Peril in Paradise: Why Young-earthers Emotional "No Death Before Adam" is just that: Emotion

http://www.reasons.org/resources/connections/200510_connections_q4/index.shtml#peril_in_paradise_theology_science_and_the_age_of_the_earth ^

[satchmodog9]

work now read later

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

And then there's Exodus, which says straight out that God made the world in six days. There is no other way to interpret it.

As for emotion, there is plenty of that to go around on all sides.

[truthfinder9]

And then there's Exodus, which says straight out that God made the world in six days. There is no other way to interpret it.

Not true: Exodus 20:11 is often held up as undeniable proof of 24-hour creation days. If that is true, what of Leviticus 25:1-4, which uses the creation week pattern in terms of years? Apparently the creation week is used as a pattern of “one out of seven” in both cases, not a real-time reference. Another type of pattern is the eight day “Feast of the Tabernacles” in Leviticus 23:33-36. It celebrated God’s protection in the desert that lasted forty years - obviously eight days is not a one-to-one correlation with forty years. Also consider that Moses authored both of these passages.

That's a little something the YECs forget to mention.

[JohnnyM]

are you coming from a Gap theory point of view (i.e. gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2) that has the creation account being a restoration of a previously judged/ruined earth? Or are you coming from the viewpoint of evolution as the method of creation?? Also, do you know the viewpoint of the author?

The former has some wiggle room with the issue of death pre-Adam, the latter does not.

JM

[Alex Murphy]

Ping for later

[truthfinder9]

Neither. I'm a Day-Age old-earth creationist, which is different from traditional gap theories in that gap theories interpret the Hebrew to say "Earth became formless and empty" after creation. A more careful look at the Hebrew makes this unnecessary. A main reason for many gap theories is to unnecessarily explain away evil and death before Adam. There's no theological or scientific justification for a previously judged/ruined Earth, it's simply an attempt to fit the Bible to some particular beliefs in some cases. In other cases, it was just a careless attempt to fit "old-earth" science into the Bible. That can be done without inventing theology like some gap theories do.

Day-age recognizes that the point of view of the writer changes from Gen 1:1 to Gen 1:2. There is an unspecified period of time between these verses, but it doesn't warrant the claims of many traditional "gap" theories.

The author of the book doesn't subscribe to the gap theories or theistic evolution either.

Closing the Gap: A Scientist’s Response to the Gap Theory by theologian John Rea and astronomer Hugh Ross details the history of and problems with gap theories.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Thanks for another excellent post!

[Cleburne]

Eden simply cannot be the best of all possible worlds for the simple fact that Adam was able to sin. In the Eschaton redeemed man will not sin; he will be perfected in union with Christ. Genesis presents a world that must develop into something fuller and greater. Adam does not represent the height of humanity; he represents the potential of humanity, and that potential diverted into sin. Christ is the height of humanity; only in Him is man able to reach true perfection and glory.

[P-Marlowe]

Also consider that Moses authored both of these passages.

FWIW God himself authored Exodus 20:11. Moses just wrote down the words. Later God himself wrote the words in stone with his own hand.

Unless that was all a bunch of hokey.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

The Feast of Tabernacles was to remember their hardships during those 40 years of wandering. The years are not vague or in question. The Feast was a rememberance of a specific event. The Sabbath too was a rememberance, and the event and years are also specific. To think that you can interpret it differently than its clear meaning is just willful misinterpreting for the purpose of fitting a specifc theory. It makes no sense. If you can interpret that in such a far-fetched way then the rest of the Bible is suspect.

How long do you figure it will take God to make a new heaven and a new earth, as foretold in Scripture that He will do? What about all the other miracles of the Bible? How long did those take?

[PetroniusMaximus]

All together now...

"And the E V E N I N G and the M O R N I N G were the first day..."

(Hard to miss that.)

[Larry Lucido]

Yea, but it was a reeeeal long evening and a reeeeal long morning.

[JohnnyM]

it doesn't get any clearer than that.

There is no doubt that the days referred to in Genesis were literal 24 hour periods.

JM

[DaveMSmith]

What's your take on the talking serpent?

[PetroniusMaximus]

"What's your take on the talking serpent?"

No more implausible than a talking ape!

:)

[DaveMSmith]

Seriously, I ask because that part of the Creation story is not to be taken literally - the serpent represents evil. According to my NKJ Bible, Gen 3:15 is Messianic prophecy.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"I ask because that part of the Creation story is not to be taken literally"

Why do you think that is not to be taken literally?

[Gondring]

This version of the old-earth idea sounds a lot like Mormons who don't believe The Fall was a bad thing(tm).

[truthfinder9]

"And the E V E N I N G and the M O R N I N G were the first day..." More accurate translations read something like "And the E V E N I N G and the M O R N I N G - first day..." which, in Hebrew, suggests something other than a 24hr day. I often ask young-earthers, if it really is 24hr days, why doesn't the text explictly say so? It doesn't. Bet Ken Ham failed to mention that.