The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

ColdSilverMoon · #**176** (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 11:07 AM

Rather than responding to each post individually, here are some thoughts addressing several issues:

1. The issue of death before the Fall is a major rabbit trail, and is irrelevant to the "nature of days." Even if I were a YE creationist, I would still believe in death before the Fall. The problem with the view that there was no death before the Fall is that there is no Scripture to support it. It also defies logic. To specifically address some things that were said:

Joshua - to somehow argue that by eating fruit only there was no death is both directly against Scripture ("every green herb" along with "every tree") and scientifically irrational. Fruits were once "living" with billions of cells each. The cells had to die for the fruit to ripen and of course when eaten. Are cells not considered living? If not, where do you draw the line between living and not living? It is an impossible distinction to make. Thus there was, without doubt, death before the Fall, as the very least on the cellular level.

Ivanhoe - your Isaiah verse is taken out of context. Those verses are in reference to a prophecy, a Messianic prophecy in fact, which illustrates in vivid terms the peace the Christ will ultimately bring. Nowhere does it imply or state this was the condition of original creation. Also, when did the idea of "sentient" beings become a legitimate theological term, especially since the concept has its origins in Buddhist and Hindu philosophy? Nowhere in the Bible is moral or spiritual weight given to any creature other than humans, into whom God breathed the "breath of life." There is no gradation of moral weight in the animal and plant worlds. This point has absolutely no Scriptural basis, and I would argue is thoroughly anti-Biblical in nature. And as I pointed out in Joshua's post, there is no place to draw the line. Do you draw the line with insects? Fish? Cows? Birds? Certain species of birds? Certain species of reptiles? Of mammals? Furthermore, how do you arrive at death in terms of "spilled blood?" Fleas and mites have lifespans of a few days - they need not have their blood spilled in order to die. Once again, you have no Biblical basis to support your claim, and it defies basic logic.

Gymir - Genesis 1:30 doesn't necessarily exclude carnivores, since it never mentions water animals and never says animals on ground would eat ONLY herbs. But let's say you're right, and there were no carnivores. It still does not say there was no animal death - only that animals didn't eat each other.

2. While some dating techniques have flaws in terms of their accuracy at various ages, most are reliable enough to indicate the Earth is older than 10,000 years. Christian scientists who try to find flaws with all these techniqes lose credibility because they selectively choose what they consider negative qualities as if to discredit the methodology as a whole. I don't believe there is any evidence that the Earth is 4.4 billion years old, or even millions, but it's pretty safe to say accurate, reliable tests indicate it is older than 10,000. We can of course discuss this topic more if you wish, Grymir, but I would encourage you to really research this topic and understand it before supporting certain claims you may have read.

3. This point of this thread (at least it seems to me) is to discuss the exegesis and hermeneutics of the Bible in terms of Old Earth and Young Earth creationism. There are certainly arguments for both, but neither is absolutely conclusive or fatally flawed. The reason I posted initially and the reason I think this topic is interesting is because so many YECers are so very ardent in their defense of the 24 hr day view. But why? I have no problem with the YEC view, and believe it could very well be correct. But there seems to be no room for allowance for the OEC view, even when there is certainly Biblical and scientific evidence to support it as strong or stronger than the YEC view. No one has really answered this question: Does it change anything if the OEC view is correct? I fail to see how it does. God is just as great, His creation just as amazing and awe-inspiring if He created it in an extended period of time, in six 24 hour days, or even instantaneously. Furthermore, it doesn't change any theology. As I've said before, an OE creationist and YE creationist can agree 100% on theology.

This is a great discussion - thanks to Ivanhoe, joshua, AV1611, grymir, CT, and many others for your great insights. I've learned a lot from what you've had to say....