The role of the Tree of Life

[hannodb]

The Bible is the Word of God, who created the universe, and who is eternal, allknowing and allpowerful.

Science is the our interpretation of the natural world, which is as yet uncomplete, and subject to change.

As such, I am a creationist, regardless of the explainations given, until I can find a evolutionist scenario that is theologically sound.

The creation story itself is not much of a problem to me, as it fits in reasonably well with current scientific theories, and even if it didn't, the critical message is the God created the universe.

Evolution is all together different. It negates the Fall, and therefore, the Solution - which is Christ - is left hanging in the air. The conflict is due to our believe in the fall, which is the cause of all illness, hardship and death.

But last night I wondered. Does the Bible really say this this blissful condition was universal prior to the fall? If it was, why would there be a need for the garden of Eden - a paradise better than its surrounding area? If there was no death, why would there have been a need to eat? And most importantly, if God originally created us to be immortal, why would there be a tree of life in the garden of eden? God clearly gave mankind a special place in creation. Could that also include our original immortality?

A few supporting thoughts: In Genesis 17-19 God announces our punnishment. Then comes the following :

" 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. " - Genesis 3

Note that God does not change the conditions in the garden of Eden. Instead He chases man out of it, suggesting that the punnishment conditions He announced already existed outside the Garden. Also, God's reference to the tree of life suggest that Mortality is not a direct consequence of sin, but rather our seperation from the tree of life. Had Adam and Eve not sinned, they, and their offspring, would probably have expanded the garden of eden to cover the globe, and planted the offspring of the tree of life wherever they went.

If this explaination is theologically sound - that could possibly allow for evolution and death prior to the creation of man and the Fall.

Is there any theological reason, or any reference in the Bible, that would 100% exclude the possibility of this scenario?

 

[LoG]

But last night I wondered. Does the Bible really say this this blissful condition was universal prior to the fall? If it was, why would there be a need for the garden of Eden - a paradise better than its surrounding area? If there was no death, why would there have been a need to eat? And most importantly, if God originally created us to be immortal, why would there be a tree of life in the garden of eden? God clearly gave mankind a special place in creation. Could that also include our original immortality?

Isaiah 65 speaks of a restoration of heaven as it existed prior to the fall. Physical death is a component of it. The Garden of Eden was not necessarily better than the surrounding area but contained the 2 trees and was likely of a managable size for Adam to take care of as God commanded.

Also, God's reference to the tree of life suggest that Mortality is not a direct consequence of sin, but rather our seperation from the tree of life.

The consequence of sin is spiritual death. That is what happened in the Fall. That is how Adam "surely died" that day.

If this explaination is theologically sound - that could possibly allow for evolution and death prior to the creation of man and the Fall.

Theologically from a Gap Theology viewpoint it is possible for death and evolution to have occurred prior to this particular creation. Evolution however isn't likely as there isn't much evidence for it in the fossil record.
It is more likely that there were previous creations.
Take a look here, Gap Theology

 

[hannodb]

Isaiah 65 speaks of a restoration of heaven as it existed prior to the fall. Physical death is a component of it.

This is true. But Revelation 22 makes 3 references to the tree of life on the new earth. This leads me to believe that, like prior to the fall, our eternal life on the new earth will also be subject to eating from this tree - not that I believe anyone would commit suicide on the new earth by not eating from it.

The Garden of Eden was not necessarily better than the surrounding area but contained the 2 trees and was likely of a managable size for Adam to take care of as God commanded.

Since I've heard this story as a child, I've always pictured the Garden of Eden as a special place, where food is readilly available, while outside, it was tough. I've read through the bible a couple of times, and nothing I've come accross lead me to believe this idea is inaccurate. But then again, I can't think of anything that would give my interpretation solid backing either. So, I suppose either scenarion is possible.

The consequence of sin is spiritual death. That is what happened in the Fall. That is how Adam "surely died" that day.

I agree. Due to our spiritual death, immortality would've been a greater punnishment than death.

Theologically from a Gap Theology viewpoint it is possible for death and evolution to have occurred prior to this particular creation. Evolution however isn't likely as there isn't much evidence for it in the fossil record.
It is more likely that there were previous creations.

Interesting. I already believe that Genesis 1 tells of the second creation - In it, God often orders the chaos rather than create from scratch. The chaos must've been creator prior to Genesis 1. The idea of multiple creations is therefore perfectly acceptable. I'll read up on the link you've posted.

Thanks

 

[LewisWildermuth]

The Bible is the Word of God, who created the universe, and who is eternal, allknowing and allpowerful.

The Word of God is not the Bible, it is a title reserved for Jesus. The misuse of this title to deify the Bible should not be accepted.

Science is the our interpretation of the natural world, which is as yet uncomplete, and subject to change.

As such, I am a creationist, regardless of the explainations given, until I can find a evolutionist scenario that is theologically sound.

Theology is our interpretation of the Bible with incomplete knowledge and is subject to change. Why do you dump on science because it changes and not also dump on theology?

Evolution is all together different. It negates the Fall, and therefore, the Solution - which is Christ - is left hanging in the air. The conflict is due to our believe in the fall, which is the cause of all illness, hardship and death.

How exactly does evolution negate our rebellion against God? Could you show me where changing to suit the current environment somehow makes us any less sinful?

 

[shernren]

Here is some discussion on whether or not animal death could have been present before the Fall:

http://www.christianforums.com/t254...tell-the-scientists.html&page=69#post23330330

But I would think that by and large, the Bible says very little about animal death of any sort, simply because animal death has no moral components or implications, and therefore whether or not they die is largely irrelevant to Biblical morality. The typical creationist argument is that "Animal death makes God cruel" but I disagree because in a nutshell, God never said so Himself, and God has done far more "cruel" things than that.

 

[hannodb]

The Word of God is not the Bible, it is a title reserved for Jesus. The misuse of this title to deify the Bible should not be accepted.

The Bible is often refered to as the Word of God - because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and as such, is Gods message - or words - to us. When we say the Bible is the Word of God, we are not refering to the physical book, but to the message it contains. The physical book itself is worldly - and is not to be worshipped.

Why do you dump on science because it changes and not also dump on theology?

If this was true, I would not have posted here. The appearent conflict between science and the bible on the question of origins has been bothering me for quite some time, and has often caused me to be doubtful. I must resolve this issue, not just for myself, but aspecially for when, one day, I have children of my own. I might be able to retain my faith regardless of this appearent conflict, but they might not. I can think of nothing more painful than having your own children reject the Lord. It is therefore imperative that I find the most correct awnser to this question.

I've struggled a lot with God on this issue lately, and from what I've read so far on the Gap theory, I feel that He is awnsering my prayers.

How exactly does evolution negate our rebellion against God? Could you show me where changing to suit the current environment somehow makes us any less sinful?

I'm not sure if I understand. Creationism teaches that God created a world that is "good" and blissful. However, when man rebelled against God, it triggered the fall, with introduced death, pain and hardship into our existance. This fall does not only affect us, but all of nature. Evolution teaches that there was no fall, and that death, pain and hardship - and sin - has been a fact of life since the dawn of time, millions of years ago. Though I've still got a lot of reading to do, it appears as if the gap theory - which existed long before Darwin - sucessfully reconcile this appearent conflict.

 

[Stalwart]

Lion of God:

The consequence of sin is spiritual death. That is what happened in the Fall. That is how Adam "surely died" that day.

There is no reference to Adam having to die that day. Genesis 2:17 just says that if they were to eat of the tree they would "certainly die." Yes, spritrual death was apart of the curse, but so was physical death. Because man is a triune being, all three areas had to be affected. Further more, Paul seems to certainly tie the idea of sin to both physical and that in turn with the resurrection. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 we read:

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For sin death came through a human being, the resurrection of the deadcomes also through a human being. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

And in 1 Corinthians 15:26 we read:

The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Here it is clear that Paul is talking about physical death
and physical resurrection. For those who have "fallen asleep" can only be a reference to physically dead and not spiritual death. He ties the fact that physical death is a consequence of the curse that God placed on all creation after Adam sinned.

Therefore, from this Scripture alone, we can conclude that physical death was a consequence of Adam's sin. There are other verses which also prove this as well.

References:

• All Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, Today's New International Version (TNIV).

 

[LoG]

There is no reference to Adam having to die that day. Genesis 2:17 just says that if they were to eat of the tree they would "certainly die."

(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.

(GNB) except the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do, you will die the same day."

(YLT) and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die.'


Every version I referenced states plainly that Adam would die that day which we know he didn't physically. We also have this verse:
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:


From which it can be gathered that we could have lived forever in spite of sin. If the Cross was about the defeat of physical death, then from this verse we know there would have been another option and Christ's work was not necessary.

 

[shernren]

There is no reference to Adam having to die that day. Genesis 2:17 just says that if they were to eat of the tree they would "certainly die." Yes, spritrual death was apart of the curse, but so was physical death. Because man is a triune being, all three areas had to be affected. Further more, Paul seems to certainly tie the idea of sin to both physical and that in turn with the resurrection. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 we read:

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For sin death came through a human being, the resurrection of the deadcomes also through a human being. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

And in 1 Corinthians 15:26 we read:

The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Here it is clear that Paul is talking about physical death
and physical resurrection. For those who have "fallen asleep" can only be a reference to physically dead and not spiritual death. He ties the fact that physical death is a consequence of the curse that God placed on all creation after Adam sinned.

Therefore, from this Scripture alone, we can conclude that physical death was a consequence of Adam's sin. There are other verses which also prove this as well.

Genesis 2:17, a more complete inter-translation reference:

Gen 2:17

(CUV-S) 只是分别善恶树上的果子，你不可吃，因为你吃的日子必定死！」

(ESV) but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

(GNB) except the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do, you will die the same day."

(HOT) ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות׃

(ITB) tetapi pohon pengetahuan tentang yang baik dan yang jahat itu, janganlah kaumakan buahnya, sebab pada hari engkau memakannya, pastilah engkau mati."

(KJV+) But of the tree4480, 6086 of the knowledge1847 of good2896 and evil,7451 thou shalt not3808 eat398 of4480 it: for3588 in the day3117 that thou eatest398 thereof4480 thou shalt surely die.4191, 4191

(LXX) ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ξύλου τοῦ γινώσκειν καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν, οὐ φάγεσθε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ· ᾗ δ᾿ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε.

(NIV) but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

(NKJV) but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

(NLT) except fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die."

(RSV) but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

(TMSG) except from the Tree-of-Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil. Don't eat from it. The moment you eat from that tree, you're dead."

(YLT) and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

What has happened here is that the Hebrew construction is "in the day you eat, you will surely die", which the more literal translations retain. The translations which tend towards dynamic equivalence and paraphrasing are disagreed on their interpretation of it: some lean even further towards the actual moment than the literal (e.g. The Message's "the moment ... ") while others lean away from it citing parallels which show that the construction was used to denote the beginning of a causal sequence which would later on, but inevitably, lead to the result ("in the day you eat of it you shall die" = "when you eat it, you have started to die").

Clarke explains it as:

Thou shalt surely die - מות תמות moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die. This we find literally accomplished; every moment of man’s life may be considered as an act of dying, till soul and body are separated. Other meanings have been given of this passage, but they are in general either fanciful or incorrect.

As for 1 Corinthians 15, let's fill in the blanks:

For as by a man came [human] death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the [human] dead. For as in Adam all [humans] die, so also in Christ shall all [humans, who believe him] be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those [humans] who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is [human] death.
(1 Corinthians 15:21-26 ESV)

Each and every one of these substitutions is perfectly valid, given that this passage is a direct refutation of the denial of the resurrection of the soul which is a purely human privilege. And yet making the context explicit, it becomes clear that this passage says nothing at all about animal death, and therefore does not prove that evolution is impossible before the Fall. While I probably agree that there was no human death before the Fall, there were no humans to die before the Fall anyway, so this objection is irrelevant to evolution.

And I don't think you should be so enthusiastic about gap theory ...
http://www.christianforums.com/t2801730-gap-theory.html

 

[LoG]

And I don't think you should be so enthusiastic about gap theory ...

Talk to me when you can supply a few shreds of scriptural evidence for Theistic Evolution. TE's only try to poke holes in YEC and GT's scriptural references without ever once supplying anything to support their own position. Why is that?

 

[shernren]

Because we never expected Scripture to say anything about science. "Evolution isn't found in the Bible, therefore it isn't valid" is as valid an argument as "relativity isn't found in the Bible, therefore it isn't valid". And that in no way patches the holes we poke in your position.

 

[hannodb]

1. God is the author of geology
2. God is the author of the bible
3. God does not lie

Conclusion:

There can be no conflict between the Bible and scientific data. The conflict exists between theology and scientific theory. The data matches, it is our interpretation of that data that is in conflict.

Geology says the Earth is old, yet the bible says the creation event only happened 6000 years ago. The missing link is that Genesis 1:2 clearly states the earth already existed prior to the creation week, and it was a mess. Quite often during the creation week, God does not create from scratch, he seperates that which already existed. Geology confirms major catastrophic events just prior to human civilization. For me, this is a simple case of 1 + 1. The Gap theory is the only theory I've come accross that leaves the integraty of the Bible in tact, without ignoring geological data.

God says that He reveils himself through His word AND through nature. Intellegent Design is a perfect example of this: non-Christian Scientists, working in the field, making absolutely no references to the Bible, has concluded from their work in nature alone that there must be a Creator. This is why YEC breaks down: If YEC had some merrit, then there would've been non-christian geologists who also believe in a young earth, based purely on the Geographic data. I know of no such case.

Why does God not more clearly state that Genesis 1 was a recreation? Two reasons:
1. The purpose of the Bible is to teach us about God, not about creation. Also, it is what we need to know for our salvation. If a pre-human history did exists, it is completely irrelevant to our salvation.
2. God is eternal. When I was a child, I always wondered about what God did before Genesis 1. I got this picture of God eternally sitting in darkness, doing absolutely nothing, until the time came to create. For me, this just doesn't sit well for an allknowing, allpowerfull God. A better guess would be that He did other things - things we need not know about. If he was suppose to tell us what He has been up to since forever, the universe would not have been big enough to contain the bible. Paul himself said that we don't have the full picture. We must be carefull not to view the bible as the entire history of God.

 

[hannodb]

No one can know what happened between God and Satan prior to Genesis 1. That knowledge is not provided to us. But if I have to take a guess, it would be something like this.

God Created the world and the angels, and the angels took pretty much the same role as Adam and Eve. But Satan rebelled against God, and brought death into this world. That is the Cambrium explosion. Knowing God as a loving, mercyful God, he walked a long path with the fallen angels - millions of years, actually. But they refused to repent, and continued to abuse the world for their own purposes - for millions of years. Whether the prehistoric animals was made by God, or by the rebellious Lucifer, is a discussion on its own, but one which I'm not sure of. It must be kept in mind that Lucifer is the second post powerful being in the universe. Finally, their time ran out about 10000 years ago, when the earth was finally destroyed, and they lost the oppertunity to be saved. God recreated the world, and created man. Maybe as the final demonstration to Satan that he is wrong, I don't know.

It alwaysed puzzled me why God gave us a second chance through Jesus Christ, but He did not do the same for the fallen angels. But now, I believe, the Bible does not reveal this history to us, and we do not know what happened between God and Satan prior to our creation. Judging from our Christian faith, I think God could've given the fallen angels some opertunity to turn back to Him, before He finally condemned them, but that's just speculation.

 

[The Lady Kate]

The Bible is often refered to as the Word of God - because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and as such, is Gods message - or words - to us. When we say the Bible is the Word of God, we are not refering to the physical book, but to the message it contains. The physical book itself is worldly - and is not to be worshipped.

And that's why the Bible is the word of God. Small w, not a big one.

I'm not sure if I understand. Creationism teaches that God created a world that is "good" and blissful. However, when man rebelled against God, it triggered the fall, with introduced death, pain and hardship into our existance. This fall does not only affect us, but all of nature.

Which raises the theological question of why all of creation was made to suffer for man's sin... but that is a discussion for another time.

Evolution teaches that there was no fall, and that death, pain and hardship - and sin - has been a fact of life since the dawn of time, millions of years ago.

Sin can only exist where there are sinners -- i.e., creatures with a moral sense sufficiently developed to understand right from wrong, and choose wrong.

Animals are not sinful, are they?

Death, physical death, is and has always been a fact of life... else what was the point of having a "Tree of Life" in the first place?

God did create a good and blissful world... but not in the sense of every living thing holding hands and singing "Kumbuyah..." It was a system: birth, life, death, rebirth... an ongoing cycle, perfect as clockwork, with God's best creation: us, overseeing the whole thing.

Of course, the Fall threw a monkeywrench into the whole works, didn't it?

Just my opinion, anyway.... my own effort to reconcile God's revealed actions with His revealed words.

Though I've still got a lot of reading to do, it appears as if the gap theory - which existed long before Darwin - sucessfully reconcile this appearent conflict.

Well, keep read, and we shall pray that an answer comes to you.

 

[The Lady Kate]

1. God is the author of geology
2. God is the author of the bible
3. God does not lie

Conclusion:

There can be no conflict between the Bible and scientific data. The conflict exists between theology and scientific theory. The data matches, it is our interpretation of that data that is in conflict.

And "the data" must also include our interpretation of the Bible as well as the scientific data. Our understanding of either or both may be flawed or incomplete.

Geology says the Earth is old, yet the bible says the creation event only happened 6000 years ago.

The Bible says no such thing. Jamse Ussher said that.

God says that He reveils himself through His word AND through nature. Intellegent Design is a perfect example of this: non-Christian Scientists, working in the field, making absolutely no references to the Bible, has concluded from their work in nature alone that there must be a Creator.

True, as long as we accept this as a philosophical conclusion, not a scientific one.

This is why YEC breaks down: If YEC had some merrit, then there would've been non-christian geologists who also believe in a young earth, based purely on the Geographic data. I know of no such case.

Because no such case exists.

Why does God not more clearly state that Genesis 1 was a recreation? Two reasons:
1. The purpose of the Bible is to teach us about God, not about creation. Also, it is what we need to know for our salvation. If a pre-human history did exists, it is completely irrelevant to our salvation.

Truer words were never spoken: the Bible was not, nor ever was, intended to teach us science.

2. God is eternal. When I was a child, I always wondered about what God did before Genesis 1. I got this picture of God eternally sitting in darkness, doing absolutely nothing, until the time came to create. For me, this just doesn't sit well for an allknowing, allpowerfull God. A better guess would be that He did other things - things we need not know about. If he was suppose to tell us what He has been up to since forever, the universe would not have been big enough to contain the bible. Paul himself said that we don't have the full picture. We must be carefull not to view the bible as the entire history of God.

Actually, St. Augustine tackled this question pretty well, IMHO... God didn't waste His time before the creation, because there was no time before the Creation. Time, too, is one of God's constructs.

We humans, living in time, can't understand what it is like for God to live outside of time, just as we can't quite grasp what it means for Him to live outside of our universe... and yet He did.

 

[gluadys]

The Bible is often refered to as the Word of God - because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and as such, is Gods message - or words - to us. When we say the Bible is the Word of God, we are not refering to the physical book, but to the message it contains. The physical book itself is worldly - and is not to be worshipped.

But your opening post said:

The Bible is the Word of God, who created the universe, and who is eternal, allknowing and allpowerful.​

Even in terms of its message, the bible is not a who; it did not create the universe, it is not eternal or all knowing or all powerful. It is not God.

When the bible is referred to as the Word of God it is because of its testimony to the Word of God. It is an honorary title, not an identification.

It is important as well to note that when it is referred to as the Word of God, "word" is always singular. i.e. the words of the bible are not the words of God. They are the words of inspired but fallible human authors.

Science is the our interpretation of the natural world, which is as yet uncomplete, and subject to change.

What you are overlooking is that an interpretation must be an interpretation of something. In this case science interprets the natural world.

The natural world is the work of the Word of God. (Gen. 1: 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26; John 1:2; Col. 1:16)

Given that nature is the work of the Word, can we ever say that nature lies to us?

You are also overlooking the fact that scripture is never un-interpreted. The way we read scripture is always based on a theology about scripture and about the message of scripture.

Theology is to scripture as science is to nature.

Hence the fault with your initial premises.

It is not valid to compare science with scripture. The correct comparison is to compare science with theology.

Nor is it valid to compare scripture with science. The correct comparison is to compare scripture with nature itself.

It is perfectly valid to change one's theology and reading of scripture if we discover that science is correct in its interpretation of nature. For we know that nature--given to us by the Word of God, cannot lie to us.

Changing one's theology, one's approach to scripture, is not a rejection of scripture in any way.

The creation story itself is not much of a problem to me, as it fits in reasonably well with current scientific theories, and even if it didn't, the critical message is the God created the universe.

Actually they don't fit in well at all with current scientific theories, as you will learn if you study science. But the take home message as bolded above is the important message, and science does not conflict with that.

Evolution is all together different. It negates the Fall, and therefore, the Solution - which is Christ - is left hanging in the air. The conflict is due to our believe in the fall, which is the cause of all illness, hardship and death.

Evolution teaches that there was no fall, and that death, pain and hardship - and sin - has been a fact of life since the dawn of time, millions of years ago.

This is the problem with trying to import science into the bible. Or trying to get spiritual messages from science. You err when you say evolution negates the fall or teaches there was no fall. Evolution does not teach this at all. Nor does it teach that sin has been a fact of life since the dawn of time.

Death (physical), pain and hardhip, yes, since these are inevitable consequences of biological life. But not sin, since this is a moral reality that cannot exist in the absence of moral agents.

Evolution, like all of science, makes no statement regarding moral issues.

I've struggled a lot with God on this issue lately, and from what I've read so far on the Gap theory, I feel that He is awnsering my prayers.



Though I've still got a lot of reading to do, it appears as if the gap theory - which existed long before Darwin - sucessfully reconcile this appearent conflict.

Gap theory has its own problems with science. IMO it is even less tenable than young earth creationism (YEC).

If evolution is too big for you to swallow, have you considered Old Earth Creationism? OEC was the dominant creationist theology of the 19th century and the early 20th century. Almost all the well-known anti-evolutionists of the time, such as Georges Cuvier (scientist) and Charles Hodge (theologian) were OEC. It is the form of creationism I was taught when I was a youngster. I am a theistic evolutionist now, but I still find OEC to be the best, most intellectually acceptable form of creationism.

In any case, you are exploring and praying. God bless your endeavour, whatever you are led.

 

[hannodb]

And that's why the Bible is the word of God. Small w, not a big one.

That's is technical, but technically, you're right

Which raises the theological question of why all of creation was made to suffer for man's sin... but that is a discussion for another time.

God does not expand on that in the bible, but I think its propably like a business: If the boss - us - is miserable, he makes his employees - nature - miserable too.

Sin can only exist where there are sinners -- i.e., creatures with a moral sense sufficiently developed to understand right from wrong, and choose wrong.

Animals are not sinful, are they?

No, but their fate is linked to that of the sinner. Mankind was not the first to sin.

Death, physical death, is and has always been a fact of life... else what was the point of having a "Tree of Life" in the first place?

This is exactly the question that made me question my interpretation of the bible.

God did create a good and blissful world... but not in the sense of every living thing holding hands and singing "Kumbuyah..." It was a system: birth, life, death, rebirth... an ongoing cycle, perfect as clockwork, with God's best creation: us, overseeing the whole thing.

Of course, the Fall threw a monkeywrench into the whole works, didn't it?

Just my opinion, anyway.... my own effort to reconcile God's revealed actions with His revealed words.

Interesting, but personally, I can not agree. The new earth will be the same as this one prior to the fall, and God promises everlasting life, not eternal reincarnation. (Though I would jump at the chance to be a child again ) My take on how things would've worked, had there been no Fall, is something like this: People and Animals eat from the plants, which does not die, because they can regrow their leafs and fruits. As mankind procreate, they would expand the garden of Eden to cover the globe. Once the world is filled to capacity, God takes away the ability to procreate, and everything lives forever. On the new earth, people will not marry - therefore they won't procreate. This is because there would be no need for procreation: the world would already be filled to capacity. Death came to the pre-Genesis world through Lucifer, just like it came to this one through us.

Ofcause we can't say for sure, but it is nice to speculate

 

[The Lady Kate]

God does not expand on that in the bible, but I think its propably like a business: If the boss - us - is miserable, he makes his employees - nature - miserable too.

Similarly, a man has a bad day at the office, comes home and argues with his wife, who in turn scolds their son for no reason, who in turn kicks the dog.

Misery loves company, and grief tends to roll downhill.

Except that's a human weakness, and not something we'd expect from a God of justice. Did the animals do anything to deserve the Fall? Are they meant to suffer for man's sin? Does Jesus' promise of salvation extend to them as well as to us?

On the other hand, look back to my idea of a "system." the cycle of nature hums along, with God in charge and ourselves as the caretakers. But we require a relationship with God in order for us to properly do the task He has set for us. Our sinful nature blocks our relationship, so we cannot do our job (stewards of God's creation), and so nature, flawed but still functional, rolls along like a Chevrolet in need of a tune-up.

No, but their fate is linked to that of the sinner. Mankind was not the first to sin.

Of course. Lucifer was the first to sin. Is our fate linked to his?.

Interesting, but personally, I can not agree. The new earth will be the same as this one prior to the fall, and God promises everlasting life, not eternal reincarnation. (Though I would jump at the chance to be a child again )

God promises eternal life, but doesn't offer details as to exactly how it's meant to happen. If my physical body were to be reborn over and over again, but my spiritualself were to remain the same, then the promise of the pre-fall world is fulfilled: A world without spiritual death.

I don't necessarily think it'll be like that...I'm just exploring possibilities.

My take on how things would've worked, had there been no Fall, is something like this: People and Animals eat from the plants, which does not die, because they can regrow their leafs and fruits. As mankind procreate, they would expand the garden of Eden to cover the globe. Once the world is filled to capacity, God takes away the ability to procreate, and everything lives forever. On the new earth, people will not marry - therefore they won't procreate. This is because there would be no need for procreation: the world would already be filled to capacity. Death came to the pre-Genesis world through Lucifer, just like it came to this one through us.

Certainly a possibility, but we're forgetting that God's creation expands far beyond this one globe... no need for him to sterilize us just because we fill up the first of a possibly infinite supply of worlds.

 

[hannodb]

And "the data" must also include our interpretation of the Bible as well as the scientific data. Our understanding of either or both may be flawed or incomplete.

That's what I meant: Scientific theory is to Scientific data, what Theology is to the Bible.

True, as long as we accept this as a philosophical conclusion, not a scientific one.

Though I don't want to open a can of worms here, I will say this. ID to me is no less, and no more scientific than the theory of the big bang. Design can be proven without the need to identify the designer or the method of construction. If ID is not science due to these questions, then the Big Bang is not science based on the very same questions. The Big Bang requires a cause, but since there is no time prior to the Big Bang, no one can say what that cause is. We just know that some reality exists beyond this universe, which caused its birth. Similarly, ID can not identify the Designer. Why is it scientific to assume a reality beyond this universe, but unscientific to assume that that reality contains intelligence? Particularly when both assumptions are based on the data, after excluding all other possibilities?
No, I have yet to hear a good reason why ID is not science. All of the people whom I've heard to express oposition to ID, confused it with creationism.

Actually, St. Augustine tackled this question pretty well, IMHO... God didn't waste His time before the creation, because there was no time before the Creation. Time, too, is one of God's constructs.

We humans, living in time, can't understand what it is like for God to live outside of time, just as we can't quite grasp what it means for Him to live outside of our universe... and yet He did.

I totally agree. But there is no reason to restrict God's reality to that which He reveals to us in the Bible. Just because God didn't reveal it to us, does not mean that it didn't happen.

 

[hannodb]

But your opening post said:

The Bible is the Word of God, who created the universe, and who is eternal, allknowing and allpowerful.​

Even in terms of its message, the bible is not a who; it did not create the universe, it is not eternal or all knowing or all powerful. It is not God.

When the bible is referred to as the Word of God it is because of its testimony to the Word of God. It is an honorary title, not an identification.

I can see now how I was misunderstood. The "who" actually refered to "God", not to the Bible. The Bible is the word of God who (refering to God) did all the things the bible says.

It is important as well to note that when it is referred to as the Word of God, "word" is always singular. i.e. the words of the bible are not the words of God. They are the words of inspired but fallible human authors.

On this I must respectfully disagree. Yes, the Bible writers was fallible, but God is almighty, and that means that our fallibility is no obsticle for Him to get His message out as He intended. Once you start questioning whether this is just a story, or whether that is just a myth, you are one step away of declaring the entire gospel a myth as well.

What you are overlooking is that an interpretation must be an interpretation of something. In this case science interprets the natural world.

The natural world is the work of the Word of God. (Gen. 1: 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26; John 1:2; Col. 1:16)

Given that nature is the work of the Word, can we ever say that nature lies to us?

You are also overlooking the fact that scripture is never un-interpreted. The way we read scripture is always based on a theology about scripture and about the message of scripture.

Theology is to scripture as science is to nature.

Hence the fault with your initial premises.

It is not valid to compare science with scripture. The correct comparison is to compare science with theology.

Nor is it valid to compare scripture with science. The correct comparison is to compare scripture with nature itself.

It is perfectly valid to change one's theology and reading of scripture if we discover that science is correct in its interpretation of nature. For we know that nature--given to us by the Word of God, cannot lie to us.

Changing one's theology, one's approach to scripture, is not a rejection of scripture in any way.

I think we're saying the same thing here.

Actually they don't fit in well at all with current scientific theories, as you will learn if you study science. But the take home message as bolded above is the important message, and science does not conflict with that.

It does not have to match scientific theories. It only has to match scientific data, and that it does.

The problem with mainstream theories is that they do not take Biblical accounts into account. Like you said : theology with science (interpretation with interpretation), scripture with nature (data with data)

Death (physical), pain and hardhip, yes, since these are inevitable consequences of biological life. But not sin, since this is a moral reality that cannot exist in the absence of moral agents.

Gap theory has its own problems with science. IMO it is even less tenable than young earth creationism (YEC).

This is where I must disagree. The Bible is very clear that Death (physical), pain and hardhip was not part of God's original plan, nor will it be part of the New Earth. These are the results of sin. Death in the pre-Genesis world was the result of the fall of angels, Death in the post-Genesis world is the result of ours. It fits in nicely with the data, both the litteral reading of the bible, and with the scientific data. Death was not part of the original biology.

If evolution is too big for you to swallow, have you considered Old Earth Creationism? OEC was the dominant creationist theology of the 19th century and the early 20th century. Almost all the well-known anti-evolutionists of the time, such as Georges Cuvier (scientist) and Charles Hodge (theologian) were OEC. It is the form of creationism I was taught when I was a youngster. I am a theistic evolutionist now, but I still find OEC to be the best, most intellectually acceptable form of creationism.

In any case, you are exploring and praying. God bless your endeavour, whatever you are led.

If you could provide a basic outline for old earth creationism, I can concider that.