Old Earth Creationism

[BNR32FAN]

I am pretty sure that what is to be believed from the start of the Bible is that all we find on earth that is already around, meaning the life, the seas and the sky we have, was put here in the creation of our world in six days, with the unformed world existing already, and we are not told of the time it had been here. But as God made life in the six days the life on earth is to be thought of as being here just from God and not explained by evolution. There would be evolution of varieties but not all life from the same ancestors. Death came just with sin at the fall of humanity and the start of the spreading of curse on this world.

”For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.“
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20‬:‭11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BPPLEE]

This would mean that death had entered the world before Adam was created and that God didn’t rest on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

I think there was death before the fall. What if an elephant stepped on a frog?

 

[GenemZ]

This would mean that death had entered the world before Adam was created and that God didn’t rest on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

Death entered this world.... Where man was created in God's Image.

Each world has its own purpose.

The prehistoric world did not have man in dominion.
Angels were given that position.... and some failed.

 

[Diamond72]

God made life in the six days

The Bible does not say "made". The Bible says "God said".

Isaiah 46:10 I declare the end from the beginning​

https://biblehub.com/isaiah/46-10.htm
Why would you replace one word with another?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think there was death before the fall. What if an elephant stepped on a frog?

The Bible says death came into the world as a result of Adam’s sin. This would suggest that elephants didn’t step on frogs before the fall, or if they did it wasn’t fatal for the frog otherwise death would’ve came into the world thru one elephant instead of one man.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Death entered this world.... Where man was created in God's Image.

Each world has its own purpose.

The prehistoric world did not have man in dominion.
Angels were given that position.... and some failed.

And God rested from all His work which He had created and made on the 7th day? Where did this previous world come from if not thru God’s work?

 

[BPPLEE]

The Bible says death came into the world as a result of Adam’s sin. This would suggest that elephants didn’t step on frogs before the fall, or if they did it wasn’t fatal for the frog otherwise death would’ve came into the world thru one elephant instead of one man.

I know. It’s hard to reconcile that with the fossil record though

 

[Job 33:6]

The Bible says death came into the world as a result of Adam’s sin. This would suggest that elephants didn’t step on frogs before the fall, or if they did it wasn’t fatal for the frog otherwise death would’ve came into the world thru one elephant instead of one man.

Only spiritual death. Physical death in the animal kingdom was present before the fall:

 

[GenemZ]

And God rested from all His work which He had created and made on the 7th day? Where did this previous world come from if not thru God’s work?

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished
the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh
day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating (bara) that he had done.: Genesis 2:1-3


It says specifically that God rested from His work of "bara" - Which means creating something out from nothing.
But God did not cease working...

For example, Adam's body was not God creating something out from nothing (bara).
But it was God working in another way. On the seventh day God only rested from His work of creating things out from nothing.
Besides, the prehistoric creation preceded His resting in the next created world.

So God has not stopped working. For the making of Adam's body from the elements of the earth was God working right after it says He rested from "creating out from nothing."

In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working."​

John 5:17 ​

If we fail to find someone to teach the specific meaning of the original languages when its needed?
We will find ourselves left at the mercy of non-specific translations into English.

In doing so, we will find ourselves in the dark by repeating certain commonly held errors of traditional held thinking.

I had to learn this at one point. It was an eye opener.

grace and peace .................

 

[Buzzard3]

There would be evolution of varieties but not all life from the same ancestors.

If you ask me, the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is a bedtime story invented by atheists. For starters, the fossil record contradicts that theory (Exhibit A: the Cambrian explosion).

That atheist bedtime story says human and potatoes, for example, evolved from the same ancestral organism. That begs the question: What sort of mind can believe such an absurdity and keep a straight face?

 

[Buzzard3]

OEC is Genesis chapter one. Schroeder is the ONLY person that gets the Bible (Chapter one) to line up with science.

Good for him, but who says Genesis 1 has to "line up with science"?

Does the book of Revelation have to "line up with science" too?

What about the miracles described in the Bible? Do they have to "line up with science"?

 

[Buzzard3]

YEC begins with Chapter two with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago. Bishop Ussher wrote a book on this around 500 years ago.

I tend to agree with that ... according to the Jewish calender, Adam was created 5783 years ago.

As for what happened before Adam, it's irrelevant to the focus of the Bible, which is the relationship between God and man. So pre-Adam biblical "history" isn't meant to be read as factual - the literal, factual history described in the Bible begins with Adam.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished
the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh
day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating (bara) that he had done.: Genesis 2:1-3


It says specifically that God rested from His work of "bara" - Which means creating something out from nothing.
But God did not cease working...

For example, Adam's body was not God creating something out from nothing (bara).
But it was God working in another way. On the seventh day God only rested from His work of creating things out from nothing.
Besides, the prehistoric creation preceded His resting in the next created world.

So God has not stopped working. For the making of Adam's body from the elements of the earth was God working right after it says He rested from "creating out from nothing."

In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working."​

John 5:17 ​

If we fail to find someone to teach the specific meaning of the original languages when its needed?
We will find ourselves left at the mercy of non-specific translations into English.

In doing so, we will find ourselves in the dark by repeating certain commonly held errors of traditional held thinking.

I had to learn this at one point. It was an eye opener.

grace and peace .................

Genesis 2:3 says He created from all His work which He had created (bara) and made (asah).

Genesis 2:3 Lexicon: Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

 

[Job 33:6]

Genesis 2:3 says He created from all His work which He had created (bara) and made (asah).

Genesis 2:3 Lexicon: Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

He's resting from all His work which he had created and made, in the 7 days of work.

The heavens and earth were present prior to the beginning of the spoken Word creation, which began in Genesis 1:3.

The earth was already a complete chaos, and then, subsequently, God's 7-day creation began when He said "Let there be light".

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:1‭-‬3‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

 

[GenemZ]

Genesis 2:3 says He created from all His work which He had created (bara) and made (asah).

Genesis 2:3 Lexicon: Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

If you want an even more accurate translation, it could read more like this....


Elohiym/Godhead blessed/prospered the seventh day, and 'sanctified it'/"set it apart as a commiseration of God's grace". Because in it, He had rested from all His work which Elohiym/Godhead created/bara something from nothing) (man, animals, plant life) and restored/made/asah... the earth was restored, not created out of nothing at this time.

 

[FaithT]

I read somewhere that death before The fall meant humans only and not animals.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Only spiritual death. Physical death in the animal kingdom was present before the fall:

So this guy starts out asking, what did scorpions look like before the fall?



We don’t know what they looked like.



Then he says why is their whole body decked out in plated armor like a mid evil knight?



He just implied that we don’t know what they looked like before the fall then he preceded to assume what they looked like before the fall.



Then he asked, why did they need those massive pincers?



That’s like asking, why did Adam & Eve have arms?



Then he asked, why did their tail have a curved syringe capable of injecting neurotoxins?



This brings us back to question 1 where he asks, what did they look like before the fall.



Again we don’t know what they looked like before the fall.



The he says if these features were added after the fall that sounds suspiciously like evolution.



It’s completely irrelevant what it sounds like, we can’t base our doctrines on what something sounds like. We base our doctrines on what the Bible actually tells us. That’s all we can know that was true during that time.



Then he says it seems weird if God created animals with these kinds of features based on His prediction of the fall of man.



Weird is subjective, it’s an opinion not a fact. The fact is we don’t know what they looked like before the fall like he specifically said in his first statement about scorpions. So we can speculate on what they looked like but we can’t know for certain. Does it seem weird when we dress ourselves and our children based on weather predictions?



Next he moves on to the mortality of Adam & Eve saying that because God said that if they ate from the tree of life they might live forever. So he’s assuming that because God said this, it means that they were mortal before the fall, but that’s not necessarily the case. They very well could’ve been immortal before the fall, and now that they had fallen and had lost that immortality they were capable of regaining it by eating from the tree of life. So it makes sense that God would take measures to not allow that to happen.



Next he brings up the issue of if man was created immortal then it would’ve created a problem of overpopulation eventually destroying the ecosystem. This idea fails to take into consideration God’s omniscience and omnipresence. Obviously God knew that this wasn’t going to pose a problem before He even began His creation. So man very well could’ve been immortal because God knew that he would sin and overpopulation wasn’t going to be a problem. Furthermore the Bible never says that Adam & Eve were immortal before the fall. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. We don’t know because it’s not stated in the scriptures. So we can speculate but you can’t actually formulate a doctrine on speculation.



Next he quotes Genesis 1:28 where God tells Adam to subdue the earth and rule over the fish, birds, and everything that lives and says this is evidence that God allowed man to kill and eat meat before the fall.



But the Hebrew words translated to subdue and rule do not mandate killing and or eating. They can certainly be used in that context but that particular context is not explicitly mandated in the usage of these words. As this guy said himself these words are also used in reference to slaves in the Bible, but they weren’t used in reference to killing or eating them. One doesn’t subdue and rule a slave by killing and or eating him now does he? In order for the person to actually become a slave he must, at the very least, survive being subdued.



So his takeaway on this particular verse is that man was commanded to conquer and take rulership over the animals similar to the way Israel was commanded to conquer Canaan.



The problem here is that the same Hebrew word translated to subdue in Genesis 1:28 is also used in Jeremiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 34:16 neither of which mentions anything about killings which would’ve been illegal according to Mosaic Law.



”But afterward they turned around and took back the male servants and the female servants whom they had set free, and brought them into subjection for male servants and for female servants.“

‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭34‬:‭11‬ ‭NASB



”Yet you turned and profaned My name, and each man took back his male servant and each man his female servant whom you had set free according to their desire, and you brought them into subjection to be your male servants and female servants.” ’“

‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭34‬:‭16‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬



So according to this all of the slaves were brought back into subjection without any of them being killed which means that Genesis 1:28 does not imply that Adam was commanded to conquer and rule the animals similarly to the way the Israelites were commanded to conquer Canaan. In fact God specifically commanded the Israelites to attack and kill all the Canaanites.



”Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you,“

‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭20‬:‭16‬-‭17‬ ‭NASB



So obviously God was not commanding Adam to slaughter all the animals in the same manner that He commanded the Israelites to slaughter all the Canaanites and the use of the Hebrew word kâbash does not mandate killing.



Then he mentions that God made clothes for Adam & Eve out of animal skins after the fall so why were the able to kill animals to use the carcasses to make clothes but not allowed to eat the meat.



Nobody knows why. Only God knows why He made that commandment. Maybe there weren’t a lot of animals created yet and using a few for clothes wasn’t going to have such a huge impact on the ecosystem as using them for food. You can kill four deer and make clothes for two people that will last a few years whereas killing them for food would only last a couple days before it is spoiled. I’m not saying this is why God didn’t allow them to eat meat, it’s just a possible explanation. Ultimately nobody knows why God gave that commandment. Why did God allow Noah and his family to eat anything that moves all the way up until Mt Sinai then prohibited man from eating certain animals? Again nobody knows.



Next He goes on the quote Isaiah 11:1-9 because some people claim that this passage describes what it was like before the fall.



For me that’s not what the passage is saying and it’s not what the passage is about so I wouldn’t speculate that this passage has anything to do with life before the fall. I will however point out that this is not claimed by all YEC advocates as I do believe in YEC but I don’t claim that this passage has anything to do with life before the fall.



One thing I would point out is that we don’t know how long Adam lived in the garden before the fall. We also don’t know what would’ve happened if Adam hadn’t sinned. The Bible doesn’t tell us that death wouldn’t have came into the world if Adam hadn’t sinned. The Bible only tells us what actually took place it doesn’t provide any hypothetical scenarios on this topic. Maybe death would’ve still entered the world thru another means, we have no way of knowing.



Next he quotes Genesis 4:4 where Able offered a sacrifice to God and says “what did Able just leave the meat out to rot in a field”?



Yeah he probably did since God was very pleased with his offering. Are we going to assume that God was pleased with Able’s offering after he defied His commandment to eat plants?



Then he quotes Genesis 9:1-5 where God told Noah he could eat anything that moves and says “considering the evidence we see that meat was previously being consumed at God’s pleasure, why does Genesis 9:1-5 go out of its way to declare man’s right to eat meat after the flood”?



There is no evidence that meat was previously being consumed at God’s pleasure. That was just this guy’s assumption that Able didn’t leave the meat out in a field to rot. The Bible doesn’t say that Able ate the meat from his sacrifice, this guy only assumes that he did.



So what he’s done here is he set up a strawman argument then he proceeds to knock it down as if he’s achieved some sort of victory.



I’m just gonna stop here at 11 minutes into the video because I feel like I’ve pointed out enough errors in this commentary. This guy is quoting commentaries to formulate his commentary. That’s just hearsay of hearsay which is why I don’t do commentaries. You’ll never learn a thing about what the Bible actually teaches by allowing other people to tell you what it teaches. That’s like throwing a 30,000 sided die and crossing your fingers hoping it lands on the correct interpretation.

 

[Job 33:6]

So this guy starts out asking, what did scorpions look like before the fall?



We don’t know what they looked like.



Then he says why is their whole body decked out in plated armor like a mid evil knight?



He just implied that we don’t know what they looked like before the fall then he preceded to assume what they looked like before the fall.



Then he asked, why did they need those massive pincers?



That’s like asking, why did Adam & Eve have arms?



Then he asked, why did their tail have a curved syringe capable of injecting neurotoxins?



This brings us back to question 1 where he asks, what did they look like before the fall.



Again we don’t know what they looked like before the fall.



The he says if these features were added after the fall that sounds suspiciously like evolution.



It’s completely irrelevant what it sounds like, we can’t base our doctrines on what something sounds like. We base our doctrines on what the Bible actually tells us. That’s all we can know that was true during that time.



Then he says it seems weird if God created animals with these kinds of features based on His prediction of the fall of man.



Weird is subjective, it’s an opinion not a fact. The fact is we don’t know what they looked like before the fall like he specifically said in his first statement about scorpions. So we can speculate on what they looked like but we can’t know for certain. Does it seem weird when we dress ourselves and our children based on weather predictions?



Next he moves on to the mortality of Adam & Eve saying that because God said that if they ate from the tree of life they might live forever. So he’s assuming that because God said this, it means that they were mortal before the fall, but that’s not necessarily the case. They very well could’ve been immortal before the fall, and now that they had fallen and had lost that immortality they were capable of regaining it by eating from the tree of life. So it makes sense that God would take measures to not allow that to happen.



Next he brings up the issue of if man was created immortal then it would’ve created a problem of overpopulation eventually destroying the ecosystem. This idea fails to take into consideration God’s omniscience and omnipresence. Obviously God knew that this wasn’t going to pose a problem before He even began His creation. So man very well could’ve been immortal because God knew that he would sin and overpopulation wasn’t going to be a problem. Furthermore the Bible never says that Adam & Eve were immortal before the fall. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. We don’t know because it’s not stated in the scriptures. So we can speculate but you can’t actually formulate a doctrine on speculation.



Next he quotes Genesis 1:28 where God tells Adam to subdue the earth and rule over the fish, birds, and everything that lives and says this is evidence that God allowed man to kill and eat meat before the fall.



But the Hebrew words translated to subdue and rule do not mandate killing and or eating. They can certainly be used in that context but that particular context is not explicitly mandated in the usage of these words. As this guy said himself these words are also used in reference to slaves in the Bible, but they weren’t used in reference to killing or eating them. One doesn’t subdue and rule a slave by killing and or eating him now does he? In order for the person to actually become a slave he must, at the very least, survive being subdued.



So his takeaway on this particular verse is that man was commanded to conquer and take rulership over the animals similar to the way Israel was commanded to conquer Canaan.



The problem here is that the same Hebrew word translated to subdue in Genesis 1:28 is also used in Jeremiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 34:16 neither of which mentions anything about killings which would’ve been illegal according to Mosaic Law.



”But afterward they turned around and took back the male servants and the female servants whom they had set free, and brought them into subjection for male servants and for female servants.“

‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭34‬:‭11‬ ‭NASB



”Yet you turned and profaned My name, and each man took back his male servant and each man his female servant whom you had set free according to their desire, and you brought them into subjection to be your male servants and female servants.” ’“

‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭34‬:‭16‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬



So according to this all of the slaves were brought back into subjection without any of them being killed which means that Genesis 1:28 does not imply that Adam was commanded to conquer and rule the animals similarly to the way the Israelites were commanded to conquer Canaan. In fact God specifically commanded the Israelites to attack and kill all the Canaanites.



”Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you,“

‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭20‬:‭16‬-‭17‬ ‭NASB



So obviously God was not commanding Adam to slaughter all the animals in the same manner that He commanded the Israelites to slaughter all the Canaanites and the use of the Hebrew word kâbash does not mandate killing.



Then he mentions that God made clothes for Adam & Eve out of animal skins after the fall so why were the able to kill animals to use the carcasses to make clothes but not allowed to eat the meat.



Nobody knows why. Only God knows why He made that commandment. Maybe there weren’t a lot of animals created yet and using a few for clothes wasn’t going to have such a huge impact on the ecosystem as using them for food. You can kill four deer and make clothes for two people that will last a few years whereas killing them for food would only last a couple days before it is spoiled. I’m not saying this is why God didn’t allow them to eat meat, it’s just a possible explanation. Ultimately nobody knows why God gave that commandment. Why did God allow Noah and his family to eat anything that moves all the way up until Mt Sinai then prohibited man from eating certain animals? Again nobody knows.



Next He goes on the quote Isaiah 11:1-9 because some people claim that this passage describes what it was like before the fall.



For me that’s not what the passage is saying and it’s not what the passage is about so I wouldn’t speculate that this passage has anything to do with life before the fall. I will however point out that this is not claimed by all YEC advocates as I do believe in YEC but I don’t claim that this passage has anything to do with life before the fall.



One thing I would point out is that we don’t know how long Adam lived in the garden before the fall. We also don’t know what would’ve happened if Adam hadn’t sinned. The Bible doesn’t tell us that death wouldn’t have came into the world if Adam hadn’t sinned. The Bible only tells us what actually took place it doesn’t provide any hypothetical scenarios on this topic. Maybe death would’ve still entered the world thru another means, we have no way of knowing.



Next he quotes Genesis 4:4 where Able offered a sacrifice to God and says “what did Able just leave the meat out to rot in a field”?



Yeah he probably did since God was very pleased with his offering. Are we going to assume that God was pleased with Able’s offering after he defied His commandment to eat plants?



Then he quotes Genesis 9:1-5 where God told Noah he could eat anything that moves and says “considering the evidence we see that meat was previously being consumed at God’s pleasure, why does Genesis 9:1-5 go out of its way to declare man’s right to eat meat after the flood”?



There is no evidence that meat was previously being consumed at God’s pleasure. That was just this guy’s assumption that Able didn’t leave the meat out in a field to rot. The Bible doesn’t say that Able ate the meat from his sacrifice, this guy only assumes that he did.



So what he’s done here is he set up a strawman argument then he proceeds to knock it down as if he’s achieved some sort of victory.



I’m just gonna stop here at 11 minutes into the video because I feel like I’ve pointed out enough errors in this commentary. This guy is quoting commentaries to formulate his commentary. That’s just hearsay of hearsay which is why I don’t do commentaries. You’ll never learn a thing about what the Bible actually teaches by allowing other people to tell you what it teaches. That’s like throwing a 30,000 sided die and crossing your fingers hoping it lands on the correct interpretation.

Thank you for the fun response.

I see a lot of gymnastics here.

The tree of life wasn't the tree of life before the fall?

Overpopulation wouldnt have been an issue because?

It would seem mysteriously like evolution to have a scorpion without its deadly structures before the fall, to rapidly develop them.

The author of the video isn't saying that subdue implies eating slaves. Only that the world implies complete subjugation, which in the context of wild fish and birds, of course involves use for food and clothing. They weren't making aquariums back then.

You stopped short of responding to the Deuteronomy passages.

Then interestingly enough, you say that you don't know whether or not Adam and Eve were immortal before the fall. Well if that's the case, then presumably you also don't know whether or not there was death in the animal kingdom before the fall either. Because if animals were mortal, that of course means that they would have died. Because that's what mortality is.

 

[Job 33:6]

So this guy starts out asking, what did scorpions look like before the fall?



We don’t know what they looked like.



Then he says why is their whole body decked out in plated armor like a mid evil knight?



He just implied that we don’t know what they looked like before the fall then he preceded to assume what they looked like before the fall.



Then he asked, why did they need those massive pincers?



That’s like asking, why did Adam & Eve have arms?



Then he asked, why did their tail have a curved syringe capable of injecting neurotoxins?



This brings us back to question 1 where he asks, what did they look like before the fall.



Again we don’t know what they looked like before the fall.



The he says if these features were added after the fall that sounds suspiciously like evolution.



It’s completely irrelevant what it sounds like, we can’t base our doctrines on what something sounds like. We base our doctrines on what the Bible actually tells us. That’s all we can know that was true during that time.



Then he says it seems weird if God created animals with these kinds of features based on His prediction of the fall of man.



Weird is subjective, it’s an opinion not a fact. The fact is we don’t know what they looked like before the fall like he specifically said in his first statement about scorpions. So we can speculate on what they looked like but we can’t know for certain. Does it seem weird when we dress ourselves and our children based on weather predictions?



Next he moves on to the mortality of Adam & Eve saying that because God said that if they ate from the tree of life they might live forever. So he’s assuming that because God said this, it means that they were mortal before the fall, but that’s not necessarily the case. They very well could’ve been immortal before the fall, and now that they had fallen and had lost that immortality they were capable of regaining it by eating from the tree of life. So it makes sense that God would take measures to not allow that to happen.



Next he brings up the issue of if man was created immortal then it would’ve created a problem of overpopulation eventually destroying the ecosystem. This idea fails to take into consideration God’s omniscience and omnipresence. Obviously God knew that this wasn’t going to pose a problem before He even began His creation. So man very well could’ve been immortal because God knew that he would sin and overpopulation wasn’t going to be a problem. Furthermore the Bible never says that Adam & Eve were immortal before the fall. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. We don’t know because it’s not stated in the scriptures. So we can speculate but you can’t actually formulate a doctrine on speculation.



Next he quotes Genesis 1:28 where God tells Adam to subdue the earth and rule over the fish, birds, and everything that lives and says this is evidence that God allowed man to kill and eat meat before the fall.



But the Hebrew words translated to subdue and rule do not mandate killing and or eating. They can certainly be used in that context but that particular context is not explicitly mandated in the usage of these words. As this guy said himself these words are also used in reference to slaves in the Bible, but they weren’t used in reference to killing or eating them. One doesn’t subdue and rule a slave by killing and or eating him now does he? In order for the person to actually become a slave he must, at the very least, survive being subdued.



So his takeaway on this particular verse is that man was commanded to conquer and take rulership over the animals similar to the way Israel was commanded to conquer Canaan.



The problem here is that the same Hebrew word translated to subdue in Genesis 1:28 is also used in Jeremiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 34:16 neither of which mentions anything about killings which would’ve been illegal according to Mosaic Law.



”But afterward they turned around and took back the male servants and the female servants whom they had set free, and brought them into subjection for male servants and for female servants.“

‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭34‬:‭11‬ ‭NASB



”Yet you turned and profaned My name, and each man took back his male servant and each man his female servant whom you had set free according to their desire, and you brought them into subjection to be your male servants and female servants.” ’“

‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭34‬:‭16‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬



So according to this all of the slaves were brought back into subjection without any of them being killed which means that Genesis 1:28 does not imply that Adam was commanded to conquer and rule the animals similarly to the way the Israelites were commanded to conquer Canaan. In fact God specifically commanded the Israelites to attack and kill all the Canaanites.



”Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you,“

‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭20‬:‭16‬-‭17‬ ‭NASB



So obviously God was not commanding Adam to slaughter all the animals in the same manner that He commanded the Israelites to slaughter all the Canaanites and the use of the Hebrew word kâbash does not mandate killing.



Then he mentions that God made clothes for Adam & Eve out of animal skins after the fall so why were the able to kill animals to use the carcasses to make clothes but not allowed to eat the meat.



Nobody knows why. Only God knows why He made that commandment. Maybe there weren’t a lot of animals created yet and using a few for clothes wasn’t going to have such a huge impact on the ecosystem as using them for food. You can kill four deer and make clothes for two people that will last a few years whereas killing them for food would only last a couple days before it is spoiled. I’m not saying this is why God didn’t allow them to eat meat, it’s just a possible explanation. Ultimately nobody knows why God gave that commandment. Why did God allow Noah and his family to eat anything that moves all the way up until Mt Sinai then prohibited man from eating certain animals? Again nobody knows.



Next He goes on the quote Isaiah 11:1-9 because some people claim that this passage describes what it was like before the fall.



For me that’s not what the passage is saying and it’s not what the passage is about so I wouldn’t speculate that this passage has anything to do with life before the fall. I will however point out that this is not claimed by all YEC advocates as I do believe in YEC but I don’t claim that this passage has anything to do with life before the fall.



One thing I would point out is that we don’t know how long Adam lived in the garden before the fall. We also don’t know what would’ve happened if Adam hadn’t sinned. The Bible doesn’t tell us that death wouldn’t have came into the world if Adam hadn’t sinned. The Bible only tells us what actually took place it doesn’t provide any hypothetical scenarios on this topic. Maybe death would’ve still entered the world thru another means, we have no way of knowing.



Next he quotes Genesis 4:4 where Able offered a sacrifice to God and says “what did Able just leave the meat out to rot in a field”?



Yeah he probably did since God was very pleased with his offering. Are we going to assume that God was pleased with Able’s offering after he defied His commandment to eat plants?



Then he quotes Genesis 9:1-5 where God told Noah he could eat anything that moves and says “considering the evidence we see that meat was previously being consumed at God’s pleasure, why does Genesis 9:1-5 go out of its way to declare man’s right to eat meat after the flood”?



There is no evidence that meat was previously being consumed at God’s pleasure. That was just this guy’s assumption that Able didn’t leave the meat out in a field to rot. The Bible doesn’t say that Able ate the meat from his sacrifice, this guy only assumes that he did.



So what he’s done here is he set up a strawman argument then he proceeds to knock it down as if he’s achieved some sort of victory.



I’m just gonna stop here at 11 minutes into the video because I feel like I’ve pointed out enough errors in this commentary. This guy is quoting commentaries to formulate his commentary. That’s just hearsay of hearsay which is why I don’t do commentaries. You’ll never learn a thing about what the Bible actually teaches by allowing other people to tell you what it teaches. That’s like throwing a 30,000 sided die and crossing your fingers hoping it lands on the correct interpretation.

"Does it seem weird when we dress ourselves and our children based on weather predictions?"

It would seem quite theologically weird if God made lions with sharp teeth and claws in anticipation that when the fall occurs, they might use them to hunt. So that before the fall they had all these deadly structures, but had no efficient use for them.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The tree of life wasn't the tree of life before the fall?

Yes it was, what’s your point?

Overpopulation wouldnt have been an issue because?

Because of God’s foreknowledge. God knew that Adam was going to sin and death was going to enter the world thus putting an end to all immorality, if there was such a thing.

It would seem mysteriously like evolution to have a scorpion without its deadly structures before the fall, to rapidly develop them.

Why is this even relevant? Just because something appears to be true doesn’t constitute the makings for a doctrine. How well does evolution line up with the creation of Adam? Was Adam created as or from a monkey or any other life forms according to the scriptures?

The author of the video isn't saying that subdue implies eating slaves. Only that the world implies complete subjugation, which in the context of wild fish and birds, of course involves use for food and clothing. They weren't making aquariums back then.

God being omniscient and omnipresent obviously knew the fall was going to happen and man would eventually conquer the earth and all living things upon it.

You stopped short of responding to the Deuteronomy passages.

I didn’t see any relevance to them since they were stating the same thing but I’ll go thru them when I have a chance.

Then interestingly enough, you say that you don't know whether or not Adam and Eve were immortal before the fall. Well if that's the case, then presumably you also don't know whether or not there was death in the animal kingdom before the fall either. Because if animals were mortal, that of course means that they would have died. Because that's what mortality is.

No because the scriptures specifically tell us that death did not enter into the world until Adam sinned. What you and your commentator is saying is that it did enter the world before Adam sinned.