Seeking an Explanation

[hindsey]

Hello, I am a literal 6 - 24 hour day, young earth creationist. I am looking for an explanation that I have not seen in the few (4 or 5) attempts to explain a verse, so I would like to ask you to give me an explanation for the existence of death before Genesis 3.

As I cannot debate here, I will just sit back and watch unless a question is asked of me.

Romans 5:12 says that by one man, referring to Adam, death came into the world.

Do any of you have what you consider to be just a great, hole-free argument that allows for the millions of years necessary for Evolution, and that explains this verse? The easy argument is that Genesis 1-3 is not literal, that Adam was not a real singular person, but it's all figurative. I can understand if that's your stance, but is there anything else?

Thank you, and I look forward to your responses.

 

[Mallon]

There's a good response to your querry in this article (which I'm probably citing for the 356th time):

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2004/PSCF6-04Snoke.pdf

 

[hindsey]

There's a good response to your querry in this article (which I'm probably citing for the 356th time):

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2004/PSCF6-04Snoke.pdf

My apologies for asking you to do something you've done so frequently in the past - forgive me.

From reading through that, it looks like argument against Romans 5:12 is that it does not apply to animals. That animals were subject to death before the Fall of Genesis 3... Which begs my next thought:

Forgive me again if my question is a simple one answered many times before... If Adam was the first man, then he evolved from some "animal" and something changed (maybe when God breathed into his nostrils?) and that is what started Genesis 2-3, making this "animal" different from the rest of them?? Is that a correct understanding of your position? That Adam's "mom and dad" were animals?

Thank you.

 

[Mallon]

My apologies for asking you to do something you've done so frequently in the past - forgive me.

No worries. I didn't mean it like that. I just find the article well-written, so I cite it often in all sorts of different contexts (usually in relation to the Fall).

If Adam was the first man, then he evolved from some "animal" and something changed (maybe when God breathed into his nostrils?) and that is what started Genesis 2-3, making this "animal" different from the rest of them?? Is that a correct understanding of your position? That Adam's "mom and dad" were animals?

Not sure if I quite understand your question. According to evolution, humans are animals. That doesn't mean to the TE that we are to act like them, as God clearly commands us not to. We are still undoubtedly a creation set apart.
Does this mean Adam's parents were not "human" (whatever that means)? Maybe. As you will so often hear Christians of all walks of life confess, "Only God knows." Many TEs here don't believe in a literal Adam at all.
Ultimately, this is a question I don't worry about too much. It's obvious from my own actions that I am a sinful being -- I don't need to be told my sins were inherited from a common human ancestor for me to know I'm scum. I don't need to look outside myself to know I'm in desperate need of a saviour.

 

[hindsey]

No worries. I didn't mean it like that. I just find the article well-written, so I cite it often in all sorts of different contexts (usually in relation to the Fall).

Not sure if I quite understand your question. According to evolution, humans are animals. That doesn't mean to the TE that we are to act like them, as God clearly commands us not to. We are still undoubtedly a creation set apart.
Does this mean Adam's parents were not "human" (whatever that means)? Maybe. As you will so often hear Christians of all walks of life confess, "Only God knows." Many TEs here don't believe in a literal Adam at all.
Ultimately, this is a question I don't worry about too much. It's obvious from my own actions that I am a sinful being -- I don't need to be told my sins were inherited from a common human ancestor for me to know I'm scum. I don't need to look outside myself to know I'm in desperate need of a saviour.

My question stemmed back to the fact that the article said that animals died before the Fall. If man were nothing more than animal, then Romans 5:12 would need to have some distinction as to why it applied to man, and not other animals. I was inquiring what it was that distinguished them - to your understanding.

I understand the position of those that do not believe in a literal Adam. Is it safe to say that the majority of TEs do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve and garden, etc.?

 

[Mallon]

If man were nothing more than animal, then Romans 5:12 would need to have some distinction as to why it applied to man, and not other animals. I was inquiring what it was that distinguished them - to your understanding.

A knowledge of God.
Don't get me wrong -- man may be taxonomically classified among the animals, but that isn't to say that we are "nothing more than animals." Our spiritual nature alone sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Is it safe to say that the majority of TEs do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve and garden, etc.?

Not sure. Might want to check to see if there has been a poll on this in the past (I think there has been). If not, fire up a new one.

 

[annalisa201]

If you are looking for answers, please keep an open mind and study Age of the Earth option one. It comes from a reputable scientist, Dr. Hoovind. It's changed my life!!!

drdino.com/downloads.php

God Bless you!

Annalisa

 

[theFijian]

If you are looking for answers,

...where the question is: which convited tax fraud whose 'doctorate' is from an unaccredited diploma mill is the professional Creationist most likely to propogate lies and half-truths concerning origins and evolutionary science?

 

[Deamiter]

Wait, reputable scientist?!? He's never been a scientist, and as far as I know never CLAIMED to be a scientist! His Ph.D is from an unaccredited (as TheFijian noted) diploma mill and in Christian Education, not any science.

He's never done any scientific research nor has he even attempted to publish in scientific journals as far as I know. He's a great public speaker, but as I pointed out in your thread in the open Origins Theology, his claims are hardly accepted even by mainstream creationist organizations like AIG and ICR.

 

[gluadys]

Not sure if I quite understand your question. According to evolution, humans are animals.

Just a quibble here. Although technically a correct statement, it suggests that we only discovered we are animals with the theory of evolution, and that is not the case. That we are biologically animals has been evident from simple observation since antiquity. Even scripture notes that humans and beasts are alike, and humans were classified as animals by Aristotle, Aquinas and Linnaeus long before the theory of evolution came along.

Does this mean Adam's parents were not "human" (whatever that means)? Maybe. As you will so often hear Christians of all walks of life confess, "Only God knows." Many TEs here don't believe in a literal Adam at all.

It really depends on what is considered an essential quality of being human, doesn't it? Biologists look at biological characteristics, and from that perspective there would be no species difference between Adam and his parents.

But for Christians the defining quality of being human is the "image of God", which cannot be equated with a set of biological characteristics. So biologically Adam's parents would be just as human as he was, but spiritually Adam is a new kind of creature.

 

[gluadys]

I understand the position of those that do not believe in a literal Adam. Is it safe to say that the majority of TEs do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve and garden, etc.?

I think that would be safe to say if you are speaking of all TEs, but on Christian Forums most of the TEs who post regularly do believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I am one of the few who don't.

As for why non-human death before the fall, here is my take on this question.

When you try to exclude death altogether from the garden, the result is excluding life as we know it from the garden. It may have been a life that angels could live, but not human, animal or plant life as we know it. And scripture does not justify such a great difference between the pre-fall and post-fall world. Eden is depicted as a place where God intended humans and other creatures to live much as we do now, but without sin. Plants, animals and humans are all commanded to propagate and animals and humans are given food to eat.

The act of eating in itself necessitates plant death. Eating also necessitates digestion, and (unpleasant as it may be to think about) excretion of waste. And that necessitates decay, and decay organisms who live by breaking down waste products. Without decay, in short order, Adam and Eve would be walking knee-deep in s**t, both their own and that of other creatures. Hardly a characteristic of Paradise!

And what about reproduction? What would happen to the broken eggshells of hatched chicks or baby snakes if there was no decay? Or the discarded placentas of mammalian animals from mice to moose? And what about plants? Did they flower and bear fruit and produce seed? What would happen to the fallen leaves and overripe fruit when they were no longer needed? When Adam ate an orange or a banana, what would happen to the peel? I can see an awful lot of garbage piling up without biological death and decay.

And, of course, you can't have reproduction without death for very long without overpopulating the earth. It would take only a year or two for rapidly reproducing species to fill the whole earth and need more room. So if we were really intended to live in Eden always, as scripture suggests, there would have to be at least plant and animal death before the fall.

The long and short of it is that biological life in the plant and animal world cannot exist without biological death.

Personally, I think scripture also supports the position that not even Adam and Eve were created immortal. The tree of life was given so that by eating it they could become immortal. In fact, they could have done so even after the fall according to Gen. 3:22. It was being expelled from Eden, cut off from the tree of life, that made death a necessary aspect of human life. Not surprisingly, Revelation shows that the tree of life will be made accessible again in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[The Lady Kate]

If you are looking for answers, please keep an open mind and study Age of the Earth option one. It comes from a reputable scientist, Dr. Hoovind. It's changed my life!!!

Kent Hovind is neither reputable, nor a scientist, nor even a "Dr."