If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

notto · Apr 7, 2006

Gwenyfur said:
it wasn't intended to be an uplift, it was intended to be a rebuke for that person...something very biblical...

as for the blessing for you being hypocrisy...well...that's on you it was sincere...

And showing the flaws in YEC science isn't unChristian, it is calling a spade a spade - behavior that you approve of.

Point being, you fail to recognize in yourself and other YEC's the behavior that you rebuke in others.

Dannager · Apr 7, 2006

Gwenyfur said:
Where in the forum rules does it through out the Christian standards we are supposed to abide by when posting? It DOESN'T!

And no one is suggesting that they be thrown out. Gwenyfur, I caution you: do not put words in others' mouths.

It is the case with this forum, unless of course you ignore the posts that are less than kind...which you seem to be blind to...

I have seen posts in which users do not hold hands, but verbal berating and insults are very few and far-between, and equally evident on both sides of the board (if not more heavily propogated by young earth creationists). Again, if you take issue with the way in which a Christian responds to another, take it up with them or (failing that) the moderation staff. I will not standby and have you demonize my friends and brothers like this.

You and the rest should be sorry for running off another person who only wished to converse and share her beliefs. Being ridiculed by fellow "christians" is depressing and hurtful. Such unkindness within the body...for shame...

Gwenyfur, I could very easily reference the number of Christian men and women who have lost their faith due to the actions, conduct and lies of various young earth creationists, even on this very board - but I don't. Mind the ground that you tread on. Your posts speak to a hostility I do not believe you care to pursue.

While I don't care about how much you and the others belittle my beliefs and the stance I have on creation being of G-d and not of death, well...others are more sensitive...and yet they have every right to share the truth as you do to spread the lies of evolution and a reasonable expectation of kindness from their brethren in the L-rd.

And that right extends to allow others to share their thoughts on the matter, and in this particular board debate, criticize, pull apart, expose and otherwise examine those thoughts. I will not tolerate you attempting to restrict the debate on this board. Even in your attempt at appeal to reason you tell me that I "spread the lies of evolution". Your conduct these last few posts has been downright reprehensible. I would appreciate an apology.

Unwilling to listen? No, unwilling to swallow a lie hook and sinker would be more like it...Willing to stand for the Creator and Savior of her soul...not something you understand too well based on your posts here...

I understand salvation very well, thank you. You haven't the right to criticize that here; not on this board, and not on any board of this forum without scriptural support (which you do not have). I am ashamed of you for resorting to questioning my devotion to God. Your apology is now doubly necessary, Gwenyfur.

It's a shame you and others are more concerned with crushing other Christians instead of uplifting them, and maybe getting out of the habit of shredding people's ideas, research and beliefs simply because they don't add up to your own man made beliefs and theories might be something to consider.

Again, this is a debate forum. If you do not feel like having your ideas examined and likely criticized, this is not the place for you. Truth is not discovered without discussion and debate.

The true shame of it is that the behavior on this forum does more to hinder the kingdom of the Father, than increase it...

I highly doubt that. God gave us rational thought for a reason. I feel that it would hinder our faith to not use that rational thought.

We're to be a light in the darkness, and yet, the darkness dwells here, where "christians" tear each other to shreds...truly a way to further the kingdom and teach the Gospel...

Do not mistake tearing each other's ideas to shreds for tearing each other to shreds. The former is among what a debate forum facilitates, and what I engage in if necessary. The latter is what you are doing right now.

Athene · Apr 7, 2006

notto said:
So you shouldn't have a problem when less than trustworthy or knowledgeable sources on science and evolution are used and called out for being less than trustworty or knowledgeable.

Your accusations against your fellow Christians are exactly what you are railing against. That is hypocracy plain and simple.

You seem to be willing to 'crush' your fellow Christians with claims that somehow because they accept science and evolution that they are less Christian than you. How is that uplifting to them? Where is the reasonable expectation of kindness in that?

You expect kindness yet you feel free to 'call a spade a spade'. You should practice what you preach when you are that spade.

I don't know if you've read a book called The Heart of Christianity, it's by Marcus Borg. In one chapter he describes faith, and the most popular type of faith is faith as assensus - or assent. Believing that a claim or statement is true. For many christians having faith means believing something despite all evidence to the contrary.

To a person who thinks this way then anyone who rejects certain beliefs will be less christian because faith is all about having the correct beliefs.

I used to be like this as well, and it was a major struggle for me, but now I've made the transition to faith in God or faith as a relationship with God, much more fulfilling and life changing IMO.

Dannager · Apr 7, 2006

Athene said:
I don't know if you've read a book called The Heart of Christianity, it's by Marcus Borg. In one chapter he describes faith, and the most popular type of faith is faith as assensus - or assent. Believing that a claim or statement is true. For many christians having faith means believing something despite all evidence to the contrary.

To a person who thinks this way then anyone who rejects certain beliefs will be less christian because faith is all about having the correct beliefs.

I used to be like this as well, and it was a major struggle for me, but now I've made the transition to faith in God or faith as a relationship with God, much more fulfilling and life changing IMO.

This is absolutely correct - there is an eternally important distinction between faith in what has been shown to be false just for the sake of faith and faith in something which is real.

gluadys · Apr 7, 2006

Athene said:
I don't know if you've read a book called The Heart of Christianity, it's by Marcus Borg. In one chapter he describes faith, and the most popular type of faith is faith as assensus - or assent. Believing that a claim or statement is true. For many christians having faith means believing something despite all evidence to the contrary.

To a person who thinks this way then anyone who rejects certain beliefs will be less christian because faith is all about having the correct beliefs.

I used to be like this as well, and it was a major struggle for me, but now I've made the transition to faith in God or faith as a relationship with God, much more fulfilling and life changing IMO.

I read that book a few months ago. I heartily recommend it.

PS. it is not about evolution. So, it's great even if you are not TE.

random_guy · Apr 7, 2006

Gwenyfur said:
and of course peer review is the only way that man's "truth" of man's theory can be validated. Given that as the "rule" then that invalidates Y'shua's claim that He is the truth.

We as Christians and Messianics are commanded to "test the spirits" and "discern the truth" measuring it by the word of G-d...

Peer review doesn't quite cut it when compared to that.

Remember young one, that just because something isn't "peer reviewed" doesn't make it's point any less valid...only less explored...

you're entirely too young to be so closed minded.

Just to clarify any confusion, if something passes peer review, it doesn't make it the "truth" or a "rule". It just means that it's scientifically acceptable and that the results can be verified by other scientists. So articles that aren't peer reviewed may still have value, you can't use them in a scientific argument. That's the distinction between a peer reviewed article and one that is one. It will continue to be this way until you can think of a better method for filtering out bad science.

Assyrian · Apr 7, 2006

nolidad said:
Well if you are editing to restate then you are correct, but here is the verse again:

12Wherefore, 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:

Here is the progression:

1. Adam sinned
2. Sinned entered the kosmos
3. death enteres into the kosmos
4. Because of 1-3 death passed to all men.

Before Adam sinned there was no death ion the kosmos.
There was no human governmetn
There was no societal organizatrion
There was jsut adam, eve, AndGod! Thj ekosmos here means the planet. So before Adam sinned therer was no death on the planet or kosmos! It was becauswe Adam sinned thatr God subjected all of creation to futility (phthera) which is deacy, corruption and death.

I am no sure the relevance of your definition of kosmos, the death that came in with Adam's sin only passed to men. Death was able to pass to them because they sin too. This does not explain animal death. This death does not pass to them 'for that' they haven't sinned.

Does Paul say 'death enters into the kosmos'? He says sin entered the kosmos, and that some form of death came through sin and spread to all men. But there is nothing to say this was the first time animals died. He is specifically referring to a death that spreads to humans when they sin.

The problem with your suggestion that oikumene would have been used to refer to human society is that the word also referred specifically to the Roman empire, not only would that lead to confusion, but in a letter to Rome it could sound potentially treasonous. So there was a strong tendency to use kosmos instead. But only humans sinned. From the start it effected the first human society. It is also worth remembering that 'Adam' means mankind.

Well would God have declared His creation very good in Genesis if ti was filled with phthtera?? Would you declare your yard very good if it was full fo dead patches, weeds, and noxious plants??

phthtera?

But why do you think the garden needed a man to 'to cultivate it and guard it'? But if my back garden looked out over the Serengeti or Yellowstone I would think it was wonderful, though I would make sure kept my guard up, a nice thorn hedge would do the job, just like the Maasai use, and that is just what the word means in Gen 2:15.
Strongs: shâmar A primitive root; properly to hedge about (as with thorns), that is, guard; generally to protect, attend to, etc

Is there anywhere in scripture that saus death was on the planet or kosmos before sinned entereds the kosmos?

As YECs are the ones who make the claim that there was no death before the fall and that there couldn't have been any evolution as a consequence, it is up to YECs to demonstrate their claim that animal death only came in after the fall. It's not in the bible.

But have a look at the creation Psalm 104.

21 The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.
22 When the sun rises, they steal away and lie down in their dens.
23 Man (Adam) goes out to his work and to his labor until the evening.

Right in the middle of a discussion of the creation we have an account of carnivorous lions looking for their prey from God. it would happen in a YEC creation.

Or have a look at 1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.

We are the same as the man God made of dust, mortal and with flesh and blood bodies in need of transformation into spiritual ones.

1Cor 15:49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

So the first man made of dust like we are, had a flesh and blood body that could not inherit eternal life without being transformed (that is presumably what the tree of life was about). Note that Paul equates flesh and blood with 'perishable'. So when God made man 'of dust' flesh and blood, he made him with a perishable body just like we have - As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust. Now the interesting thing is this word 'perishable' is the same word we read of in Romans 8:21 'bondage to decay'. The word is not that common and is usually used for moral corruption, but in these two chapters it is used for physical decay, bodies that grow old, die and decompose. This tells us where Paul thought the 'bondage to decay' we see in the world came from. He doesn't say in Romans 8 but in 1Cor 15 it is part of the way God created us.

Blessings Assyrian

Mallon · Apr 7, 2006

Gwenyfur said:
You and the rest should be sorry for running off another person who only wished to converse and share her beliefs. Being ridiculed by fellow "christians" is depressing and hurtful. Such unkindness within the body...for shame...

Jewel77 showed up here ridiculing the faith of her fellow Christians first:

jewel77 said:
Also, I dont know how you can not believe in creationism and be a Christian???

I'm not sorry to see her leave. My belief of the theory of evolution is based on science; not theology. Therefore, for us TEists to have to constantly defend our faith from people who don't know any better is highly irritating.

nolidad · Apr 7, 2006

mallon writes:

How do you tell genera apart, nolidad? What objective definition of "genus" do you use?

In biology, a genus (plural genera) is a taxonomic grouping. That is, in the classification of living organisms, a genus is considered to be distinct from other such genera. A genus has one or more species: if it has more than one species these are likely to be morphologically more similar than species belonging to different genera.

an example would be the genus canis(dogs) and the various species of dogs such as lupus, familiaris, latrans etc. etc. Science including evolutionists recognize the validity of the genus so we shall also! Genus would most closely resembel the "kind" of the bible. So youy have dog kind, cat kind, cattle kind, etc etc.

What??? This is complete baloney; you are grasping at straws. If I showed you otherwise, would you take that statement back? No matter, I'm going to show you anyway.

From Robert Bakker's "The Dinosaur Heresies" (p. 302):
"The fossil bird of 1861 [Archaeopteryx] displayed one undoubtedly obvious reptilian feature: a bony tail that was very long and not the abbreviated stub found on all modern birds."

And the rebut to this is:

To set the record straight about Archaeopteryx, you should know that not only creationists discount these absurd ideas, but even a prominent evolutionist who is an expert on ancient birds now has changed his mind. Larry Martin is a paleo-ornithologist and the curator for vertebrate paleontology at the University of Kansas Natural History Museum. He is one of the world's foremost experts on birds of the Mesozoic era. The following is from an article he wrote for The Sciences magazine ( March/April 1998).

"Warm-bloodedness seized the imagination of the public and paleontologists alike.
The possibility that dinosaurs shared with mammals and birds certain advanced traits
of intelligence, activity and complexity of behavior was hugely appealing. The burning question then became how to study physiology and behavior attributes that do not fossilize well in animals so long dead. The suggestion that birds were living dinosaurs answered that question.
In retrospect, it is probably telling that most of the scientific support for the dinosaurian origin of birds came from the people studying dinosaurs, who were delighted to learn
that their subjects were still alive. As Feduccia points out, most ornithologists did not
like the theory then, and they do not like it now. I began to grow disenchanted with the bird-dinosaur link when I compared the eighty-five or so anatomical features seriously proposed as being shared by birds and dinosaurs. To my shock, virtually none of the comparisons held up. For example, the characteristic upward-projecting bone on the
inner ankle in dinosaurs lies on the outer ankle in birds. In some cases I even
discovered that the supposedly shared features occurred on entirely different bones.
That is a bit like saying that you and I are related because my nose resembles your big toe."
"The confusion over anatomy stems in part from spotty ornithological literature. Although many ornithologists study the songs, brilliant plumage and behavior of birds, few choose to scrutinize the smelly bones and muscles. By the same token, dinosaur specialists who advocate a bird-dinosaur link have been largely content to leave avian anatomy to the ornithologists. So it is not surprising that the literature is vague about many aspects of the avian skeleton"
"The consequences is that the supporters of the bird-dinosaur relation often learn, to
their horror, that a certain aspect of dinosaur anatomy is not in fact "just the way it is in birds," as they had previously announced. Damage control then usually takes one of three tactical forms. The investigators may simply ignore the inconsistency, because so much other support exists for their hypothesis. They may change the interpretation of dinosaurian anatomy to match the avian model. Or they may agree that modern birds
have a certain anatomical construction, but assert that Archaeopteryx is different and more like a dinosaur. (Indeed, the existing anatomical knowledge about both dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx is just blurry enough to leave a broad middle ground where all the bird-dinosaur comparisons that do not precisely match can be justified nonetheless.)
Such Band-Aids have been applied to almost every anatomical feature that supposedly links dinosaurs to birds. When the burden of ad hoc repairs became too heavy for me, I had to abandon the theory altogether. It was a disappointment. How wonderful it would have been if dinosaurs had escaped extinction!"
"As I weigh those recent finds, it looks to me as if the dinosaur connection is in trouble. Yet old desires die hard. A colleague of mine recently told me that the dinosaur
hypothesis should be maintained because no clear counterhypothesis exists to replace
it. I found that suggestion dangerously similar to arguing that I should follow some kind
of religious belief because if I do not, I will be without faith."

(By the way, there are no birds alive today that have true teeth.)

Click to expand...

my bad!! The other birds that had true teeth are all extinct. My apologies!

Indeed. And if you actually take the time to read the research of these scientists (instead of being disingenuous, as you say), you will see why they are able to rule out the alternative scenarios you present. Read John Ostrom's work on a Deinonychus assemblage he worked on in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

Click to expand...

Well I will see as time permits. I would expect some dinos to have travelled in packs for many animals today do as well. But once again we cannot declare like many scientists do, how dono societies functioned and worked just on the basis of some tracks and fossil nests.

Do you seriously think there is a magic genetic marker that objectively marks the boundaries between genera? Because there isn't.

Click to expand...

So when we see reports on the news about being able to identify creatures geneticaslly (differentiating between dogs and cats from fishes and birds by using genetic materials) that is all a lie??

Wow, really???
What a load of bunk. For one, feathers are better thermal insulators than scales. I don't see how having intermediate hair-like proto-feathers would put their "thermal systems" into "disarray". Can you support that with the fossil record, or is this the same type of junk science you claim the fossil record can't tell us?

Click to expand...

Scales are heat exchanger mechanisms in lizards and reptiles-- htey are a common feature of covering for cold blooded creatures. Feathers are the sdame for birds but do not function exactly the same just like car engines and electric motors ar ethe same but different.

If you have a creature transitioning from scales to feathers ( which also would require a transition from cold to warm bloodedness from proven observation of feathered crteatures all being warm blooded.

You would need to show a creature with fully functionig scales while it is transitioning to feathers. Remember the creature you showedd was hypothesized with protofeathers and not full feathering.

What? Could you please elaborate on how I misquoted Scripture? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. My point is that since God told His Creation to eat and reproduce after their own kind, the animals would eventually reach the Earth's carrying capacity and unavoidably die. Therefore, death was an unavoidable consequence even before the Fall.

Click to expand...

Except for ther fact the Bible categorically declares that before sin there wass no death on the kosmos. So all suppositions to the contrary are just against what is delcared by the bible--death entered the kosmos by sin!!

gluadys writes:

No, that's the same Henry Morris Dannager was referring to. His field was hydraulic engineering--nothing to do with geology, paleontology or biology, fields relevant to evolution. Also, engineering is on the fringe of science; many scientists don't consider engineers to be scientists.

Click to expand...

.

Sorry for butting into another conversation but I had to interject here.

Well contrary to their opinions hydrology and hydrodynamics are very much scientific disciplines.

Studying the impact of water flow and flooding and flood plains (with the varied geologic knowledge needed) is very much science.

Shernren writes:

You're right on this one. My bad. But I don't think it's wise to point to the Matthew passage for this. And my personal view is that man is still in stewardship of the world ... it just happens that he himself is bound under sin and Satan.

Click to expand...

Well then let us conclude that man being the highest creation of God still has dominion but that dominion is now controlled by Satan instead of God (albeit temporarily)

Fallacy of personal projection. Just because you think phthora is not very good doesn't prove concretely that God thinks so.

Click to expand...

Neither does your rejecting it makes it true! I can point to various scriptures saying that there was at least by implication no imperfection on the world before sin--can you? Can you rebut my point with Scripture-- especially in light of Romans 5 that says death on the planet entered by sin. So scripture that says there was death before sin on ther planet.

Don't put words into my mouth or beliefs into my head. I'm talking about and from the Bible as much as you are.

Click to expand...

Well you said "in my book" and that is normally meant as injecting personal opinion into a debate or conversation. I was not seeking to put words in your mouth just qouting you and rebutting it with Gods book vs. yours as the term is normally understood.

So the fact that animal death isn't mentioned in Genesis 3 is a big problem for your position but not for mine.

Click to expand...

If that is as far as it went then yes! But the bible is a whole single book though written by multi human authors, and God does let us know later on that death entered into the world AFTER sin, not BEFORE, so the bible does declare no animal death before Adam sinned. Just because it isn't where some would like it to be declared is of no import for His children or at least should be an irrelevant issue. Just like the trinity. We only learn that God is a triune God in the NT as well though He was triune from eternity past-- He always was! He only chose to put the evidence together 4,000 years after he first revealed himself to Adam!! Maybe Adam knew it but was not inspired to write it down. Who knows??

No less a commentator than Barnes identifies the "kosmon" of Romans 5:12 with the "kosmon" of John 3:16-20 and with humanity and the human race. This makes sense because both in John and in Romans the Bible is speaking of the effect of sin on humanity and God's coming to rescue humanity from sin. Does the "kosmon" of John 3 require "human hierarchy, civil govt., clans and tribes, system of laws, human development" - does God so love all these things, or does God love humanity pure and simple? And if the "kosmon" of John 3 does not require these embellishments to be read as "humanity", why should you impose such a standard on Romans 5?

Click to expand...

Well the simplest answer is that when God sent His son--there was clearly establishe dhuman hierarchies that could and are called kosmon-- but in Adams day there was none-- it was Adam, Eve and God context determines meaning and while yes it is true that Romans five definitively speaks of the human condition- it also qualifies it for sin entering the kosmos (planet) caused death to be passed on to all men even though they did not sin like Adam or had diviner laws to disobey. Sin entered the planet- not the human hierqarchy-- Romans 8 also supports this when God subjected creation to phthera (decay, corruption, death). Creation is declared to groan in anticipation of the redemption of the sons of God-- that would require prescience on creations part before the fall , but a natural response after the fall since the subjection to this happened after the fall!

Mallon · Apr 7, 2006

nolidad said:
In biology, a genus (plural genera) is a taxonomic grouping...

What you have listed here is not a definition of a genus. It is a description of what "genus" means, but it does not tell us how to distinguish between genera and how to determine whether the erection of a new genus is warranted. This is, after all, what we are debating.

And the rebut to this is:

Good for you. You found one instance where the term "reptile-like" is used. But you claimed initially that scientists always use the term "reptile-like." I proved you wrong with a quote. Therefore, your providing me with more (unreferenced) quotes to the contrary does not change the fact that your initial statement was wrong.

But once again we cannot declare like many scientists do, how dono societies functioned and worked just on the basis of some tracks and fossil nests.

I agree. It's a start, though. A start based on fossil evidence, which you claimed earlier didn't exist.

So when we see reports on the news about being able to identify creatures geneticaslly (differentiating between dogs and cats from fishes and birds by using genetic materials) that is all a lie??

Don't kid yourself; there are genera living today that are much more closely related to one another than fish and birds. Take Felis and Panthera, for example.

If you have a creature transitioning from scales to feathers ( which also would require a transition from cold to warm bloodedness from proven observation of feathered crteatures all being warm blooded.

... Which we also have indications for from the fossil record, and upon which many books have been written...

You would need to show a creature with fully functionig scales while it is transitioning to feathers. Remember the creature you showedd was hypothesized with protofeathers and not full feathering.

What is a "fully functional scale"?
And what do you mean Sinornithosaurus was "hypothesized with protofeathers and not full feathering"? We can see both scale and feather impressions in the fossil itself.

Except for ther fact the Bible categorically declares that before sin there wass no death on the kosmos.

Did the Bible mean spiritual death or physical death?

gluadys · Apr 7, 2006

nolidad said:
Sorry for butting into another conversation but I had to interject here. ...
Well contrary to their opinions hydrology and hydrodynamics are very much scientific disciplines.

True, but that doesn't make hydraulic engineering science. But I won't argue the point. it was just an observation about other people's opinions. And its not an opinion of all scientists either. Whether or not engineering is science is very much a judgment call, and the judgment itself is not that important.

nolidad · Apr 8, 2006

Shernren writes:

Fallacy of personal projection. Just because you think phthora is not very good doesn't prove concretely that God thinks so.

Well in actuality this is a debate in futility8, for you do not hold to a literal six day creation as the bible teaches. Also I just do not know why you would think if death was prevalent in the animal kingdom for millions of years, God would look down, see it all and call it exceedingly good and beneficail. I see in the bible six days of creation, all animal life are vegaetarian, no sin on the planet therefore no curse, and then sometime (it could have been weeks or months) Adam fell and God tells us that with his sin, the ground is cursed, creation is subjected to futility, decay and perishing, and death has now entered the planet because of Adams sin. That pretty well convinces it for me-- despite someones definition of "common sense hermeneutics".

Fallacy of predestination to judgment.

Not fallacy but fact!! Jesus was the lamb slain BEFORE the foundation of the world, the elect are so before the foundation of the world-- and the fall was preknown by God before the foundation of the world.

Gluadys writes:

This alliance with atheists is indispensable to creationism.

Maybe for some, but not for all, but it is interesting that IF evolution was the mechanism God used to bring life to the planet-- He had to use atheists and agnostics until the 1870"s and not His church to bring that info forward! The question always rem,ain is why wouldn't Jesus inform His betrothed that evolution and not six day creation was how He did it!!

gwenyfur writes:

anything that comes from a Christian or Biblical site is considered unscientific because it's not written or published by pure "scientists" ... no matter the degree the writers may hold...

Well with your benighted bias and discrimination against pure "scientists" who hold to YEC I shall endeavor not to get entangled in any back and forth with you!!

Dannager writes:

And I firmly believe, as do most others, that God's will is evident in the world around us. I cannot accept that contradictory evidence exists - there is a single truth and it lies with God, in both evident world and scripture. You only accept one half of that: scripture. With that mindset no matter the evidence presented you, you will continue to believe in your interpretation of scripture based on scripture, a self-perpetuating cycle of willful ignorance. Stop that cycle, Gwenyfur.

Well seeing as how Jesus in Matthew declared that the heavens and earth WILL pass away but the Word of God stands forever makes the word a little more powerful than what may appear "evident" in th ephysical world.

Remember God said that Scripture is inspired and that Scripture is for docrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness and it is only through the Holy Spirit that we come to the epignosis of God.

assyrian writes:

Does Paul say 'death enters into the kosmos'? He says sin entered the kosmos, and that some form of death came through sin and spread to all men.

Not some form of death-but death and wherte did it go? The nearest antecedant is the world or kosmos. And why did Paul say that it passed to all men? because all born after Adam di dnot commit Adams sin and there was no written law to violate but sin entered the palnet and death entered the planet and affected all living creatures.\

phthtera?

my bad-one extra "t" but it is a greek word that the KJV translates as futility and means, decay, corruption and death!

But why do you think the garden needed a man to 'to cultivate it and guard it'? But if my back garden looked out over the Serengeti or Yellowstone I would think it was wonderful, though I would make sure kept my guard up, a nice thorn hedge would do the job, just like the Maasai use, and that is just what the word means in Gen 2:15.
Strongs: shâmar A primitive root; properly to hedge about (as with thorns), that is, guard; generally to protect, attend to, etc

Yes I agree with you that thisis one of the usages of shamar. But your mistake is that shamr (keep) is directly tied to abad (dress) so guarding is the incorrect use but to keep or have charge of would be more accurate.

Remember God said the animals at this point were all vegetarians and the first mention of the planet producing thorns and thistles (Gods cursing the ground) is after the fall! We can speculate and fantasize avbout the whys anbd whatfors of God commanding Adam tro keep and dress the garden, but as Scripture is silent- so should we be!.

Right in the middle of a discussion of the creation we have an account of carnivorous lions looking for their prey from God. it would happen in a YEC creation.

Inserting Adams name doesn't make it a creation passage and this was written long after the fall.

And if you wish to see the order of this--uit is after the short creation account and the short flood account.

So the first man made of dust like we are, had a flesh and blood body that could not inherit eternal life without being transformed (that is presumably what the tree of life was about). Note that Paul equates flesh and blood with 'perishable'. So when God made man 'of dust' flesh and blood, he made him with a perishable body just like we have - As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust. Now the interesting thing is this word 'perishable' is the same word we read of in Romans 8:21 'bondage to decay'. The word is not that common and is usually used for moral corruption, but in these two chapters it is used for physical decay, bodies that grow old, die and decompose. This tells us where Paul thought the 'bondage to decay' we see in the world came from. He doesn't say in Romans 8 but in 1Cor 15 it is part of the way God created us.

Sorry but no good. Paul is writing about Adam after the fall for that was one of the curses God placed on Adam after teh fall-from dust you came and from dust you shall return!

mallon wrote:

Good for you. You found one instance where the term "reptile-like" is used. But you claimed initially that scientists always use the term "reptile-like." I proved you wrong with a quote. Therefore, your providing me with more (unreferenced) quotes to the contrary does not change the fact that your initial statement was wrong.

while we have been derbating archy-- let us remember that a consensus is forming among evolutionists that archy was an evolutionary dead end. "True" birds have been found to exist before and during archys appearance on earth. Being an evolutionary dead end makes it a poor example of a transitional form. It is transitioning to NOTHING!!! It just dead ended itself-- it is not even in the line from dino to bird because birds were around before archy!! So why do we even bother caslling it a transitional for birds.

shernren · Apr 8, 2006

Well you said "in my book" and that is normally meant as injecting personal opinion into a debate or conversation. I was not seeking to put words in your mouth just qouting you and rebutting it with Gods book vs. yours as the term is normally understood.

My misunderstanding again. (whacks self - should apply non-literal interpretation here too)

Neither does your rejecting it makes it true! I can point to various scriptures saying that there was at least by implication no imperfection on the world before sin--can you?

Empty rhetoric until you can actually point to "various scriptures saying that there was at least by implication no imperfection on the world before sin", and show that carnivorism is imperfection.

Can you rebut my point with Scripture-- especially in light of Romans 5 that says death on the planet entered by sin. So scripture that says there was death before sin on ther planet.

Let's go!

1. God glorifies Himself through carnivorism.

Assyrian mentioned Psalm 104.

Inserting Adams name doesn't make it a creation passage and this was written long after the fall.

And if you wish to see the order of this--uit is after the short creation account and the short flood account.

So why is it that only after the "short creation account" and the "short flood account" (which it isn't: Psalm 104 isn't about the flood) that the psalmist says:

O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.
(Psalms 104:24 ESV)

"Them all" includes the lions, which God made in wisdom, not as a result of the Fall!

"Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in their thicket? Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help, and wander about for lack of food?
(Job 38:39-41 ESV)

Would God take this and portray it as His glory if this was actually the result of sin and the fall?

"The wings of the ostrich wave proudly, but are they the pinions and plumage of love? For she leaves her eggs to the earth and lets them be warmed on the ground, forgetting that a foot may crush them and that the wild beast may trample them. She deals cruelly with her young, as if they were not hers; though her labor be in vain, yet she has no fear, because God has made her forget wisdom and given her no share in understanding. When she rouses herself to flee, she laughs at the horse and his rider.
(Job 39:13-18 ESV)

Now God takes glory in the ostrich's stupidity and cruelty. If this was a result of the Fall, would God have any right or reason to be proud of it? If it wasn't, how can you argue that God wouldn't include cruelty - or what seems like it to sentimental modern minds - in original creation?

"Is it by your understanding that the hawk soars and spreads his wings toward the south? Is it at your command that the eagle mounts up and makes his nest on high? On the rock he dwells and makes his home, on the rocky crag and stronghold. From there he spies out the prey; his eyes behold it afar off. His young ones suck up blood, and where the slain are, there is he."
(Job 39:26-30 ESV)

Hmm, God is describing graphic animal violence to Job and then saying "Are you as great as Me?" I don't suppose He is very much troubled by it ... even if you are.

2. God has used death as a means to exercise His grand plan.

I need not point out all the times when God Himself, or through proxy of the Jews, wrought death on sinners in multitude. But here is something surprising:

Arise therefore, go to your house. When your feet enter the city, the child shall die. And all Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found something pleasing to the LORD, the God of Israel, in the house of Jeroboam.
(1 Kings 14:12-13 ESV)

This child was pleasing to God, and God's reward is to send him to the grave? If God has the right to do this with a child, a human who pleased God, is it really beyond imagination for God to have had animal death in a world without sin?

3. Two of the four living creatures described as praising God are carnivores.

As I looked, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, and a great cloud, with brightness around it, and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the fire, as it were gleaming metal. And from the midst of it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had a human likeness, but each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf's foot. And they sparkled like burnished bronze. Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: their wings touched one another. Each one of them went straight forward, without turning as they went. As for the likeness of their faces, each had a human face. The four had the face of a lion on the right side, the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and the four had the face of an eagle.
(Ezekiel 1:4-10 ESV)

From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God, and before the throne there was as it were a sea of glass, like crystal. And around the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind: the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like an eagle in flight.
(Revelation 4:5-7 ESV)

4. God describes Himself as a carnivore (i.e. lion)

Behold, like a lion coming up from the jungle of the Jordan against a perennial pasture, I will suddenly make him run away from her. And I will appoint over her whomever I choose. For who is like me? Who will summon me? What shepherd can stand before me?
(Jeremiah 49:19, 50:44 ESV)

For I will be like a lion to Ephraim, and like a young lion to the house of Judah. I, even I, will tear and go away; I will carry off, and no one shall rescue.
(Hosea 5:14 ESV)

They shall go after the LORD; he will roar like a lion; when he roars, his children shall come trembling from the west;
(Hosea 11:10 ESV)

But I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior. It was I who knew you in the wilderness, in the land of drought; but when they had grazed, they became full, they were filled, and their heart was lifted up; therefore they forgot me. So I am to them like a lion; like a leopard I will lurk beside the way. I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs; I will tear open their breast, and there I will devour them like a lion, as a wild beast would rip them open.
(Hosea 13:4-8 ESV)

And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."
(Revelation 5:5 ESV)

Both points 3 and 4 show that God is not ashamed of using carnivores as a metaphor for Himself and for His government (since the four creatures are taken by many scholars to represent the aspects of God's government). God and His characteristics are eternal and immutable. Would God have chosen to reveal Himself in the image and metaphor of a carnivore, and bearing their carnivorous aspects, if they were indeed results of the Fall and of the entry of sin into the world?

So now the onus is on you to prove that carnivorism and animal death are so deplorable that God would not have had them in His original world.

If that is as far as it went then yes! But the bible is a whole single book though written by multi human authors, and God does let us know later on that death entered into the world AFTER sin, not BEFORE, so the bible does declare no animal death before Adam sinned. Just because it isn't where some would like it to be declared is of no import for His children or at least should be an irrelevant issue. Just like the trinity. We only learn that God is a triune God in the NT as well though He was triune from eternity past-- He always was! He only chose to put the evidence together 4,000 years after he first revealed himself to Adam!! Maybe Adam knew it but was not inspired to write it down. Who knows??

Argument from personal speculation. You are simply repeating your interpretation that Romans 5:12 invokes all biological death in the entire physical universe, without independent support.

Well the simplest answer is that when God sent His son--there was clearly establishe dhuman hierarchies that could and are called kosmon

Kosmon is not the object of sent in John 3:16, nor even a dative noun for it. It is the object of loved, which is egapesen or agapao in the aorist tense, a perfect action of God. Did God only start loving the world of humanity when it started having human hierarchies?

but in Adams day there was none-- it was Adam, Eve and God

But there was a hierarchy. Adam was the husband and Eve was the wife, as can be seen when Jesus Himself uses their marriage to justify the sanctity of marriage. By this logic kosmon is as easily applicable to them, since there was already human hierarchy (the institution of marriage) between them!

yes it is true that Romans five definitively speaks of the human condition- it also qualifies it for sin entering the kosmos (planet) caused death to be passed on to all men even though they did not sin like Adam or had diviner laws to disobey.

You have no way to show that kosmon represents the planet in this case. Furthermore, even if you could, you have no way to show that thanatos in this verse is anything other than human death, since the verse qualifies it by saying this death is death that passed "to all men".

Come to think of it, I have no idea where your definition of kosmos (the world of humanity, but only where there is specific hierarchy or order) comes from.

G2889
κόσμος
kosmos
kos'-mos
Probably from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): - adorning, world.

G2889
κόσμος
kosmos
Thayer Definition:
1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, the heavenly hosts, as the ornament of the heavens. 1Pe_3:3
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
7a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
8a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom_11:12 etc)
8b) of believers only, Joh_1:29; Joh_3:16; Joh_3:17; Joh_6:33; Joh_12:47 1Co_4:9; 2Co_5:19
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayers/Strongs Number: probably from the base of G2865
Citing in TDNT: 3:868, 459

Romans 8 also supports this when God subjected creation to phthera (decay, corruption, death).

Phthora. And it is not death.

Creation is declared to groan in anticipation of the redemption of the sons of God-- that would require prescience on creations part before the fall , but a natural response after the fall since the subjection to this happened after the fall!

Humanity, the sons of God, fell, and when they fell and subjected creation to the bondage of their moral corruption and futility, creation began to groan awaiting its release from that bondage. That is a valid interpretation and it nowhere precludes the idea of animal death before the Fall.

And this is the Scriptural support we have for the creationist projection that God would not have allowed animal death before the Fall. Sorry, just because you say so doesn't show that God says so.

Assyrian · Apr 8, 2006

nolidad said:
Not some form of death-but death and wherte did it go? The nearest antecedant is the world or kosmos. And why did Paul say that it passed to all men? because all born after Adam di dnot commit Adams sin and there was no written law to violate but sin entered the palnet and death entered the planet and affected all living creatures.\

Paul tells us exactly where the death went. It spread to all men. He does not say 'death entered the kosmos' but that death came 'through sin'. But even when there was no law people's consciences knew right from wrong. Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.The death that comes through sin spread to all men, not because 'death entered the planet and affected all living creatures' as you claim, but because all sinned. Not all sinned as Adam did by breaking a commandment, but all have sinned by breaking the law written on their hearts. Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam. Their sin was not like Adam's but it was still sin.

Paul limits the death that came through sin very clearly death spread to all men because all sinned. There is no basis for saying this sin effects animals too, because animals don't sin. How can death spread to them like it spread to all men? Read Romans 7 if you want to understand how death spreads to all men. We are no born that way. We die when we sin. Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. How did death spread to Paul? He died when he knowingly broke the commandment.

my bad-one extra "t" but it is a greek word that the KJV translates as futility and means, decay, corruption and death!

I should have recognised it when I quote the verse. Doh!

Yes I agree with you that thisis one of the usages of shamar. But your mistake is that shamr (keep) is directly tied to abad (dress) so guarding is the incorrect use but to keep or have charge of would be more accurate.

I don't see why being linked to abad should change the meaning of shamar. Tilling and guarding are a normal part of gardening, it is just YEC doctrine that says there shouldn't have been anything to guard against.

Remember God said the animals at this point were all vegetarians and the first mention of the planet producing thorns and thistles (Gods cursing the ground) is after the fall! We can speculate and fantasize avbout the whys anbd whatfors of God commanding Adam tro keep and dress the garden, but as Scripture is silent- so should we be!.

You see that is really very good advice. Genesis does not say the animals were vegetarians, it does not say there were no thorns before the fall. It is just YEC speculation with no evidence in scripture or science. Of course we are free to speculate, but we should realise what is based on speculation and what has strong evidence.

God did not say animals were all herbivores or command them to observe a strict vegetarian diet. He simply tells us the food he provided for his creation. It is true. Photosynthesising plants are the only food source in almost every ecosystem on the planet, certainly every one on land. Now all the animal being herbivores is certainly one implication people read in the passage, but it doesn't actually say that. You would need to solid evidence in scripture to back the interpretation.

Genesis 3 does not say that God created thorns and thistles as part of the fall, just that Adam would have real problems with them when he tried to till the land. Lets not go beyond the evidence.

Inserting Adams name doesn't make it a creation passage and this was written long after the fall.

Check the Hebrew. Psalm 104:23 say adam. Inserting Adam's name is no more than what Paul did when he quoted Gen 2:7 in 1Cor 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"The Septuagint he was quoting from said and man became a living soul. Paul inserted 'Adam' and 'the first'.

And if you wish to see the order of this--uit is after the short creation account and the short flood account.

Actually the whole Psalm explores the days of creation. The short flood account in verse 6 is actually looking at Gen 1:2-9 when waters covered the face of the earth. It comes before God creating the grass plants and trees in Psalm 104:14-16 and the sun and moon in verse 19. Yet this discussion of the days of creation has carnivorous lions.

Sorry but no good. Paul is writing about Adam after the fall for that was one of the curses God placed on Adam after teh fall-from dust you came and from dust you shall return!

1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
There is no reference to the fall here, it is a discussion how man was created, from the earth of dust. Mankind was created with a natural body that has to be transformed into a spiritual one, the perishable (phthora) flesh and blood that came first has to be transformed to bear the image of the man of heaven.

Blessings Assyrian

Assyrian · Apr 8, 2006

There's no edit button or advanced format options in Firefox today. I had to sort my glitch out on internet explorer.

Mallon · Apr 8, 2006

nolidad said:
let us remember that a consensus is forming among evolutionists that archy was an evolutionary dead end. "True" birds have been found to exist before and during archys appearance on earth.

Indeed. Not only that, but Archie also possesses apomorphies unique to itself not seen in modern birds... which means it cannot be an ancestor to modern birds. Nonetheless, it was still an early bird that retained ancestral reptilian characteristics. This is why we still refer to it as "transitional" even though it did not necessarily link the reptiles to the birds. Will we ever find the true evolutionary link between reptiles and birds? We can't be sure. Knowing that we have found THE transitional species would be difficult to proove, let alone find in the fossil record (given the rarity of fossilization).
Still, none of this challenges the theory of evolution.

nolidad · Apr 9, 2006

Mallon said:
Indeed. Not only that, but Archie also possesses apomorphies unique to itself not seen in modern birds... which means it cannot be an ancestor to modern birds. Nonetheless, it was still an early bird that retained ancestral reptilian characteristics. This is why we still refer to it as "transitional" even though it did not necessarily link the reptiles to the birds. Will we ever find the true evolutionary link between reptiles and birds? We can't be sure. Knowing that we have found THE transitional species would be difficult to proove, let alone find in the fossil record (given the rarity of fossilization).
Still, none of this challenges the theory of evolution.

no it does not challenge the theory of evolution but it does knock archy out of the ballpark opf being a transitional from reptiles to birds despite the nice tap dance you did with the language.

It is not a link between birds and reptiles but we still view it as alink??? Wow that is impressive doublespeak!!!!

gluadys wrote:

"Naturalistic" does not mean "God didn't do it." Don't you believe God created nature to act naturalistically?

Well from the evolutionist standpoint it does. As you all have repeated here--the supernatural cannot be quantified so has no place in science- so science seeks answers apart from the supernatural. And yes I do beleive God set laws that nature operates within, but has superseded those laws for His purposes and glory-- He is not bound to the laws of nature.

Side branch, dead end. Very likely. But like the true bird branch it stemmed from a dinosaurian ancestor and broke from the true bird line after the latter diverged from its dinosaurian ancestor. IOW, archy did not diverge directly from dinosaurs, but from the same early dino/bird transitional ancestor from which true birds evolved.

And the empirical evidence for this "fact" is?????

Again, a false assumption. What merit is there in propelling evolution faster?

Well evolution is the be all end all "force" of all living htings even to you TE's so why not just give it a hand?? And really it would just be natural selection and surviavl of the fittest as it has been for the alleged 650,000,000 years since the cambrian explosion of life.

Shernren wrote:

about 15 pages ago and I missed it!!

Why can't the Biblical God be the driving force of evolution? Is it really impossible for God to have used evolution and for Christians to believe in both?

Because the biblical God created everything out of Himself by speaking it into existence in 6 solar or 24 hour days!! He ordered things to reproduce after their own "kind". He created the earth with the heavens and the stars later-- evolutionary astrophysics says the stars came long before the earth.

Geology says land then water, the bible says water then land.

Evolutions says millions of years-- the Bible says 6 days.

So itr is a choice-- the God who was there and created it and had Adam record it and Moses preserve it in the first book of the penteteuch OR men who weren't there, the majority are either agnostic or atheistic or nonchristian saying what supposedly took place when no onew was around to verify these suppossed events! HMMM????

BEFORE I FORGET; SOMEONE WROTE THAT THEY BELEIVED JESUS RESEURRECTION WAS BOTH HISTORICAL AS WELL AS MYTH. i ASKED FOR A DEFINITION OF WHAT THEY MEANT. i CANNOT FIND THE QOUTE AGAIN AND STILL AVERY INTERESTED IN WHAT THEY MEAN.

Mallon writes:

I agree. It's a start, though. A start based on fossil evidence, which you claimed earlier didn't exist.

No I didn't, I said that footprints exist and from sometimes the scantiest evidence we get these amazing stories out of scientists. They should reprot on their finds and not speculate all that they do-- they would be respected more by more of the grewter populatiopn that way. Remember T-Rex for decades creationists were laughed at when we refused to accept him as the king carnivor predator. Now it has been found that based on the evidence reported by YEC scientists-- it has been found that T-rex was a scavenger after all!!

Don't kid yourself; there are genera living today that are much more closely related to one another than fish and birds. Take Felis and Panthera, for example.

And they are both withing the cat family! Just different kinds of CAT.

Which we also have indications for from the fossil record, and upon which many books have been written...

I lopve that word "indications" nice, safe, noncommital but yet used to show they have discovered protofeathers!! They are guessing cause they want them to be protfeathers but truth is they just don't know what those "protofeathers" really are for nearly all "finds"

Did the Bible mean spiritual death or physical death?

Both--for spitiual death occurred in man the instant he ate and physical death was started when he fell. That is why God said death entered the world through sin!!

Who made him inerrant and infallible?

Well I will take him over you any day when iot comes to researching bacteria!

I'm sick and tired of refuting this and so I won't give that particular piece of fallacy any of my time or respect.

Well if youa re tired of refuting it then don't lead us YEC beleivers to the sire when it agrees with you and then slam them when they disagree.

Shernren writes:

Empty rhetoric until you can actually point to "various scriptures saying that there was at least by implication no imperfection on the world before sin", and show that carnivorism is imperfection.

Well carnicvorism was not how God created the animal kingdom from Genesis 1:

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

See the close--AND IT WAS SO!! So animal killing animal for food is against Gods design-- you need to show where God overorde this as a "good" thing.

As for implication?? Well when God finished creating everything in 6 days He looked at it and declared it exceedingly good-- no you need to explain how extinction predation, death, decay , corruption, random mutations that are harmful as well as beneficial how God would call that very good.

Would you look down at the death bed of a loved one, seeing htem in cancer with pus oozong out of open sores and say --very good??

Kosmon is not the object of sent in John 3:16, nor even a dative noun for it. It is the object of loved, which is egapesen or agapao in the aorist tense, a perfect action of God. Did God only start loving the world of humanity when it started having human hierarchies?

No He loved mankind ffrorm eternity past. But God di dsend His osn to planet earth because of His love for man.

But there was a hierarchy. Adam was the husband and Eve was the wife, as can be seen when Jesus Himself uses their marriage to justify the sanctity of marriage. By this logic kosmon is as easily applicable to them, since there was already human hierarchy (the institution of marriage) between them!

Well give me 2 NT or septuigant OT examples of kosmos being used of a simple couple hierarchy and at least you will have a starting point for yoru argument. Once again oikumene is the preferred word translated world when used by the authors of the NT though it is not exclusive.

Phthora. And it is not death.

and it is:

1) corruption, destruction, perishing
a) that which is subject to corruption, what is perishable
b) in the Christian sense, eternal misery in hell 2) in the NT, in an ethical sense, corruption i.e. moral decay

if destruction and perishing do not mean death--then nothing does.

Also for those usiong Barnes notes about Romans 5 and the useof the word world there: Here are two commetnariews on Romans 8 that also show that creation was placed under bondage to death and corruption because of man.

First Matthew Henry:

1. In the creatures Rom_8:19-22. That must needs be a great, a transcendent glory, which all the creatures are so earnestly expecting and longing for. This observation in these verses has some difficulty in it, which puzzles interpreters a little; and the more because it is a remark not made in any other scripture, with which it might be compared. By the creature here we understand, not as some do the Gentile world, and their expectation of Christ and the gospel, which is an exposition very foreign and forced, but the whole frame of nature, especially that of this lower world - the whole creation, the compages of inanimate and sensible creatures, which, because of their harmony and mutual dependence, and because they all constitute and make up one world, are spoken of in the singular number as the creature. The sense of the apostle in these four verses we may take in the following observations: - (1.) That there is a present vanity to which the creature, by reason of the sin of man, is made subject, Rom_8:20. When man sinned, the ground was cursed for man's sake, and with it all the creatures (especially of this lower world, where our acquaintance lies) became subject to that curse, became mutable and mortal. Under the bondage of corruption, Rom_8:21. There is an impurity, deformity, and infirmity, which the creature has contracted by the fall of man: the creation is sullied and stained, much of the beauty of the world gone. There is an enmity of one creature to another; they are all subject to continual alteration and decay of the individuals, liable to the strokes of God's judgments upon man. When the world was drowned, and almost all the creatures in it, surely then it was subject to vanity indeed. The whole species of creatures is designed for, and is hastening to, a total dissolution by fire. And it is not the least part of their vanity and bondage that they are used, or abused rather, by men as instruments of sin. The creatures are often abused to the dishonour of their Creator, the hurt of his children, or the service of his enemies. When the creatures are made the food and fuel of our lusts, they are subject to vanity, they are captivated by the law of sin. And this not willingly, not of their own choice. All the creatures desire their own perfection and consummation; when they are made instruments of sin it is not willingly. Or, They are thus captivated, not for any sin of their own, which they had committed, but for man's sin: By reason of him who hath subjected the same. Adam did it meritoriously; the creatures being delivered to him, when he by sin delivered himself he delivered them likewise into the bondage of corruption. God did it judicially; he passed a sentence upon the creatures for the sin of man, by which they became subject. And this yoke (poor creatures) they bear in hope that it will not be so always. Ep' elpidi hoti kai, etc. - in hope that the creature itself; so many Greek copies join the words. We have reason to pity the poor creatures that for our sin have become subject to vanity.

so there is much commetary showing nature was cursed with death because of mans fall.

Humanity, the sons of God, fell, and when they fell and subjected creation to the bondage of their moral corruption and futility, creation began to groan awaiting its release from that bondage. That is a valid interpretation and it nowhere precludes the idea of animal death before the Fall

you are almost getting it now!!!!

Yes creation was subjected because of the fall of man. and that subjection was to phthora whicha sshown is deacy destruction and perishing--death and a downward spiral from its original position when created!!!! so phthora was not how God made the animal world but placed it under it wheen man fell we both agree--now show either thanatos which is simply death or phthora (which by decay in animals would seem to imply aging) was present inthe animal world.

nolidad · Apr 9, 2006

Assyrian writes:

I don't see why being linked to abad should change the meaning of shamar. Tilling and guarding are a normal part of gardening, it is just YEC doctrine that says there shouldn't have been anything to guard against.

Because they have to agree with each other inthe qal and to have charge or to maintain (as keep is defined) agrees with to work. Why shoudl we know this ? Because there were no weeds before the fall as is stated in Genesis three and there was notr fear of man inanimals until after the flood in Genesis 9 and Adam was able to walk with any animal as is evidenced by him seeing them all to naming them. So he di dnot have to wory about Guarding it from thornms, pests, weeds, fellow humans so it makes no sense to have it mean guard which it can and does in other contexts.

Well to this fancy bit of tap dancing I can only respond with this verse:

[Ye] blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Check the Hebrew. Psalm 104:23 say adam.

adawm is the hebrew word for mankind-firsat and foremost-- now show why it should be construed as the indfividaul adam as oppossed to mankind which is what grasmmar says is so.

Inserting Adam's name is no more than what Paul did when he quoted Gen 2:7 in 1Cor 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"The Septuagint he was quoting from said and man became a living soul. Paul inserted 'Adam' and 'the first'.

Paul was inspired to do so you aren't!! and He clarified his first adawm by using the word again !! Making it the first adawm ADAM. C'mon you can do better than that!!

Actually the whole Psalm explores the days of creation. The short flood account in verse 6 is actually looking at Gen 1:2-9 when waters covered the face of the earth. It comes before God creating the grass plants and trees in Psalm 104:14-16 and the sun and moon in verse 19. Yet this discussion of the days of creation has carnivorous lions.

Wrong again but then you would have to say that to justify your stance on animals being carniverous when God gave them the herbs for meat not meat for meat!! But then again you seem more content on what teh bible doesn't say and adding it in to suit your position than on what it actually says. I nkw of no legiotmate linguistic scholar that could come up with animals being carnivorous based on the command of God.

And the waters fleeing were at Gods rebuke and thenthe mountains he rtaised up so the waters would not flood the earth again :

5Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

6Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
7At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
8They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 9Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

If this is speaking of creation then YOU makle God aliar for the bible clearly says the waters covered the earth again at the flood. Once again exegesis beats eisegesis everytime!!

Mankind was created with a natural body that has to be transformed into a spiritual one, the perishable (phthora) flesh and blood that came first has to be transformed to bear the image of the man of heaven.

But wait a second!!!!! You guys said phthora doesn't mean death!!!!! Now you say it does??????

Mallon · Apr 9, 2006

nolidad said:
no it does not challenge the theory of evolution but it does knock archy out of the ballpark opf being a transitional from reptiles to birds despite the nice tap dance you did with the language.

Are you refering to the scientific language I was using? Terms like "apomorphies" and whatnot? We are discussing science here, and so I will use scientific language. If you cannot wrap your head around it, but instead view it as "tap-dancing", that is your own hinderance; not mine.
If, instead, you are interested in learning what such terms mean, then please ask and I will explain them to you.

It is not a link between birds and reptiles but we still view it as alink??? Wow that is impressive doublespeak!!!!

If you read my post again, I think you will find this is not what I said. The only doublespeak going on here is my saying one thing and your putting words in my mouth to say another.

They should reprot on their finds and not speculate all that they do

Can you refer to a specific scientific report in which they do this? I'd be willing to bet that you can't. Not because none such exists, but because, as you admitted earlier, you do not have time to read the scientific papers you so love to poke fun at. So please, don't pretend to know what you're talking about.

Remember T-Rex for decades creationists were laughed at when we refused to accept him as the king carnivor predator. Now it has been found that based on the evidence reported by YEC scientists-- it has been found that T-rex was a scavenger after all!!

Can you tell me what scientific evidence any YEC brought forward to indicate that T. rex was a scavenger? Any publication you can direct me to? Keep in mind that Jack Horner, the only palaeontologist who supports the scavenger idea, is not a creationist.
In fact, in recent years, there has come forward much new evidence to suggest that T. rex was indeed a predator. For example, see:
https://scientists.dmns.org/sites/kencarpenter/PDFs%20of%20publications/theropod%20predation.pdf

And they are both withing the cat family! Just different kinds of CAT.

How do you know there is a "cat" kind? You don't. How do you know they aren't just the same kind of "carnivore"?

I lopve that word "indications" nice, safe, noncommital but yet used to show they have discovered protofeathers!!

They certainly match what palaeontologists predicted would be found if birds arose from small theropod dinosaurs (in 1988, for example, in Greg Paul's book "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World").
Not only that, but I think if you did some further research, you would find that we do, indeed, have small theropod fossils preserving unequivocal feathers,with barbs, barbules and all (see Microraptor or Caudipteryx, for example)!

Both--for spitiual death occurred in man the instant he ate and physical death was started when he fell. That is why God said death entered the world through sin!!

Again, though, how do you know He was referring to physical death? Your saying so doesn't make it so (unless you think you are God).

Well if youa re tired of refuting it then don't lead us YEC beleivers to the sire when it agrees with you and then slam them when they disagree.

If you get slammed for poking at a strawman, you have only yourself to blame, since you are the one who fabricated it.

nolidad · Apr 9, 2006

shernren writes:

Kosmon is not the object of sent in John 3:16, nor even a dative noun for it. It is the object of loved, which is egapesen or agapao in the aorist tense, a perfect action of God. Did God only start loving the world of humanity when it started having human hierarchies?

And here is th eperfect example of where kosmos would be correctly restated as humanity whereas in Romans 5 it would be a foolish redundacy:

wheras by one man Sin entered humanity and death by sin so death passed onto humanity for all sinned. I would use that kind of improper grammar-- but God would not so inspire such a bad usage.

Argument from personal speculation. You are simply repeating your interpretation that Romans 5:12 invokes all biological death in the entire physical universe, without independent support.

At least I can point ot a few scriptures to make my case there was no death before adams sin and have it so state in Scripture. where is your biblical support for death before the fall and carnivorism despite the command of God that all animal life be veggies??????

mallon writes:

Are you refering to the scientific language I was using? Terms like "apomorphies" and whatnot? We are discussing science here, and so I will use scientific language. If you cannot wrap your head around it, but instead view it as "tap-dancing", that is your own hinderance; not mine.
If, instead, you are interested in learning what such terms mean, then please ask and I will explain them to you.

No , I know what apomorphy is but I was referring to this:

Indeed. Not only that, but Archie also possesses apomorphies unique to itself not seen in modern birds... which means it cannot be an ancestor to modern birds. Nonetheless, it was still an early bird that retained ancestral reptilian characteristics. This is why we still refer to it as "transitional" even though it did not necessarily link the reptiles to the birds. Will we ever find the true evolutionary link between reptiles and birds? We can't be sure. Knowing that we have found THE transitional species would be difficult to proove, let alone find in the fossil record (given the rarity of fossilization).
Still, none of this challenges the theory of evolution.

it is not a link betrween birds and reptiles, is a dead end according to evolutionary thought now- but yet is still referred as a transitional. Well if it is not a link(read transitional) between reptiles and birds anymore what is it a transitional of???

If you read my post again, I think you will find this is not what I said. The only doublespeak going on here is my saying one thing and your putting words in my mouth to say another.

Well let me repost your words again:

which means it cannot be an ancestor to modern birds. Nonetheless, it was still an early bird that retained ancestral reptilian characteristics. This is why we still refer to it as "transitional" even though it did not necessarily link the reptiles to the birds. Will we ever find the true evolutionary link between reptiles and birds?

It is not an ancestor to modern birds though we still call it a transitional even though it now is considered not a link in the chain from reptile to modern birds.

Double speak to me and others.

Can you refer to a specific scientific report in which they do this? I'd be willing to bet that you can't. Not because none such exists, but because, as you admitted earlier, you do not have time to read the scientific papers you so love to poke fun at. So please, don't pretend to know what you're talking about.

Well just go to any musuem of natural history and look ath how they create a society for the different animals they display.

How do you know there is a "cat" kind? You don't. How do you know they aren't just the same kind of "carnivore"?

So all them books on animals have it all wrong then??? Wow someone should tell folks that panthers and lions and persians aren't all cats!!!!

Again, though, how do you know He was referring to physical death? Your saying so doesn't make it so (unless you think you are God).

Nah, I just went to Gods word wothout a predisposed bias and let HIs word tell me. YOu h ave to reject the clear teaching because to accept it you would have to give up 650,000,000 years of "alleged" evolutionary history with all its death decay destructiona nd extinction. So you retranslate Gods word to fit your bias instead of retranslating your bias to fit Gods Word. You show you have more respect for evolutionists writings thasn Gods inspired word. I ask you directly-- Why would God keep this from both the patriarchs, then the Jews then the church until Asa Grey sought ot marry the bible with evolution? Why would God use agnostics like Darwin, Huxley et al to tell the truth of our beginnings instead of telling His church--There was perfectly good language to use to give a rudimnentary and very simplistic explanation that he evolved things instead of creating everything in six days!

Can you tell me what scientific evidence any YEC brought forward to indicate that T. rex was a scavenger? Any publication you can direct me to? Keep in mind that Jack Horner, the only palaeontologist who supports the scavenger idea, is not a creationist.
In fact, in recent years, there has come forward much new evidence to suggest that T. rex was indeed a predator. For example, see:

Well I will have to get back to ont his request and the info from creationists cites. I have to go into work early tomorrow and must get up be3fore 5 AM and I just got back from a service seeing a close friend of mone installed as a PAstor in a local church-- so I am wiped.

Later folks!

If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

Legend

Back in Town

Grammatically incorrect

Back in Town

Legend

Senior Veteran

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Legend

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency