OEC and YEC Discussion

[LoG]

Looking for discussions here from literal creationists about the pro's and cons of Young Earth Creation and Old Earth Creation otherwise known as the Gap or Ruin/Reconstruction view.

For myself I find OEC is much better at explaining the world we live in as it relates to the geological and fossil record. From a theological point of view there are scriptures that can be seen to support a previous creation(s) also.

In many of the debates I see on Origins at CF and other forums, it seems that it is the YEC view which has the hardest time convincing anyone of its position and in fact may be why a literal creation is losing so much support in both secular and theistic circles. It is unfortunate that so many give up their belief in a literal creation when the Gap theory is not only supportable from scripture but also from the physical evidence.

Contrary to popular belief, the Gap theory predated the modern view of geology by at least a couple of thousand years. http://www.creationdays.dk/withoutformandvoid/1.html
Even Thomas Chalmers who preached it early in the nineteenth century was predating Darwin and his Origin of the Species.
God has given us the knowledge to refute the current scientific model and it is now up to us to discern that knowledge and utilize it to be effective witnesses to the literalal reading of Genesis.

A good overview of the viewpoint can be found here: http://www.christiangeology.com/

 

[Remus]

Looking for discussions here from literal creationists about the pro's and cons of Young Earth Creation and Old Earth Creation otherwise known as the Gap or Ruin/Reconstruction view.

Although I don't consider myself a "literal creationist", I may be able to contribute. Where would you like to begin?

 

[mark kennedy]

I would dare say that there are more OECs then there are YECs. I like the concept because it dismisses the concept of the earth being old so there is plenty of time for life to evolve. It has the ability to focus on the one main issue that is most important. This origin of life and the lineal descent from man from a common ancestor. We have two common ancestors, it's Adam and Eve.

I think you will find yourself in good company on here and well recieved shareing you views on this topic. I personally look forward to the exchange and am intersted in whatever you have to say on the topic.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Breetai]

I would dare say that there are more OECs then there are YECs.

...and you would be wrong. In America at least. That's what the Gallup polls say on the subject. I've never seen any stats on this subject for the rest of the world.

 

[Chief117]

Looking for discussions here from literal creationists about the pro's and cons of Young Earth Creation and Old Earth Creation otherwise known as the Gap or Ruin/Reconstruction view.

I would also be happy to chip in when and where I can. Just a background on myself: I believe the Bible to be literally true and believe it from cover to cover. I believe the Bible is the preserved and inspired Word of our Infinite Creator, and that it is historically and scientifically accurate.

I believe there are many problems--i.e. consequences that are irreconcilable with our faith--in believing in evolution, theistic evolution, or in some cases, just an Old Earth.

For myself I find OEC is much better at explaining the world we live in as it relates to the geological and fossil record.

Why do you believe OEC is better at explaining the world? This is an honest question from me to you, as one who used to believe in evolution but has been transformed and since accepted YEC.

When I was an OE believer, my main evidence was that scientists say that fossils and rocks can be dated and that these dates give several thousands to billions of years of age. After looking into it, however, I felt that Creationists (e.g. Dr. Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, etc.) had valid arguments calling into question the validity of these dating methods.

Most convincing to me, knowing how desparately this world wants to reject God, is that all facts are open to interpretation. I love Dr. Hovind's explanation of this, when he talks about the Grand Canyon.

Basically, his argument is that it is an indisputable fact that the Grand Canyon exists, and that if you look at it you can see several (hundreds?thousands?) strata in the face of the rock. This is a fact.

Old Earth Interpretation: each layer represents millions of years of deposition, with the age of the layers increasing as one goes further down.

The canyon was "carved" out by the Colorado River.

Young Earth Interpretation: the layers were stratified in a large flood (stratification in flood conditions has been observed--e.g. Mt St Helens--to occur in a few hours, not millions of years)

The canyon was "carved" out during the rush-off of flood waters. Note that this makes more sense of the facts, because the Colorado River would have had to travel more than a mile uphill in order to carve out the canyon.

I would also be happy to discuss radio-active dating, or anything else that has led you to believe OEC, and why I can still believe in YEC.

From a theological point of view there are scriptures that can be seen to support a previous creation(s) also.

I have yet to see any. I believe that (a) Scripture is clear that God created the heavens, earth, and all life (b) in 6 literal days and that this creation week (c) probably happened on the order of 6,000 years ago--though I don't hold "religiously" to that date.

For example:

1. I'll assume we've all had the Genesis 1 story a million times. Follow the link if you want it. It says, rather unambiguously, that creation took 6 DAYS.
2. Exodus 20:8-11--focus on the emphasis (added)
   8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
3. Now, whatever meaning you give to the word "day" (yom) in Genesis, you must also give it here.
4. (a) day means many millenia. Therefore, man should work for many millenia and then do no work for many millenia.
   
   (b) day means (near) 24 hour day. Therefore, man should work for 6 days, and rest for 1 day. This is clearly the more logical conclusion.

Jesus (and the inspired Apostles) also confirmed in the New Testament the historical accuracy of Genesis--that death did not enter the world until the fall, that man was made "at the beginning" and not millenia into creation, etc.

Could you please share some of the Scriptures that have led you to conclude that the Bible is ambiguous on this issue? I would sincerely like to discuss it with you.

In many of the debates I see on Origins at CF and other forums, it seems that it is the YEC view which has the hardest time convincing anyone of its position and in fact may be why a literal creation is losing so much support in both secular and theistic circles.

I might be inclined to agree with you. However, that doesn't make it wrong. It is hard to even get Christians to accept that God created the heavens, earth, and all life, despite the fact that both Old and New Testaments say it CLEARLY!!!

I could almost expect a fight from naturalistic, non-believers, but I find it very disheartening to see such division among believers.

I would contend that NO ONE can honestly, from reading the Bible alone and forgetting outside influences, could come out believing in either an Old Earth or in Evolution. It is when these people hear these things and, using these presuppositions, tend to re-interpret Holy Scripture by them.

That is what we call "making up your own god." This is the beauty of that song--"You are God alone", because He was not created by human hands, but His truth has been preserved for us since the beginning of time, and it does not change.

It is unfortunate that so many give up their belief in a literal creation when the Gap theory is not only supportable from scripture but also from the physical evidence.

I'm having trouble following you--I will assume you are in support of the Gap theory and wondering why people have a hard time believing in a literal, 6-day creation:

I would like to see your Scriptural support for Gap Theory. There is no reason whatsoever to INSERT a gap between 2 verses in Genesis just because God's creation account does not accomodate with today's INTERPRETATION of the evidence.

The literal, 6-day creation is stated in Genesis 1, confirmed by Moses/God in Exodus 20, confirmed by Jesus Christ in Matthew, and also referred to by Scripture elsewhere: Psalm 102:25, John 1:1-14; Psalm 95:5, in many geneaologies like the one in Genesis 5, etc.

There are literally hundreds of references to the literal/historical ACCURACY of Genesis' Creation account.

The only evidence I've ever heard someone attempt to pass as a Gap Theory explanation is that Peter says that "with the Lord a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day." However, this is really weak evidence for several reasons. 1) it is not speaking of Creation at all, but of salvation (2 Peter 3).

I would contend that there is no Biblical evidence referring to a long "gap" in the 6-day creation account--unless by some chance you have a Scripture that you will re-interpret using some presuppositions.

Again though, I'd be happy to discuss it--I'll try to remain open in the event that I am actually wrong.

God Bless.

 

[Gwenyfur]

I've only a slight knowledge of the "gap" theory so I can't speak authoritively on that subject, however I am what has been referred to as a 6-day "goat".
That I can address fairly comfortably, if you've something specific in mind?

 

[LoG]

I believe in a literal creation, 6000 years ago, done in six 24 hour days also. However, according to the Gap theory it wasn't the first creation.
Looking at the first 3 verses of Genesis you can see that Light was created on the first day, not the Earth. It and the Universe along with water was already in existence. There is a gap of undetermined length between the creation of the Earth and the first day.

With this gap there is a possibility that the Earth has supported life in the past and in fact is alluded to in ancient writings like the Midrash. Some of these manuscripts mention 5-6 other creations in the distant past that were subsequently destroyed. This would explain why the Earth appears much older from a geological and fossil point of view.

It would in fact be why Mr. Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory would be evidenced in the fossil record. No evolution, just different creations.

Chief117- I agree with you that the dating methods would appear suspect as do some interpretations of the the way the strata has been laid down but as I was spending huge amounts of time researching and trying to find evidence of why evolution wsn't correct, it was coming up for me that I was missing something basic. The intellect and knowledge required to refute the scientific evidence was simply too much for the average believer. The 150 years of debate that this issue has caused can't be what God desires. He had to have given us the answer before in simple terms that we could all understand and believe. His Word promises us that that is what He does. If the answer was really in suspect dating methods then this info is 150 years too late. I think it more likely that the rebuttal to Darwin's Origins was given to Thomas Chalmers in recent history even before Darwin was published.

What was meant for evil, God will turn to good. This is so true when you realize that all these scientists trying to build a case for evolution are really building a case for previous creations.

More later...

 

[Chief117]

It is so nice to have someone offer an alternate point of view without sounding as if they'd like to rip out your heart. I appreciate very much the respect your words carried in the last post.

I also appreciate a more clear view of such a position. I thought I would point out a few things I find wrong with it, however:

There was no death before Adam sinned
This is crucial to the Biblical refutation of evolution, and it is mentioned in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.


1) All animals and humans were, originally, vegetarians:

Then God said, "I give you [man] every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth....They will be yours for food. And to...--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
Genesis 1:29-30 NIV, emphasis added

​

Not even animals ate other animals in the original creation. We were all vegetarians--this is because there was not yet death.


2) The LORD threatened death for disobedience:

And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it for you will surely die."
Genesis 1:16-17 NIV, emphasis added

​

Now, it is clear that Adam (nor Eve) did not die right away. So then, what could God have possibly meant?

The only way this promise makes sense is if there was no death in the world, and from this point forward, all of God's creatures would be subject to death.


3) This is confirmed in the New Testament:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin....Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command....
from Romans 5:12, 14 NIV, emphasis added

​

All death--even animal death--entered the world because of man's sin. The Bible says that "death reigned from the time of Adam...", and therefore the whole multiple creation theories do NOT make sense.

Death entered the world through ADAM. Therefore, for any gap theory or any "multiple creation" theory to work, Adam's MUST HAVE BEEN THE FIRST.

If you believe in the idea of multiple creations because we see fossils and an old earth (from radio-active dating methods), then you believe in one of two things--death before Adam, or in multiple creations after Adam, but before the events of the rest of the Bible.

I believe that the Geologic Column, radio-active decay, and other naturalistic interpretations of our world are just that--interpretations. I do not look down on anyone for believing these interpretations, but they have to recognize that that is what they are. The other interpretation is that God created the world exactly like the Bible (He) says He did--right the first time, in 6 literal (near) 24 hour days.

I will leave this post at this point, but will come back for other points if possible or necessary.

God Bless.

 

[Chief117]

Looking at the first 3 verses of Genesis you can see that Light was created on the first day, not the Earth. It and the Universe along with water was already in existence. There is a gap of undetermined length between the creation of the Earth and the first day.

Never in my life have I heard someone explain where the "gap" is in Scripture, and found it in the least bit convincing. It is good that you have this ability.

I have always heard the "gap" is between verses 1 and 2, but it makes much more sense between verses 2 and 3. Now, I can actually see your point.

However, I do have one Scriptural refutation of this argument:

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...
Exodus 20:11 NIV
​

I contend that Scripture, when read as a whole, will confirm, explain, and harmonize with itself. Whereas I can now see your "gap" argument as having some tiny bit of substance, Scripture just simply does not allow for it.

In making this argument though, I have to admit that it is not clear cut just when God created the earth. However, flowing from the above argument, one must conclude that God created it (the earth, the waters, the heavens--which I contend is space) on the FIRST DAY.

The only real explanation is that there is no gap, and that all of this was part of the first Creation Day. Of course, the last thing created on Day 1 would have been light, else it would have been an impossibility to call it a "day."

 

[LoG]

The only way this promise makes sense is if there was no death in the world, and from this point forward, all of God's creatures would be subject to death.


3) This is confirmed in the New Testament:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin....Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command....
from Romans 5:12, 14 NIV, emphasis added

​

All death--even animal death--entered the world because of man's sin. The Bible says that "death reigned from the time of Adam...", and therefore the whole multiple creation theories do NOT make sense.

Death entered the world through ADAM. Therefore, for any gap theory or any "multiple creation" theory to work, Adam's MUST HAVE BEEN THE FIRST.

Two points of rebuttal:

1. Death entered into Adam's world. That does not mean that it didn't enter into previous "worlds". If the passage had said that death came to the "Earth" through Adam, it would be a stronger case for only this creation. The words Earth and world aren't necessarily interchangable.

2. Where does it state in the bible that physical death came as a result of sin? Spritual death was the consequence of sin. A careful reading of Gen 3:22 proves it.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Two things are apparent by reading that verse.
1. Physical death would have been defeated simply by eating from the tree of life in spite of the sin that had been committed. Jesus's work on the cross was unnecessary if it was about physical death.

2. The verse implies that we would suffer death unless we ate from the Tree of Life and therefore the capacity for physical death was built into this creation.

The same applies to Romans 5:12,17,21

The penalty of Adam's sin was spiritual death. This is why his remaining 930 years were not a contradiction to God's statement that on that day he would surely die.

From this perspective the argument against previous creations, does not hold water.

 

[LoG]

However, I do have one Scriptural refutation of this argument:

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...
Exodus 20:11 NIV
​

I contend that Scripture, when read as a whole, will confirm, explain, and harmonize with itself. Whereas I can now see your "gap" argument as having some tiny bit of substance, Scripture just simply does not allow for it.

In making this argument though, I have to admit that it is not clear cut just when God created the earth. However, flowing from the above argument, one must conclude that God created it (the earth, the waters, the heavens--which I contend is space) on the FIRST DAY.

Couple of things to note about Exodus 20:11.

In Gen 1:1, God created the heavens and the Earth.
Create implies to bring into being or cause to exist.
Made as in Exodus implies to construct or manufacture out of existing material.
Do you think it may be pointing to two different events or is it that God just uses words rather haphazardly?

There is also something about the mention of the "sea" in Exodus. Not the same as the "seas" mentioned in Gen 1:10. Will have to think about that a bit more.

The only real explanation is that there is no gap, and that all of this was part of the first Creation Day. Of course, the last thing created on Day 1 would have been light, else it would have been an impossibility to call it a "day."

Light couldn't be the last thing created because God is Light as per scripture. God is Spirit. Physical comes from the spiritual. Therefore light existed before physical mass.

 

[shernren]

I'm curious about something. AFAIK OECs are more geared towards the "Day-Age" theory rather than gap theory which is seen as something on its own apart from "conventional" OECism. Am I right? Or am I simply drawing up boxes and making fictional categories which don't exist, the way people often try to categorize TEs and fail?

 

[LoG]

I'm curious about something. AFAIK OECs are more geared towards the "Day-Age" theory rather than gap theory which is seen as something on its own apart from "conventional" OECism. Am I right? Or am I simply drawing up boxes and making fictional categories which don't exist, the way people often try to categorize TEs and fail?

According to Wikipedia OEC includes both.

 

[shernren]

Yup, I can't dispute Wikipedia! [scuttles away answered.]

 

[LoG]

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

This is the next verse to consider. Using scripture to interpret scripture we consider the the terms "without form" which in the original Hebrew is tohuw. This word is used in Isa 24:10 and Isa 34:11. In these cases it is used in terms of a judgement and action by the Lord upon the land or city it is referring to.
This is especially the case in Jer 4:23 where the exact phrase as Gen 1:2 is used:

Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Significant that it was written almost exactly the same to describe a different event.

The last verse to consider is Isa 45:18 where He says:

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

The Hebrew word for vain is again tohuw. The Lord is saying here that He does not create the state of the Earth as we find it in Gen 1:2, but rather it is in the type of state that is a result of a judgement that He has laid on it.
Following that line of reasoning, I see it as reasonable to assume that there was previous creation that God judged and subsequently destroyed.

If my reasoning is flawed, I would welcome any comments to set me straight.
(from a scriptural point of view)

 

[Silent Enigma]

There was no death before Adam sinned

But that'd be talking about human death. Even from a YEC point of view.

 

[Chief117]

Couple of things to note about Exodus 20:11.

In Gen 1:1, God created the heavens and the Earth.
Create implies to bring into being or cause to exist.
Made as in Exodus implies to construct or manufacture out of existing material.
Do you think it may be pointing to two different events or is it that God just uses words rather haphazardly?

The words for "create from nothing" and "make [from existing material]" are used together in Genesis. It is not as if, as you imply, that Genesis refers to ex nihilo creation, and Exodus refers to something else.

They refer to the same event.

There is also something about the mention of the "sea" in Exodus. Not the same as the "seas" mentioned in Gen 1:10. Will have to think about that a bit more.

No idea what you're talking about.

Light couldn't be the last thing created because God is Light as per scripture. God is Spirit. Physical comes from the spiritual. Therefore light existed before physical mass.

Light the last thing created? Where did you get that from?

Light was created on Day 1--and this was light upon the universe.

God was not created--He is light but this is clearly not what is meant by anyone. This is a strawman argument.

 

[Jadis40]

But that'd be talking about human death. Even from a YEC point of view.

Exactly - if there was no death before Adam's sin, what did sharks eat? What did crocodiles eat? What did vultures, who are scavengers by nature, eat? What did eagles, hawks etc. Those are birds of prey. To suggest that they were vegetarian doesn't make a bit of sense. What about tigers? They're predators by nature. To suggest that animals didn't die or weren't carnivores goes against common sense, at least in my mind. It's a stretch too that they were vegetarian before the flood, but suddenly had their entire make up re-wired after they left the ark.

The death mentioned is clearly spiritual death...seperation from God. The fact that neither Adam nor Eve dropped dead instantly after eating the fruit proves this, along with God wanting to prevent Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Life...that was mercy from the beginning. He didn't want humans to live eternally in a state seperated from Him.

Also, I am an old earth creationist, in case you're wondering. I also believe that Noah's flood was not a world-wide flood, but local.

Point to ponder, and take these one at a time:

1. Assume that the earth is only 10,000 years old at the most, and the continents were in their present position on the globe that they currently hold. (I personally don't...as I said, I believe in an old earth creation...keep in mind, you need time to allow for continental drift.)

2. Assume that Australia was in it's current position on the globe that it currently holds. (It would have to have been, if you truly believe that the earth is only 6000 years old or so.)

3. Since Australia is an island, how did kangaroos get to the ark?

4. After the flood, how did kangaroos get back to Australia?

5. Australia has animal species that aren't found anywhere else in the world...how did the mammals get back there AFTER the flood, if the flood was global?

 

[Breetai]

Exactly - if there was no death before Adam's sin, what did sharks eat? What did crocodiles eat? What did vultures, who are scavengers by nature, eat? What did eagles, hawks etc. Those are birds of prey. To suggest that they were vegetarian doesn't make a bit of sense. What about tigers? They're predators by nature. To suggest that animals didn't die or weren't carnivores goes against common sense, at least in my mind. It's a stretch too that they were vegetarian before the flood, but suddenly had their entire make up re-wired after they left the ark.

Genesis 1:30 says, "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food."

How do you know that these animals act the same as they do now? Their nature very well may have changed, and did according to the Bible, after sin entered into the world.

The death mentioned is clearly spiritual death...seperation from God.

Is it that clear?

The fact that neither Adam nor Eve dropped dead instantly after eating the fruit proves this, along with God wanting to prevent Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Life...that was mercy from the beginning.

It does?

Revelation 21:3-4 says, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Death was the 'old way', but never the original way. Death came through sin, and the original text does nothing to imply otherwise. As well, the Hebrew word used here does not restrict the meaning to one 24-hour day.

He didn't want humans to live eternally in a state seperated from Him.

I fail to see what this has to do with physical death. God doesn't want anyone to be seperated from Him, yet what happens when someone dies without the saving power of Christ? This statement is irrelevant.

Also, I am an old earth creationist, in case you're wondering. I also believe that Noah's flood was not a world-wide flood, but local.

That is not what we read in the Bible at all. How can you reject this, while accepting other amazing things, such as the walls of Jericho falling, the parting of the Red Sea, or the entire life, ministry, death, resurrection and ascention of Christ Jesus? Such a statement can only come from an illogical and inconsistant reading of the Bible.

Point to ponder, and take these one at a time:

1. Assume that the earth is only 10,000 years old at the most, and the continents were in their present position on the globe that they currently hold. (I personally don't...as I said, I believe in an old earth creation...keep in mind, you need time to allow for continental drift.)

Who believes this? The events around the flood would've been catastrophic. The entire world was changed from it, including the land masses. You need time for these changes, but not necessarily millions and billions of years. Who is anyone to say that God didn't do this with a short period of time? In fact, we read that God did indeed to all of this in a short period of time.

2. Assume that Australia was in it's current position on the globe that it currently holds. (It would have to have been, if you truly believe that the earth is only 6000 years old or so.)

If would not have to have been, if you truly beleive that nothing is beyond God's awesome power!

3. Since Australia is an island, how did kangaroos get to the ark?

This question is now irrelevant.

4. After the flood, how did kangaroos get back to Australia?

Who's to say that they were there in the first place? Anyway, there are many possibilities. Try a google search for fun, and see what theories you come up with! It's definitely possible.

For the record, there were no rabbits in Australia until 1788. How did they get to Australia?

5. Australia has animal species that aren't found anywhere else in the world...how did the mammals get back there AFTER the flood, if the flood was global?

See the above comment about rabbits.

Who's to say that these animals aren't just exinct everywhere else?

 

[LoG]

Revelation 21:3-4 says, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

Death was the 'old way', but never the original way. Death came through sin, and the original text does nothing to imply otherwise. As well, the Hebrew word used here does not restrict the meaning to one 24-hour day.

I fail to see what this has to do with physical death. God doesn't want anyone to be seperated from Him, yet what happens when someone dies without the saving power of Christ? This statement is irrelevant.

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
Isa 65:18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
Isa 65:19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
Isa 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.


I believe that Isaiah and John in Revelations are prophesying the same event because of the parallels. Isaiah however mentions death as being a part of the new creation which also parallels what the original creation was supposed to have looked like except for the Fall. Physical death, was and will be a part of that creation according to the scriptures.