The light travel time problem

[Job 33:6]

You said Genses should be read as an allegory.
I asked you for scripture to back up that position
Now you say you have provided some-where is that?



Your point was wanting answers to a dilemma that you saw. I say there is no dilemma for the dilemma was incorrect in the first place.
2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
The scriptures are either all God's breathed word to us or none of it is. God is not going to say this is my Word and let it contain half-truth and mistakes.
I am referring to the Hebrew and Greek here, translations do sometimes not convey all of the original meaning but for the most part, I do trust my various translations and only go back to the Hebrew and Greek if I feel the need.

I believe Gods word so when it says that one man (Adam) sin is what brought in death Romans 5:12 by extension I believe that he was a real man. Since that is true why would I not believe what Genses says about him? I don't believe in creation because of Genesis 1, I believe it because of what the New Testament tells me about death.

It goes on to say that death is an enemy that will be vanquished.
1 Corinthians 15:26
The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
Because when God remakes the world back to what it was- death will be no more, just as it was originally.

Evolution simply sees death as a normal part of life. The two world views can never fit together, they are diametrically opposed to each other.



Nothing when it doesn't contradict God's word. Science is simply man's knowledge and mans knowledge can be wrong. No man is correct all the time but God is. Would Thalidomide have happened if man were 100% correct all the time? Would the space shuttle Challenger have blown up? Mistakes get made.



They claim for things unseen and assumed. If they can't be correct over things they have direct control over like the Challenger how much more incorrect are they about the past? Also like you they don't believe the world laws have changed -they have. God told us that they changed. They changed at the fall and again at and after the flood. There could have been far more changes than what we were told about.

It's the very same method crime detectives use to establish truth about what happened concerning crimes.

I wouldn't consider science simply or only as man's knowledge. But rather it's more of a compilation of observations of creation, that result in man having knowledge.

The sun being hot may be a conclusion of science, But more specifically it's an observation of creation that has resulted in man gaining knowledge.

And unless someone can explain why the sun isn't actually hot, if such a scientific conclusion runs contrary to young earth interpretations of scripture, then the young earth interpretation must be wrong because such an interpretation runs contrary to God's creation.

It's not God's word vs man's word. It's YEC interpretation of Gods word vs Gods creation with scientists merely being the voice of creation.

Scientists didn't make the earth old or make the sun hot. God did these things and we are simply observers.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sin did not enter the universe until just before Adam and Eve...6,000 years ago.

So how does an eternal God [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] up the creation of a star such that it explodes in the first place?

Why assume an exploding star has anything to do with sin?

 

[Paradox.79]

Scientific fact proven by astronomy and geology is the earth is around 4 billion years old and the universe 13 billion years old. That is not in question its math you can hoot and holler all you want but add up any number 34+22 is 56 and know matter how many times your add it up it will always be 56. Many Christians questions it oh well they all are entitled to believe what they want. Now the part that upsets the atheist is the mathematical odds of the universe coming about by chance are so astronomically high that it is considered impossible. So that means you can say God, or Aliens or Buddha or Allah or whatever you want, but some higher intelligence created the universe. I chose to believe in god. Now I can I look at the bible and see many parts of it contradict each other. But the overall message is on how to have a healthy relationship with god. Do I take it all literally know.

 

[coffee4u]

I wouldn't consider science simply or only as man's knowledge. But rather it's more of a compilation of observations of creation, that result in man having knowledge.

The sun being hot may be a conclusion of science, But more specifically it's an observation of creation that has resulted in man gaining knowledge.

And unless someone can explain why the sun isn't actually hot, if such a scientific conclusion runs contrary to young earth interpretations of scripture, then the young earth interpretation must be wrong because such an interpretation runs contrary to God's creation.

It's not God's word vs man's word. It's YEC interpretation of Gods word vs Gods creation with scientists merely being the voice of creation.

Scientists didn't make the earth old or make the sun hot. God did these things and we are simply observers.

"a compilation of observations of creation, that results in man having knowledge"

You mean how they once thought bleeding out was a good way to heal disease and that rats would spawn from rags? They observed and 'they knew' with certainly that the world was flat too. Man's certainty means nothing. Like I said above if man really knew as much as he pretends to know, things like Thalidomide and the Challenger blowing up would not have happened. Reminds me of the Titanic. "Not even God can sink it!" They said that. Hmm look how well that turned out.
Man is arrogant and proud. Which was the original sin and continues to be one. Satan wanted to be like God and how did he tempt Eve, by likewise saying she too could be like God. There is nothing new under the sun. It is the same sin recycled and updated.

God did not make the world old, there is no tag in the Bible where God says "I made the world billions of years old"
It is man who has assumed the world is old. The same way they assume the big bang. No man has seen these things. These are non-repeatable events in the past.

But cling to them, I can tell that you do. But do not be surprised when one day some known certainty of 2020 is turned on its head by 'new knowledge.' The 'facts' that you were told and taught to begin with that was also said to be 100% sure is then tossed aside and forgotten about. The older you get the more of this you will see.

 

[Job 33:6]

"a compilation of observations of creation, that results in man having knowledge"

You mean how they once thought bleeding out was a good way to heal disease and that rats would spawn from rags? They observed and 'they knew' with certainly that the world was flat too. Man's certainty means nothing. Like I said above if man really knew as much as he pretends to know, things like Thalidomide and the Challenger blowing up would not have happened. Reminds me of the Titanic. "Not even God can sink it!" They said that. Hmm look how well that turned out.
Man is arrogant and proud. Which was the original sin and continues to be one. Satan wanted to be like God and how did he tempt Eve, by likewise saying she too could be like God. There is nothing new under the sun. It is the same sin recycled and updated.

God did not make the world old, there is no tag in the Bible where God says "I made the world billions of years old"
It is man who has assumed the world is old. The same way they assume the big bang. No man has seen these things. These are non-repeatable events in the past.

But cling to them, I can tell that you do. But do not be surprised when one day some known certainty of 2020 is turned on its head by 'new knowledge.' The 'facts' that you were told and taught to begin with that was also said to be 100% sure is then tossed aside and forgotten about. The older you get the more of this you will see.

Methodological science didn't exist in times when people thought the earth was flat. The earliest of scientists to use math and data to establish an understanding and knowledge of the world really were the ones who transformed public opinion and educated people that the planet was round. I mean that's what Pythagoras did back in 500BC before the scientific method was ever made. I wouldn't consider people who lived 2000 years ago to really be on par with the scientific method as we are today.

People used to think that the Earth was the center of this universe, and it was Galileo with use of science who broke down that false notion as well.

"Challenger blowing up would not have happened."

I like this example that you gave here (And believe it or not I was thinking about mentioning it myself before reading your comment) because in the end we still landed on the moon.

Which thereby proves that the science was on the proper track in establishing the truth, despite technical errors on the way. And ultimately we've demonstrated truth in our understanding of space travel through trial and error.

And it's also true that evidence demonstrated that someone made a mistake with the science when the Challenger exploded.

So when we take this example and we think about something like the question of if the sun is hot or the question of if the Earth is old, the question is can you demonstrate why our science is not correct? Where is the technical error? Our predictions continually affirm that the earth is old, and that where there are errors, they are not ones that alter our understanding of the age of the earth. The truth is that you can't demonstrate that our science demonstrating that the sun is hot, is incorrect, you can only baselessly claim that it is wrong. Same with science on the age of the earth.

So until young earthers can address the demonstrable science, they aren't in a position to suggest that the science is wrong. And thereby are not in a position to argue that scientists are wrong about God's creation.

And like I said before, Hutton published on an earth, millions of years old, back in the 1700s.

So unless you're 400 years old, I doubt you've seen this science change. So there has most certainly been plenty of time for people to critique and to find errors in this theory as well (yet it remains in scientific consensus).

At some point you just have to come to terms with what the science has established. If we've been flying rocket ships to the moon for 400 years, when would you come to terms with the fact that our math and physics was correct?

It's not God's word vs man's word. It's YECs interpretations of Gods word vs Gods observable creation as described by passive observers (scientists).

It really is YECs vs God, and my bets are on God winning this one. As a scientist, I am merely a passive observer of this dispute.

Just as God made the sun hot, God has made the earth old. There's nothing I can do to change this reality. Rather, I can only sit back and observe.

 

[tdidymas]

You said Genses should be read as an allegory.
I asked you for scripture to back up that position
Now you say you have provided some-where is that?....

How about you backing up this statement:

The world as God created it was near to perfect. It was a sample that God gave mankind of what he had planned. The plan being a perfect world with no death that will happen after Jesus returns.
That world had no death

How do you know it was 'near to perfect' according to your assessment? What do you mean by that, and what scripture do you use to back that up, because "very good" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. How do you know there was no physical death, since the scripture doesn't say that. When Adam and Eve ate fruit from the trees of the garden, it incurred the death of the fruit. When Adam cut branches from trees, it incurred the death of the branches.

So just from common sense, we can see that there was at least death of plants. So common sense tells us that since Adam wasn't deceived (1 Tim. 2:14), he had to know what God meant by "you shall surely die." What do you think that meant, since Adam didn't die the same day he ate of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 2:17)?

 

[coffee4u]

It really is YECs vs God, and my bets are on God winning this one. As a scientist, I am merely a passive observer of this dispute.

Isaiah 5:20
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 

[Job 33:6]

Isaiah 5:20
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Mark 7:6
6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

 

[coffee4u]

How about you backing up this statement:


How do you know it was 'near to perfect' according to your assessment? What do you mean by that, and what scripture do you use to back that up, because "very good" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. How do you know there was no physical death, since the scripture doesn't say that. When Adam and Eve ate fruit from the trees of the garden, it incurred the death of the fruit. When Adam cut branches from trees, it incurred the death of the branches.

I asked you first, three times at least. Still, you have no answer.

However unlike you I am not going to toss your questions aside or sidestep it, I will actually answer them because I believe they are of great importance.

Genesis 1 opens with 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth then in verse 10, 12, 18, 21, 25 we have repeated: "God saw that it was good." about each separate area.
טֹֽוב׃ - tob - Good: To be pleasant, delightful, delicious, sweet or savoury in taste or odour, be pure and clean, cheerful, gleeful.
This is how God found the world he had just created to be. Not good by man's standards, but good by His standards.

In Genesis 1:31, KJV: it was said to be very good.

God gave both man and animals plants for food.
Genesis 1:29
Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

Genesis 1:30
And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and warned him that doing so would cause death.
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
He is hardly going to warn him about something that is already occurring.

Adam sinned which corrupted both him and Eve and the entire world.
16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”


17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

The curse was not just spiritual it was literal and physical.

It was not until after the flood that man is allowed to eat meat and that the animals were given a fear of man because of this.
God’s Covenant With Noah
9 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

It was Adam's sin that brought death into the world
Romans 5:12-21


Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
There was no death or sin before that.

6 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

1 Timothy 2
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

1 Corinthians 15
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Adam was no allegory, he was a man that lived and died who brought sin into the world through one act. The same way Jesus was also here as a literal man and who with one act redeemed the world.

We die because of what Adam did.
1 Corinthians 15:21-22
For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

Death is not simply a part of life, it is an enemy that came in due to Adams sin. Which is why it will be destoyed.
1 Corinthians 15:26
The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

If death is part of God's good creation, how can it also be an enemy to be destroyed?

I Corinthians 15:20, 22
"But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. . . . For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive"
But we are not there yet.

Then there are many more verses about the remade world that God plans at the end.
Verses that give us glimpses of what it will be like.
Revelation 21
Notice it has light without the sun.
23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.

There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
because death has been vanquished by this time.

Revelation 22


Eden Restored
22 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life
Notice the tree of life now shows up twice. Instead of one tree of life and one tree of the of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Because now the world is true perfection not just a shadow of perfection. The Old Testament is full of shadows of things to come. This is why the original garden of Eden was a sample to man of what was to come. The same way when the Israelites placed lambs blood on the doorway it was a shadow or foretelling of Christ.

Restored back to how it originally was but better and complete and uncorruptable.

Isaiah 11:6
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.
This was how it was and how it will later be.

So just from common sense, we can see that there was at least death of plants. So common sense tells us that since Adam wasn't deceived (1 Tim. 2:14), he had to know what God meant by "you shall surely die." What do you think that meant, since Adam didn't die the same day he ate of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 2:17)?

Biblical death is only things with the breath of life, nephesh. This is man and animals. It is not plants or skin cells or germs or things like that.
We might say "My plant died" but that is our view of what is occurring. That is not what the Bible means by death. In biblical terms plants whither or fade away, they don't 'die' Nephesh. To die is unique to creatures with a soul. Plants do not have a soul.

Adam started to die the day he ate, it's called ageing and degeneration.
Which is why God said to him "from dust you were made to dust you will return" God told him because it was now something that Adam would experience. It doesn't matter that it would be 930 years later, it was now set in motion. All of us are dying somewhat each day. The only way we won't see physical death is if Christ returns before that occurs.
God gave Adam a taste and foreshadowing of immortality but also a test. He did not have two trees of life but one of each. God knew he would fail and God knew that he would have to come physically as a man to right this.
I assume you do believe in the second coming of Christ and Gods plan to remake the earth? It's not being made back to some primordial soup but back to Eden.

Honestly, there is so much more scripture woven around this topic but this is long enough.

 

[coffee4u]

Mark 7:6
6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

Just so you know, you are now on ignore. I do not converse with people who say to me that I am against God because of believing his word.

 

[tdidymas]

I asked you first, three times at least. Still, you have no answer.

However unlike you I am not going to toss your questions aside or sidestep it, I will actually answer them because I believe they are of great importance.

....

I don't care "who asked first." I'm in pursuit of truth. Yet, I'm accommodating you with this question, since you seem to think that the death argument negates my OP.

I'll address this quote from you:

Adam started to die the day he ate

But here is what the text actually says (KJV): "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

It doesn't say "start to die," "eventually die," or any such thing like that. It says "in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die." "In the day you eat" - that is, the same day. And the term "surely" is almost an oath when it is spoken by God (ref. Heb. 6:14).

So the point is, if it is talking about spiritual death, then the death argument is moot in regard to refuting a long age for the universe. In fact, it's moot anyway, because in your own words, it's talking about death of soulish creatures. The universe was created long before life on Earth, so arguing that death of soulish creatures came after Adam's fall is arguing from a completely different time frame.

Just because physical death followed Adam's spiritual death, doesn't mean that God was talking about physical death in the Gen. 2:17 warning. But it was the serpent that changed the definition to physical death, which justified him saying "you shall surely not die." It was the devil that said something different that what God meant. God did not say something different than what He meant. "In the day you eat of it" (that is, the same day) is what He said, and it's what He meant. Adam eventually died because he was not allowed access to the tree of life. Therefore his physical death was indirectly related to eating the forbidden fruit, not directly related.

The whole context of Rom. 5 demands an interpretation of spiritual death. What proves that everyone is spiritually dead is that they sin (5:12). How can people be dead and alive at the same time, unless "dead" means something different than physically dead? (Eph. 2:1).

Therefore, the argument that there was no death before Adam is a straw man, because it's based on speculation, which adds to scripture more than what it actually says.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I don't care "who asked first." I'm in pursuit of truth. Yet, I'm accommodating you with this question, since you seem to think that the death argument negates my OP.

I'll address this quote from you:

But here is what the text actually says (KJV): "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

It doesn't say "start to die," "eventually die," or any such thing like that. It says "in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die." "In the day you eat" - that is, the same day. And the term "surely" is almost an oath when it is spoken by God (ref. Heb. 6:14).

So the point is, if it is talking about spiritual death, then the death argument is moot in regard to refuting a long age for the universe. In fact, it's moot anyway, because in your own words, it's talking about death of soulish creatures. The universe was created long before life on Earth, so arguing that death of soulish creatures came after Adam's fall is arguing from a completely different time frame.

Just because physical death followed Adam's spiritual death, doesn't mean that God was talking about physical death in the Gen. 2:17 warning. But it was the serpent that changed the definition to physical death, which justified him saying "you shall surely not die." It was the devil that said something different that what God meant. God did not say something different than what He meant. "In the day you eat of it" (that is, the same day) is what He said, and it's what He meant. Adam eventually died because he was not allowed access to the tree of life. Therefore his physical death was indirectly related to eating the forbidden fruit, not directly related.

The whole context of Rom. 5 demands an interpretation of spiritual death. What proves that everyone is spiritually dead is that they sin (5:12). How can people be dead and alive at the same time, unless "dead" means something different than physically dead? (Eph. 2:1).

Therefore, the argument that there was no death before Adam is a straw man, because it's based on speculation, which adds to scripture more than what it actually says.

You are plucking at straws...you simply do not understand what God meant by the statement you shall surely die, he was talking about more than physical death.

You need to read the Bible principles of life and death more broadly so you understand this concept.

In any case, it has nothing to do with evidence in support of evolution or the age of the earth to attempt to link in this manner is utter nonsense.

What did Jesus explain to Nicodemus? (I suggest you read it)

 

[coffee4u]

I don't care "who asked first." I'm in pursuit of truth.

God's word is the truth.
John 8
32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

I think what you are after isn't truth but proof. Not the same thing although often confused. You won't ever be given proof of the supernatural or of God.

But here is what the text actually says (KJV): "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

It doesn't say "start to die," "eventually die," or any such thing like that. It says "in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die." "In the day you eat" - that is, the same day. And the term "surely" is almost an oath when it is spoken by God (ref. Heb. 6:14).

There are two forms of death being discussed in scripture.
1) Spiritual death which was separation from God. Adam and Eve had a close relationship and sin broke that. Spiritual death happened immediately. This is why they hid from God. Ephesians 2:1 ►
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,

2) Physical death which is most times a slow process. This is why God said "from dust you were made to dust you will return" It was part of the curse.

When the Bible says the last enemy to be vanquished is death and that there will be no more death, it's talking of physical death.

So the point is, if it is talking about spiritual death, then the death argument is moot in regard to refuting a long age for the universe. In fact, it's moot anyway, because in your own words, it's talking about death of soulish creatures. The universe was created long before life on Earth, so arguing that death of soulish creatures came after Adam's fall is arguing from a completely different time frame.

And you know the universe was created long before the earth how?

Just because physical death followed Adam's spiritual death, doesn't mean that God was talking about physical death in the Gen. 2:17 warning. But it was the serpent that changed the definition to physical death, which justified him saying "you shall surely not die." It was the devil that said something different that what God meant. God did not say something different than what He meant. "In the day you eat of it" (that is, the same day) is what He said, and it's what He meant. Adam eventually died because he was not allowed access to the tree of life. Therefore his physical death was indirectly related to eating the forbidden fruit, not directly related.

The garden had the tree of life in it. It symbolised that life is found within God. But it was also a literal tree with fruit they could eat for immortality.
Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Eating from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil caused instant spiritual death but physical death was part of the curse. There was no physical death before that point.

The fact that man and all the animals started off as vegetarian reinforces the view of no death, even between animals. It also shows one major change to how the creation as a whole changed and corrupted.

The whole context of Rom. 5 demands an interpretation of spiritual death. What proves that everyone is spiritually dead is that they sin (5:12). How can people be dead and alive at the same time, unless "dead" means something different than physically dead? (Eph. 2:1).

The scriptures has both.

Ephesians is clearly spiritual death
2 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,

But just because Scripture talks about spiritual death doesn't mean it can't also talk about physical death.

When revelation talks about the remade earth after Christ's return it is talking of physical death.
4 ‘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.”

Therefore, the argument that there was no death before Adam is a straw man, because it's based on speculation, which adds to scripture more than what it actually says.

The earth remade with no more death is scriptural.

1 Corinthians 15:54 ►
So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

It's not just spiritual.
When Jesus rose again, it was physical and our bodies shall rise physically as well.
Those who remained in their sin face the second death.
12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
That is the end of death. Both spiritual and physical.

"the argument that there was no death before Adam is a straw man, because it's based on speculation"

No, its based on scripture.
It's based on God's warning in Genesis.
That there was a tree of life of immortality there.
That the curse included Adam going back to dust.
That they could not reach out and eat the tree of life anymore.
That man and animal were created vegetarian.
That God will remake the world back to Eden.
That death is always linked to sin- only humans can sin.
That the scripture calls death an enemy. How does that have any part in a world that God repeatedly called Good?

Your statement that there was death before adam's sin, has no backing in scripture. You only believe that because science says death is a natural part of life. You keep coming back to science as the source of truth when it isn't.

 

[tdidymas]

You are plucking at straws...you simply do not understand what God meant by the statement you shall surely die, he was talking about more than physical death.

You need to read the Bible principles of life and death more broadly so you understand this concept.

In any case, it has nothing to do with evidence in support of evolution or the age of the earth to attempt to link in this manner is utter nonsense.

What did Jesus explain to Nicodemus? (I suggest you read it)

You completely misunderstand what is being said, and your false judgments prove you jump to conclusions without understanding what is being talked about. I suggest you reread the OP and pay careful attention.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

You completely misunderstand what is being said, and your false judgments prove you jump to conclusions without understanding what is being talked about. I suggest you reread the OP and pay careful attention.

I responded to your most recent comments...not the original O.P.you claim to be searching for answers but in reality, this is nothing more than a publicity stunt to further your twisted and wrong interpretations.
You are ignoring answers over and over again...most of the decent and thoughtful respondents have already left this discussion, thus you are wallowing around in your own mud right now.

 

[coffee4u]

He doesn't wish to discover what scripture says because this might challenge his views.
Some people cling to science like a barnacle clings to a boat hull.

tdidymas I wish you well but I will be leaving this thread. At one stage in my life I too believed in many of those assumptions but I was willing to take that leap of accepting that what I thought I knew could possibly be wrong. I didn't at that point say it was wrong, but I was open to the possibility. If you cannot even see the possibility of error in the science that you hold to then you are not open to any other view. You have blocked your mind to it.
Once it was laid out I could see that my old view did not fit into scripture and I knew scripture to be the truth. I did not understand then nor do I pretend to understand now why certain things look the way they do, but I don't need them to. The same way I know the Godhead contains the Father, Son and Holy Spirit yet I don't fully understand it, but that's okay because God does and these are things that will be known once we meet God and so will these questions about supernovas and anything else.

 

[tdidymas]

He doesn't wish to discover what scripture says because this might challenge his views.
Some people cling to science like a barnacle clings to a boat hull.

tdidymas I wish you well but I will be leaving this thread. At one stage in my life I too believed in many of those assumptions but I was willing to take that leap of accepting that what I thought I knew could possibly be wrong. I didn't at that point say it was wrong, but I was open to the possibility. If you cannot even see the possibility of error in the science that you hold to then you are not open to any other view. You have blocked your mind to it.
Once it was laid out I could see that my old view did not fit into scripture and I knew scripture to be the truth. I did not understand then nor do I pretend to understand now why certain things look the way they do, but I don't need them to. The same way I know the Godhead contains the Father, Son and Holy Spirit yet I don't fully understand it, but that's okay because God does and these are things that will be known once we meet God and so will these questions about supernovas and anything else.

Yet, you don't think that your interpretation of scripture may be wrong. That's where our paths diverge.

 

[coffee4u]

Yet, you don't think that your interpretation of scripture may be wrong. That's where our paths diverge.

I am not saying my interpretation of scripture is 100% correct in every circumstance. What I am saying is I base my beliefs on scripture. My beliefs were not formed because of some book that somebody wrote or because science says X or because some prophet said something in some church. I base it solely on what scripture says.
There is enough scripture that gives a strong indication that Adam's sin brought in death.

Since you refute this position I asked in return for scripture that would back up your own position. This does not seem an unreasonable ask. I am always open to being shown more scripture that sheds more light on a subject.
But let's not pretend; you have no scripture to show nor are you interested in what the scriptures do show, because all you do is poke fun and talk about 'my interpretation.'
Which is why this discussion is pointless.

 

[tdidymas]

I am not saying my interpretation of scripture is 100% correct in every circumstance. What I am saying is I base my beliefs on scripture. My beliefs were not formed because of some book that somebody wrote or because science says X or because some prophet said something in some church. I base it solely on what scripture says.

And yet, some book told you that the sun doesn't rise, but the Earth turns, and you believe that, don't you? Therefore, you have a double standard.

There is enough scripture that gives a strong indication that Adam's sin brought in death.
Since you refute this position I asked in return for scripture that would back up your own position. This does not seem an unreasonable ask. I am always open to being shown more scripture that sheds more light on a subject.

I showed that the death discussed in scripture is spiritual death. Adam died physically because he was denied the tree of life. But it appears you don't believe scripture in this instance.

But let's not pretend; you have no scripture to show nor are you interested in what the scriptures do show, because all you do is poke fun and talk about 'my interpretation.'
Which is why this discussion is pointless.

The discussion is pointless because you're the only one pretending you know all.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet, some book told you that the sun doesn't rise, but the Earth turns, and you believe that, don't you? Therefore, you have a double standard.

The sun rises because the earth turns -- what's the problem?

Didn't even John Denver say, "The sun's comin' up, we got cakes on the griddle. Life ain't nothin' but a funny, funny riddle. Thank God, I'm a country boy"?