Bible believing non YECs

[MagusAlbertus]

How do you get around the problem of “no death before the fall”
After writing a paper on why the earth wasn’t old I found out I was wrong. These crystals form pure and over the half life leave daughter elements. Given the crystals and the number of half-lives undergone, these crystals prove that the earth is billions of years old.


http://shrimprg.stanford.edu/page2frame.html


now, i need to reconcile the concept that there was no death before the fall?


is this fact? doesn't genesis start talking about an earth that's clearly already in existence and thus isn't actually talking about the beginning of all existence but rather the beginning of the earth? Ware does it say that there was no death before the fall? All i read is that man didn't die t'll after that.

 

[LoG]

now, i need to reconcile the concept that there was no death before the fall?

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=22418802&postcount=10

 

[shernren]

now, i need to reconcile the concept that there was no death before the fall?

1. The Bible never says anywhere that a perfect world will not involve physical death of animals. The closest that can be read is that predatory animals will no longer show predatory behaviour (which is debatable). It doesn't prove that animals will not die of old age, animals will not practice selective mating, and animals will not compete for finite resources (the last two of which are important for evolution). As far as I have seen, you cannot read that into how God said everything was "very good". God's idea of good is different from our idea of good in many cases.

2. The death of animals has no moral content, certainly before the existence of humans to provide a context of morality, and therefore cannot be said to be "evil" or "sinful". Sin can only be defined in the context of God's mandated, express will, and nature has never been given the free will to disobey God the way man has. Only Adam had a forbidden fruit to eat; Earth didn't. Therefore animal death cannot be considered "sinful" unless it can be shown to be against God's plan for nature, and the theological problems with that are that God never gave nature an avenue for rebellion and God does not describe an absence of physical death of animals wherever He describes and glories in His original plan for nature.

3. Sin is only shown as bringing human death into the world. In Romans 5, the context is humanity, and therefore "death" refers to humans. In Romans 8, the "futility" creation was subjected to can also be interpreted as the futility of being stewarded by a sinful and rebellious human race. The word translated "futility" there is used only in two other places in the NT, and both times used to describe the depraved state of human minds.

There it is in a nutshell. Most "evolution involves death and therefore God couldn't have used it" arguments stem more from sentimentality than from Scriptural basis, as far as I've seen. Just because "God is love", does not mean "God is cuddly".

 

[depthdeception]

How do you get around the problem of “no death before the fall”
After writing a paper on why the earth wasn’t old I found out I was wrong. These crystals form pure and over the half life leave daughter elements. Given the crystals and the number of half-lives undergone, these crystals prove that the earth is billions of years old.


http://shrimprg.stanford.edu/page2frame.html


now, i need to reconcile the concept that there was no death before the fall?


is this fact? doesn't genesis start talking about an earth that's clearly already in existence and thus isn't actually talking about the beginning of all existence but rather the beginning of the earth? Ware does it say that there was no death before the fall? All i read is that man didn't die t'll after that.

The "death" to which Adam and Eve were subject was not biological entropy (for such is required for one to be alive...), but rather separation from the presence of God. This is why they were expelled from the Garden, for the Garden was symbolic of the "place where God lives." Therefore, to "die" was to be excluded from GOd's presence.

This, moreover, is particularly why human death has the "moral" value which shenren noted. By itself, biological death is not "evil"--rather, it is the necessary complex which makes biological life possible (i.e., if our cells didn't divide, reproduce, and die, we would'nt be "alive). It is only when coupled with separation from God (and the hope of continuing existence beyond biological death) that "death" takes on its terror for the human person.

 

[Jig]

The "death" to which Adam and Eve were subject was not biological entropy (for such is required for one to be alive...)

This is a common fallacy. You error in thinking that the biological systems of Adam and all such living creatures were the same before and after the fall. First off, this assumption is an impossble thing to know. Second, since Adam was truely perfect, your saying it was possble for Adam to die without sin and go to Heaven without jugdment. If this was God's plan then why did He start Adam off on Earth and not just in Heaven to begin with? Obviously, God meant man to live of Earth without dying.

, but rather separation from the presence of God.

"Death" was BOTH physical and spiritual death. Remeber Physical death is the payment for sin, before the fall (when it was still a sinless world for humans) there would be no reason for death.

This is why they were expelled from the Garden, for the Garden was symbolic of the "place where God lives." Therefore, to "die" was to be excluded from GOd's presence.

The garden was not symbolic of anything. It was a gift from a loving God. Who had the right to take it back for disobedience. Kind of what parents do to certain toys when a child acts up.

This, moreover, is particularly why human death has the "moral" value which shenren noted. By itself, biological death is not "evil"

Correct, physical death is not evil, it is merely payment for our sins.

--rather, it is the necessary complex which makes biological life possible (i.e., if our cells didn't divide, reproduce, and die, we would'nt be "alive).

Again, with the above noted fallacy. There is no way of knowing if our biological systems are the same as those before the fall.

Edit: It is also interesting to note, Adam and Eve didn't eat flesh (animal meat). You have to have death to get animals meat to eat. This goes along with what I'm stating. There was no physical death before the fall.

 

[KerrMetric]

This is a common fallacy. You error in thinking that the biological systems of Adam and all such living creatures were the same before and after the fall. First off, this assumption is an impossble thing to know.

But the alternative is a heck of a lot more difficult to accept to the point of total incredulity.

 

[KEPLER]

This is a common fallacy. You error in thinking that the biological systems of Adam and all such living creatures were the same before and after the fall. First off, this assumption is an impossble thing to know. Second, since Adam was truely perfect, your saying it was possble for Adam to die without sin and go to Heaven without jugdment. If this was God's plan then why did He start Adam off on Earth and not just in Heaven to begin with? Obviously, God meant man to live of Earth without dying.

No, Jig, there is no fallacy there. Scripture does not make any statement about any physiological changes to Adam and Eve after the fall. However, Scriputre does say that PRIOR to the fall, plants needed water to grow, and Adam and Eve needed food. The chemical processes in volved in photosynthesis and digestion (BOTH of which -- according to Scripture -- happened before the Fall) involve decay. The SAFEST assumption then (based SOLELY on the TEXT) is the assumption DD made. Depth Deception is operating from the KNOWN evidence (i.e., the TEXT) and you are operating from an assumption for which you have no basis.

Then YOU commit the logical fallacy by presenting the Red Herring...asking the question about why God put Adam in the Garden does nothing to address the original argument, it's an attempt to change the argument.

"Death" was BOTH physical and spiritual death. Remeber Physical death is the payment for sin, before the fall (when it was still a sinless world for humans) there would be no reason for death.

Please cite a text that says death is BOTH physical and spiritual.

Kepler

EDIT: just noticed the added comment, viz animal meat. you're on somehwat better textual ground with that, but it's still not rock solid.

 

[Willtor]

You don't just need animals to eat each other to get death, though. It's not just evolution that suggests that death leads to life. It's what we find everywhere. A dead plant becomes nutrition for another living plant. When you eat a carrot, you kill the plant. The carrot taproot stores the nutrition for the plant and it dies when you eat it.

 

[KerrMetric]

I'm always puzzled why triceratops fossils have damage from T-Rex teeth in them and some of the damage underwent healing implying they were actively hunted. Add this to the obvious dentition and to say these animals were vegetarians is absurd. Also the predator/prey ratios in fossil populations indicate active predation throught the fossil record from the Devonian onward.

 

[depthdeception]

This is a common fallacy.

?

You error in thinking that the biological systems of Adam and all such living creatures were the same before and after the fall.

Okay, and what reason do I have to believe that they weren't the same?

First off, this assumption is an impossble thing to know.

If this is true, then I must follow the phenomonological evidence. As the very structure of life is built upon death (we are made of stardust), it is the most natural and only reasonable assumption that one can make.

Second, since Adam was truely perfect, your saying it was possble for Adam to die without sin and go to Heaven without jugdment. If this was God's plan then why did He start Adam off on Earth and not just in Heaven to begin with? Obviously, God meant man to live of Earth without dying.

According to your logic, "salvation"of humanity should be a restoration of humanity to the pre-fall condition, not heaven. Therefore, it seems natural to concludet that whether humanity sinned or not, God's eternal plan has always been to redeem and transform the creation. Historical theology is quite rich in this regard.

Moreover, your logic actually shows that Adam was at a disadvantage for being perfect. After all, if Adam, as perfect, couldn't die and therefore attain to heaven, sinful humanity is in better shape for they actually have the hope of heaven!

Remeber Physical death is the payment for sin

Payment for what? And to whom? Moreover, if Christ is supposed to have "paid" for sin, why do Christians still die? If death is the "penalty" for sin, then Christ's taking away of the "penalty" should free all Christians of the existential crisis of biological death. However, we all still die, saint and sinner alike. Therefore, the answer has to lie somewhere else...

, before the fall (when it was still a sinless world for humans) there would be no reason for death.

Yes, the reason for "death" would be so that humans could be alive. Without the death of cells, humans cannot be alive. Without the death of stars, our bodies would not be possible for the foundational elements of which they are composed would not be extant. Death suffuses the creation--it is part of God's creative purpose in the cosmos. Sinful humanity cannot comprehend this, for death becomes a very real enemy to those opposed to the will and purpose of God.

The garden was not symbolic of anything. It was a gift from a loving God. Who had the right to take it back for disobedience. Kind of what parents do to certain toys when a child acts up.

Adam and Eve, in the story, hid from God. They sought separation first, not God.

Correct, physical death is not evil, it is merely payment for our sins.

Refer to my comments above re: "payment."

Again, with the above noted fallacy. There is no way of knowing if our biological systems are the same as those before the fall.

And there is no compelling reason to think that it was different.

Edit: It is also interesting to note, Adam and Eve didn't eat flesh (animal meat). You have to have death to get animals meat to eat. This goes along with what I'm stating. There was no physical death before the fall.

That's a poor "proof" for the lack of death.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

since Adam was truely perfect

start off simple.
show this from the text.

 

[Jig]

I'm always puzzled why triceratops fossils have damage from T-Rex teeth in them and some of the damage underwent healing implying they were actively hunted. Add this to the obvious dentition and to say these animals were vegetarians is absurd. Also the predator/prey ratios in fossil populations indicate active predation throught the fossil record from the Devonian onward.

Maybe because there was dinosaurs AFTER the Fall. Adam and Eve lived in a world that had dinosaurs. MAn and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Where do you think all the dragon tales came from. Funny how these early people could produce such accurate images (on cave walls, pottery, etc) and tales of creatures (large reptiles with long necks and such) that to you had been dead for millions of years.

 

[Jig]

since Adam was truely perfect

start off simple.
show this from the text.

The text says God created Adam and Eve and both were naked and not ashamed. They had no knowledge of sin, due to the fact they hadn't eaten from the Tree, and were innocent. (Gen. 2)

A sinless person that is handcrafted by God Himself, surely is perfect.

Though this didn't last long...now 'in Adam all die' 1 Cor. 15:22.

 

[KerrMetric]

Maybe because there was dinosaurs AFTER the Fall. Adam and Eve lived in a world that had dinosaurs.

No they didn't unless you want to move these archetypes back 650,000 centuries near enough. Let me guess though, that despite having no Geology or Physics PhD and relevant research you reject dating techniques.

MAn and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Where do you think all the dragon tales came from.

I think dragon tales come from a mixture of pure invention and fossils being uncovered throughout human history and the weaving of stories around them.

Dragons look really nothing like dinosaurs if you are critical in your thinking.

Funny how these early people could produce such accurate images (on cave walls, pottery, etc) and tales of creatures (large reptiles with long necks and such) that to you had been dead for millions of years.

Funny that not a single dinosaur cave painting exists anywhere in the world that is not a modern fake like the famous one in Utah. You really need a better information source.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Maybe because there was dinosaurs AFTER the Fall. Adam and Eve lived in a world that had dinosaurs. MAn and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Where do you think all the dragon tales came from.

Dinosaur bones?

Where do you think the unicorn and pegasus tales came from?

Funny how these early people could produce such accurate images (on cave walls, pottery, etc) and tales of creatures (large reptiles with long necks and such)

Examples?

Why is it we only find fossils of a very limited number of mammalian species in the same strata as dino bones?

Why do we always find dolphin and whale fossils in much younger/shallower deposits than their reptilian counterparts?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The text says God created Adam and Eve and both were naked and not ashamed. They had no knowledge of sin, due to the fact they hadn't eaten from the Tree, and were innocent. (Gen. 2)

A sinless person that is handcrafted by God Himself, surely is perfect.

Though this didn't last long...now 'in Adam all die' 1 Cor. 15:22.

read the text. for literalists YECists sure seem to modify the text when ever it suits their theology to do so.

it says good, or very good.
tov means complete, suitable.
it does not mean perfect, without fault, it does not exclude development, it does not exclude change.

why do all the new YECists here always insist that Adam was perfect and then go past the text to assert, like this poster does, that the character of God transfers the non-communicable attribute of perfection to either the Creation or to Adam or to both.

then they insist on taking this perfection and then deny "death before the fall", development in the Creation etc based on this misunderstanding.

read it. it says good, not perfect.

 

[depthdeception]

The text says God created Adam and Eve and both were naked and not ashamed. They had no knowledge of sin, due to the fact they hadn't eaten from the Tree, and were innocent. (Gen. 2)

A sinless person that is handcrafted by God Himself, surely is perfect.

Even if you could get this verse to mean perfect, it still begs the question of what is meant by "good" and/or "perfect." Obviously, both of these words are going to mean different things depending on what side of sin one is on...

 

[shernren]

MAn and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Where do you think all the dragon tales came from.

As Robert pointed out your primitive men would also have to live with winged horses for the pegasus tale. And that's not all. All in all your primitive men would have to live with:

large manyheaded serpents (hydras),
chimeras,
winged horses (pegasus),
horned horses (unicorn),
and an entire ecosystem's worth of animal-human hybrids.

Funny how creationists argue that dragon legends show that humans lived with dinosaurs but would never argue that Minoan legends prove that humans lived with minotaurs.