young earth or old earth?

[theFijian]

In my understanding, the Tree of Life is the Word of God. From what else would people eat and live forever? In Heaven there is no death because all people who are in Heaven draw their life from the Word.

In my thinking I had the Tree of Life as representing Christ, he who sustains us physically and spiritually. When Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden they no longer had access to the tree of life (no longer enjoyed full communion with Christ) and were therefore condemned to die. This communion will be restored in glory.

 

[Willtor]

In my thinking I had the Tree of Life as representing Christ, he who sustains us physically and spiritually. When Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden they no longer had access to the tree of life (no longer enjoyed full communion with Christ) and were therefore condemned to die. This communion will be restored in glory.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God. You and I were thinking the same thing. But I say "the Word of God" because he would not be known as Jesus Christ for some time to come (in the Genesis account).

 

[Assyrian]

1 Corinthians 15:26 calls death and "enemy":

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

How did death become God's enemy?

 

[horuhe00]

Here's a thought... all female mammals (and I'd guess most females, period) feel pain when birthing. Did they too eat from the tree?

 

[shernren]

I thought perhaps I could figure out whether the word used here meant spiritual death or physical in the original language. Of course, I don't deeply study scripture much (enough, hah), but I found some resources online to do it, only to discover that the question of the original language's meaning of death in the NT has been studied/questioned/whatever many times before my ignorant ponderings , and there was no different way to say spiritual or physical death; you have to go by, yup, you guessed it... context!

It really depends on whether you consider the concepts of "physical death" or "spiritual death" to be viable ones at all. There has been discussion here about this a long time ago, but as time passes it becomes increasingly hard to find the threads in which this was discussed. I'll try to find the context for this: http://www.christianforums.com/t1816254-physical-spiritual-death.html later.

Repost from #13 of that thread:

As far as I know (though I could be wrong) the Bible doesn't actually state the term "spiritual death". The person was holistic. When someone was / is separated from God the whole person is affected, and the whole person has the wrong eternity to face if there is no forgiveness.

My issue with the term "spiritual death" is more semantic than anything else. It's a sticking point for me the way calling the Bible "the word of God" is for people like Didas and gluadys. However oftentimes the mindset behind the term "spiritual death" is harmful and often causes people to take the wrong approach. When I asked my teacher what the practical implications are (up to that point he had been talking a lot about translation and resurrection and resuscitation and eternity and all that stuff I'm simply dying to experience firsthand) he said very simply that the soul / body dualism fuels the evangelism / social justice dualism. When Christians think that the "soul / spirit" is more important than and somehow separable from the "body" they tend to emphasize evangelism, often at the expense of basic needs, and in the end the Christian comes across as having "an agenda" - because there are needs not being met.

God is not just "spiritual life", He is life, fullstop. Whether or not life is "spiritual" or "physical" depends on how it manifests itself in our experience - physical life naturally and scientifically, spiritual life supernaturally and theologically.

 

[AV1611VET]

How did death become God's enemy?

By showing up. Death is the grandson of lust - (James 1:15).

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a thought... all female mammals (and I'd guess most females, period) feel pain when birthing. Did they too eat from the tree?

No --- they are the result of someone who did, though.

 

[horuhe00]

No --- they are the result of someone who did, though.

There's no mention of the first animals eating the fruit. Not even the snake ate it. And God didn't say that from then on all animals would feel pain at birth. He specifically said "woman".

 

[Jedi]

Old earth here. I just don't see much reason to see the earth as young, especially in light of the evidence shouting at how old the earth is. Even scripture seems to favore a non-literal 6-day creation. It's just not plausible to think that God created Adam, Adam had time to start feeling lonely, Adam then goes through all the animals in God's creation, naming them along the way, only to find no suitable helper, Adam is then put in a deep sleep, wakes up, and has Eve brought to him within a 24-hour time frame.

 

[LoG]

The biggest difference is the use of scientific method. The Greeks, for the most part, discussed science philosophically. (In fact science was referred to as "natural philosophy".) So the ancient concepts bear little resemblance to the modern scientific theories. Greek concepts of evolution are no more like the Theory of Evolution than air is to diamonds.

"Many Greek scientists thought about natural selection and the origin of life. Anaximander believed that marine life was the first life on Earth and that changes happened to animals when they moved to dry land. Empedocles had the idea of chance combinations of organs arising and dying out because of their lack of adaptation. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher who contributed many works in the sciences, believed that there is purpose in the workings of nature, and mistakes are also made. He thought that nature working so perfectly is a necessity."
http://www.crystalinks.com/greekscience.html

"The development of the scientific method is inseparable from the history of science itself. Ancient Egyptian documents, such as early papyri, describe methods of medical diagnosis. In ancient Greek culture, the first elements of the inductive scientific method clearly become well established. Significant progress in methodology was made in early Muslim philosophy, in particular using experiments to distinguish between competing scientific theories, citation, peer review and open inquiry leading to the development of consensus, set within a generallly empirical orientation."


Sounds pretty similar to me.

But was his statement through Moses scientific or theological?

It was scientific AND theological.

Now that's a non-sequitor. There is nothing misleading about stating that since the beginning of human existence humans have been male and female. That is what I understand Jesus to mean and what I believe his audience understood him to mean.

He didn't state "since the beginning of human existence" but "since the beginning of creation." You appear to be reading into the verse what you want it to say, not what it actually does say.

 

[LoG]

Perhaps you can point me in the direction of the leading Gap science textbook that properly explains how to interpret those fossils that were deposited before and after the recreated earth? Surely, if Gap "theory" is good science (and good apologetics, for that matter), then it will produce more compatible, internally-consistent answers than the theory of evolution ever will.

Sorry, forgot to respond to your request. Here is some material to read:

http://www.custance.org/library_menu.html
http://www.christiangeology.com/

 

[Assyrian]

How did death become God's enemy?

By showing up. Death is the grandson of lust - (James 1:15).

So you interpret death here as a spiritual death that only infects those who can make moral or immoral decisions? Very Romans 5:12 that, death spread to all men because all sinned. It certainly doesn't refer to animal death before or after the fall though.

There's no mention of the first animals eating the fruit. Not even the snake ate it. And God didn't say that from then on all animals would feel pain at birth. He specifically said "woman".

I haven't seen anyone pick up on Gen 3:20 The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. According to Genesis Eve wasn't just mother of all the humans, she was mother of every thing alive. Which of course explains why female mammals have pains in birth too.

 

[shernren]

"Many Greek scientists thought about natural selection and the origin of life. Anaximander believed that marine life was the first life on Earth and that changes happened to animals when they moved to dry land. Empedocles had the idea of chance combinations of organs arising and dying out because of their lack of adaptation. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher who contributed many works in the sciences, believed that there is purpose in the workings of nature, and mistakes are also made. He thought that nature working so perfectly is a necessity."

Did any of them propose descent with modification?

He didn't state "since the beginning of human existence" but "since the beginning of creation." You appear to be reading into the verse what you want it to say, not what it actually does say.

I'll tell you what the relevant verses do say: that when Moses made provisions for divorce, Moses was accommodating the hardened hearts of the Jews, where the Jews would easily enough have understood that divorce was to be in no way tolerated, which was what God would have intended as a moral guideline for them.

So why should we be surprised that Moses in the creation stories accommodated the scientific ignorance of the Jews, what more when the Jews would never have understood our modern scientific understanding of how the world was created?

When we have it from no less an authority than Jesus that Moses had to bend certain things morally to accommodate the Jews, should we consider it heretical to imagine that Moses would have had to bend things scientifically, especially when the express purpose of the Torah is moral and not scientific?

 

[horuhe00]

Here's a base question. How you answer this will dictate what you belive.

Who created science? God? Satan? Man?

 

[gluadys]

"Many Greek scientists thought about natural selection and the origin of life. Anaximander believed that marine life was the first life on Earth and that changes happened to animals when they moved to dry land. Empedocles had the idea of chance combinations of organs arising and dying out because of their lack of adaptation. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher who contributed many works in the sciences, believed that there is purpose in the workings of nature, and mistakes are also made. He thought that nature working so perfectly is a necessity."
http://www.crystalinks.com/greekscience.html

"The development of the scientific method is inseparable from the history of science itself. Ancient Egyptian documents, such as early papyri, describe methods of medical diagnosis. In ancient Greek culture, the first elements of the inductive scientific method clearly become well established. Significant progress in methodology was made in early Muslim philosophy, in particular using experiments to distinguish between competing scientific theories, citation, peer review and open inquiry leading to the development of consensus, set within a generallly empirical orientation."


Sounds pretty similar to me.

The first elements of inductive reasoning--sure. A full-fledged scientific method, no. Anaximander believes in changes, but offers nothing but belief. No evidence. While his belief accords superficially with the modern theory, it is not a theory, it is philosophy.

It was scientific AND theological.

If it was scientific, it would accord with the scientific evidence. It doesn't.

He didn't state "since the beginning of human existence" but "since the beginning of creation." You appear to be reading into the verse what you want it to say, not what it actually does say.

Context, context, context. What words mean depends on the context, and the context is entirely human.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a base question. How you answer this will dictate what you belive.

Who created science? God? Satan? Man?

God

 

[AV1611VET]

So you interpret death here as a spiritual death that only infects those who can make moral or immoral decisions?

Every single person born or stillborn has the Sin Nature.

Very Romans 5:12 that, death spread to all men because all sinned. It certainly doesn't refer to animal death before or after the fall though.

NOW you know why animals are so mean. The next time a dog bites you on the rear end --- tell him you're sorry!

I haven't seen anyone pick up on Gen 3:20 The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. According to Genesis Eve wasn't just mother of all the humans, she was mother of every thing alive. Which of course explains why female mammals have pains in birth too.

A giraffe begets a giraffe --- a cow begets a cow --- a human begets a human.

 

[theFijian]

Who invented Calculus?
God, Satan, or Man?

(Whoever it was has a lot to answer for)

 

[AV1611VET]

When we have it from no less an authority than Jesus that Moses had to bend certain things morally to accommodate the Jews, should we consider it heretical to imagine that Moses would have had to bend things scientifically, especially when the express purpose of the Torah is moral and not scientific?

Moses bent certain things? Plural?

One of the basic laws of Hermeneutics is not to build a doctrine on what isn't written in the Bible. If the Bible is silent on a subject, either let science fill in the gap, or let it remain silent.

As long as it doesn't contradict Scripture, it should be okay.

 

[random_guy]

God

Actually, man (in the same way that cars are invented by man). Science is just a tool created by man to study God's Creation. Science tries to find the best possible explanations for natural causes. However, it isn't always correct and is always being updated. God created the laws that govern our Universe, and science tries to figure out what they are.