Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
First of all, I've don't interpret the death following the fall as physical - I see it as a spiritual death - separation from God which is a result of the disobedience... and clearly it does not have to happen immediately for the truth to remain in the story.
Besides, God's reaction was to banish Adam and Eve from the Garden lest they eat from the Tree of Life also. So that would've meant a circumvention of God's own judgement.
However, while I appreciate Lucaspa's thoughts, I don't quite follow you - if natural selection is inherently driven by selfishness (agreed) then you seem to state that selfishness and disobedience are in-built by the process which designed us... but somewhere in the design of the design process, God is involved therefore God designed us to be driven by selfishness and disobedience?
BTW, this is an honest puzzled follow-up and not a cheap shot
I'm happy to find this thread as I have many of the same questions. I hope you will forgive my unknowing--and appreciate my seeking.
What is a Beyom? And where is it in Genesis? Is it in the original Greek? If so, what English words are substituted for it?
Someone said Adam and Eve [A&E] knew of 'death' because they pulled up carrots and ate them. How does that make them aware of human death? I've been thinking that when God told A&E not to eat of that tree or they would surely 'die,' sounded like this being spoken to a two year old.
"Don't eat THAT red candy over there or you will surely *&$$#@! " To A&E, who didn't know anything but beauty and goodness--what did *8$$#@! mean?
And I agree with whoever said it was bad psychology to point THE TREE out to them. Like DON'T THINK OF A WHITE POLAR BEAR! Oops, too late!
And even if the death spoken of is spiritual death--A&E knew nothing of this. So they could not make an informed decision. . . they could only do that AFTER they knew what sin was. So I don't see them as having 'free will' [free meaning no cost]so much as having "ultimatum will.[Do it and reap ill]"
I hope we discuss this more. Thanks and BLESSINGS2u
Hi kua2u... I'm not sure I agree with the psychology problem of the tree. It's like the argument which asks why have the tree there in the first place - the tree, and it's forbidden-ness (?) enables free will. To me, free will is never about no cost will, rather the freedom to choose A or B. The alternative is that you are predestined or pre-set or predisposed to A, as I am to B. It seems there are many pitfalls down that road because then the lost are always lost and were destined (by God) to remain lost...
Besides, God's reaction was to banish Adam and Eve from the Garden lest they eat from the Tree of Life also. So that would've meant a circumvention of God's own judgement.
This is a good point.
However, while I appreciate Lucaspa's thoughts, I don't quite follow you - if natural selection is inherently driven by selfishness (agreed) then you seem to state that selfishness and disobedience are in-built by the process which designed us... but somewhere in the design of the design process, God is involved therefore God designed us to be driven by selfishness and disobedience?
BTW, this is an honest puzzled follow-up and not a cheap shot
Thanks, guys...
I didn't take it as a cheap shot.
No, God did not design us directly to be driven by selfishness and disobedience. Remember, natural selection is the secondary process used to design us. It's just that disobedience and selfishness is an inevitable side effect of the process. So you can't go back and pin the guilt on God directly. God didn't manufacture us and therefore our selfishness and disobedience are not a manufacturer's defect. Genesis 2 simply describes how people are and the consequences. It doesn't lay the blame at God's door. Neither am I. I am only saying that such disobedience is built into us.
So, why did God use natural selection with this side effect?
Darwinian selection is the only way to get design. Even if God directly designs us, He still uses Darwinian selection in His mind. So, why did God use Darwinian selection working out in nature instead of His mind where God could pick just those designs that were unselfish?
1. If He did that, He was basically making puppets. Genesis 1 is clear that God makes humans for themselves. Not for God. He doesn't want playthings or puppets or even worshippers. So He is willing to put up with the disobedience in order for people to be themselves.
2. This is the only way God could have a universe where the lives of people have meaning. That is, where their choices can determine the future. If God makes them with perfect obedience, then what choices do people have? Remember, we don't have to choose disobedience. In the event, it is pretty impossible not to so choose. However, since God is merciful and forgiving, we don't have to be perfect. So God gets humans to have meaningful lives, but doesn't hold their disobedience irretrievably against them.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
I'm happy to find this thread as I have many of the same questions. I hope you will forgive my unknowing--and appreciate my seeking.
What is a Beyom? And where is it in Genesis? Is it in the original Greek? If so, what English words are substituted for it?
"Beyom" is Hebrew and is translated as "in the day". You can find it in Genesis 2:4 and 2:17. You can also look in Strong's Concordance for other times it appears in the OT.
Someone said Adam and Eve [A&E] knew of 'death' because they pulled up carrots and ate them. How does that make them aware of human death?
It doesn't. You have to pay careful attention to the claims. The claim was that physical death was not in the world until Adam and Eve ate the fruit. Physical death for any living creature. My example of God giving herbs to people to eat and the death that results shows that narrow claim to be false. IOW, physical death was in the world before Adam and Eve ate the fruit.
I've been thinking that when God told A&E not to eat of that tree or they would surely 'die,' sounded like this being spoken to a two year old.
I agree. Of course, since Adam had just been created not too long before, you could say Adam was like a two-year old. However, any parent knows this isn't how you get two year olds to avoid the cookie jar. So, if you insist on a literal reading, you are faced with the problem of why God is so ignorant.
"Don't eat THAT red candy over there or you will surely *&$$#@! " To A&E, who didn't know anything but beauty and goodness--what did *8$$#@! mean?
GOOD POINT! If death wasn't in the world, then telling them they would die means nothing! So you now have another refutation of the theology that physical death wasn't present until Adam and Eve ate the fruit.
And even if the death spoken of is spiritual death--A&E knew nothing of this. So they could not make an informed decision. . . they could only do that AFTER they knew what sin was. So I don't see them as having 'free will' [free meaning no cost]so much as having "ultimatum will.[Do it and reap ill]"
Free will simply means that they are not compelled to one action or another. They are free to choose. Consequences are there.
What they were supposed to do is trust God. Just like you are supposed to trust your parents when they say "the stove is hot; touch it and you will be burned." Or, as I remember my two year old "Don't run out into the road or you will get hit by a car." Well, she recognized that getting hit by a car is bad -- because I said so -- but didn't really know. So she did run out in the road one day. Fortunately, there were no cars. So I spanked her. Pain on her bottom and the anger of her father she did understand! She didn't do it again.
Adam and Eve did not trust God. So now we come to the next question: was the spiritual death a free will choice of God? IOW, could God have decided it was not spiritual death? The story doesn't sound like it. Like the stove and the road examples, the consequences are not coming from us the parent. They are part of the situation and we have no control over them. The story sounds like God didn't have any choice about the spiritual death. It was a consequence He couldn't change.
What He did do was deliver a "spanking". Farming would be tough, child bearing would be painful. No more easy life in the Garden. It looks like all this is supposed to remind us to be obedient, but doesn't.
It also looks like God is able to offer a treatment for the spiritual death. Like we can put on analgesics to stop the pain of a burn for touching the stove, God can restore the spiritual life and get around the consequence.
What do you think?
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Genesis 2:17 says Adam would die "in the day" that he ate the fruit. Adam lived 930 years after he ate the fruit. The death referred to could not have been physical.
We know from at least one other passage in the bible that the phrase in the day does not mean Adam would die on that day.
It means on that day he would come under the sentence of death.
See how that same phrase is meant in ........
1Kings 2: 36-46.... (for brevity here I will post just the first two verses)
Then the king sent for Shimei and said to him, "Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and live there, but do not go anywhere else. The day you leave and cross the Kidron Valley, you can be sure you will die; your blood will be on your own head."
If we continue to read we see that Shimei did leave the city but did not die on that day, but rather was "sentenced to death" on the day he left.
This how the passage has been historically understood. It is only after Darwin that men began to try to understand it differently.
Let me run this one past you and see what you think.
What is "sin". The "sin" in Genesis 3 is disobeying God and eating a fruit that God had forbidden. Now, just as an aside, God is pretty stupid according to this tale. Anyone who has ever raised kids knows that as soon as you say "Don't get in the cookie jar.", that is exactly where they go! If you really don't want them in the cookie jar, you don't use this approach.
What if God had a purpose which at present you do not fully understand ?
Does this make God pretty stupid?
GOOD POINT! If death wasn't in the world, then telling them they would die means nothing! So you now have another refutation of the theology that physical death wasn't present until Adam and Eve ate the fruit.
But what if death was in the world, but not for men but for animals? (despite what AIG might say )
Historically believers have understood that animals were always subject to death.
Paul tells us that death passed to all men as a result of Adams sin.
It is only recently that it has been suggested AFAIK that animals were made mortal by Adams sin
We know from at least one other passage in the bible that the phrase in the day does not mean Adam would die on that day.
It means on that day he would come under the sentence of death.
See how that same phrase is meant in ........
1Kings 2: 36-46.... (for brevity here I will post just the first two verses)
Then the king sent for Shimei and said to him, "Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and live there, but do not go anywhere else. The day you leave and cross the Kidron Valley, you can be sure you will die; your blood will be on your own head."
If we continue to read we see that Shimei did leave the city but did not die on that day, but rather was "sentenced to death" on the day he left.
Shimei did not die "in the day" simply because he was beyond Solomon's jurisdiction and Solomon could not physically carry out the sentence. Solomon did literally mean "in the day". Not sometime later. As soon as Shimei was back in Jerusalem, Solomon did execute him "in the day". Now, are you saying that God could not have killed Adam in the day? That Adam was somehow beyond God's jurisdiction?
At the most, you can only argue that the passage from I Kings might mean that "in the day" meant something different in Genesis 2. However, you can not say it definitely means something different.
Now, if the passage was historically interpreted differently (and I would like to see your sources, please), then that shows that you have a non-literal interpretation. Which then, of course, brings up the issue why you can't do a non-literal interpretation on the rest of Genesis 1-3.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
What if God had a purpose which at present you do not fully understand ?
Does this make God pretty stupid?
It means you are begging the question. I can see a parent setting up the situation to teach their kids a lesson. But the punishment in that case is temporary and does not have eternal consequences. Yet you are saying God set the situation up but then had eternal and inescapable consequences to it.
yes, I can think of serveral possible purposes, but none of them are flattering to God and all result in a God that it is not possible to worship.
Also, I see no reason to accept your idea of mystery when it is possible to devise a solution that does not make God stupid and preserves the theological basics of Christianity. IOW, I am not married to your human, fallible theology like you want me to be.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
If death wasn't in the world, then telling them they would die means nothing! So you now have another refutation of the theology that physical death wasn't present until Adam and Eve ate the fruit.
)
Linear Mode
