Carnivorous animals before the fall...

[zoegirl]

An argument from silence is a pretty weak bottom line.

And yet we like to, whether YEC or OEC, use silence in the fossil record to support our points.

It seems, then that silence is rather damning when we want it to be...

[Canuckster1127]

Just because you interpret supporting Scriptures differently doesn't mean there is no Scriptural evidence. That's the atheists' mistake when they say there is no evidence for God. If your problem is with someone's exegesis, fine, but don't be so patronizing as to say that there is no Scriptural support. By that standard, then there is no Scriptural support for anything, because you would first have to know what God meant before reading the text.

Logical fallacies, like arguments from silence, are weak. At least misinterpretations work with existing evidence. Please be more even-handed in your criticism, my friend.

It has nothing to do with interpretation. There's no direct passage dealing with the issue that can stand on its own to say what you're saying. Therefore it's based considerably on the hermeneutic you're using to approach those scriptures.

Disagreeing with your hermeneuatic is not being criticial nor is disagreeing with you a logical fallacy.

I'm being perfectly even handed in noting what I did prior and in responding to your subsequent response. Apparently God didn't see fit for whatever reason to directly and exclusively reveal through a single passage what you're attempting to conclude. That doesn't make it wrong or right for that matter.

Noting scriptural silence on an issue is an entirely appropriate thing to note. An argument from silence when the silence noted is from directly revealed truth is entirely appropriate and has nothing to do with equating such an argument from atheism. That's a red herring and an attempt to diminish those who disagree with you by associating them with a group that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with your original argument. Atheists disagree with OEC scriptural interpretations as well and would it then be vaild to note that atheists and YEC proponents are agreed in that regard?

I made a simple one sentence response and you read far more into it than was necessary.

[DannyM]

My main point is that God evidently did not intend a perfect creation in this world. Perhaps we could agree that whether God created things to be finite in the beginning, or whether God brought about some change later on which made things finite, God always knew and intended our world to be finite? Now whether this means God's original creation was perfect, I suppose it comes down to ones idea of perfect and what one means by such as concept.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo, due to recent activity I've only just noticed this thread; I'm ever so disappointed to have joined the board 5years after the event- but here goes anyway Having perused the whole thread I find this comment of yours to be the most accurate. The evidence we have strongly suggests that God did not intend a perfect creation. During the creation event, God calls each creation day "good"- interestingly the heavens and man are excluded from this and God remains silent on their "goodness" or otherwise. "Good" cannot mean morally good. Good has to simply mean "fit for purpose." Even after completing creation, God proclaims this "very good." We can safely say that God's intention was not to make a perfect creation.

[Jac3510]

And yet we like to, whether YEC or OEC, use silence in the fossil record to support our points.

It seems, then that silence is rather damning when we want it to be...

Hardly. Abrupt appearances of fully formed species in the fossil record is a prediction of the creationism model, whether OEC or YEC. Thus, it's not an argument from silence. To say the Bible never attributes animal death to man (which is, in any case, a debatable statement) is.

It has nothing to do with interpretation. There's no direct passage dealing with the issue that can stand on its own to say what you're saying. Therefore it's based considerably on the hermeneutic you're using to approach those scriptures.

Wrong. Gen. 1:29-30, as I discussed in detail in this thread, directly speaks to the issue. Gen 3:17; 9:2-3; Isa 11:6; 65:25; Rom 5:12; 8:19 all provide support as well. The fact that you choose to interpret them differently doesn't negate the fact that they provide Scriptural support; Gen 1 and Rom. 5:12 most directly.

For reminder: Gen 1:30 limits animals to a vegetarian diet. Rom 5:12 says that death came into the world (not mankind) because of Adam's sin. The fact that you see Gen 1:30 as a passing remark about a portion of animal diet and that you read the kosmos of Rom 5:12 to be mankind does NOT mean that there is no Scriptural support. In making that claim, you are doing EXACTLY the same thing atheists do when they argue that there is, say, no support for God's existence or Jesus' resurrection.

Disagreeing with your hermeneuatic is not being criticial nor is disagreeing with you a logical fallacy.

I didn't say it is. I said that assuming your interpretation is correct to and using that as a basis for dismissing all support for other views is a logical fallacy, because it begs the question.

I'm being perfectly even handed in noting what I did prior and in responding to your subsequent response. Apparently God didn't see fit for whatever reason to directly and exclusively reveal through a single passage what you're attempting to conclude. That doesn't make it wrong or right for that matter.

You are correct, of course, that God did not give a single passage that directly and exclusively reveal that there was no carnivorous activity before the Fall. He gave TWO passages that do so.

Noting scriptural silence on an issue is an entirely appropriate thing to note. An argument from silence when the silence noted is from directly revealed truth is entirely appropriate and has nothing to do with equating such an argument from atheism. That's a red herring and an attempt to diminish those who disagree with you by associating them with a group that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with your original argument. Atheists disagree with OEC scriptural interpretations as well and would it then be vaild to note that atheists and YEC proponents are agreed in that regard?

It's fine to note it. It's another thing to say it is "the bottom line," as if that is an [i[argument[/i] in favor of the OEC position. The BEST you can say is that, since there was carnivorous activity before the fall (in your view, of course), then obviously the Bible wouldn't say there wasn't. But you CANNOT say that because the Bible doesn't mention it, therefore we can conclude it didn't happen. There is a difference in something being consistent and something being an argument.

So far as my comparison to you and atheists, it is perfectly valid and accurate. You repeatedly assert that there is no evidence to support the YEC view. That assertion IS the assertion atheists make. When Christians offer the many arguments for God's existence and the atheist decides those arguments are not sufficient, and they then turn around and say that there is NO evidence for God's existence, they are being dishonest. So are you. They should say that there is evidence for God's existence, but that they do not find that evidence compelling as it can be better explained in other ways. THAT would be the honest thing to say.

Just the same, you should be honest enough to say that there is direct Scriptural reference and support for the YEC view here. When you don't, you do exactly the same thing atheists do.

I made a simple one sentence response and you read far more into it than was necessary.

That, or you are trying to justify yourself here. Does it surprise you to find that all human beings--me and you included--are inclined to fall back on the same logical fallacies to defend our positions, even when our positions are right? I'm not making a moral comparison to you and atheists. I'm making a logical one. I know that you understand and reject their tactic in this area. To be intellectually honest, you should recognize when you do the same, as you have done here.

So, my bottom line stands. The issue is the interpretation of specific verses. If Gen 1:3 and Rom 5:12 mean what YEC says they mean, then the Bible DIRECTLY says there was no animal death before the Fall. That makes DAs bottom line a logical fallacy at worst and an argument from silence at best.

Seriously, Bart. I expect you, of all people, with your constant interest in being not so dogmatic, to AT LEAST be courteous and honest enough to admit that YECs are not idiots and that we have warrant in our beliefs based on the way we interpret these verses, that is to say, that there is direct Scriptural support for our views, even if you disagree with our interpretation of them. For my own part, while I deeply disagree with, say, open theism, I am perfectly willing to admit there is Scriptural support for it. It just so happens those people have misunderstood the passages they cite. But, if those passages DO mean what they claim (and they don't, but if they did), then they ARE RIGHT. The same goes with your view of the church and eldership. You have scriptural support for your view, even though I believe you are simply misreading the passages. I won't be so arrogant, though, as to say that you have no biblical basis to believe what you do. The same goes for OEC in general. You have a biblical basis for it. Just because you are wrong doesn't change that.

So . . . how about it, Bart? Will you repudiate DAs fallacy and stand with me on this, even as you disagree with my conclusion, or will you stick to the blind dogmatism you constantly preach against?

[DannyM]

Rom 5:12 says that death came into the world (not mankind) because of Adam's sin

Sorry to butt in Jac but I disagree here. Romans 5:12-14 is talking strictly about mankind. It says that death came through sin after sin entering the world through Adam, for sure, but it says nothing about animal death being tied to the sin of mankind.

[Jac3510]

Rom 5:12 says that death came into the world (not mankind) because of Adam's sin

Sorry to butt in Jac but I disagree here. Romans 5:12-14 is talking strictly about mankind. It says that death came through sin after sin entering the world through Adam, for sure, but it says nothing about animal death being tied to the sin of mankind.

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

If so, then you have to admit that there IS Scriptural support for YEC, even though you may disagree with their interpretation. if so, then you have to admit that the issue is the interpretation of these verses, which, interestingly enough, is what I have already said several times.

[DannyM]

Rom 5:12 says that death came into the world (not mankind) because of Adam's sin

Sorry to butt in Jac but I disagree here. Romans 5:12-14 is talking strictly about mankind. It says that death came through sin after sin entering the world through Adam, for sure, but it says nothing about animal death being tied to the sin of mankind.

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

If so, then you have to admit that there IS Scriptural support for YEC, even though you may disagree with their interpretation. if so, then you have to admit that the issue is the interpretation of these verses, which, interestingly enough, is what I have already said several times.

Jac I wouldn't be so bold as to tell you that you do not have ligitimacy in reading the passage that way. In fact I think it would be quite unchristian of me to do so- we are all Christians here and, while there is nothing wrong with robust debate, we ARE nevertheless brothers and sisters who disagree over an interpretation.

I actually interpret the whole flow of the passage totally different from you; when I read Romans 5:12-21 I clearly see the whole passage as dealing with mankind alone. Death through Adam, Life through Christ. Now you and I have life through Christ- animals however do not. The passage, for me, is dealing with mankind alone. But like you Jac I could be wrong. I can claim no higher authority than you; we both have the same authority in our hands.

[Jac3510]

Fine, Danny. That is a perfectly appropriate and honest answer that I can deeply respect. I take it, then, that you would agree with me that, if you were wrong--which I firmly understand you don't think you are, and I have no problem with that whatsoever--and if I am right about Rom 5:12, then the Bible does directly say, in this one verse, that there was no death of any kind, animal or otherwise, before Adam's fall.

Thus, if we are being intellectually honest and logically rigorous, I expect you to agree with me that DAs "bottom line" is, at best, an argument from silence, and at worst, a case of circular reasoning. In the YEC view, the Bible does directly and clearly address this issue in not one, but two, verses, along with a myriad of supporting texts. The only way, then, to say that the Bible does NOT address the issue is to assume the OEC view, which is, of course, circular.

So, then what is the issue? As I have said many times before: the interpretation of Gen 1:29-30 and Rom 5:12, along with the other supporting texts I mentioned such as Rom 8:19 and Isa 65:25, and still tons more.

Obviously, your interpretation of those passages may be right and mine may be wrong, and thus, your position may be correct. But if it is correct, it is because the bottom line is that those passages are properly interpreted according to your view rather than according to mine, and not, as DA suggest, because "nowhere in the Bible is animal death attributed to Adam's sin."

[DannyM]

Fine, Danny. That is a perfectly appropriate and honest answer that I can deeply respect. I take it, then, that you would agree with me that, if you were wrong--which I firmly understand you don't think you are, and I have no problem with that whatsoever--and if I am right about Rom 5:12, then the Bible does directly say, in this one verse, that there was no death of any kind, animal or otherwise, before Adam's fall.

If I am wrong then then instead of dealing with mankind the passage is dealing with mankind+--- So you can interpret this to mean there was no death of any kind.

Thus, if we are being intellectually honest and logically rigorous, I expect you to agree with me that DAs "bottom line" is, at best, an argument from silence, and at worst, a case of circular reasoning. In the YEC view, the Bible does directly and clearly address this issue in not one, but two, verses, along with a myriad of supporting texts. The only way, then, to say that the Bible does NOT address the issue is to assume the OEC view, which is, of course, circular.

No, I disagree here. This is not an argument from silence at all; it is an argument formed purely from the context of the passage. Now again this is just OEC's take on the passage, but it is, in my opinion, disingenuous to call it an argument from silence. The bible is silent on many things but this does not make every argument an argument from silence. When I look at Romans 5 it clearly deals with mankind's fall and mankind's rise. There is no way that I can read into this passage that my interpretation is only held together by silence; that would be to discount the way in which it is explicit in its reference to mankind alone. In fact, I would probably have to suggest to you jac that it is perhaps YOU who is holding onto this passage purely through its "silence" in affirming your interpretation.

I'm sorry for any errors Jac as this post is very rushed. I have to be off now but didn't want to leave you unanswered.

God bless

[Jac3510]

No, I disagree here. This is not an argument from silence at all; it is an argument formed purely from the context of the passage. Now again this is just OEC's take on the passage, but it is, in my opinion, disingenuous to call it an argument from silence. The bible is silent on many things but this does not make every argument an argument from silence. When I look at Romans 5 it clearly deals with mankind's fall and mankind's rise. There is no way that I can read into this passage that my interpretation is only held together by silence; that would be to discount the way in which it is explicit in its reference to mankind alone. In fact, I would probably have to suggest to you jac that it is perhaps YOU who is holding onto this passage purely through its "silence" in affirming your interpretation.

I think you misunderstood me here.

I am not saying that your view of Rom 5:12 is an argument from silence. Far from it. I think you are interpreting the passage and appealing very much to what you see to be the context and flow of argument. That's fine. I am doing the same thing, and we simply come to different conclusions about what the context and flow of argument actually are saying. That's a fine debate to have. It has nothing to do with silence.

What I am saying is an argument from silence is DA's assertion that the way we know that there was no animal death before the Fall is that the Bible is silent on the matter. Just to be strict, what he actually said is the bottom line to the entire debate--by implication, the one overarching fact that can't be denied and is decisive--is that the Bible is doesn't attribute animal death to Adam's sin. That is obviously an argument from silence, because even if he was right, and I don't think he is, just because the Bible is silent on the matter doesn't make the matter untrue.

But more than that, my point is that his reasoning in making the assertion is circular. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I am wrong about Rom 5 and Gen 1. Is it true, then, that the Bible does not attribute animal death to Adam's sin? Only in the trivial way that the Bible also doesn't assert that Satan is more powerful than God. Obviously, the Bible isn't going to assert something that isn't true. But that means he is assuming the truth of OEC, which requires animal death before the Fall, BEFORE COMING TO THE TEXT. That, my friend, is a circular argument, which is what I expect you to agree with. If, in fact, OEC is true, then it is still not true that the bottom line is that the Bible doesn't attribute animal death to Adam's sin. What is the bottom line is that those passages that YECs believe do make that assertion have been misinterpreted.

So, what DA should have said is this:

"The bottom line is that YECs have misinterpreted passages like Gen 1:30 and Rom 5:12 to teach that there was no death before the fall."

That I could agree with, at least, methodologically speaking. I obviously don't think that YECs have misinterpreted the passages, but the statement itself is at least an honest appraisal of the situation. As he phrased it, and as Bart defended it, it is just false, circular, and an argument from silence. As I said to Bart, it's the same thing atheists do when they try to bolster their case by arguing that there isn't even any evidence for God's existence. Denying evidence based on your conclusion doesn't mean the evidence doesn't go away, and that's true whether you are an atheist denying arguments for God's existence, an OEC denying the arguments for YEC, or anything else, like a traditional theist denying the arguments for open theism or a Christian denying the atheists arguments against God (i.e., the problem of evil).

[Canuckster1127]

Just because you are wrong doesn't change that.

You ask me to join with you in a suspension of dogmatic assertion and you conclude with this?

I'll address your post in more detail at a later point. I'm home sick today and not up to it.

[Jac3510]

Just because you are wrong doesn't change that.

You ask me to join with you in a suspension of dogmatic assertion and you conclude with this?

I'll address your post in more detail at a later point. I'm home sick today and not up to it.

Of course I do. You believe YEC is wrong, don't you? I believe OEC is wrong. Would it make you feel better if I included the words "I've concluded that"? They seem a bit superfluous, but if it makes you feel better, then please read the last section this way:

"The same goes for OEC in general. You have a biblical basis for it. Just because I've concluded that you are wrong doesn't change that."

See, Bart, I'm not asking you to do anything I haven't already done myself. I'm willing to admit that OEC has Scriptural support, even though I think it is wrong in that it misreads Scripture to garner that support. The issue at hand--the bottom line, if you will--when it comes to OEC is not that the Bible is silent on millions of years (I think it is, but that is only trivially true in the sense I've already described to Danny) but rather in the interpretation of those passages used to support the position. Now, are you willing to do the same with YEC, as DA denies, and has Danny has been honest enough to do, or will you maintain this dogmatic circular reasoning?

I'm not asking you to renounce OEC. I'm not asking you to endorse YEC. I'm asking you to reject a logically fallacious argument put forward in favor of OEC and rather focus on the real issue, which is the proper interpretation of certain passages, specifically, Gen 1:30 and Rom 5:12. Are you willing to do that, Bart?

I'm sorry you're sick. Do feel better! Chicken-noodle soup, aspirin, and a dash of prayer are amazing things.

[DannyM]

My apologies Jac as I mistook you as saying that the OEC interpretation was at best an interpretation from silence.

So, what DA should have said is this:

"The bottom line is that YECs have misinterpreted passages like Gen 1:30 and Rom 5:12 to teach that there was no death before the fall."

That I could agree with, at least, methodologically speaking. I obviously don't think that YECs have misinterpreted the passages, but the statement itself is at least an honest appraisal of the situation. As he phrased it, and as Bart defended it, it is just false, circular, and an argument from silence. As I said to Bart, it's the same thing atheists do when they try to bolster their case by arguing that there isn't even any evidence for God's existence. Denying evidence based on your conclusion doesn't mean the evidence doesn't go away, and that's true whether you are an atheist denying arguments for God's existence, an OEC denying the arguments for YEC, or anything else, like a traditional theist denying the arguments for open theism or a Christian denying the atheists arguments against God (i.e., the problem of evil).

I understand. I can understand you interpreting Romans 5:12 the way do. I have no qualms telling you that, in the context of Romans 5, I think you are absolutely wrong in your interpretation. But this takes nothing away from the FACT that Romans 5:12 is evidence for your position. I'll be honest and tell you I consider it to be rather weak evidence, but evidence is evidence nonetheless. But please understand that I think, as evidence goes, the evidence in this passage is the weaker of the sciptural evidence you have. But there is no way that an OEC can tell you that this is not evidence to support your position; it IS.

Sorry for the confusion earlier.

[Canuckster1127]

Jac,

I've stated many times in my years on this board that YEC is a sincere position held by many and that while I disagree with the scriptural hermeneutic as it is applied, I don't doubt the sincerity of most who hold to YEC or that they believe it to be Biblically based, nor do I question their salvation nor do I believe that the YEC/OEC debate is cardinal in terms of soteriology.

Why you feel it is necessary in this thread to represent or imply that I've withheld that statement, I don't know. If you need me to go through my over 2000 posts to find instances of my saying that and similar things like that, likely directly to you on occassion, I will.

bart

[Jac3510]

Danny,

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

Bart,

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

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