You can make this claim all day but you are reading into the text something it does not specifically say.
And that's fine position to take, because it is one that can be answered by an exegetical analysis of the texts in question.
OK, let's just stick to the animals - but it's the Same thing - it's like other seeming Bible "difficulties" - absent an all-inclusive, specific statement saying that ANIMALS were to not eat or kill other animals, then you're necessarily reading into the text more than it actually says. And we're never specifically told that post-fall animals developed predator/prey relationships.
I've addressed this in great detail
here (and following) and
here.
To me, this is a major problem with no animal deaths before The Fall. You mentioned God using Israel's enemies to punish it. But that is a poor analogy. The sacrificial system was to worship and honor GOD. And He delighted in it - its focus was all about HIM.
Again, I'm not going to make your arguments for you. If you want to say something specific, then put your position out in detail. How does the sacrificial system specifically create a problem for YEC?
I have no idea where you got this quote from - NOT me.
No, not you. From TEs, which I said rather clearly I went on to say:
- 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
The point is clear enough. Just because your theology requires a certain interpretation, you don't get to just say "The Bible says" it. These debates are about proper exegesis. I'm not impressed with broad, sweeping statements (including my own, that the Bible is not OEC--indeed, you would object to that on the same grounds I'm objecting to your broad, sweeping statements, something that Rick quickly picked up on). Neither should you be.
Jac - please don't take this personally, it's only an observation - but this shows me that you basically dismiss science FAR too easily. But I realize that is not your background. There are very significant things that the Bible is silent about. There are great mysteries that it doesn't talk about but that science has revealed (like things discovered by the Hubble, Galileo, Copernicus. Who gave us the reasoning, logic and scientific abilities and instruments? Surely no one here would suggest that the earth isn't a globe in space, the earth still might be flat, we are at the center of the universe, the sun and planets all revolve around US. How do we know these immensely important things? Not through Scripture. Sure, there may be hints about them, but not definitive, clearly understandable knowledge. Point is, Scripture doesn't explain everything. And just because it is silent or that on some things it is written in such a way that could be interpreted differently but also logically/consistently and within an inerrant viewpoint does not mean that such views can't possibly be true. There simply are limits what can be understood about Scripture through hermeneutics, proper exegesis and theological understandings.
And my posting of the short essay was only to create commentary - I don't necessarily agree with all that is in it.
What science says doesn't concern me. That's another debate entirely. I'm interested in what the Bible says. How to harmonize the Bible with science is another debate, completely unrelated to how to interpret it. To claim science is relevant to the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is just bad hermeneutics.
My position here is very clear. The Bible clearly teaches what is popularly called YEC (or some version of it). The majority interpretation of the scientific data disagrees with that view. Either, then, those scientists are mistaken (which is a statement I am not qualified to make) or else we have to adjust our theology of inspiration and inerrancy. As I've said before, if the earth really is 14byo and if evolution is true, if there was animal death before the Fall, then the Bible is factually incorrect as written, in the original autographs, and that fact would force us to change our theology of inspiration. I, however, am not about to make that change, because I don't know enough to affirm or deny how old the earth is, and I'm just not impressed with popular science like we get on this website. I don't blame those people who are trained scientists who believe like they do. Presumably, they've had the training to make their assessments. But don't ask me to take them at their word, because you'd be asking me to put my faith in them in their claim that the Bible is incorrect, and that's just not something I'm willing to do.
So call that dismissing science too easily if you like. I call it being critical and honest, something I'm afraid there is not enough of when discussing this matter.
