For some reason i cannot reply to your last post, but it lets me reply here.
Yes these things don't prove an OEC, just like they don't prove a YEC. The Bible doesn't give an age of the earth.
And says nothing about animal death before Human sin either. YECs usually argue that Romans 5 says otherwise. So...
Lets change Romans 5 to fit the YEC interpretation of "no death of animals or humans before sin". Saying: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin".. they say that this is talking about both human and animal death (and not "the world" as in humanity).. So lets test that assumption. To do this we must assume that Romans 5 would really be saying something like:
----------------------
Rom 5:12, 14-21 NIV - Therefore, just as sin entered the world [of humans and animals] through one man, and death [of humans and animals] through sin, and in this way death came to all men [and animals], because all [humans and animals] sinned-- ... Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those [humans and animals] who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many [humans and animals] died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many [humans and animals]! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation [to humans and animals], but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification [to humans and animals]. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those [humans and animals] who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men [and animals], so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men [and animals]. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many [humans and animals] were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many [humans and animals] will be made righteous. The law was added so that the trespass might increase [to humans and animals]. But where sin increased [in humans and animals], grace increased all the more [to humans and animals], so that, just as sin reigned in death [of humans and animals], so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life [to humans and animals] through Jesus Christ our Lord.
----------------
The above does not seem to coincide with Scripture. Animals don't sin, they aren't saved by Believing in Jesus. And Christ didn't die for them.
Your argument assumes that animals were subject to death in the Garden of Eden. For that I find no Scriptural warrant.
Your argument might possibly assume that all of Genesis is lock-step chronological. It isn't. It is a collection of Annals, each of which treats a different period of history, and which overlap. We deal here with the Annals of Creation (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) and the Annals of Adam (Genesis 2:4b-5:1a). The first tells the story from the Divine perspective, and you may imagine that God called Adam in "to take dictation," probably before the Fall. The second part tells the story from Adam's perspective, and is, in essence, his diary.
You will observe that I accept the Tablet or "Toledot" Hypothesis and not the Documentary or "JDEP" Hypothesis of the Bible's Higher Critics.
Submitted by pacodel (not verified) on
Dear Mr. Hurlbut
I do not know how long you have been a Christian. Please then take these remarks from someone who has once been as zealous for God and Jesus to the point of being hurtful in my comments. I have learned much in my walk with God, and grace has been one of the most important lessons in my life. I will never deny God or Jesus even though I agree with the science that affirms a Universe as old as 14 billion years. In this debate I have received insults from other fellow believers due to my position. Ken Ham's comments imply that we are heretics by saying that we worship a different God. Your comments implying that we deny the divinity of God or Jesus fall in the same field. This kind of rhetoric, divisive and condemning, should not be what characterizes Christians. I know Jesus does not condemn me. The enemy tries to condemn me. Can you see what side you are taking when you condemn your brethren? I pray that you leave room for grace. The casualties are already high. There is no point on increasing their number through divisive comments.
Just because we at CSHF honor Ken Ham for making creation a more popular concept, does not mean that we are fully in accord with every method he has ever used, or every rhetorical flourish, either.
But I suggest to you that your experiences now lead you to pre-judge my particular rhetoric.
I speak as much from science as from Scripture. Let me dispose, first of all, of the 14 billion year argument. Semantics being what they are, I will say that you observe – correctly – that the great time constant of the universe is equal to 13.7 billion years. But: have you thought that maybe the clocks on earth have not run at the same speed as have the clocks at the edge of the universe? See Hartnett J, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, for a discussion in further depth than space permits here. Thus the universe can still be 13.7 billion light years in radius but only 6,200 or so years old here in the "solar neighborhood."
Nice try, though. It gives me reason to answer it.
Submitted by FaithAndReason (not verified) on
"But like the Sadducees of old, old earth advocates end up denying the Divine."
-Old Earth Creationists don't deny the Divine.
They believe God could have created the world in 6 24-hour days, 3 micro-seconds, or 100 Trillion years.
"Old earth advocates make this key mistake: they want conventional science to interpret Scripture"
-The above can't be true since Old Earth Advocates don't believe what conventional science teaches about Evolution (they don't believe it at all.)
57 Comments
Submitted by FaithAndReason (not verified) on
I completely agree, and those terms (as you use them) fit perfectly with OEC.
Submitted by Temlakos on
Maybe. But they don't prove it, either.
Submitted by FaithAndReason (not verified) on
For some reason i cannot reply to your last post, but it lets me reply here.
Yes these things don't prove an OEC, just like they don't prove a YEC. The Bible doesn't give an age of the earth.
And says nothing about animal death before Human sin either. YECs usually argue that Romans 5 says otherwise. So...
Lets change Romans 5 to fit the YEC interpretation of "no death of animals or humans before sin". Saying: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin".. they say that this is talking about both human and animal death (and not "the world" as in humanity).. So lets test that assumption. To do this we must assume that Romans 5 would really be saying something like:
----------------------
Rom 5:12, 14-21 NIV - Therefore, just as sin entered the world [of humans and animals] through one man, and death [of humans and animals] through sin, and in this way death came to all men [and animals], because all [humans and animals] sinned-- ... Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those [humans and animals] who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many [humans and animals] died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many [humans and animals]! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation [to humans and animals], but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification [to humans and animals]. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those [humans and animals] who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men [and animals], so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men [and animals]. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many [humans and animals] were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many [humans and animals] will be made righteous. The law was added so that the trespass might increase [to humans and animals]. But where sin increased [in humans and animals], grace increased all the more [to humans and animals], so that, just as sin reigned in death [of humans and animals], so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life [to humans and animals] through Jesus Christ our Lord.
----------------
The above does not seem to coincide with Scripture. Animals don't sin, they aren't saved by Believing in Jesus. And Christ didn't die for them.
Submitted by Temlakos on
Your argument assumes that animals were subject to death in the Garden of Eden. For that I find no Scriptural warrant.
Your argument might possibly assume that all of Genesis is lock-step chronological. It isn't. It is a collection of Annals, each of which treats a different period of history, and which overlap. We deal here with the Annals of Creation (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) and the Annals of Adam (Genesis 2:4b-5:1a). The first tells the story from the Divine perspective, and you may imagine that God called Adam in "to take dictation," probably before the Fall. The second part tells the story from Adam's perspective, and is, in essence, his diary.
You will observe that I accept the Tablet or "Toledot" Hypothesis and not the Documentary or "JDEP" Hypothesis of the Bible's Higher Critics.
Submitted by pacodel (not verified) on
Dear Mr. Hurlbut
I do not know how long you have been a Christian. Please then take these remarks from someone who has once been as zealous for God and Jesus to the point of being hurtful in my comments. I have learned much in my walk with God, and grace has been one of the most important lessons in my life. I will never deny God or Jesus even though I agree with the science that affirms a Universe as old as 14 billion years. In this debate I have received insults from other fellow believers due to my position. Ken Ham's comments imply that we are heretics by saying that we worship a different God. Your comments implying that we deny the divinity of God or Jesus fall in the same field. This kind of rhetoric, divisive and condemning, should not be what characterizes Christians. I know Jesus does not condemn me. The enemy tries to condemn me. Can you see what side you are taking when you condemn your brethren? I pray that you leave room for grace. The casualties are already high. There is no point on increasing their number through divisive comments.
Submitted by Temlakos on
Just because we at CSHF honor Ken Ham for making creation a more popular concept, does not mean that we are fully in accord with every method he has ever used, or every rhetorical flourish, either.
But I suggest to you that your experiences now lead you to pre-judge my particular rhetoric.
I speak as much from science as from Scripture. Let me dispose, first of all, of the 14 billion year argument. Semantics being what they are, I will say that you observe – correctly – that the great time constant of the universe is equal to 13.7 billion years. But: have you thought that maybe the clocks on earth have not run at the same speed as have the clocks at the edge of the universe? See Hartnett J, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, for a discussion in further depth than space permits here. Thus the universe can still be 13.7 billion light years in radius but only 6,200 or so years old here in the "solar neighborhood."
Nice try, though. It gives me reason to answer it.
Submitted by FaithAndReason (not verified) on
"But like the Sadducees of old, old earth advocates end up denying the Divine."
-Old Earth Creationists don't deny the Divine.
They believe God could have created the world in 6 24-hour days, 3 micro-seconds, or 100 Trillion years.
"Old earth advocates make this key mistake: they want conventional science to interpret Scripture"
-The above can't be true since Old Earth Advocates don't believe what conventional science teaches about Evolution (they don't believe it at all.)
I will keep you in my prayers. God bless.
Pages