Evolution and how God acts

[Mallon]

Could it also mean spiritual death here?

Of course it does. For Adam did not physically die "in the day" that he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. And we all know that in Genesis, "days" are literally 24 hours long!

 

[HypnoToad]

Right in the middle of a passage describing God as if he were a weary labourer refreshed

No, it doesn't say God was "weary". "Rested" simply means "stopped".

Well the Big bang was pretty instantaneous, but the 13.7 billion years old universe that followed shows God worked a lot more slowely after that, though he is not slow... as some count slowness, but is patient.

Circular.

The OP uses his theory to support natural evolutionary theory. You are using natural evolutionary theory to support the OP's theory.

Of course God used a miracle to create, but the point is that when he does use miracles, the overwhelming precedent is that he does not use more miraculous intervention than necessary.

"Necessary" is subjective.

Take the Exodus, for instance. It would have been possible for God to simply wrap his entire people in a cloud and spirit them away to the promised land, while moving the inhabitants elsewhere. In fact, God used the plagues to make the Egyptians release his people, and after forty years in the desert they reached the promised land, and had to fight for every inch of it. The precedent is here, which must have some contribution to the 6 day creation/evolution debate. It seems much more likely that God works by a more subtle, gradual process.

"Subtle, gradual"?? Having the Red Sea part and come crashing down on the Egyptian army is "subtle"? All that was "necessary" was to stop the army. God could have just petrified them until the Israelites got away. God could have just made them fall asleep. God did a bit more than was "necessary".

Further, only 6 days of work out of thousands and thousands of years of history still makes it an extremely rare event.

For Adam did not physically die "in the day"

It can still mean physical death (I'd say it's about both physical and spiritual). The phrase "in the day" doesn't mean the consequence occurs instantaneously, but rather that it's the starting point of things that will inevitably bring the consequence about.

I don't have the reference in front of me, but it's used elsewhere to describe a literal, physical consequence that happens at a later time.

 

[Mallon]

It can still mean physical death (I'd say it's about both physical and spiritual). The phrase "in the day" doesn't mean the consequence occurs instantaneously, but rather that it's the starting point of things that will inevitably bring the consequence about.

I don't have the reference in front of me, but it's used elsewhere to describe a literal, physical consequence that happens at a later time.

Allow me to quote from Rev. Christopher Smith, as written in Paradigms on Pilgrimage, regarding physical death and the Fall:

That spiritual death, not physical death, is in view here becomes even clearer when we recognize that in the course of this argument, Paul restates what he says in Rom 5:12 two different ways. This first statement is, "Just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned..." (Rom 5:12). But this is later restated, "Just as righteousness leads to justification and life for all" (Rom 5:18). And then Paul expresses his meaning another way: "Just as by one man's obedience the many will be made righteous" (Rom 5:19). We see from these parallels that coming under the reign of death is equivalent to being condemned and to being made a sinner. The death in view, in other words, is the spiritual death of separation from God.

Besides all that, if physical death were not a part of God's original creation, what purpose did the Tree of Life serve?

 

[HypnoToad]

Allow me to quote from Rev. Christopher Smith, as written in Paradigms on Pilgrimage, regarding physical death and the Fall:

So? Do a search and you'll find scholars who say it's both physical and spiritual.

Besides all that, if physical death were not a part of God's original creation, what purpose did the Tree of Life serve?

If they were supposed to die anyway, why is physical death part of the curse of 3:19?

 

[Mallon]

So? Do a search and you'll find scholars who say it's both physical and spiritual.

I don't see how the existence of opposing viewpoints makes your argument for physical death after the Fall any stronger. Please address the reasoning given by Rev. Smith. Please also address the reasoning given concerning the existence of the Tree of Life. You have managed to completely avoid addressing these issues via Ignoratio elenchi.

If they were supposed to die anyway, why is physical death part of the curse of 3:19?

Good question. I don't have an immediate answer available and will look into it. It strikes me that toil is the immediate threat, rather than physical death. That is, God is threatening physical labour until death, rather than death itself. It also strikes me that the threat is directed specifically at man, rather than animals.

 

[HypnoToad]

I don't see how the existence of opposing viewpoints makes your argument for physical death after the Fall any stronger.

Who said it was "stronger"? I'm just saying it's plausible.

I don't need to address the pastor's reasoning, as the fact that scholars disagree is enough to show your view isn't necessarily the correct one. But if you MUST have me address it, all I can say is that I don't see the connections he makes as the only plausible connections. I don't see Paul's comments as "restating" the same thing, but adding additional information. I don't see anything showing that Paul doesn't mean physical and spiritual death.

Good question. I don't have an immediate answer available and will look into it. It strikes me that toil is the immediate threat, rather than physical death. That is, God is threatening physical labour until death, rather than death itself. It also strikes me that the threat is directed specifically at man, rather than animals.

"Immediate" or not has no bearing on being a consequence.

Further, God doesn't just say "you will work until you die," but goes on with "and you will die". Why add that last part, if it's already the way things are?

Since there are only 3 parties involved in this trespass, there's no surprise that they are the only ones specified in the curse.

However, there are other passages that state nature suffers under the curse of sin, like Rom.8:22.

Anyway, we may be straying a bit off-topic with this.

 

[crawfish]

My advice would be to print them out and read thoughtfully

I'd be far more likely to buy it if I left my brain off.

 

[Assyrian]

No, it doesn't say God was "weary". "Rested" simply means "stopped".

That is rested. Exodus 31:17 says he rested and was refreshed. Refreshed means getting you breath back, it is used to describe people recovering when they are exhausted. Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. The same word is used in
2Sam 16:14 to describe David when he was exhausted and worn out after fleeing Absolom stopping and being refreshed by the Jordan, and in Exodus 23:12 it describe weary labourers, migrant workers, donkeys and child labourers exhausted after six days hard work being refreshed by a Sabbath's rest. God is identifying with the weary labourer but he was not actually weary. He was not literally refreshed after a day's rest.

Circular.

The OP uses his theory to support natural evolutionary theory. You are using natural evolutionary theory to support the OP's theory.

No they are simply consistent. The evidence from science describes an instantaneous creation followed by a slow development over a long period of time. That fits the pattern we see again and again in scripture.

The phrase "in the day" doesn't mean the consequence occurs instantaneously, but rather that it's the starting point of things that will inevitably bring the consequence about.

I don't have the reference in front of me, but it's used elsewhere to describe a literal, physical consequence that happens at a later time.

I have seen a lot of YEC efforts to get around the plain meaning of that text, but they don't work.

God said Adam would surely die in the day he ate the fruit. That means he was to die that day. Now either 'day' was not meant literally, or 'death' was not literal physical death. Because Adam did not die physically in the literal 24 hour period he ate the fruit.

 

[Assyrian]

I will state my basic criticism of TE:

Premise 1: Theistic Evolution requires the existence of death prior to Adam.
Premise 2: Scripture teaches that death entered through the sin of Adam.*

Conclusion: Theistic evolution conflicts with the clear teaching of Scripture and is therefore wrong.

* The key texts are the narrative of Moses in Genesis 1-3 and the argument of St. Paul in Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

Romans 5:12 describes death passing to all men, it say nothing about death passing to animals. In fact the reason Paul give for death passing to all men is because all sin. This cannot apply to animals because animals do not sin.

So you premise 2 is invalid. The bible says nothing about animal death being the result of the fall, there is no contradiction with evolution before Adam.

...Recall that Christ is the second Adam and so if you undermine the truth of Genesis 1-3 then you undermine the gospel. Christ came to repair what Adam broke.

Not if Adam was a figure of Christ as Paul tells us in Romans 5:14. If Adam is a figure of a Christ, Christ can be called the second Adam whether the first Adam was literal individual or an allegorical picture of the human race.

1 Corinthians 15:21, 22 "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Notice how Paul uses the present tense? In Adam all die. We are all 'in Adam' today. That is not talking about a historical figure, but an 'Adam' that encompasses the whole human race. 'Adam' is mankind, that is what the name meant from the beginning. We are 'in Adam' because we are in the human race. Paul is not saying people died in the past thousands of years ago in Adam when he sinned. People still die today (and in the first century when Paul wrote). They die in Adam because Adam is all of us.

 

[Iosias]

God said Adam would surely die in the day he ate the fruit. That means he was to die that day. Now either 'day' was not meant literally, or 'death' was not literal physical death. Because Adam did not die physically in the literal 24 hour period he ate the fruit.

The curse is both physical and spiritual. It speaks not only of "a corporeal one, which in some sense immediately took place, man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life; of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death."

But it speaks also of "a spiritual or moral death [which] immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Saviour, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death, even death eternal, Rom 6:23." (John Gill)

 

[Iosias]

Romans 5:12 describes death passing to all men, it say nothing about death passing to animals. In fact the reason Paul give for death passing to all men is because all sin. This cannot apply to animals because animals do not sin.

So you premise 2 is invalid. The bible says nothing about animal death being the result of the fall, there is no contradiction with evolution before Adam.

You must have misread St. Paul for he said "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin". Sin entered the created order through Adam hence it groans as St. Paul teaches in Romans 8:

Romans 8:19-22 "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now."
May be you had better read The Covenant with Creation

Not if Adam was a figure of Christ as Paul tells us in Romans 5:14. If Adam is a figure of a Christ, Christ can be called the second Adam whether the first Adam was literal individual or an allegorical picture of the human race.

Adam was the type and Christ the anti-type. They both had to have existed for typology to make sense plus the fact that Christ is the Second Adam.

Notice how Paul uses the present tense? In Adam all die. We are all 'in Adam' today.

You may be but I am in Christ. The tense here points us backwards.* The point is that in Adam our federal head all of the human race was plunged into sin and in Christ all of the elect are rescued or saved from sin and its penalty.

* The term here used is apothnēskō which means "be dead, death, die, lie a-dying, be slain".

 

[Assyrian]

The curse is both physical and spiritual. It speaks not only of "a corporeal one, which in some sense immediately took place, man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life; of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death."

But it speaks also of "a spiritual or moral death [which] immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Saviour, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death, even death eternal, Rom 6:23." (John Gill)

You know, I would much prefer to hear what you have to say, or discuss the text of the bible, than be given a cut and paste from John Gill who is not around to discuss it with us.

man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life; of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever

John is contradicting himself here. Not only does the bible not say 'man became at once a mortal creature', but his explanation contradicts it. If man can only live an immortal life by eating from the tree of life, then man is not himself immortal. He is a mortal who has access to immortality through something else. Incidentally any animals who did not have access to the tree, which they didn't, would have died too. So animals were moral and going to die, Adam was mortal but would have been kept from death by the tree of life.

he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death."

The commandment said he would surely die the day he ate the fruit. This slow process Gill imagines was not mentioned in either the command or the curse.

 

[Assyrian]

You must have misread St. Paul for he said "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin".

How have I misread Paul. Read the second part of the verse, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.
The death Paul is describing spreads to all men, he does not say it spread to animals. He also tell us how and why it spread, 'because all sinned' how does a death that spreads to people because they sin spread to animals who don't sin?

Sin entered the created order through Adam hence it groans as St. Paul teaches in Romans 8:

Romans 8:19-22 "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now."

Now where does Paul mention the fall in this passage? You assume creation is subject to decay because of the fall, but Romans 8 does not say that. In fact Paul tells us that creation being subject to decay was not because of its own choice, but because of God's plan and purpose. This contradicts the idea that decay is the result of the fall, which was a willing human choice.

May be you had better read The Covenant with Creation

Whatever for?

Adam was the type and Christ the anti-type. They both had to have existed for typology to make sense plus the fact that Christ is the Second Adam.

The good shepherd is a figurative picture of Christ, there is not reason there had to be a literal good shepherd too. But Adam is real. He is the human race God created. Christ is the new creation and all who are reborn are united in him.

You may be but I am in Christ.

You are not a human being any more?

The tense here points us backwards.* The point is that in Adam our federal head all of the human race was plunged into sin and in Christ all of the elect are rescued or saved from sin and its penalty.

* The term here used is apothnēskō which means "be dead, death, die, lie a-dying, be slain".

Paul uses the phrase 'were dead in our trespasses' a number of times Eph 2:1 & 5 Col 2:13, but he uses the word nekros for dead οντας ημας νεκρους.

When Paul uses apothnesko to describe people who died in the past, he uses the past tense, the aorist.
Rom 6:10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
Rom 6:2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
2Cor 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died;

You can find the present tense of apothnesko in Rom 6:9, 8:13, 14:7 & 8 1Co 15:31 & 32 where is refers to dying in the present or future.

 

[crawfish]

So, by your theory alone, what's to prevent creation from being one of the "certain important times" when God did use a miracle?

Interesting question.

Here is a somewhat comprehensive list of miracles in the bible (I have thought of a few it doesn't include, but it should serve the purpose):

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/miracle.html

Creation stands out (with the possible exception of the tower of Babel) in the following way: it is not a miracle done through or seen by human eyes in a way that is attributed directly to God. There is a definite pattern to later miracles; they have a human proxy who performs an action to cause the miracle, giving credit to God. Did God need Moses to lift his staff to part the Red Sea? Did God need the Israelites to march around Jericho to bring the walls down? Did God need the waters of the Jordan to cure Naaman?

God didn't need a seemingly "miraculous" creation because there were no witnesses. Take six days, take 100 billion years - either way, man comes along and lives in the results.

 

[Iosias]

How have I misread Paul. Read the second part of the verse, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.
The death Paul is describing spreads to all men, he does not say it spread to animals.

Sin entered the world through Adam. Before the Fall the creation was very good i.e. sinless there was no death, disease etc. After the fall the creation became tainted by sin. One part of that was death spread to all men because they are a part of the creation. The text is not refering death to mankind and excluding the rest of the creation. Only someone with a theory to defend would do that....

Whatever for?

Because you are missing a key redemptive issue! In the Noahic covenant we find God includes the created order!!!!!!!!!!

Turning to Genesis 9:9-10, we read there what God said to Noah: "And I, behold I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you." That is not much different from what God said to others with whom He established His covenant, to Abraham, (Genesis 17:7), to David (Psalm 89:3-4), to Israel (Exodus 6:4-5), or to us (Acts 2:39). However, in Genesis 9:10, God adds "and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, or the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you, from all that go out of the ark ..."​

God is saying: "I will establish my covenant with the birds, with the cattle, and with all the beasts of the earth." That is what we are referring to as God's "Covenant With Creation." And God speaks of that covenant with creation again in the verses that follow, especially in verse 13 (of Genesis 9): "I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth." And again in verse 15 God shows us plainly that the covenant referred to is not only His covenant with Noah and Noah's descendants. His covenant embraces "every living creature of all flesh."​

The rainbow is the sign of that covenant. When you see a rainbow in the heavens, it arches over the whole earth embracing, as it were, the whole order of created things. Arching over God's world it is a sign that He has a covenant with the creation.​

Rev Hanko continues:

Romans chapter 8:19-22 also speaks of the covenant with creation, but it takes us a step farther. These verses do not use the word "covenant" but the idea is there. The covenant comes into Romans 8:19-22 when the Word of God in those verses speaks of the final glory of believers in terms of sonship. In glory we will be "manifest as the sons of God" and will "enter into the glorious liberty of the children of God." The manifestation of the sons of God is the final realization and perfection of God's covenant, the highest glory of that covenant relationship in which God is our God and we are His people.​

But if you read Romans 8:19-22 you will see that the creation also shall participate in that glory of God's people: "The earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God!" The "creature" here refers to what we sometimes call the "brute creation"—sun, moon, stars, planets, flowers, trees, grass, beasts and birds. The brute creation "was made subject to vanity (emptiness, uselessness)" (v. 20), that is, it no longer served the purpose for which God had created it, and that as a result of man's sin. This happened, "not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope." In other words, this did not happen to the brute creation by its own act of wilful disobedience, but came about as a result of Adam's sin (cf. Genesis 2:17-18).​

Nevertheless, even the creature is not without hope. Its hope is, as Paul says in verse 21, that "the creature also itself shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." That will be the final realization of what God was talking about when He spoke to Noah in Genesis 8 and 9. The creature itself also shall be renewed and glorified with God's people. Then God's covenant with creation will be consummated! That covenant, too, is sure and everlasting!​

He continues later

In Romans 8 Paul looks at the matter a little differently. There Paul wants to show us how great the glory that shall be revealed in us really is. In verse 18 he says: "I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." Not worthy to be compared! It is not, however, always so easy to believe that, is it? We have only heard of and not seen that glory? How can we be sure it is really so great—worth everything? It is no so easy to believe that all "the sufferings of this present time," added up and weighed together, are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is coming—not when you think of all the suffering that is in the world at this moment!​

Knowing our doubts, therefore, Paul sets out to prove that the glory God has prepared is indeed as great as he says. To prove it he speaks of a three-fold groaning. Beginning with verse 23 he speaks of our own groaning in hope as we wait for the "adoption" and "redemption of our body." That is one evidence or proof that the glory is very great. By the grace of God we desire that glory so strongly we groan while we must wait for it. You do desire and groan for it, do you not? The grace of God which makes you groan is one proof of the greatness of that glory that shall be revealed in you! In verse 26 Paul also speaks of the groaning of the Spirit as further proof of the greatness of that glory. Even the Spirit of God prays for that glory for God's people with unutterable groanings!​

But here in verses 19-22 Paul gives another evidence of that great glory, the groaning of the creation. Speaking as though the creation is alive like we are, he describes it as groaning and travailing in hope for that glory that shall be revealed in us. That glory is so great that even the creation shall have a part in it and now groans for it. That is the proof, therefore that the glory to be revealed is indeed incomparable. You believe that, do you not? You must if you are to have hope in this life and patience in suffering.​

The redemptive goal of God is this:

Revelation 21:1-4 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

 

[JMC309]

Could you explain in more detail? This is a little all over the place and so I am not 100% sure what you are trying to say. If you could develop upon the points you make I would appreciate it (from what I gather you make 4 points). I hope I do not discourage, it is just that I am capable of misreading what people say, my fault not yours.

Perhaps it is the potential for sin to enter the world, or the fact that Adam was predestined to sin (for God foreknew that he would) that corrupted it and brought death from the begining.

In AS Religious Studies we looked at the theodicy of Augustine. He said that before the Fall, earth was perfect and man's sin corrupted it. A major criticism of this approach is that if Adam had the potential to sin then the created order was not 'perfect.' Thus it was the mere potential for Adam to sin, and the fact that he would, that brought imperfection and death from the beginning. Death still came from Adam's sin, but the imperfection caused by Adam's potential to sin was there all along.

It does say that God declared his creation 'very good,' but as good is synonymous with the will of God anyway this could just mean that all was going according to plan.

Pretty much self explanatory, and point 4 has already been discussed in depth.

Recall that Christ is the second Adam and so if you undermine the truth of Genesis 1-3 then you undermine the gospel. Christ came to repair what Adam broke.

An important point is that theistic evolutionists do NOT need to abandon the doctrine of the Fall. According to evolutionary theory, there was a first man and a first woman. Humans these days do wrong, and always have been doing so. Therefore, there must have been a first act of wrong commited by the first humans- wilful disobedience of God's command. We are all descended from this first human. Q.E.D.

Question: Why not just accept what Scripture clearly teaches?

 

[Iosias]

In AS Religious Studies we looked at the theodicy of Augustine. He said that before the Fall, earth was perfect and man's sin corrupted it. A major criticism of this approach is that if Adam had the potential to sin then the created order was not 'perfect.'

That is not a major criticism indeed it is not even a minor criticism. This is what is termed a non sequitur ("it does not follow") and all it demonstrates is that you need to hit your theology textbooks and do some more study.

Adam was created posse non peccare which means "able not to sin". Adam was perfect although he was posse peccare and this in no way denies his perfectness.

An important point is that theistic evolutionists do NOT need to abandon the doctrine of the Fall. According to evolutionary theory, there was a first man and a first woman.

But then you deny the truth that death entered the created order through the sin of Adam!

Humans these days do wrong

True

and always have been doing so.

False

there must have been a first act of wrong commited by the first humans

True

We are all descended from this first human. Q.E.D.

True

Not sure what you have proven

 

[JMC309]

Oops! Continuing...

Question: Why not just accept what Scripture clearly teaches?

1) How can a 'clear teaching,' arouse so much debate in the church?

2) As I hope to have shown, either interpretation is doctrinally plausible.

3) The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

4) Suppose someone was blind and was taught the Bible. Could they ask you the same question for not taking literally the references to God's hand, arm, finger, eyes etc. as being visible in the world?

"Necessary" is subjective.

Necessary to accomplish his will, then.

"Subtle, gradual"?? Having the Red Sea part and come crashing down on the Egyptian army is "subtle"? All that was "necessary" was to stop the army. God could have just petrified them until the Israelites got away. God could have just made them fall asleep. God did a bit more than was "necessary".

As it is, God wanted to show his power to the Egyptians in the clearest possible way, and to punish them for their brutality and obstinacy.

Further, only 6 days of work out of thousands and thousands of years of history still makes it an extremely rare event.

Tot up all the miracles and they are all extremely rare events. There's still a precedent here.

 

[HypnoToad]

Necessary to accomplish his will, then.

Still subjective, because you are the one deciding what is necessary for God to accomplish His will.

As it is, God wanted to show his power to the Egyptians in the clearest possible way, and to punish them for their brutality and obstinacy.

Which still could have been done without wiping them out.

Tot up all the miracles and they are all extremely rare events. There's still a precedent here.

What "precedent"?

 

[Assyrian]

Sin entered the world through Adam. Before the Fall the creation was very good i.e. sinless there was no death, disease etc. After the fall the creation became tainted by sin. One part of that was death spread to all men because they are a part of the creation. The text is not refering death to mankind and excluding the rest of the creation. Only someone with a theory to defend would do that....

Oh dear, an Ad Hominem 'appeal to motive' argument. If someone tries to sell me a theology that is not based on scripture shouldn't I check it out?

The text only refers to death spreading to mankind through means that only apply to mankind. Why should I think this is a death that applies to animals too without any support from scripture?

Because you are missing a key redemptive issue! In the Noahic covenant we find God includes the created order!!!!!!!!!!

Does that mean you don't eat black pudding? You know Gen 9:4 and all that.

Turning to Genesis 9:9-10, we read there what God said to Noah: "And I, behold I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you." That is not much different from what God said to others with whom He established His covenant, to Abraham, (Genesis 17:7), to David (Psalm 89:3-4), to Israel (Exodus 6:4-5), or to us (Acts 2:39). However, in Genesis 9:10, God adds "and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, or the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you, from all that go out of the ark ..."

God is saying: "I will establish my covenant with the birds, with the cattle, and with all the beasts of the earth." That is what we are referring to as God's "Covenant With Creation." And God speaks of that covenant with creation again in the verses that follow, especially in verse 13 (of Genesis 9): "I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth." And again in verse 15 God shows us plainly that the covenant referred to is not only His covenant with Noah and Noah's descendants. His covenant embraces "every living creature of all flesh."​

The rainbow is the sign of that covenant. When you see a rainbow in the heavens, it arches over the whole earth embracing, as it were, the whole order of created things. Arching over God's world it is a sign that He has a covenant with the creation.​

Rev Hanko continues:

Romans chapter 8:19-22 also speaks of the covenant with creation, but it takes us a step farther. These verses do not use the word "covenant" but the idea is there. The covenant comes into Romans 8:19-22 when the Word of God in those verses speaks of the final glory of believers in terms of sonship. In glory we will be "manifest as the sons of God" and will "enter into the glorious liberty of the children of God." The manifestation of the sons of God is the final realization and perfection of God's covenant, the highest glory of that covenant relationship in which God is our God and we are His people.​

But if you read Romans 8:19-22 you will see that the creation also shall participate in that glory of God's people: "The earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God!" The "creature" here refers to what we sometimes call the "brute creation"—sun, moon, stars, planets, flowers, trees, grass, beasts and birds. The brute creation "was made subject to vanity (emptiness, uselessness)" (v. 20), that is, it no longer served the purpose for which God had created it, and that as a result of man's sin. This happened, "not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope." In other words, this did not happen to the brute creation by its own act of wilful disobedience, but came about as a result of Adam's sin (cf. Genesis 2:17-18).​

So after going on and on about the Noahic Covenant and trying to twist Romans 8 into another Covenant, it comes down to this great leap that Romans 8 is talking about the fall. The fall, according to Genesis was the result of the disobedience of three of God's creatures, a snake and two humans. Romans 8 says the bondage to decay was not due to the will or choice of any of creation, but God's plan.

Nevertheless, even the creature is not without hope. Its hope is, as Paul says in verse 21, that "the creature also itself shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." That will be the final realization of what God was talking about when He spoke to Noah in Genesis 8 and 9. The creature itself also shall be renewed and glorified with God's people. Then God's covenant with creation will be consummated! That covenant, too, is sure and everlasting!

He continues later

In Romans 8 Paul looks at the matter a little differently. There Paul wants to show us how great the glory that shall be revealed in us really is. In verse 18 he says: "I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." Not worthy to be compared! It is not, however, always so easy to believe that, is it? We have only heard of and not seen that glory? How can we be sure it is really so great—worth everything? It is no so easy to believe that all "the sufferings of this present time," added up and weighed together, are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is coming—not when you think of all the suffering that is in the world at this moment!​

Knowing our doubts, therefore, Paul sets out to prove that the glory God has prepared is indeed as great as he says. To prove it he speaks of a three-fold groaning. Beginning with verse 23 he speaks of our own groaning in hope as we wait for the "adoption" and "redemption of our body." That is one evidence or proof that the glory is very great. By the grace of God we desire that glory so strongly we groan while we must wait for it. You do desire and groan for it, do you not? The grace of God which makes you groan is one proof of the greatness of that glory that shall be revealed in you! In verse 26 Paul also speaks of the groaning of the Spirit as further proof of the greatness of that glory. Even the Spirit of God prays for that glory for God's people with unutterable groanings!​

But here in verses 19-22 Paul gives another evidence of that great glory, the groaning of the creation. Speaking as though the creation is alive like we are, he describes it as groaning and travailing in hope for that glory that shall be revealed in us. That glory is so great that even the creation shall have a part in it and now groans for it. That is the proof, therefore that the glory to be revealed is indeed incomparable. You believe that, do you not? You must if you are to have hope in this life and patience in suffering.​

The redemptive goal of God is this:

Revelation 21:1-4 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

The same word here for first and former, protos. In the new heavens and earth there will be no more death, sorrow, crying or pain. They belong to the first things, to the world God created. YECs like to argue that the new heaven and earth will be like God's original creation. But the bible says the New heaven and earth will be different, because the original creation, the first things, had death, sorrow, crying and pain. God's purpose according to Paul in Rom 8 was that these were birth pangs and all of creation would eventually share in our glorious inheritance.