Old Earth Creationism

[BNR32FAN]

"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.

Again I was answering a hypothetical question. We don’t know what scorpions looked like before the fall like your commentator implied by his first question about scorpions. The same goes for lions we don’t know what kind of teeth they had either. The only thing we do know, is that death had not entered the world before Adam sinned.

 

[Job 33:6]

Again I was answering a hypothetical question. We don’t know what scorpions looked like before the fall like your commentator implied by his first question about scorpions. The same goes for lions we don’t know what kind of teeth they had either. The only thing we do know, is that death had not entered the world before Adam sinned.

He didn't imply that scorpions had a toxic syringe injecting tail before the fall.

He's just saying, if it did, that would be theologically strange. If it didn't, then it would sound suspiciously like evolution.

Which is a fair analysis.

The text does not state that there was no death in the animal kingdom before the fall.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes it was, what’s your point?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Your position is contradictory. You say that you don't know if life was mortal or immortal, yet you simultaneously suggest that there was no death, implying that life was immortal.

Then you suggested that God's original creation was intentionally designed in anticipation of the fall. Which of course would not be "good" if the solution for an impending overpopulation issue was the fall.

How can creation be "good" if it's long term solution mandates the fall? It would be like saying, it's ok to create Adam in the middle of an ocean and underwater, even though he can't breathe water and will drown, but it's ok, because he will die, therefore it's "good" for Adam to be in the ocean.

Your position just doesn't make any sense.

You seem to think that perhaps people would skin animals alive for clothing, but that subsequently eating those animals wasn't happening. Which is just absurd.

Then regarding the tree of life, you said:

'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"

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3:22‬
[22] Then the Lord God said, “See, the humans have become like one of us, knowing good and evil, and now they might reach out their hands and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever”—

The tree of life, as stated in the Bible, grants life "forever".

Of course such a trees existence would be meaningless in a world where everything already lived forever and was immortal.

But as you've noted, you don't know if animals were mortal or not, which leads us back to the contradiction above of believing that animals were mortal, but simultaneously believing that none could die.

 

[BNR32FAN]

He didn't imply that scorpions had a toxic syringe injecting tail before the fall.

He's just saying, if it did, that would be theologically strange. If it didn't, then it would sound suspiciously like evolution.

Which is a fair analysis.

The text does not state that there was no death in the animal kingdom before the fall.

The word world encompasses all life.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Your position is contradictory. You say that you don't know if life was mortal or immortal, yet you simultaneously suggest that there was no death, implying that life was immortal.

We don’t know how long Adam lived in the garden before he sinned. We only know that it was less than 130 years. Just because nothing had died before the fall doesn’t mean that everything was immortal, it just means nothing died.

 

[Job 33:6]

We don’t know how long Adam lived in the garden before he sinned. We only know that it was less than 130 years. Just because nothing had died before the fall doesn’t mean that everything was immortal, it just means nothing died.

I would call this, playing mental gymnastics with scripture. Maybe Adam was only in the garden for 10 minutes before sinning, therefore nothing had the chance to die!

No. Ancient Isrealites were debating how quickly Adam had to sin, in order for the fall to occur before an elephant accidentally stepped on an ant lol.

Your contextual framework is too modern. You're thinking too much like an enlightened 21st century scientifically and philosophically educated American or European

 

[Job 33:6]

The word world encompasses all life.

The world "world" isn't even in the Bible. That word doesn't even exist in the Bible, not does any Hebrew word in the Bible translate into such a word.

The ancient isrealite authors did not know that earth was a sphere as we do today. And that's why the Bible describes earth as a circle or a disk in various passages, such as Isaiah 40:22, or even the circumference described in Job 26:10 or proverbs 8:27.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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"

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3:22‬
[22] Then the Lord God said, “See, the humans have become like one of us, knowing good and evil, and now they might reach out their hands and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever”—

The tree of life, as stated in the Bible, grants life "forever".

Of course such a trees existence would be meaningless in a world where everything already lived forever and was immortal.

Not if they had to continue eating from the tree in order to continue living.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The world "world" isn't even in the Bible. That word doesn't even exist in the Bible, not does any Hebrew word in the Bible translate into such a word.

The ancient isrealite authors did not know that earth was a sphere as we do today. And that's why the Bible describes earth as a circle or a disk in various passages, such as Isaiah 40:22, or even the circumference described in Job 26:10 or proverbs 8:27.

Perhaps you’re not familiar with that particular verse I quoted but it wasn’t from the Old Testament it was from the New Testament which was written in Greek, not Hebrew. Furthermore the Hebrew word têbêl can be translated to world and is translated to world in reference to the inhabitants of the world.

 

[Job 33:6]

Not if they had to continue eating from the tree in order to continue living.

The bible doesnt describe the entirety of the animal kingdom, traveling to eden, fish jumping out of the water and traversing the garden, or birds swooping down, to eat of this tree. Whales trying to swim upstream through the rivers and flinging themselves up on land...

These are just mental gymnastics to get out of the ancient context of the narrative.

 

[Job 33:6]

Perhaps you’re not familiar with that particular verse I quoted but it wasn’t from the Old Testament it was from the New Testament which was written in Greek, not Hebrew. Furthermore the Hebrew word têbêl can be translated to world and is translated to world in reference to the inhabitants of the world.

The texts blatantly describe a flat circular earth. Again, you can do whatever mental gymnastics you want, but the text is what it is, and the context is what it is.

When the circumference is described as being drawn with a compass upon the face of the waters, this is blatantly flat. Its on the surface of the waters, thats 2 dimensional, with a tool, that is a compass, which is a tool that draws 2-dimensional circles. Used to describe a horizon, the boundary between light and dark, which of course is flat and 2-dimensional. Among countless other passages that blatantly describe earth as though it were flat with a dome over it, with sheol below.

The ancient isrealite authors did not know that earth was a sphere as we do today. And that's why the Bible describes earth as a circle or a disk in various passages, such as Isaiah 40:22, or even the circumference described in Job 26:10 or proverbs 8:27.

And its just silly to propose otherwise.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The bible does describe the entirity of the animal kingdom, traveling to eden, fish jumping out of the water and traversing the garden, or birds swooping down, to eat of this tree. Whales trying to swim upstream through the rivers and flinging themselves up on land...

These are just mental gymnastics to get out of the ancient context of the narrative.

No I’m just providing possible explanations on a subject that we don’t know to be true or false. As I’ve stated several times in this discussion, the Bible does not say whether man or animals were immoral or not before the fall. Why would I try to twist the context to support the idea that they were immoral if i specifically said that we don’t know if they were immoral or not? God’s statement in Genesis 3:22 was made after Adam’s fall, you’re trying to make deductions that aren’t backed by scripture. In your previous statement you said that it would be pointless for God to place the tree of life in the garden if everything was already immortal, but it would be equally pointless to put the tree of knowledge in the garden if God didn’t intend for man to eat from it. We don’t know why God put either of those trees in the garden, we only know for certain that He did. The why is irrelevant. I don’t understand why you’re trying so hard to imply that my position is that everything was immoral, I never said that. The only thing I’ve said on that subject is that we don’t know and we have no way of knowing.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The texts blatantly describe a flat circular earth. Again, you can do whatever mental gymnastics you want, but the text is what it is, and the context is what it is.

When the circumference is described as being drawn with a compass upon the face of the waters, this is blatantly flat. Its on the surface of the waters, thats 2 dimensional, with a tool, that is a compass, which is a tool that draws 2-dimensional circles. Used to describe a horizon, the boundary between light and dark, which of course is flat and 2-dimensional. Among countless other passages that blatantly describe earth as though it were flat with a dome over it, with sheol below.

The ancient isrealite authors did not know that earth was a sphere as we do today. And that's why the Bible describes earth as a circle or a disk in various passages, such as Isaiah 40:22, or even the circumference described in Job 26:10 or proverbs 8:27.

And its just silly to propose otherwise.View attachment 340379

I’m not interested in engaging in a flat earth discussion because it’s a completely ridiculous argument and it’s not the topic of the thread.

 

[Job 33:6]

I’m not interested in engaging in a flat earth discussion because it’s a completely ridiculous argument and it’s not the topic of the thread.

It's not ridiculous to say that people who lived 3,000 years ago were not aware that earth was a sphere. It's just a historical reality. And lots of early church fathers attested to this, and ancient near east artifacts additionally verified it.

If history isn't your strong suit, then you won't be able to understand the history of the Bible.

And it very much is directly significant to old earth creationism, to acknowledge that the Bible is not a science textbook. The Bible was not written by 21st century NASA astronomers. In case anyone was confused about this.

 

[Job 33:6]

No I’m just providing possible explanations on a subject that we don’t know to be true or false. As I’ve stated several times in this discussion, the Bible does not say whether man or animals were immoral or not before the fall. Why would I try to twist the context to support the idea that they were immoral if i specifically said that we don’t know if they were immoral or not? God’s statement in Genesis 3:22 was made after Adam’s fall, you’re trying to make deductions that aren’t backed by scripture. In your previous statement you said that it would be pointless for God to place the tree of life in the garden if everything was already immortal, but it would be equally pointless to put the tree of knowledge in the garden if God didn’t intend for man to eat from it. We don’t know why God put either of those trees in the garden, we only know for certain that He did. The why is irrelevant. I don’t understand why you’re trying so hard to imply that my position is that everything was immoral, I never said that. The only thing I’ve said on that subject is that we don’t know and we have no way of knowing.

Mental gymnastics is not a valid hermeneutic. You have to have a grounding in context to understand the Bible. Otherwise you're just making stuff up off the top of your head.

The Bible isn't some buffet where you can just read whatever context you want into it. You can't just imagine whatever you want and just say "well that's a valid interpretation".

No. You have to reference and reflect on the context. That is, that which was the understanding of the original authors and what they intended to convey.

And in case you didn't know, the authors of the Bible, though inspired, they still lived some 3,000 years ago. And there are things that they didn't know. Such as, the shape of the earth.

And there's nothing in the Bible, no verses in the Bible at all, nor any contextual support, nor any extrabiblical texts, or anything at all, that suggests that the animals across the planet, including fish, whales, or even sharks, that lived in the oceans, were eating of the tree of life to protect them from dying.

You've just imagined that, and inserted your made-up mental gymnastics into the Bible. And you're acting as if it's a valid alternative.

 

[Diamond72]

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.

What was God wanting to accomplish when He askes all of these impossible questions, like: “Where were you when I Iaid the foundations of the earth?” (38:4). “Have you ever in your days commanded the morning light?” (38:12).

 

[Diamond72]

Because of God’s foreknowledge.

Gods can also choose NOT to know. As He tells us He will remember our sins no more.

 

[Buzzard3]

What was God wanting to accomplish when He askes all of these impossible questions, like: “Where were you when I Iaid the foundations of the earth?” (38:4). “Have you ever in your days commanded the morning light?” (38:12).

God was reminding Job that God created the universe and everything in it, and that man, compared to God, is puny and clueless. It certainly doesn't mean Genesis 1 is a literal description of history.

What's your point?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Gods can also choose NOT to know. As He tells us He will remember our sins no more.

Yeah I don’t think that’s the actual meaning of that verse. I doubt it means that He won’t remember our sins, it likely means He won’t look back on them.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Mental gymnastics is not a valid hermeneutic. You have to have a grounding in context to understand the Bible. Otherwise you're just making stuff up off the top of your head.

The Bible isn't some buffet where you can just read whatever context you want into it. You can't just imagine whatever you want and just say "well that's a valid interpretation".

No. You have to reference and reflect on the context. That is, that which was the understanding of the original authors and what they intended to convey.

And in case you didn't know, the authors of the Bible, though inspired, they still lived some 3,000 years ago. And there are things that they didn't know. Such as, the shape of the earth.

And there's nothing in the Bible, no verses in the Bible at all, nor any contextual support, nor any extrabiblical texts, or anything at all, that suggests that the animals across the planet, including fish, whales, or even sharks, that lived in the oceans, were eating of the tree of life to protect them from dying.

You've just imagined that, and inserted your made-up mental gymnastics into the Bible. And you're acting as if it's a valid alternative.

Your making a lot of false accusations here because I never said they had to eat from the tree of life to continue to live I gave a hypothetical answer that supports the notion that Adam could’ve needed to eat from the tree of life to keep from dying. What your commentators are telling you is not biblical. They’re teaching that death came into the world before the fall which is contradictory to Romans 5. Your theology or rather someone else’s theology that you’ve bought into is making statements that are not only unsupported by the scriptures but is also contradictory to them. The Bible doesn’t tell us whether life was immortal or not before the fall. Your commentators say it wasn’t but that’s not supported by the scriptures, as I pointed out your commentator made several assumptions and errors in his interpretations.