Evidence for God from Science

K,

I've never heard the term "Canon Criticism" used to ask the question of which books ought to be in the Canon. Rather, historically speaking, the term was coined by James Sanders in 1972 and the method was popularized by Brevard Childs throughout the late 70s and 80s (although I should note that he repudiated the word "criticsm" because he didn't want it associated with form criticism and other such higher critical methods). I won't bother walking through his ideas because they are essentially what you've laid out here.

In general, I think Childs is on the right track. It is certainly better to take the canon as a whole as your starting point, because the normal methods of HC are really useless for doing any kind of theology. And frankly, I think they are useless from a historical perspective because they're all just too subjective. There's just no way to really know what the original sources and forms were and who redacted what and when to date what parts, etc. The fact remains for any historian or theologian, Christian or secular, that the final authors/redactors of Scripture intended the books of the Bible as we have them to be understood in light of their final forms, and thus, it is the job of the interpreter to understand them in light of their final (which is to say, their present) forms.

Again, I applaud that line of thinking insofar as it goes. My problem with it is that it is, in the end, inconsistent, for all the reasons I mentioned already. A canononical critic can do a great job of supply a correct exegesis of the theological point of any given passage. But on what basis can or do they assert that this proposition ought to be believed? To assent to a proposition is to trust the authority of the one making the proposition. Yet if the Bible has errors--if the material used to make the point is itself flawed--then what does that say about its theological authority? It has none except within the person or community that chooses to accept it. And if the Bible is errant, then all of it does not have authority after all. Instead, we are reduced to allegorizing it at several points.

My apologies for suggesting that you yourself had adopted canon criticism as your method of choice. I certainly agree with you that it makes a good apologetic tool if only to show why higher critical methods are worse than worthless, and they at least can get the conversation going about more important things--biblical theology on its own merits. But in the end, unless we are going to ask people to accept the propositions they discover on mere faith, then we need more. We need an authority, and the authority of Scripture is rooted in its claim to inspiration and inerrancy. And that, I think, is something that canon criticism can simply not provide by its very nature.

Just my $.02.

Jac3510 wrote:K,

I've never heard the term "Canon Criticism" used to ask the question of which books ought to be in the Canon. Rather, historically speaking, the term was coined by James Sanders in 1972 and the method was popularized by Brevard Childs throughout the late 70s and 80s (although I should note that he repudiated the word "criticsm" because he didn't want it associated with form criticism and other such higher critical methods). I won't bother walking through his ideas because they are essentially what you've laid out here.

In general, I think Childs is on the right track. It is certainly better to take the canon as a whole as your starting point, because the normal methods of HC are really useless for doing any kind of theology. And frankly, I think they are useless from a historical perspective because they're all just too subjective. There's just no way to really know what the original sources and forms were and who redacted what and when to date what parts, etc. The fact remains for any historian or theologian, Christian or secular, that the final authors/redactors of Scripture intended the books of the Bible as we have them to be understood in light of their final forms, and thus, it is the job of the interpreter to understand them in light of their final (which is to say, their present) forms.

Again, I applaud that line of thinking insofar as it goes. My problem with it is that it is, in the end, inconsistent, for all the reasons I mentioned already. A canononical critic can do a great job of supply a correct exegesis of the theological point of any given passage. But on what basis can or do they assert that this proposition ought to be believed? To assent to a proposition is to trust the authority of the one making the proposition. Yet if the Bible has errors--if the material used to make the point is itself flawed--then what does that say about its theological authority? It has none except within the person or community that chooses to accept it. And if the Bible is errant, then all of it does not have authority after all. Instead, we are reduced to allegorizing it at several points.

My apologies for suggesting that you yourself had adopted canon criticism as your method of choice. I certainly agree with you that it makes a good apologetic tool if only to show why higher critical methods are worse than worthless, and they at least can get the conversation going about more important things--biblical theology on its own merits. But in the end, unless we are going to ask people to accept the propositions they discover on mere faith, then we need more. We need an authority, and the authority of Scripture is rooted in its claim to inspiration and inerrancy. And that, I think, is something that canon criticism can simply not provide by its very nature.

Just my $.02.

I broadly agree with all you say, particularly no "oughtness" to believe...

Thinking about it further, I think on matters of truth, truth can resonate in and of itself with people when they hear it. And many non-Christians just have such a distorted view of Scripture anyhow... so a canonical approach could only be good for them.

With HC, definitely share your same concerns and sentiments. Found it ironic that for it being taught as an objective method, it was all very subjective and seemed noone really agreed about how texts were formed, who wrote them and the theories scholars came up with. But, within a theologically safe framework, it too can provide interesting insights into Scripture and provide a healthy skepticism. Sadly, it wasn't used within a safe theological context at the "Christian" college where I learnt about it.

And, while not an issue perhaps appropriate when engaging an unbeliever, I think it's important to clarify that which we are asserting is inerrant - the original autographs (which obviously no longer exist). As there certainly are minor, mostly insignificant errors and inconsistencies between the known manuscripts - none that I see as being theologically significant, and a couple of passage additions apparently not in the original manuscripts (again, with nothing that changes anything theologically/doctrinally significant).

Philip wrote:And, while not an issue perhaps appropriate when engaging an unbeliever, I think it's important to clarify that which we are asserting is inerrant - the original autographs (which obviously no longer exist). As there certainly are minor, mostly insignificant errors and inconsistencies between the known manuscripts - none that I see as being theologically significant, and a couple of passage additions apparently not in the original manuscripts (again, with nothing that changes anything theologically/doctrinally significant).

I don't even think inerrancy should be a topic discussed with non-believers. It is a Christian matter.

Just like a Muslim isn't going to convince us that the Koran is the most beautiful book in the world, no non-Christian is going to believe Scripture is inerrant.

However, confronting them on their own terms, especially those who are somewhat schooled... within Historical-Criticism can be beneficial... and even encouraging them to just take a Canonical approach, to put on our shoes and consider that Scripture is authoritative while reading several books, particularly the Gospels...

I really do love Gary Habermas' minimal facts approach.

Kurieuo wrote : I don't even think inerrancy should be a topic discussed with non-believers. It is a Christian matter.

I would tend to agree. But many will argue that the Bible can't be of/from God because it was written by men - and so a very similar argument is often used against inerrancy.

Philip wrote:

Kurieuo wrote : I don't even think inerrancy should be a topic discussed with non-believers. It is a Christian matter.

I would tend to agree. But many will argue that the Bible can't be of/from God because it was written by men - and so a very similar argument is often used against inerrancy.

Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus who was fully man, was also fully God. That requires much more reflection in my opinion, than a silly statement that the Bible can't be from God because men wrote it (and I've heard even Christians say such a thing!)

That the Bible can't be divinely inspired because men penned it, if made by a non-Christian, is usually just a shrug-away response but the logic doesn't follow through to the conclusion. However, I wouldn't even bother trying to debate the truth of Scripture with a person who makes such an argument.

Better to question them on Christ Himself, or ask them why the texts can't be treated like any other historical text rather than being dismissed altogether as entirely false (uncovers a prejudice against Christianity).

That the Bible can't be divinely inspired because men penned it, if made by a non-Christian, is usually just a shrug-away response but the logic doesn't follow through to the conclusion. However, I wouldn't even bother trying to debate the truth of Scripture with a person who makes such an argument.

I find that such people are usually skeptical that God even exists. So I think putting forth evidences that reveal the impossibility of a universe creating itself can be effective. That something suddenly sprang from nothing, the massive complexity and precision of the expansion, that the physical/chemical laws guiding the Big Bang event were there at the very beginning (laws don't create themselves) - I find all of these compelling that a Super Intelligence had to be behind the universe's beginnings. Similar arguments revealing massive complexity and countless, necessary interactive processes, to me, show that randomness can't even come close to explaining the evidences.

But as for Scripture arguments, I think prophecies and their historical fulfillments are important. Also - when encountering one arguing that "man wrote Scripture and so it can't be from any God" - I think it's important to establish the logic that, IF a Creator of such power exists, then it's illogical to say He couldn't do this or that (give His Word to man, etc). And when people want to argue that the universe is all a happening of pure time and chance, I love to remind them that they believe this on FAITH - that they believe that such an improbable, impossible thing could happen on its own but their could be no Cause behind it all. And they surely don't believe that about other, far-more-simple things, but their logic breaks down when speaking of something breathtaking complex, like the universe.

The other thing I think gets unbelievers' attentions are the obvious existences of evil and universal moral sensibilities. That if pure naturalism is all that there is, if we are all only part of the survival of the fittest, then the entire question of right and wrong is purely subjective and ultimately irrelevant.

But no, arguing about the specifics of Scripture with unbelievers is usually a pointless waste of time. You have to start with what people already know. And I don't allow myself to get sucked into pointless arguments in which an insincere person simply keeps moving the target I've aimed answers at - as they only try to keep you chasing as many rabbits down as many holes as they can come up with.

Philip wrote: But no, arguing about the specifics of Scripture with unbelievers is usually a pointless waste of time. You have to start with what people already know. And I don't allow myself to get sucked into pointless arguments in which an insincere person simply keeps moving the target I've aimed answers at - as they only try to keep you chasing as many rabbits down as many holes as they can come up with.

Another good start may be showing person's insincerity and unhonesty.

Kurieuo wrote:I don't even think inerrancy should be a topic discussed with non-believers. It is a Christian matter.

Just like a Muslim isn't going to convince us that the Koran is the most beautiful book in the world, no non-Christian is going to believe Scripture is inerrant.

However, confronting them on their own terms, especially those who are somewhat schooled... within Historical-Criticism can be beneficial... and even encouraging them to just take a Canonical approach, to put on our shoes and consider that Scripture is authoritative while reading several books, particularly the Gospels...

I really do love Gary Habermas' minimal facts approach.

I agree with much of this in principle, but that is because I both hold to inerrancy and hold that it is a theologically and hermeneutically justifiable position. I know, in the back of my mind, that I'm appealing to an inerrant Bible. I know that if the atheist is sophisticated enough (and they never are), then if they raise the issue in the correct way (and they never do), then the defense is there and valid. On the other hand, I would be suspect of someone who denies biblical inerrancy using arguments that presuppose it. Whether or not their conclusions are correct, their arguments are not sound, and I, for one, think the means are just as important as the ends. We are not to be sophists, using illogical arguments in such a way as to bring people to correct positions.

I think Habermas' approach is a good example of this. I think we need to be very careful how we use this, and frankly, I'm surprised that more atheists haven't exploited what I see to be a major weakness (actually, I'm not surprised, but more on that in a minute). Here's the thing: on a minimalist approach, all we can say is that it is historically warranted to claim that Jesus rose from the dead--in fact, that such a claim is, as far as we are able to tell, historically accurate (given that all other explanations fail). That, however, is not sufficient to prove Christianity to be true. The fact of Jesus' resurrection is certainly of tremendous importance, but what does it mean? That He is the Messiah? That He gives eternal life? That He is God in the flesh?

It doesn't necessarily mean any of those things. We believe it means those things, but why? Because Scripture tells us that is what it means. This is a rather important point here. History is very important, but it requires interpretation. Why did God not just do miracles and let the people figure out for themselves what God was saying? The fact is, whenever God did a miracle, He provided a prophet to explain why the miracle was important, what revelation God was giving. And so it is with the resurrection. It is a very easy step to go from "Jesus rose from the dead" to "Christianity is true," but it is not at all a logically necessary step. Read Pinchas Lapide's book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. So this scholar became convinced by the historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and yet he still denied that Jesus was the Messiah!

Of course, most people will just accept the argument, "If Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true; Jesus rose from the dead; therefore, Christianity is true," as being a fight over (2). And in that regard, Habermas puts us in a very powerful position. Yet (1) is not obvious. It is to you and me, but it is not necessarily obvious. Atheists don't bother arguing it because while there seem to be ways for (1) to be true without appealing to Christianity (again, see Pinchas), all of those ways appeal to God. But all the same, imagine if an atheist were to come on here and say:

"Yes, I agree that Jesus rose from the dead. So what? Why does that make you right?"

You would be left quoting Scripture. And suppose he said, "But I don't believe Scripture. I think the history embedded in it is, for the most part, accurate. But its interpretation of that history is incorrect." Then what do you do?

The bottom line here is that while Christianity rises and falls on the reality of the resurrection, still more than that, it rises and falls on what the apostles said the resurrection means. And if the Bible is errant, then why should we trust what it means? If it can make mistakes, then how do we know it can't be mistaken about the meaning of Jesus' resurrection.

So this may all be a useless academic exercise. Shy of a very few scholars like Pinchas, most people are content accepting as valid the argument above and take (1) as a given. And that, again, is to our benefit, and it makes our job easier. Habermas gives us a good tool for so bringing people to Christ. I just believe, however, that Habermas' argument still implicitly assumes the inerrancy of Scripture if it concludes that since Jesus rose from the dead, He really must be the Messiah.

Jac3510 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I don't even think inerrancy should be a topic discussed with non-believers. It is a Christian matter.

Just like a Muslim isn't going to convince us that the Koran is the most beautiful book in the world, no non-Christian is going to believe Scripture is inerrant.

However, confronting them on their own terms, especially those who are somewhat schooled... within Historical-Criticism can be beneficial... and even encouraging them to just take a Canonical approach, to put on our shoes and consider that Scripture is authoritative while reading several books, particularly the Gospels...

I really do love Gary Habermas' minimal facts approach.

I agree with much of this in principle, but that is because I both hold to inerrancy and hold that it is a theologically and hermeneutically justifiable position. I know, in the back of my mind, that I'm appealing to an inerrant Bible. I know that if the atheist is sophisticated enough (and they never are), then if they raise the issue in the correct way (and they never do), then the defense is there and valid. On the other hand, I would be suspect of someone who denies biblical inerrancy using arguments that presuppose it. Whether or not their conclusions are correct, their arguments are not sound, and I, for one, think the means are just as important as the ends. We are not to be sophists, using illogical arguments in such a way as to bring people to correct positions.

I think Habermas' approach is a good example of this. I think we need to be very careful how we use this, and frankly, I'm surprised that more atheists haven't exploited what I see to be a major weakness (actually, I'm not surprised, but more on that in a minute). Here's the thing: on a minimalist approach, all we can say is that it is historically warranted to claim that Jesus rose from the dead--in fact, that such a claim is, as far as we are able to tell, historically accurate (given that all other explanations fail). That, however, is not sufficient to prove Christianity to be true. The fact of Jesus' resurrection is certainly of tremendous importance, but what does it mean? That He is the Messiah? That He gives eternal life? That He is God in the flesh?

It doesn't necessarily mean any of those things. We believe it means those things, but why? Because Scripture tells us that is what it means. This is a rather important point here. History is very important, but it requires interpretation. Why did God not just do miracles and let the people figure out for themselves what God was saying? The fact is, whenever God did a miracle, He provided a prophet to explain why the miracle was important, what revelation God was giving. And so it is with the resurrection. It is a very easy step to go from "Jesus rose from the dead" to "Christianity is true," but it is not at all a logically necessary step. Read Pinchas Lapide's book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. So this scholar became convinced by the historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and yet he still denied that Jesus was the Messiah!

Of course, most people will just accept the argument, "If Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true; Jesus rose from the dead; therefore, Christianity is true," as being a fight over (2). And in that regard, Habermas puts us in a very powerful position. Yet (1) is not obvious. It is to you and me, but it is not necessarily obvious. Atheists don't bother arguing it because while there seem to be ways for (1) to be true without appealing to Christianity (again, see Pinchas), all of those ways appeal to God. But all the same, imagine if an atheist were to come on here and say:

"Yes, I agree that Jesus rose from the dead. So what? Why does that make you right?"

You would be left quoting Scripture. And suppose he said, "But I don't believe Scripture. I think the history embedded in it is, for the most part, accurate. But its interpretation of that history is incorrect." Then what do you do?

The bottom line here is that while Christianity rises and falls on the reality of the resurrection, still more than that, it rises and falls on what the apostles said the resurrection means. And if the Bible is errant, then why should we trust what it means? If it can make mistakes, then how do we know it can't be mistaken about the meaning of Jesus' resurrection.

So this may all be a useless academic exercise. Shy of a very few scholars like Pinchas, most people are content accepting as valid the argument above and take (1) as a given. And that, again, is to our benefit, and it makes our job easier. Habermas gives us a good tool for so bringing people to Christ. I just believe, however, that Habermas' argument still implicitly assumes the inerrancy of Scripture if it concludes that since Jesus rose from the dead, He really must be the Messiah.

I get what you saying, but... just because Pinchas' issues are different, such just means its good to know your audience (or person) and dialogue on the most relevant stumbling blocks in their path if you wish to engage them.

Usually the stumbling blocks, particularly in our societies, is that of presuming a philosophical naturalism. I.e., "dead people don't rise". But then again, many people already have spiritual beliefs as you point out, and so even if they believed Christ rose, so what? Maybe an alien did it.

But a sincere and honest examination, and one isn't really left with many options that haven't been fabricated on the spot. A "Christian explanation" holds the most explanatory power, which mind you is only a "Christian explanation" in retrospect of the fact that Christians came to certain beliefs of the resurrection which were at the time most obvious to them.

Obviously, Pinchas' issues are different and so need to be dealt with differently. But this doesn't mean for many other people a minimal approach to the resurrection couldn't remove a main stumbling block.

Really, we should be ready to meet people with where they are at, and responding to work with their own beliefs. It'd make no sense to start talking about a minimal facts approach to the resurrection, or even how Jesus is the Messiah (or questioning how the Messiah will be verified, given no genealogical records exist to verify prophecies in the Tanakh of his identity), unless relevant to such a person.

This reminds me of a discussion I had with an Atheist. He quickly dismissed God, but then it came up in conversation that he believed in karma. I asked how such a law came about -- that it seemed odd since there must be some invisible force ensuring as the general rule that good brings good, and doing bad will bite you on the butt. Who would have designed things in such a manner?

But, yes. Definitely doesn't prove Christianity -- the minimal facts approach -- but no doubt if someone feel convinced by it, then such is a big stumbling block removed for many. Such that, it might be smoother sailing for the rest of their journey into Christ's port.

And I agree with that. As I was saying before, the point I'm making has more to do with the philosophical consistency of our claims that it does the pragmatic value of Habermas' approach (which I promote, by the way) or even of inerrancy itself. As a matter of fact, I get to inerrancy after following Habermas, so I'm not at all trying to discredit him here.

I don't want to beat a dead horse too much, but I do want to make sure the point I'm making is heard clearly and would be curious as to your thoughts on it. Let's lay aside, if we can, the utility or wisdom of Habermas' approach (since I think we are in agreement there) other than to say this. One way I get to inerrancy is along these lines:

• 1. Jesus believed the Scriptures were inerrant;
  2. We should trust Jesus, especially on matters of faith;
  3. Therefore, we should believe that Scripture is inerrant

Now, (1) is simple enough to prove. The obviously debatable premise is (2). I think Habermas' argument goes a long way in establishing it. In the end, I have no problem admitting that this really is a matter of faith. I simply choose to believe (with plenty of warrant, mind you) that Jesus' statements are trustworthy. Were in not for the historical claims concerning His resurrection, that would not be so easy to defend, of course.

But here's the real problem I'm getting at. Let's say the Bible is actually errant. Now we have something like this:

• 4. But the Bible is, in fact, errant;
  5. Therefore, either Jesus did not believe Scriptures were inerrant or we should not trust Jesus, or the Bible is not errant.

Now this strikes me as very problematic. I don't think we can get around (1). Jesus obviously believed in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. So we're left either denying the fact that Jesus is the Messiah or else denying the errancy of Scripture. That's an easy enough choice for me! But it gets worse, I think. As I was saying before, if we insist on ignoring this problem and just insisting that Jesus is the Christ and that the Bible has errors in it (and not resolving that tension), we are still left with the very real problem that Scripture tells us what the resurrection means. Even if we still embrace the minimalist notion that at least Jesus' resurrection strongly implies that He is the Christ, the Son of God, what about everything else it implies? What about Paul's arguments in 1 Cor. 15? How do we know that we are actually raised from the dead, too? Perhaps Scripture is just right from a historical perspective and no more relative to Christ (since, after all, that's all the minimalist approach lets us say). And even further, we have to make a distinction between Jesus' words and ideas as recorded verses His words and ideas as He actually expressed them. We can make a good historical case that they have been preserved well enough to get a good picture about what He believed, but without inerrancy, we can't claim that we have His actual message in all its nuances--or put better, it is much more difficult to believe that the gospel writers were using His words faithfully in offering their own theological tracts they called their gospels.

So here's my point: when I hear Christians put errancy on the table and insist that we can still be believers, I cringe. It is, of course, logically true. There are plenty of people who believe those two propositions--that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that the Bible has errors in it. My concern is simply that they have not thought through to see the intrinsic contradiction between those two claims. So yes, we absolutely should employ Habermas' approach in evangelism. It works! But we absolutely cannot let people turn around and deny inerrancy, because after all is said and done, even Habermas' minimalism presupposes at least the possibility to inerrancy is right. I'll offer one final syllogism to illustrate that. I believe we must say:

• I. If is the Christ, Scripture is inspired and inerrant;
  II. Jesus is the Christ;
  III. Therefore, Scripture is inerrant.
  
  OR
  
  II'. Scripture is not inspired and inerrant;
  III'. Therefore, Jesus is not the Christ.

Your thoughts?

I certainly don't run across unbelievers who claim to believe Jesus was resurrected but still was not/is not God. But we always have to remember that human logic is only part of becoming or NOT becoming a believer. If one's heart and mind are intentionally closed to the truth, then their logic will be of little use to them. People must be have WILLING hearts and minds - open to revealed truth - before their ability to logically assess matters will do them much good. We just can't forget that the Gospel is so simple that a child can understand and get it. Always striving for the most effective presentation sometimes forgets that.

But as Jesus is the ONLY man to ever live that 1) claimed to be God AND 2) left such powerful evidences that He not only was so and was Resurrected, but that He also historically fulfilled known prophecies related to His Deity - these things, standing TOGETHER, make it really difficult for one to not go beyond believing that He may indeed have been resurrected, yet while remaining in denial about what He claimed and all the rest. And, equally powerful, so many close associates of Christ risking and going on to their own terrible deaths for what they KNEW to be the truth of the matter. Add in the improbable, humanly/fleshly unprofitable 180 of the Apostle Paul, it's hard to believe anyone could believe in the resurrection and yet deny the rest. But that is where I say that logic is insufficient to overcome a determinedly, entrenched closed mind and heart. For such people, logic isn't their true problem and our worrying over the best logical approaches to evangelizing such people will always be insufficient.

As far as the inerrancy of Scripture, I 'm just amazed at people who believe that it ISN'T and yet claim to have a HIGH view of God, His Holy Character, His all-powerfulness, and Scripture. And I'm bewildered at how they choose which parts of Scripture are historically/factually true and which parts are not. And how could you trust God or Scripture if you think that He didn't or couldn't protect His word? And what does such a belief say about what one believes about God?

"I, for instance, can and do say that suffering and death are intrinsically evil."

If one bases the above belief upon equating non-human/all-animal deaths with the suffering and evil of men, that began with The Fall, then I believe that brings up some interesting observations and questions:

- DID God view animal predator/prey relations ship as evil and suffering, or necessary to their purposes and original design?

Clues / Questions:

- God clearly created animals before and distinct - both physically and spiritually - different from each other: animals, each after their own kind and man in the image of God.

- We have no indications in Scripture that animals did not have predator/prey relationships before The Fall.

- We have no indications from Scripture that animals before did not die before The Fall.

- We have no indications that animals were originally meant to live forever.

- We are never told that pre-Fall Adam and Eve could not eat meet, only that God gave man and beast "every green plant for food."

- If God viewed animal deaths as suffering and evil, would he have ordained the sacrificial system? Would he have described the smells coming from the sacrifices of Noah’s alter as being a soothing aroma ..." (Genesis 8:20-21)?

- Would God have required a “regular burnt offering throughout your generations at the entrance of the tent of meeting?”

- Would God have REQUIRED His priests to violently slash the throats of generations of goats and lambs as sacrifices if He also viewed animal deaths to be sinful and evil? Does that make ANY sense?

- And, as a further indication that God viewed animal deaths as normal – even required – and enormously differently than He did human deaths, was His edict, in Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. And so we see that God demands animal deaths as righteous acts but warn murderers that the great evil of their murderous acts were to cost them there very lives. See the difference?

Now, I well realize that God forbade some things that He later allowed. But I think the above has some clues as to whether He truly considered ALL death to be sinful and evil.

And, not insignificant to consider, the fossil record WIDELY reveals a blood-drenched earth, WELL prior to man's arrival.

Here's an interesting look at what assumptions one would need to have about Scripture's teachings in order to believe there were no animal deaths before Adam and Eve's Fall: http://www.reasons.org/articles/animal- ... -bible-say

Philip wrote:

"I, for instance, can and do say that suffering and death are intrinsically evil."

If one bases the above belief upon equating non-human/all-animal deaths with the suffering and evil of men, that began with The Fall, then I believe that brings up some interesting observations and questions:

- DID God view animal predator/prey relations ship as evil and suffering, or necessary to their purposes and original design?

Yes, He saw the relationship as intrinsically evil. It did not materialize until after the Fall.

Clues / Questions:

- God clearly created animals before and distinct - both physically and spiritually - different from each other: animals, each after their own kind and man in the image of God.

No one denies this.

- We have no indications in Scripture that animals did not have predator/prey relationships before The Fall.

Wrong and question begging.

- We have no indications from Scripture that animals before did not die before The Fall.

Wrong and question begging.

- We have no indications that animals were originally meant to live forever.

Wrong and question begging.

- We are never told that pre-Fall Adam and Eve could not eat meet, only that God gave man and beast "every green plant for food."

Wrong and question begging.

- If God viewed animal deaths as suffering and evil, would he have ordained the sacrificial system? Would he have described the smells coming from the sacrifices of Noah’s alter as being a soothing aroma ..." (Genesis 8:20-21)?

I'm not going to try to construct an argument for you. You'll have have to say more here, because I don't see how animal death being an evil precludes His ordination of the sacrificial system.

- Would God have required a “regular burnt offering throughout your generations at the entrance of the tent of meeting?”

I don't understand what this post-Fall requirement has to do with the pre-Fall world.

- Would God have REQUIRED His priests to violently slash the throats of generations of goats and lambs as sacrifices if He also viewed animal deaths to be sinful and evil? Does that make ANY sense?

I didn't say He viewed animal death as sinful. Is that your argument . . . what is evil is sinful, and therefore, for God to command animal death He would be commanding sin? If that's your argument, then you're just demonstrating another major difference in YEC theology and (at least your version of) OEC theology.

- And, as a further indication that God viewed animal deaths as normal – even required – and enormously differently than He did human deaths, was His edict, in Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. And so we see that God demands animal deaths as righteous acts but warn murderers that the great evil of their murderous acts were to cost them there very lives. See the difference?

I see that God required anyone or any animal that killed a man be killed, because Man is made in God's image. Animals are not. It is a non-sequitur, however, to suggest that because God required the death of the man-killer He therefore did not see animal death as evil. Again, I'm not going to make your arguments for you.

Now, I well realize that God forbade some things that He later allowed. But I think the above has some clues as to whether He truly considered ALL death to be sinful and evil.

No, they don't. All you've offered are OEC interpretations of passages from which YECs largely derive their views. A TE could just as well say,

"We have no indications in Scripture that God created the first humans through a direct act of special creation."

Of course we have such indications. The fact that TEs reinterpret Gen 1-2 in a mythological sense doesn't mean either that they are right or that we don't get to appeal to them. I'll say just a bit more on that below.

And, not insignificant to consider, the fossil record WIDELY reveals a blood-drenched earth, WELL prior to man's arrival.

No it doesn't. It's been so interpreted.

Here's an interesting look at what assumptions one would need to have about Scripture's teachings in order to believe there were no animal deaths before Adam and Eve's Fall: http://www.reasons.org/articles/animal- ... -bible-say

And that's just a typical reinterpretation of several passages that teach YEC. Obviously they have to be reinterpreted since they would entail OEC is incorrect.

* Briefly, their view of Rom 5:12 is wrong. I've written extensively to show why that is the case. "The world" does NOT refer to humanity, but to all of creation.
* Their view of Rom 8 is ridiculous. Viewing the corruption of the world as the earth have to serve as a graveyard wreaks of theologically driven reinterpretation. The author is just denying that Paul has Gen 3 in mind as he wrote Rom 8, which automatically denies any and all credibility to his position and is an impressive (and embarrassing) example of eiosogesis as can be found anywhere.
* The suggestion that YEC eschatology is a "mere" (his word) return to the Edenic state is both inflammatory and laughable. Moreover, it demonstrates another major divide between YEC and OEC theology--namely, eschatology. That, in turn, is rooted in hermeneutics, which goes to the reason I fundamentally rejected OEC. It makes a mockery of proper hermeneutics and ought to be rejected for what it is: a poor attempt to read into Scripture a position consistent with modern scientific interpretations of the natural order.
* PS 104 is not a creation psalm. I have discussed this elsewhere.
* Paul doesn't say in 1 Tim 4:1-5 that marriage ought to be allowed because it was a part of the pre-Fall world but simply because God had declared it good. Thus, it is illegitimate to read God's allowance for pre-Fall carnivorous activity (especially among humans) as good. Gen 9 is sufficient to make Paul's point here.

In other words, all you have in that article is a bunch of eisogesis, which is always the case when it comes to these types of arguments. That's hardly surprising, because that is what OEC fundamentally is: an attempt to reconcile the Bible with modern science. That's exactly what we see in the history of interpretation, of were OEC interpretations first came from, etc. And, again, that's why I'm not OEC anymore. I'm not because the Bible is not.

Jac wrote:
And, again, that's why I'm not OEC anymore. I'm not because the Bible is not.

Wrong and question begging.

Philip wrote:
- DID God view animal predator/prey relations ship as evil and suffering, or necessary to their purposes and original design?

Jac wrote:
Yes, He saw the relationship as intrinsically evil. It did not materialize until after the Fall.

Jac, if God saw the predator/prey relationship as evil, did He change His mind about the relationship being evil, after the fall, when God provided lions with their prey? Psalm 104:21

philip wrote:
And, not insignificant to consider, the fossil record WIDELY reveals a blood-drenched earth, WELL prior to man's arrival.

Jac wrote:
No it doesn't. It's been so interpreted.

And the argument goes that YECs interpret scientific evidence in light of their YEC beliefs. Or, the fossil record can only be interpreted as thousands of years old, if one sees it through a YEC lens.

Jac,
Do you think it's possible that any new scientific discovery would lead you to reexamine your creation interpretation?