging that can happen.

Kurieuo

[Jac3510]

K: the only thing I think I need to respond to in the previous post is your saying, "I just didn't appreciate being told I may be putting words in God's mouth, when I see that this is not the case." I can see how you would have gotten a strongly negative impression from my comments in that area, but take them in terms of the argument as a whole. Kline's major point was that the reiteration of God's command to Adam to Noah, only with the inclusion of the right to eat meat, should be understood as an implication that God gave Adam that same right. Therefore, Kline is "putting words in God's mouth." Did God give Adam that right, though? I don't know, and neither does Kline. Maybe He did, and as such, the words would be properly attributed (better phrase?) to God. But, if not, it becomes a false teaching. My point was that if you are going to attribute something to God, you had better be 100% sure of yourself. I prefer to go, where possible, absolutely no further than the text demands.

Other than that, I think we are back on the same page, no? If so, then let's talk about what I actually do advocate. Naturally, I can be wrong, but that's where these discussions help, I think. I've changed my mind on issues before due to them.

The primary area where I actively disagree with Rich is the idea that the whole of creation was not cursed. I usually am very impressed with his articles, but the two on this issue were not his best work. It seems pointless to me to say that God cursed the Garden, but then expelled Adam from it to work in lands that were already in the same state that the now-cursed Eden was. The Romans article, I think, was just pure reaching. There is a word for "gentile nations" in Koine Greek, as used by Jews, which was ethnos. Paul was fond of it. If that were what he meant, I think he would have used it. The context of a cursed creation awaiting redemption fits much better to me, especially given Paul's eschatology with special reference to the Millennial Kingdom.


Secondly, I advocate that man would have existed in an immortal state (in the physical sense) prior to his fall. I am surprised that you agree to this, but at least it is a point of agreement.

Thirdly, when I read Gen. 1:29-30, I see a clear reference to all animals being created as herbivores. When I entered this discussion in earnest, I began by saying that I didn't like the "food chain" argument. I still don't. Perhaps I should have avoided the tact of showing how this fits with the YEC approach (they don't have to explain a prohibition, as none could logically exist), so avoiding that entire line of thought, I simply say that if OEC holds to animals being created as carnivores, I need a solid exegesis of these two verses.

Finally, I see the same clarity in reference with Gen. 9:3 in that man's being permitted to eat meat, although he would have certainly been doing that before. This is held in contrast with 1:29.

Now, please note these areas of disagreement are matters of interpretation of specific passages. Because of my tendencies in how I understand these, there are certain obvious implications on what creation models I can and cannot accept, as well as to the varying degrees to which I can accept or reject them.

I know that you have dealt with some of this in previous posts, but I felt it would be a good idea to get a good boiling down of the issues as they relate to ideas I support rather than "debating points."

Thanks again

[Avin]

Hi Kurieuo! I'm sorry I haven't responded to you yet. I stopped paying attention to this forum maybe a week or so after I posted, after seeing only minimal serious interaction with what I had posted. Your post on Dec 22nd was exactly what I was hoping to interact with when I made my post, and I thank you for taking the time to do so. Thank you also for providing your background; it helps to be able to relate to you as a person and a brother in Christ before engaging in discussions when I know we will have differing views, because despite our differences we share a common hope that I can see more clearly when I know you better. I'd rather get started acknowledging that before we start sorting out differences of interpretation, and I hope it will result in a fruitful discussion for both our sakes.

I also note that there has been a lot of discussion since you posted that, primarily between yourself and Jac3510, which I have found interesting to see his perspective as well. I appreciate his method of questioning to see which interpretation he believes in, of questioning both the errors he sees in OEC as well as YEC. Jac, I would be delighted to discuss with you the problems you see in YEC as well. I hope you will find that I am open to addressing flaws in my own interpretation in an honest manner, since I do see difficulties with my interpretation (such as for instance, the light time travel question) yet hold YEC because I deem it to be the best fit for what the Bible actually says.

Kurieuo, when you talk about your lack of education in biology, or exposure to evolution, I honestly don't see how you can claim that to be in your favor. Personally I think the more you can learn about the scientific and historical background to the ideas being contested, the better equipped you will be to understand your own position as well as the positions you reject. I wish I had had more education in such matters as geology and astronomy, not less, even though I think I got about as good of an education in them growing up as I could expect, having had some great science teachers especially in high school. At any rate, I'm sorry you were thrown off of YEC by the tape by Ken Ham, but I would encourage you to give him a second chance; I know he is prone to making some rather forceful remarks about opposing viewpoints, but in what I have seen of him, he always means them with Biblical intentions. He truly believes that OEC or theistic evolution are harmful viewpoints for Christians to hold (while not denying that a Christian can hold them and still be saved), and therefore out of concern for those who hold them, make such remarks. But if that still does not strike you as being accurate to what you observed, I still would encourage you to look at the premises of YEC without letting that personal experience get in the way.

Before responding directly to your arguments, I'd like to address two things.

First, let's discuss epistemology a bit first. Actually I think I'd like this to be addressed prior to any discussion over creation itself.

How do you learn about history?

Suppose to draw a neutral example we wanted to study how the Sistine Chapel was painted.

It is useful whenever studying history to distinguish between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and circumstantial evidence.

If Michaelangelo himself wrote an account of the painting, a diary while he was painting, or wrote letters concerning the painting, these would be considered primary sources.

One level down from that: if someone else watched as he painted and wrote similar documents, they would also be considered primary sources, but not as useful to us as Michaelangelo's own documents, because in this case we can see the specifics of what happened but not as much of the motivations behind it.

Secondary sources would be biographies of Michaelangelo, or external accounts of how the Sistine chapel was painted. In other words, anything that used primary sources for its sources.

Tertiary sources would be articles and sources that used the material above as its sources, and is therefore hardly worth considering for any serious study.

Now, to look at circumstancial evidence: the Sistine Chapel itself is actually circumstancial evidence! Circumstancial evidence is any evidence, either physical or written accounts, that were not direct witnesses to the event in question or are unable to speak for themselves. Therefore any material things, which includes the Sistene Chapel, the object of the event, is still circumstantial evidence. Written accounts of other people describing the Chapel, both before and after painting who did not witness the painting itself, is also circumstantial evidence. If we had material evidence concerning the amount of paint that was used, the sort of supplies that were used, etc, that is also all circumstancial evidence.

Now, what is the role of each of the above materials in studying the event of painting? The answer is that written sources must be analyzed in the light of several factors, the most important of which include primacy (whether it is a primary source or not), reasons to lie/exaggerate, and corroboration with other sources and the circumstantial evidence.

So in other words, the role of the circumstantial evidence serves primarily to validate testimony, but is only one factor among many in doing so. Of course the Sistine chapel can still be studied for its artistic value on its own, but that is not the purpose of the current inquiry. If we want to learn how it was painted, the only reason we would have for studying it on its own is if no written source texts existed or if all that existed were discredited. The relevent thing about this is that you cannot presuppose the non-existence of source material, establish an interpretation of the circumstantial evidence, and then check this interpretation against a source that you then consider. It has to be the other way around: you consider the interpretation you expect given the authority of a source material, then see if that interpretation fits the evidence.

Therefore, because of my views on the historicity of the resurrection, I consider the Bible to be a primary source for all history that it is relevent to, which includes the creation of the earth. Therefore the creation itself, being circumstantial evidence for that event, should be interpreted by the source material first, and then be checked to see if the actual evidence is consistent with this interpretation. Someone who is an atheist would logically not consider the Bible to be a primary source, but would also delegate it to being circumstantial evidence, and so therefore consider all circumstantial evidence equal. Hence you have theories like naturalistic evolution, which is the result of considering the circumstantial evidence of science applied to living beings as the only evidence for the existence of those creatures.

I think you can agree with me on everything I have stated thus far; the thrust of this is to show the proper role of the evidences from science and how they can apply to the study of scripture. We both agree that scripture is a primary source since it is inspired by God; why is that?

For me, that belief is centered in the resurrection; I have come to the conclusion through the above sort of reasoning that the resurrection is a historical event. I'm sure you have as well. Therefore, the claims of Christ are justified as being the creator of the universe, and I can establish his authority in speaking on both historical and spiritual matters. He furthermore confirmed the Jewish doctrines of the inspiration of the Old Testament throughout his ministry so I therefore accept it to the same degree that I discern he would have.

To that extent, the passages that Jesus quotes are from both "historical" books and "poetic" books. What is acceptable exegesis from these two genres? He clearly regards people mentioned as being actual historical people and not metaphors, and establishes the perseverance of the accuracy of the text throughout history. Yet his statements alone are not enough to build a consistent exegetical principle from. In cases where he or the apostles do not specifically reject the exegetical principles of those around him, I submit it is sufficient to look to the standards for Second Temple Judaism for interpreting their own scriptures. How would they look at historical and poetical books? I have formed an opinion since studying New Testament culture and other Ancient Near Eastern literature, but I will grant you that my knowledge in this area is not sufficient to establish this beyond doubt, so if you can provide counterexamples sufficient to establish the consistent rejection of this idea I will be happy to retract this part of my argument. That is that the historical books of the Bible are actual history that were perfectly capable of being understood at the time, using language of appearance but not using allegory. Poetical books were meant to convey moral messages, sometimes liturgically retell a historical incident that is already well known, or be an instance of prayer. Often the "moral message" sort was intentionally made up much like a fairy tale that the listener and teller both knew were not historical. So I am unlikely to accept historical arguments from poetry, which Old Earth Creationists seem to do quite often. Specifically, passages from Job and various psalms are often used, Psalm 104 in particular. In the case of Job, we have a clear cut case of the moral wisdom story which has no significance whether the event actually happened or not. I do not feel there is any reason to argue for or against its actual historicity; nothing outside the book of Job requires the event to be historical - in fact, the only other direct reference is James 5:11 which is also not concerned with the historicity of the account, only the patience exemplified in the character of Job. The only historical reference in the book itself is that Job lived in Uz, which we cannot be certain if it was a real city or not - perhaps it was intentionally a fake city? Now regardless of whether the account is historical or not, we can establish things from the story itself, just as with any literature: the nature of life around them, the sort of creatures and events that a hypothetical person in that time and place might have experienced, etc. But we cannot use the poetical speeches of God to establish doctrines about history. While the book of Job is also an inspired book of the Old Testament, that does not mean that a first century Jew would have actually used that for historical purposes. To say so is akin to claiming that the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in the book of Luke establishes the doctrine that when good people die they go into the arms of Abraham! Clearly Jesus in the parable is using a figurative device for the afterlife in order to make his point, and not expecting us to take teaching from the device. Similarly, Psalm 104 is clearly a song of praise that parallels Genesis 1 in structure, but that does not mean it parallels it in history! As either you or one of the articles you've linked to admits, the presence of the ships clearly rejects that idea.

Sometimes I think Old Earth Creationists are more "fundamentalists" or "extreme literalists" than YECs are, despite the seemingly odd incongruity that it's the YECs that hold to the 6000 year old Earth. More on this later.

So anyway, if we had a passage in the Old Testament that said unambiguously that all animals ate only plantlife (I know this is not the case obviously or we wouldn't be having this discussion), how would we evaluate this? It is important to consider exactly what our circumstantial evidence is. We can observe animals eating meat today - that is circumstantial evidence. We have historical accounts of animals eating meat from extrabiblical sources as well. These would fall into two categories: those which are contemporaneous to the statement in the Bible and those that are not. Ones which are contemporaneous would be considered alternate primary sources, ones that are not would be considered circumstantial evidence. The reasoning is that the claim is time specific, so an account only speaks to the same event if it is at the same time. For the contemporaneous accounts, if we have already established the authority of scriptures as being by God, then we have the clear comparison that the scripture trumps the alternate source on the basis of authorial reliability: God is more reliable than man. For non-contemporaneous accounts, we can apply the same reasoning to discount the account in the worst case scenario, but we also have the possibility that both are true and that something changed inbetween. Such would clearly be the case between the scripture and now.

So in conclusion, I do not think it is necessary to defend the scientific feasibility of the change from all herbivorous to possible carnivorous activity, before other Christians that is. Since we both accept the Bible as authoritative and feasible, it stands to reason that if you are correct, that's fine, and if I am correct, then there is some logical explanation why that is the case. For instance, I do not have a consistent explanation for the circumstantial evidence that can be summed up in the distant starlight problem, but it is important to note that the circumstantial evidence is NOT the same thing as saying that the light has travelled for x million years; the circumstantial evidence is the observed data itself, such as the measured speed of light today and the observed angles of the stars in the sky, from which we derive the inference of the latter, and it is entirely possible that we are leaving something out of our reasoning, or it is entirely possible that there is some way a wave can travel for billions of years within a thousand year old universe. Similarly, I do not think it necessary to defend Young Earth Creationism from alleged contradictions within poetical books of the Bible, because I don't find a contradiction between a historical account that says one thing and a poetical account that seems to say another.

With regard to the comment I made earlier about Old Earth Creationists ironically being more of "fundamentalists" than Young Earthers, what I was referring to when I said I would get back to that point incidentally is the dogmatism I see regarding creation and evolution in Old Earthers. I find that Old Earthers often will argue against various things that Young Earthers say by appealing to an idea that God finished his creative works on the 6th day of creation and so some of the theories Young Earthers have come up with regarding changes either at the fall or since then cannot be possible. Perhaps God's creation was "complete," but how does that imply that God could no longer interacts with his creation in a transformative manner? The discussion draws precise parallels to the arguments between Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz over the nature of creation: Newton believed in an ordered and finished creation but also believed that God was continually magisterial over it and interacted with it; Leibniz agreed with Newton on the perfection of original creation but claimed Newton was being inconsistent in claiming that God still interacted with it, because that implied that it was not perfect to begin with. Newton still stuck with his views because he could not reject the idea that God was Lord - that is, he was an active ruler, not a watchmaker as many Deists later claimed Newton to have supported. I believe that Leibniz's argument rests on imposing Platonic ideals artificially on scripture; the God of the Bible is not Plato's ideal deity, and the finished creation was "very good" and perfect in a sense but not so perfect that it could not be marred by sin, and also the perfection entailed God's interaction rather than prohibited it. So why is it that so many Old Earthers reject the idea of speciation and natural selection, and that living creatures today may have had common ancestors with creatures they cannot interbreed with now, but may have been able to before? I would like to know, Kurieuo, what you believe in this respect. It is one thing to say that all living things did not come from a common ancestor, it is quite another to say that no two living things that cannot interbreed today did not come from a common ancestor. I am afraid that your lack of study in biology and evolution in this case is a hindrance for certain. As I was growing up, I had for a certain period desired to be a geneticist as I was quite fascinated by genetics, heredity, and DNA. You cannot say that species cannot be reproductively or geologically isolated and then evolve seperately to the point where they are no longer able to interbreed with each other, because that can be disproven scientifically. It's quite unlike the question of the age of the Earth, which is rather a historic question and therefore a primary historical source is more reliable than any scientific evidence. Personally I believe that the idea that natural selection applied to species will result in shifts in a gene pool over time, possibly eliminating traits, possibly resulting in speciation due to two groups not being able to interbreed, is a scientifically testable and provable assertion, and it may indeed happen much faster than secular evolutionists believe possible, especially since that would help with the circumstantial evidence we have about the number of animal species we have today as compared to the historical source attesting to the dimensions of Noah's ark. Of course I do not put my faith in such an idea, it is just one possibility that the circumstantial evidence seems to be consistent with as far as we know now, and if natural selection in this way were to be refuted, that would have nothing to do with the validity of Noah's ark. But anyway, it seems to me like Old Earthers in a misguided attempt to be faithful have got their epistemology quite mixed up; they are denying the scientifically provable aspects of "evolutionary theory" and asserting the scientifically unprovable parts of it, which makes them at odds with both YECs (who deny the scientifically unprovable parts but support the scientifically provable) and Naturalists, who often assert both the scientifically provable and unprovable as a single theory. I have noticed that there seem to be an awful lot of geologists and astronomers as compared to those in the life sciences in the Old Earth camp; could it be that this is because they are less familiar with the biological sciences, who would recognize precisely this error?

Alright... now to actually get into your responses.

Yet, it is important to state that plants are from a scientific standpoint considered life. ...

I'm not debating that point, I'm saying that they are not nephesh life, and as such they cannot really die. They can figuratively be spoken of as dying, in the same way that we can figuratively speak of the wind dying without actually meaning it loses life. Following the statement I quoted, you continue to provide scripture references without addressing this argument at all, which does little more than Rich's article for me - I understand all these references to the death of plants being figuratively speaking of the plant's death.

The reason I think it is important to speak of this distinction is that by saying that plants are alive in a Biblical sense would imply that my argument arbitrarily picks certain categories of life to assign death to, and not others. Why animals and humans but not plants? But my argument does not depend on something like that, it claims that death is more than a termination of life, but it is something that in some way can be personified as a ruler that we chose by sinning in place of God, and therefore its "will" is imposed on all creation in place of God by our choice; not that death is more powerful than God but that God gave us in our stewardship over creation the ability to choose our master and therefore the master of all we are steward over, and we have chosen, the consequences which apply to all creation. This basis in stewardship was, by the way, the central point of my argument in support of my position, which I noticed you have not responded to yet.

In subsequent paragraphs and indeed later on repeatedly in your posts, you make points drawing from poetic or figurative passages regarding God's ordaining of death of men, (and in your later arguments) of prey for carnivores. You make a similar point in another post describing the act of saying grace before meal in thanking God for our food and not sinfulness. All these points can be addressed together: first, you are again drawing from poetic passages as I already addressed above, and second, all these attributions to God are at the level of sovereign over everything that takes place being used for his greater glory, not at the level of him desiring that from the original creation! After all, I think you as an Old Earther would agree that God did not intend for people to suffer prior to sin, right? If you disagree with that statement, let me know. However, the New Testament teaches us to rejoice not just in spite of our sufferings, but because of them, and to count it a blessing when we are persecuted. Why? For the same reason that God ordains death in this present fallen world and that we thank God for the meat we can eat - because God is Lord over all that takes place even now, despite the fact that these things are not things that would have happened in the pre-fallen world.

Finally, your last point of rebuttal is in regard to my argument that the conversation between God and Adam regarding death need not have been recorded. I like the point you make and I agree with you; Adam would probably not have fully understood what God meant even if God did have an unrecorded conversation with Adam. I think this is really fascinating, although I don't think this is really an argument against my view. To me it means that Adam in choosing sin and therefore death was able to then obtain a knowledge of death that he would otherwise have not had, which God even in a sense did not have - that of experiencing it. However, in that act, God did in a sense experience it, because Adam's choice led to the necessity of a savior, God incarnate, who died knowing the seperation and death caused by sin. Amazing!

[Kurieuo]

I am find it interesting coming across threads which I never got around to providing an end response to so here I go.

Kurieuo, when you talk about your lack of education in biology, or exposure to evolution, I honestly don't see how you can claim that to be in your favor. Personally I think the more you can learn about the scientific and historical background to the ideas being contested, the better equipped you will be to understand your own position as well as the positions you reject. I wish I had had more education in such matters as geology and astronomy, not less, even though I think I got about as good of an education in them growing up as I could expect, having had some great science teachers especially in high school.

This puzzled me a little, but I guess you are responding to where I wrote:

To make a comment at this point, I never did biology although I studied the cosmos a little within my Earth Science class. In the general science subject I never paid much attention either. I never needed to do much with science since my main interest was with computing and information technology which I went on to study at university. So I think it is important at this point to state that I was never influenced by an evolutionary position in my decisions regarding creation as this is a claim often leveled again Christians taking a different position to YEC. My take on the Genesis creation days was based purely upon my own understanding. That is until I was 20 and began listening to creation tapes by Ken Ham. Within he said something like, "there is only one main reason why people do not accept the days in Genesis are literal 24-hour days... and that reason is because they don't have faith!" Oddly enough I remember my listening being interrupted by Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door, and never returned to listen to those tapes again. I was a little annoyed that some "pastor" would say I didn't have faith; however, I remember taking aboard that the days were 24-hour days since, in my naivety, I thought he was the pastor and would know the Bible better than me.

As should be evident to anyone reading what I wrote my lack of knowledge regarding matters of biology you mention was in the past. There have been many, many, years between then and now. I fail to see how just because someone is unlearned in the past on a particular topic, how that means it must always remain the case that they are unlearned about that topic.

I can only assume that you are here just trying to switch tactics with a personal slant , since you likely would have realised my personal story was also an indirect refutation of an implicit claim in your original post that the beliefs of OEC (particularly Day-Age) are based on science rather than Scripture. I can never buy into that false claim since I have myself as a living example of it being false.

At any rate, I'm sorry you were thrown off of YEC by the tape by Ken Ham, but I would encourage you to give him a second chance; I know he is prone to making some rather forceful remarks about opposing viewpoints, but in what I have seen of him, he always means them with Biblical intentions.

No thanks. He is dangerous in my opinion if he goes around disheartening Christians with his authoritarian approach. God can get His message across to people quite fine without the likes of Ken Ham. However, please note I do not base my decisions on matters of truth upon the persons who represent each side. Rather, in the case of YEC vs OEC I look to Scripture as well as God's plain revelation in nature.

He truly believes that OEC or theistic evolution are harmful viewpoints for Christians to hold (while not denying that a Christian can hold them and still be saved), and therefore out of concern for those who hold them, make such remarks. But if that still does not strike you as being accurate to what you observed, I still would encourage you to look at the premises of YEC without letting that personal experience get in the way.

It is great he holds so strong to truth, but quite frankly I think his approach does more harm than good.

I think you can agree with me on everything I have stated thus far; the thrust of this is to show the proper role of the evidences from science and how they can apply to the study of scripture. We both agree that scripture is a primary source since it is inspired by God; why is that?

Yes we can certainly agree that Scripture is inspired by God. As for why? As a Christian why not? Of course the skeptic is quick to quote contradictions, but then there are just as many defenses to such contradiction, and as long as there is room for one being correct, such a claim remains silent. However, while I believe Scripture is inspired by God, I would in no way expect a non-Christian to accept it as so, just as I see they ought not expect me as a Christian who believes in God and Christ being God to deny its inspiration.

For me, that belief is centered in the resurrection; I have come to the conclusion through the above sort of reasoning that the resurrection is a historical event. I'm sure you have as well. Therefore, the claims of Christ are justified as being the creator of the universe, and I can establish his authority in speaking on both historical and spiritual matters. He furthermore confirmed the Jewish doctrines of the inspiration of the Old Testament throughout his ministry so I therefore accept it to the same degree that I discern he would have.

Great, but I feel being a Christian first has a lot to do with the why. It can not be ignored. My wife did not believe the Scriptures were inspired before coming a Christian. It was only after receiving Christ into her life that she began accepting Scripture was inspired by God, and no doubt some of the very reasons you stated justifies such a position in her mind. I feel a lot of others who become Christians are the same.

The "why we believe" question is too large to be succinctly responded to in any shape due to the varying factors both known and unknown which contribute to why we believe anything at all. That is not for the lack of our trying to do so however.

To that extent, the passages that Jesus quotes are from both "historical" books and "poetic" books. What is acceptable exegesis from these two genres? He clearly regards people mentioned as being actual historical people and not metaphors, and establishes the perseverance of the accuracy of the text throughout history. Yet his statements alone are not enough to build a consistent exegetical principle from. In cases where he or the apostles do not specifically reject the exegetical principles of those around him, I submit it is sufficient to look to the standards for Second Temple Judaism for interpreting their own scriptures. How would they look at historical and poetical books? I have formed an opinion since studying New Testament culture and other Ancient Near Eastern literature, but I will grant you that my knowledge in this area is not sufficient to establish this beyond doubt, so if you can provide counterexamples sufficient to establish the consistent rejection of this idea I will be happy to retract this part of my argument. That is that the historical books of the Bible are actual history that were perfectly capable of being understood at the time, using language of appearance but not using allegory. Poetical books were meant to convey moral messages, sometimes liturgically retell a historical incident that is already well known, or be an instance of prayer. Often the "moral message" sort was intentionally made up much like a fairy tale that the listener and teller both knew were not historical. So I am unlikely to accept historical arguments from poetry, which Old Earth Creationists seem to do quite often. Specifically, passages from Job and various psalms are often used, Psalm 104 in particular.

Let me say right here that I think your classification of divine inspiration in the Bible is quite selective. Yes, room should be made for the author's opinions, but inspiration which I take it to an extremity of inerrancy, for me means God was leading the authors to such an extent that where they touched on truths of a historical or scientific matter, they are true when correctly interpreted and understood. Again, such a belief is based on my Christianity and I would not expect an outsider to the Christian faith to embrace this.

You say you reject the truths stated in books like the ones I quoted in Job and from Psalms, essentially because the writers never intended their prose to be an accurate and truthful accounting. I think a little more argument is required here if you claim to accept divine inspiration of Scripture, especially to the extent of it being inerrant. For human writers in general are fallible. Yet, the general understanding of inerrancy as defined by the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy is that God guided fallible men ensuring where they touched on matters of reality that it was true and faithful to reality.

Furthermore, we have messianic prophecies in such books. Are we to also discard the merit of such prophecies, or do you still accept them? If you accept them, then on what merit if they are mere poetry void of any real historic truth?

Sometimes I think Old Earth Creationists are more "fundamentalists" or "extreme literalists" than YECs are, despite the seemingly odd incongruity that it's the YECs that hold to the 6000 year old Earth. More on this later.

Thanks for stating this. It is certainly a welcome change in a YEC adherent to hear such a thing. I would agree with you regarding the OEC (Day-Age) adherence to Scripture. Yet, at the same time, I see more forgiving and well mannered OECs than YECs so in this understanding of "fundamentalist" I would see YECs as being more so.

So anyway, if we had a passage in the Old Testament that said unambiguously that all animals ate only plantlife (I know this is not the case obviously or we wouldn't be having this discussion), how would we evaluate this?

I appreciate your confirmation of this point. I have actually found YECs often think otherwise until they go searching, and even then they grasp at straws with certain passages. It would seem the certain teachings they were taught in Sunday school or at their church become intertwined with Scripture in their heads to the point they believe such teachings actually do exist in Scripture. (to any YECs reading, I do not mean this as an insult, and will eat my words if shown the Scriptural support)

It is important to consider exactly what our circumstantial evidence is. We can observe animals eating meat today - that is circumstantial evidence. We have historical accounts of animals eating meat from extrabiblical sources as well. These would fall into two categories: those which are contemporaneous to the statement in the Bible and those that are not. Ones which are contemporaneous would be considered alternate primary sources, ones that are not would be considered circumstantial evidence. The reasoning is that the claim is time specific, so an account only speaks to the same event if it is at the same time. For the contemporaneous accounts, if we have already established the authority of scriptures as being by God, then we have the clear comparison that the scripture trumps the alternate source on the basis of authorial reliability: God is more reliable than man. For non-contemporaneous accounts, we can apply the same reasoning to discount the account in the worst case scenario, but we also have the possibility that both are true and that something changed inbetween. Such would clearly be the case between the scripture and now.

So in conclusion, I do not think it is necessary to defend the scientific feasibility of the change from all herbivorous to possible carnivorous activity, before other Christians that is. Since we both accept the Bible as authoritative and feasible,

But then, in order to accept the position that there were no carnivorous animals pre-fall as a default Christian position, surely such a position must be found in Scripture? And if you are adding something not found in Scripture, I see it is certainly reasonable for Christians to draw from God's natural revelation to create challenges. It is not enough to make a claim without any support either in God's special revelation (Scripture) or natural revelation (creation). You may want to dismiss God's natural revelation, but this too I find to be unscriptural since in many places Scripture talks of creation displaying knowledge of God which can be understood.

it stands to reason that if you are correct, that's fine, and if I am correct, then there is some logical explanation why that is the case. For instance, I do not have a consistent explanation for the circumstantial evidence that can be summed up in the distant starlight problem, but it is important to note that the circumstantial evidence is NOT the same thing as saying that the light has travelled for x million years; the circumstantial evidence is the observed data itself, such as the measured speed of light today and the observed angles of the stars in the sky, from which we derive the inference of the latter, and it is entirely possible that we are leaving something out of our reasoning, or it is entirely possible that there is some way a wave can travel for billions of years within a thousand year old universe. Similarly, I do not think it necessary to defend Young Earth Creationism from alleged contradictions within poetical books of the Bible, because I don't find a contradiction between a historical account that says one thing and a poetical account that seems to say another.

Which I challenge your legitimacy of doing (rejecting truths found in poetical and wisdom books) if you truly do accept Scripture is inspired.

With regard to the comment I made earlier about Old Earth Creationists ironically being more of "fundamentalists" than Young Earthers, what I was referring to when I said I would get back to that point incidentally is the dogmatism I see regarding creation and evolution in Old Earthers. I find that Old Earthers often will argue against various things that Young Earthers say by appealing to an idea that God finished his creative works on the 6th day of creation and so some of the theories Young Earthers have come up with regarding changes either at the fall or since then cannot be possible.

I fail to see the dogmatism. Certainly OECs and people of other positions believe they are right. Otherwise they would not be OEC, YEC or what have you. Yet this does not amount to dogmatism. As OECs offer Scriptural and scientific reasons to support their view while fending off both YEC and Atheistic attacks, it can hardly account as being a position accepted based upon dogmatism.

Now as for the argument based on the seventh day not being closed, I see this is an entirely valid Scriptural argument which needs defending. Especially since we have in others places like Hebrews 4 and Psalm 95:11 that the seventh day of rest is still open for His chosen to enter into. This would make it much longer than 24 hours.

And as for an explanation of the changes required for animals to turn from herbivores to carnivores, this very much requires explaining, especially for the Christian if such a belief is not found in Scripture nor God's natural revelation. If anything, such a view actually seems to be dogmatically held by YECs.

Perhaps God's creation was "complete," but how does that imply that God could no longer interacts with his creation in a transformative manner?

I never offered an opinion that God could no longer interact with His creation, and in fact believe quite the opposite, so I am not sure where such a conclusion was drawn from.

The discussion draws precise parallels to the arguments between Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz over the nature of creation: Newton believed in an ordered and finished creation but also believed that God was continually magisterial over it and interacted with it; Leibniz agreed with Newton on the perfection of original creation but claimed Newton was being inconsistent in claiming that God still interacted with it, because that implied that it was not perfect to begin with. Newton still stuck with his views because he could not reject the idea that God was Lord - that is, he was an active ruler, not a watchmaker as many Deists later claimed Newton to have supported. I believe that Leibniz's argument rests on imposing Platonic ideals artificially on scripture; the God of the Bible is not Plato's ideal deity, and the finished creation was "very good" and perfect in a sense but not so perfect that it could not be marred by sin, and also the perfection entailed God's interaction rather than prohibited it.

Interesting, however I do not see what this has to do with the me

So why is it that so many Old Earthers reject the idea of speciation and natural selection, and that living creatures today may have had common ancestors with creatures they cannot interbreed with now, but may have been able to before?

Notwithstanding that defining what consists of a "species" is quite controversial, with speciation that requires dramatic changes it needs to be explained how massive amounts of new information came about in the new species. I do not see that environment pressures and natural selection is enough to explain this "mystery" for philosophical Naturalists. As such, Old Earther's generally appeal to science for a rejection of say Neo-Darwinian evolution. Just look at the many articles on RTB's website, or even on the GodandScience.org website. They all deal with the science and rarely Scripture in order to reject Neo-Darwinian evolution. In fact, as I found out some time in a discussion on this board with a Theistic Evolutionist OEC, it is actually quite difficult to gather Scriptural support to rule out God did not use naturalistic means in creation. The fact that only two chapters (in amid a few scraps of passages in other areas) in the whole Bible dedicate themselves to God creation, I guess we should not be surprised.

I would like to know, Kurieuo, what you believe in this respect. It is one thing to say that all living things did not come from a common ancestor, it is quite another to say that no two living things that cannot interbreed today did not come from a common ancestor. I am afraid that your lack of study in biology and evolution in this case is a hindrance for certain.

Arrogance is not very becoming, especially when it has no basis.

As I was growing up, I had for a certain period desired to be a geneticist as I was quite fascinated by genetics, heredity, and DNA. You cannot say that species cannot be reproductively or geologically isolated and then evolve seperately to the point where they are no longer able to interbreed with each other, because that can be disproven scientifically. It's quite unlike the question of the age of the Earth, which is rather a historic question and therefore a primary historical source is more reliable than any scientific evidence. Personally I believe that the idea that natural selection applied to species will result in shifts in a gene pool over time, possibly eliminating traits, possibly resulting in speciation due to two groups not being able to interbreed, is a scientifically testable and provable assertion, and it may indeed happen much faster than secular evolutionists believe possible, especially since that would help with the circumstantial evidence we have about the number of animal species we have today as compared to the historical source attesting to the dimensions of Noah's ark. Of course I do not put my faith in such an idea, it is just one possibility that the circumstantial evidence seems to be consistent with as far as we know now, and if natural selection in this way were to be refuted, that would have nothing to do with the validity of Noah's ark.

Actually, since the speeds of evolutionary change required for animals on Noah's ark far exceeds what evolutionists themselves would suggest, where you say "it may indeed happen much faster than secular evolutionists believe possible" you need to offer up some support.

But anyway, it seems to me like Old Earthers in a misguided attempt to be faithful have got their epistemology quite mixed up; they are denying the scientifically provable aspects of "evolutionary theory" and asserting the scientifically unprovable parts of it, which makes them at odds with both YECs (who deny the scientifically unprovable parts but support the scientifically provable) and Naturalists, who often assert both the scientifically provable and unprovable as a single theory. I have noticed that there seem to be an awful lot of geologists and astronomers as compared to those in the life sciences in the Old Earth camp; could it be that this is because they are less familiar with the biological sciences, who would recognize precisely this error?

And OECs are the dogmatists. Such broad reaching statements require more than quick assertions, especially your statements regarding OECs. Have you read any articles on this site? Have you read any books from Fuz Rana? I dare say such authors are more familiar with biology than your own grandeur in such areas.

As for the "scientific provable" parts you believe YECs support, you yourself even admitted "[speciation] indeed happen much faster than secular evolutionists believe possible." Shouldn't these secular evolutionists be on your side if you are indeed supporting the scientifically provable? Please. Surely your statements here are tongue in cheek?

Now as for your responses to my own, I am left unconvinced by them. I have offered many arguments which I feel require greater and more specific responses to rather than broad stroked responses. I also feel that even if something is a poetical or wisdom book (which I also have responded to previously in this post), the details some of these verses unnecessarily go into if purely "poetic" at least requires more response. To do this you would still need to examine and respond to each passage I cited individually and evaluate it on its own merits, rather than committing a division fallacy by assuming what may be true of the whole is necessarily true of the parts.

Finally, it is not enough to just assume your position as default that there was no carnivorous activity pre-fall. As you yourself admitted: "if we had a passage in the Old Testament that said unambiguously that all animals ate only plantlife (I know this is not the case obviously or we wouldn't be having this discussion)" (bold emphasis mine). If this is so, then what reason is there for believing such a thing except some ingrained Christian beliefs within particular church denominations?

So in summary, no argument as been offered in support of no carnivorous activity existing pre-fall, yet many can and have been offered both Scripturally and scientifically for carnivorous activity existing pre-fall.

[Robert Byers]

There was no death before the fall and plenty after. this is clear by the whole concept of death and it uglines. All creatures ate plants as this was clearly said. nothing else was said and if this is Gods word then there would be no mistake. Blood was not shed until God make clocks for Adam/eve.
Common sense should show that all creatures we have today incliding eaters of flesh did not look like they did before the fall.
Case in point is the snake. God took its legs and made it crawl even though it remained within the snake kind. It was cursed above all other creatures which means other creatures were likewised cursed with a new lifestyle.
Robert Byers
Toronto,ontario

[BavarianWheels]

There was no death before the fall and plenty after. this is clear by the whole concept of death and it uglines. All creatures ate plants as this was clearly said. nothing else was said and if this is Gods word then there would be no mistake. Blood was not shed until God make clocks for Adam/eve.
Common sense should show that all creatures we have today incliding eaters of flesh did not look like they did before the fall.
Case in point is the snake. God took its legs and made it crawl even though it remained within the snake kind. It was cursed above all other creatures which means other creatures were likewised cursed with a new lifestyle.
Robert Byers
Toronto,ontario

What about those flesh-ripping teeth found in the earth that when we put the pieces back together seem to indicate some flesh-eating species?
.
.

[zoegirl]

For me, it becomes a question of design. We love, as creationists, to wax poetic about the beautiful design of God';s creations. We point out the animals that were desgined for their eating habits. Canines, etc.

But this implies either a faulty design (God created animals with sharp teeth, shorter inestines, different brain pathwyas, different instincts, different social behaviors yet had these animals eat grass, a diet compeltely in contratdicvtion to their desgin) or a HUGE change in the creation after the fall.

We must either accept that the creation was vastly different before the fall or God created things with poor design. I find both unnacceptable alternatives.

And cellular death? The high rate of repair because of the cellular death in our skin and digestive lining?

WOuld we have even needed an immune system?

[Robert Byers]

There was no death before the fall and plenty after. this is clear by the whole concept of death and it uglines. All creatures ate plants as this was clearly said. nothing else was said and if this is Gods word then there would be no mistake. Blood was not shed until God make clocks for Adam/eve.
Common sense should show that all creatures we have today incliding eaters of flesh did not look like they did before the fall.
Case in point is the snake. God took its legs and made it crawl even though it remained within the snake kind. It was cursed above all other creatures which means other creatures were likewised cursed with a new lifestyle.
Robert Byers
Toronto,ontario

What about those flesh-ripping teeth found in the earth that when we put the pieces back together seem to indicate some flesh-eating species?
.
.

These teeth are from creatures that lived after the fall. These creatures in fact owe their fossilization to the actions of the flood. They were swept up or engrossed by sediment and all of it was pressurized into a state of stone.
cheers
Robert Byers

[Robert Byers]

For me, it becomes a question of design. We love, as creationists, to wax poetic about the beautiful design of God';s creations. We point out the animals that were desgined for their eating habits. Canines, etc.

But this implies either a faulty design (God created animals with sharp teeth, shorter inestines, different brain pathwyas, different instincts, different social behaviors yet had these animals eat grass, a diet compeltely in contratdicvtion to their desgin) or a HUGE change in the creation after the fall.

We must either accept that the creation was vastly different before the fall or God created things with poor design. I find both unnacceptable alternatives.

And cellular death? The high rate of repair because of the cellular death in our skin and digestive lining?

WOuld we have even needed an immune system?

Your right. This creationist insists also that we would not recognize any creature before the fall as compared to after.
The bible says the snake was cursed above all creatures. We know God made the snake to slither and anatomical evidence in snakes shows indeed they did once walk with legs.
Yet the verse implied all creatures were cursed. So after the fall came teeth and claws and protection from same.
A turtle before the fall had no need for a shell. So they didn't.
Creatures stayed within kind but like the snake had great changes in their looks and lifestlye.
From the bible we can draw these conclusions.
Rob byers

[Kurieuo]

There was no death before the fall and plenty after. this is clear by the whole concept of death and it uglines.

Why did God reduce the age of humanity? Without physical death, greater ugliness would abound.

Ultimately I see it comes down to God never intended our physical world He created to be perfectly harmonious. If He did, then it would be. Our temporary world is just but one stage where we are refined through trial and hardship at the end of which lies something much greater where neither physical death nor pain exist.

I feel I have offered up solid Biblical arguments and reasoning. I am happy to simply disagree on this matter without any further resolution between us as Christ is ultimately what matters.

[BavarianWheels]

What about those flesh-ripping teeth found in the earth that when we put the pieces back together seem to indicate some flesh-eating species?

These teeth are from creatures that lived after the fall. These creatures in fact owe their fossilization to the actions of the flood. They were swept up or engrossed by sediment and all of it was pressurized into a state of stone.
cheers
Robert Byers

So are you saying T-Rex was a contemporary of Noah?
.
.

[Robert Byers]

There was no death before the fall and plenty after. this is clear by the whole concept of death and it uglines.

Why did God reduce the age of humanity? Without physical death, greater ugliness would abound.

Ultimately I see it comes down to God never intended our physical world He created to be perfectly harmonious. If He did, then it would be. Our temporary world is just but one stage where we are refined through trial and hardship at the end of which lies something much greater where neither physical death nor pain exist.

I feel I have offered up solid Biblical arguments and reasoning. I am happy to simply disagree on this matter without any further resolution between us as Christ is ultimately what matters.

God did make the world perfect. It was human sin/rebellion/hate that brought a end to the perfect world and instead it only maintains itself until the new world.

The age of man was reduced because its all we need to have time to be saved.
Rob Byers

[Robert Byers]

What about those flesh-ripping teeth found in the earth that when we put the pieces back together seem to indicate some flesh-eating species?

These teeth are from creatures that lived after the fall. These creatures in fact owe their fossilization to the actions of the flood. They were swept up or engrossed by sediment and all of it was pressurized into a state of stone.
cheers
Robert Byers

So are you saying T-Rex was a contemporary of Noah?
.
.

Yes. The pre-flood world is the one where dinos ruled. dinos are only discovered because they were encased in flood sediment. Before the flood it was a more unclean world. Dinos were unclean animals. Noah was to change this by taking seven pairs of clean and only two pairs of unclean.
Rob Byers

[BavarianWheels]

What about those flesh-ripping teeth found in the earth that when we put the pieces back together seem to indicate some flesh-eating species?

These teeth are from creatures that lived after the fall. These creatures in fact owe their fossilization to the actions of the flood. They were swept up or engrossed by sediment and all of it was pressurized into a state of stone.
cheers
Robert Byers

So are you saying T-Rex was a contemporary of Noah?
.
.

Yes. The pre-flood world is the one where dinos ruled. dinos are only discovered because they were encased in flood sediment. Before the flood it was a more unclean world. Dinos were unclean animals. Noah was to change this by taking seven pairs of clean and only two pairs of unclean.
Rob Byers

So where did he put the unclean T-rex couple in the ark? Must've been a bit difficult to contain them, don't you think?
.
.