Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

I just wanted to write my opinion on Stu's recent post on animal death.  I agree with his views on everything but the following peripheral point he made about evolution:
'Attributing higher purpose to animals aligns more with evolutionary assumptions than it does with the biblical created order of things.'

This generalization is mieading, the statement groups all forms of evolution together. If Stu meant undirected evolution or Darwinistic evolution in this statement, I would have to agree with him. However, Theistic evolution as well as deistic evolution to a lesser degree as Miller and Collins promote is very much God guided. God's guidance involved in the process of physical and biological evolution would negate his claim since He is involved in creating the 'order of things' either through unmanipulated natural physical laws and environments in the deistic version or by direct manipulation of the genetic code in the theistic evolution version through predetermination and manipulation of the existing physical laws. 

Lee

The following passage would seem to show us that Lucifer was indeed PERFECT
after the Creation was completed! Satan's FALL must have occurred sometime
after the PERFECT Creation ... but before Adam's FALL?
Why wouldn't this time-line make any sense to you ???


Ezekiel 28:11-19 (King James Version)

11Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

12Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz,
and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold:
the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God;
thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned:
therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub,
from the midst of the stones of fire.

17Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness:
I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

18Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick;
therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee,
and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

19All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee:
thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.


Bret* 2010

Hi Stu,

you say animals were good for food, but this was only per Gen. 9:3, AFTER the Fall.
You already conceded that mankind and animals were intended to be vegetarian, Gen. 1:29-30.
Romans 5 is indeed focussing on man's redemption. I don't re-call having used this in my argument, but if I have, I won't argue, because it is re man. That does not mean that this builds a case that animals thus died prior to the fall, it just states that man did not.

"Very" actually translates EXCEEDINGLY. I don't know what stronger adverb you should use in front of good. In case you would argue that God should have used the word perfect, well, let's just say that God is good (which He is). Are you now going to argue that He is not perfect? Of course He is! In fact, He is good, exceedingly good, and perfect. I think these can all be used interchangeably. So I would argue also for His creation.

You then go on to say (large quote here)
"To name several: the top one being that Satan was free and loose (Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28, Gen 3:1). The earth was formless and void at one point (Gen 1:2). God said that it was "not good for man to be alone" (2:18). (In heaven there will not even be marriage - Luke 20:35). God said he would "multiply Eve's pain in childbirth" (3:16). This seems to imply there would be pain in childbirth even if she never sinned."

Satan free and loose. Where can we conclude that this happened before the creation week was over? Every creationist would argue this happened AFTER day 7. (because it would not be very good!!!)
Formless and void. Work in progress. Remember, although I believe God could have created everything in a split nano-second, He specifically worked and revealed to us He did it over 6 days and rested the 7th. The very good was pronounced upon completion, to bring this argument in is false.

Not good for man to be alone. Same argument, of course God knew that we would need helpers. So He made one. He was not finished yet.

Eve's pain in childbirth. Chapter 3 of Genesis speaks of the curse, so after the fall.

Sorry, but a lot of these may sound good in your mind, but it is not what I as a creationist am saying. The very good is pronounced AT complete creation, but BEFORE the Fall. To use these any other way is not arguing fairly according to hermeneutics. Do you see where I am coming from?


Lucien

PS, don't tell any animal rights groups you think animal death is very good, because I still would like to go for a coffee with you guys someday.

Good Morning!

Life has kind of make it real hard for me to justify spending very much time lately with you guys, I really do miss it here!

I have invited Maziar Lahooti to join us as we discuss the myriad of topics that wind up being related to the age of the Earth and the "how" of Creation.

Regarding animal death before the Fall, I couldn't agree more with Stu; he capped what would have been my argument very well. The only thing I would add is that Romans 8:21 seems to speak to "the creation" as the created thing or man and not the Creation as a whole. The greek word in use here is "ktisis" which means either the act or the product, and the dialog before in 8:20 speaks to God willingly subjecting the creation to "frustration" or "futility" (mataiote) which is like Solomon's "vanity".

So this seems to add even less support for the theory of no animal death before the Fall.

Lucien and Bret -- thank you for your thoughtfully developed case for "no animal death before the Fall (NAD)." I don't agree with your analysis, but I appreciate that it is offered in good spirit and this post is to reply in like manner. In future posts I will state my views regarding Ham, Ross, science, the debate and AIG. But with this post I conclude my case regarding NAD. You may have the last word on the matter, but don't expect a response. To me NAD is majoring on minors and diverting one's attention away from the clear doctrine of Christ's atonement for mankind, not animals. Plants and animals were part of the created order to serve mankind (including being food), not be like him. Attributing higher purpose to animals aligns more with evolutionary assumptions than it does with the biblical created order of things.

Nephesh Chayah ("living creatures")

As Bret noted this Hebrew phase is used in Genesis 1:20, 21 for the nature of the sea creatures; in Gen 1:24 for land creatures; birds (1:30), as well as man (2:7). I agree that it gives a class distinctiveness between plant and animal. It does nothing however to support a case for "no animal death before the Fall" (NAD).

Let's start with our agreement that man is the only nephesh chayah made in the image of God. There is "no need to argue there!"( as Lucien put it). Lucien's case for NAD is unconvincing. Isaiah 11:6-9 is about the new creation. Whatever wolves and lambs there are dwelling peaceably with each other, they are not resurrected nepheshs, and they did not sin here on earth. Yes, Christ's redemption somehow frees the entire creation (including animals) from a "slavery to corruption" (Romans 8:21), but it is unclear exactly what that means. It certainly does not trump the clear teaching of Christ's redemption for mankind. As I noted in my previous post, "it is very clear from Romans 5:6-21 that death of man came as a result of man's sin, and that Christ's atonement applies to man not animals." Collaborating biblical support comes from the clear teaching of 1 Corinthians 5:21, "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a Man."

Very Good

Both Bret and Lucien made the point that God declared the creation "Very Good" before the Fall and that somehow proves NAD. It is contradictory to them that animals should be dying and suffering before the fall. Their argument asserts that the world was perfect before the fall (based on God's Gen 1:31 declaration of "very good"). This is supported by the fact that the new earth will be perfect. Their conclusion is that since animals won't be dying in the future world (because it is perfect), so animals did not die in the pre-Fall world which was also perfect.

The premise is flawed. "Very Good" does not equal "Perfect." There were issues with the created order that God allowed for His purposes. These issues made it less than perfect. To name several: the top one being that Satan was free and loose (Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28, Gen 3:1). The earth was formless and void at one point (Gen 1:2). God said that it was "not good for man to be alone" (2:18). (In heaven there will not even be marriage - Luke 20:35). God said he would "multiply Eve's pain in childbirth" (3:16). This seems to imply there would be pain in childbirth even if she never sinned.

Animal Coverings verses fig leaf coverings?

Another speculative argument. I just as easily conclude that Adam and Eve were clueless about how to cover their shame. God was preparing them to understand that blood sacrifice would eventually be required. Whatever it means it does not prove that animals did not die before the Fall. There is nothing but a weak circumstantial biblical case for NAD.

Lee ...

You are correct about things being a little slow right now.
I just can't seem to get ANYONE to even try to defend why Dr. Ross just sat there
in total DENIAL of the implications undermining his OE-spin by "HIS" very own,
hand-picked, & on the payroll ... Bible Expert ... Walter Kaiser ???
I am predetermined to get an answer to THIS question by someone that has enough
respect for Hugh Ross to defend his honor and reputation !!!

Bret* 2010

Hi guys,

Thought I would check in and see how your doing. Things seem a little slow right now, so I have a question for everyone. Do you believe in predetermination? Please tell me why or why not. I happen to believe in it based on numerous Bible passages including 2 Chronicles 18; especially verse 33.

I don't think any of you don't believe in it except for Stu, but if you don't please tell me the Bible verses that support that view. I would also think, if you don't believe in predetermination, that you also believe in random chance guides our decisions and our futures and that the future is unknown. Is this a correct assumption on my part?

Lee

Both.

The Bible is right!

The GIANT ELEPHANT in Ankerberg's room!
Walter Kaiser kept repeating over & over that (he believed) the 1st 3-days
were NOT solar days ... because there was no Sun yet!
For the sake of saving some time here ... I'm willing to toss Walter this bone!
(Sounds a lot like my 100th Post compromise stance?)
What I don't understand is ... how could Hugh Ross just sit there and smile
at this explanation from his Biblical expert ... all the time knowing that
this DOES NOT SUPPORT his "Progressive" stance on Creation ???
Ross believes that the Sun, Moon & Stars were created on Day ZERO!
(maybe not the Moon?)
YES! ... Day "0" Zero !!!
But ... what's even more out of whack with Ross's PC (Progressive Creation)
is that Walter was (basically) claiming that Days 4, 5, & 6 were INDEED
*** 24 - HOUR DAYS !!! ***
This means that ALL living creatures (excluding Grass, Trees, & Plants)
were POPPED into existence in a couple of ACTUAL Solar Days !!!
WHY DIDN'T ANYONE ASK ROSS TO EXPLAIN THIS DICHOTOMY ???
So ... my question is ... "Who is WRONG here ... Ross or Kaiser"?

Bret* 2010

Brother Stu ...

I was pretty sure that you must have seen this debate
through a different filter than me ... or I don't think
you would have posted the link to the Blog!
I know that you have a long running beef with Ken Ham!
(You told me the story)
But ... you need to look past the imperfections of the flesh ...
and find forgiveness in you heart ... for ANY man!
Especially one that has dedicated his life to defending the
"FUNDAMENTAL" teachings of the Holy Bible !!!
I would agree with you ... that I prefer Jason Lisle's style
and general demeanor ... over that of Mr. Ham!
But ... Truth & Facts are immune to congeniality!
Let's discuss some of the major issues that were touched upon
during this debate? But ... let's take them ONE at a time!
You once told me that it upsets you to see fellow Christians
call the teachings of Hugh Ross ... "Heretical" !!!
You are now referring to the teachings of Ken Ham as ... "Aberrant"?
Stu! ... you know that I love you as well ... but ...
please be careful about your choice of words!
Words mean things!
Look up both of these words ... and then tell me which is more incendiary?

Bret* 2010

were you still going to reply to my post also?


Hint: if you are going to let your theology be influenced by the lack of humility in someone, you are not being very smart.
The Bible stand as it is, regardless of what anyone's character is like.

The other (before) part of your mail was not much better. YOU should test everything and hold on to what is good. If you are going to rely on others doing it for you, then you are going to end up having to rely on others.
Instead of putting trust in scientists or good/bad debaters, you should put your trust in the Word.

So sorry Stu, but that was a bit of a poor argument.
I hope your follow ups will declare what you mean with aberrant theology.
I have the debate at home, with comments by Dr Terry Mortenson.

And yes, Ham can be a bit awkward at points. I know, I have met him several times in person.


Lucien

Au Contraire!

I was very thankful for being able to view the debates because it, along with subsequent visits to the Answers in Genesis website, clearly brought into focus the aberrant biblical/theological views of the YE movement; the lack of "testing all things to hold fast to that which is true;" and the general arrogance and lack of humility (Ken Ham, not Jason Lisle) of that point of view. It pushed me further away from the YE position rather than drawing me to be more supportive of it.

Rather than give it an off-the-top Rock Star rating, I will take the time to give my reasons for these conclusions over the next several posts.

I still love you though Bret.

Stu

Thanks for the link Stu!
This 4-hour "Great Debate" pretty-much laid all of the cards
on the table ... for BOTH sides of Biblical Creation AGE issue !!!
In what quickly became a 3-on-2 debate with the Host (Ankerberg)
squarely in the Old-Earth Camp ... the Brightest of the bunch ...
was also the least featured! (apparently by design!)
I'm speaking of Jason Lisle!
The younger (better educated) counterpart to Hugh Ross!
This was the first time that I ever saw Ross unable to blow his
astrophysical smoke past his opponent !!!
Dr. Ross is a well-polished veteran debater!
But ... he rarely (if ever) faces an opponent that he knows will
use his own field of knowledge as a weapon against him!
As for the battle over Biblical accuracy ... Ken Ham clearly came off
as the more adept while debating the prominently featured Walter Kaiser!
I would LOVE to hear from someone else (ANYONE!) who watched the whole thing
and came away from it with a different take ???
Not because I think I'm RIGHT ...
but ... because that's the whole purpose of this Blog! ... Right?

Bret* 2010

All -- check-out the in-depth version of "The Great Debate." Click on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr_tqEEQwcs&feature=related. There are 30, 5-10 minute segments taken from The John Ankerberg program featuring Ken Ham and Jason Lisle vs Hugh Ross and Walter Kaiser. They left no rock unturned.

Stu

First ... I would like to thank Don for the heads-up on the Radio Debate!
I just listened to the archived Podcast of the Debate ...
and it was nice that they were nice ... but they were trying to cover
way too much ground for a 40-minute Debate!
I'm the first one that always points out that we now live in the Twitter generation!
And ... for those that just want a quick taste of both sides of this argument ...
this is probably a pretty good toe in the pool?
But ... you should spend some additional time understanding the conclusions that
are implied by the interpretation that you decide to embrace! (the Baggage!)
Dr. Ross seems to be swayed by the logic that if Christians tell non-believers
that they believe in a recent Creation ... that this is a death-blow to the
Holy Spirit ... and their eternal fates have been sealed?
I personally believe that God will reach each & every person on Earth that is
honestly willing in their heart to accept Jesus as their Lord & Savior (the Elect)
no matter what ANYONE ever says or does to them !!!
You could use the same logic to say that many non-believers are turned away from
God because some Christians are just too "Nice" to everyone all of the time ...
and being the sinners that they are (we ALL are)... they will turn away because
they know that they just couldn't possibly be (or stand to be) THAT nice to people
all of the time! This is NOT normal ... or Natural for people to be sooo Nice!
Let us NOT forget that it is He (The Holy Spirit) alone that opens ears & touches hearts!
YES! ... it is a Blessing when God uses us to "lead" someone to Christ! ...
But ... "We" are ONLY being used!
WE ... really didn't do ANYTHING !!!
Give God the Glory! ... or you don't understand the Story?

Bret* 2010

Hi all.

i think what Don describes is accurate. I can say that for at least the 2nd half, which I listened to.
I agree that both Dr Lise as well as Dr Ross were very gracious and polite, something that I (and perhaps one or two others?) can learn from.

Lucien

The Ross/Lisle discussion on KKLA can be seen at any time. Log on to KKLA.com, click on the Frank Pastore link and go to his archives. The discussion is divided into four segments. The first deals with the Hebrew language issue regarding “days” and “creation accounts.” The second has “science” as the focus with the issue being whether the stars are really billions of years old or just created to appear old. In the third the age of Adam is discussed and whether or not there are two inspired books, God’s Word plus the “book of nature.” The final section deals with dinosaurs, the flood, “death” and whether or not holding to YE or OE positions makes a difference.

The discussion is very civil and each position is held without compromise, although time constraints prevented either position to be developed in any detail. There was general agreement that the issue was not a matter of salvation, but Lisle was adamant that it was determined by one’s “world view.”

Happy Easter, Lucien and everyone! He is risen in deed, thank God! Have a blessed day!

Christ is risen!!!

Let's ALL get ready for the NEW explanation (Lie) about Life !!!
This marriage of Metaphysics, Chemistry, & Biology is the result
of a secret closed-door meeting in Austria of the "The Altenberg 16"!
Due for release on the 30th of this Month ...
This Book will be the equivalent of Darwin's New Testament !!!
In an attempt to explain the unexplainable ... we will now be told
(without ANY proof whatsoever) that life just creates itself by
"automatic self assembly" following "local rules" inherent to matter!
If you think I'm crazy? ... Just wait and see!



Bret* 2010

Lee ...

I love you as my Brother!
I like you as my Friend!
I would never pour coffee on your head!
I feel absolutely no ill will against you!
I understand your frustration with no buyers for your sell!
I did NOT ask for your banishment ... but for your parole!
I am sure that you'll keep a wondering eye aimed at the Blog!


Foolish Bret* 2010

I totally zoned-out this afternoon!
I missed the AstroBlaster Debate!
(Does anyone remember that game?)
I can see from Lucien's Post that Dr. Ross is sticking with
his "Local" Flood theory ... that is needed for Progressive
Creationism to sustain cohesion!
If I remember correctly? ... Stu & Lee both hold to this as well?
Dave is more likely to reject this kind of kooky talk?
It would be nice if someone who listened to the entire debate
could Post some highlights?
I went to the KKLA website ... and it looks like they usually
post these shows about a week later as Podcasts?
So ... maybe those of us that missed it ... will get another
chance to hear & critique it?
I've heard Dr. Ross speak several times ... and even though I
don't buy into his interpretation of Science & the Bible ...
he is a VERY formidable and well-polished debater!

Did anybody hear the whole thing ???


Bret* 2010

Hi all.
Forgot about radio show, so missed first half hour.

I did hear Dr Ross say though that the Flood was worldwide, but not global.

Huh?
Doesn't he know that if the waters covered the highest hill, it thus must cover everything? Or am I missing something?
(you know the principle: water spreads evenly).
And besides, if it wasn't global (i.e. all over the globe) then God has broken His promise not to Flood the world again many times, because there have been numerous local floods since then.

Strange...


Lucien

Very helpful.
I realised my post had become a wee tad long!

I heard somebody say, that if we don't speak/understand the Hebrew term Nephesh chayyah, can we still make a "judgment call".

Well, take your beloved (wife, girlfriend, child, whomever) out to a forrest.
Find a good dead tree trunk, sit down and talk about the things of God.

Now do the same, and find some road-kill (preferably a deer or something, big enough to hold both of you) and do the same.

The first you may say, that's a good idea, let's set out to do that.
The second one you said, are you crazy?

I know it i a bit crude, but I think it helps me. I have no problems standing on (or even sitting on) dead plants, but no chance I am sitting down, or even standing on a dead animal.
I don't know if my analogy works for ants (that i have stepped on plenty, unwillingly), but I suspect that they may not have the "breath of life" in the Biblical sense.
I know that not all creatures a given a "yay" or a "nay", but it does give is a broad indication.

Who is doing an internet search to find all the animals listed as having Nephesh?


Lucien

What is the difference between plants and animals or man?
For the answer we need to look at the phrase nephesh chayyah.
Nephesh chayyah is used in the Bible to describe sea creatures (Genesis 1:20–21),
land animals (Genesis 1:24), birds (Genesis 1:30), and man (Genesis 2:7).
Nephesh is never used to refer to plants.
Man specifically is denoted as nephesh chayyah, a living soul,
after God breathed into him the breath of life.
This contrasts with God telling the earth on Day 3 to bring forth plants (Genesis 1:11).
The science of taxonomy, the study of scientific classification,
makes the same distinction between plants and animals.

Since God gave only plants (including their fruits and seeds) as food for man
and animals, then Adam, Eve, and all animals and birds were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30).
Plants were to be a resource of the earth that God provided for the benefit
of nephesh chayyah creatures—both animals and man. Plants did not “die,”
as in mût; they were clearly consumed as food.
Scripture describes plants as withering (Hebrew yabesh), which means “to dry up.”
This term is more descriptive of a plant or plant part ceasing to function biologically.

Stu said;
"Now whether or not that means they were vegetarians exclusively and the animals
were only herbivores requires interpretation beyond the text."

Genesis Chapter 9:
1 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 upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air,
upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting.
I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

I included verse 6 for context ... and for those Christians that do NOT believe
that the Death Penalty is Biblical !!!






Bret* 2010