Young Earth creationists (I am one too)-need help clarifying this one pointnt

[HappyGrace]

I became strongly Young Earth several years ago but now I forgot WHY there couldn't be death before the Fall. And rejecting evolution for me rests on that point!

 

It made sense to me when I first studied it and I feel stupid that I've forgotten. I think I remember it was because God killed the animal(s) for the covering for Adam and Eve (picture of atonement) but I can't remember now in Scripture if/where it says there was no death before that. Is there Scriptural basis for that? Was it where God says "it was good", and if there was death, it wouldn't have been good? Couldn't it have been "good" still if there was death?

 

I searched and I know Romans 5:12 is one, but couldn't that refer to human death?

 

(Please no debates-just trying to re-clarify this specific point in my mind.)

[Guest]

I am not a YEC (but I used to be). The reason you're looking for is that the "wages of sin is death." There was no death before the original sin, goes the logic. Paradisal Eden was free from death, including animals eating each other and, presumably, dying.

[Bluegoat]

It is also true that most of the patristic sources indicate that there was no death before the Fall.

 

THat being said, I'm not YEC and don't think that idea is at all incompatible with other perspectives.

[HappyGrace]

I think I'm getting shaky on my YE perspective. I am searching and I'm not seeing why all the usual references can't refer to either A) just to human death, or B) even just to "spiritual" death (separation from God).

 

See, like "wages of sin is death" but that was human sin-animals aren't capable of sin so why does that affect them?

 

Believe me, I've been a rabid YE for years-I don't know why I'm starting to question but my old reasons don't seem as sound anymore. I am trying to read some Ken Ham but it is not helping.

[jamajo]

As I look at curriculum for science this issue comes up a lot (Young Earth vs Old Earth). I've been a Christian all my life and never even knew there was a debate about the age of the Earth until I started homeschooling.

 

I STILL don't understand the controversy. I've used Apologia science and AIG science - is there a difference in the beliefs between these these two curriculum providers. If so, it doesn't stand out to me when I use these texts.

 

I know OP doesn't want a debate but I'm just curious as to why is this such a big deal. Perhaps I should search an old thread on the topic to clear up my ignorance.

[CupOCoffee]

:bigear: as since I have joined this forum, my mind has been turned inside out on this as well a few other issues.

 

~coffee~

[Seeker of Schole]

May I please jump in here with some questions also? This is something that I have been pondering for a while. Genesis 4:22 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."

 

Doesn't that imply that there was death before the fall? That man was created to die?

 

Or since man was only forbidden to eat from the tree of knowledge and not the tree of life does that mean that while he was created to die, he was allowed to eat from the tree of life before sin and thus live forever?

 

Sorry, this is just one of many things that I have been questioning lately...

[HappyGrace]

I've been a Christian all my life and never even knew there was a debate about the age of the Earth until I started homeschooling.

 

This was true for me too.

 

Then when I read a lot of Answers in Genesis stuff and became YE, I learned it is so important because if Genesis can't stand, the rest of Scripture including the Gospel falls apart. ("Can't stand" in YE terms, meaning if it took millions of yrs and there was death before the Fall, then the Gospel is meaningless, but for the life of me I can't remember WHY this was; thus, my question in this post!)

[Seeker of Schole]

("Can't stand" in YE terms, meaning if it took millions of yrs and there was death before the Fall, then the Gospel is meaningless, but for the life of me I can't remember WHY this was; thus, my question in this post!)

 

OK, but even if there was death before the Fall, wasn't it sinless death? Since there was no sin before the Fall?

 

As someone else said, since coming to this forum I have more confusion and questions than answers...

[cjgrubbs]

Genesis tells us everything God made was good - so no death, animals didn't eat other, etc

 

After the fall, God used the skins of animals to clothe Adam and Eve and the blood as a sacrifice for their sins. This was the introduction of "bad" into the world - death, sin, etc - and our separation from God.

 

Answers in Genesis website probably would provide a better indepth description to you.

[HappyGrace]

OK, but even if there was death before the Fall, wasn't it sinless death? Since there was no sin before the Fall?

 

I think this is part of the problem, according to what I've learned as a YE'er-that how could there be death w/ no sin, and there was no sin before the Fall.

 

There are some Scriptures that back this up (don't know them offhand) and I believe it is probably true of HUMAN death, but I am questioning animal death before the Fall.

[HappyGrace]

Genesis tells us everything God made was good - so no death, animals didn't eat other, etc

 

After the fall, God used the skins of animals to clothe Adam and Eve and the blood as a sacrifice for their sins. This was the introduction of "bad" into the world - death, sin, etc - and our separation from God.

 

This is what I've thought, but according to the Scriptures I'm finding, all the death I see talked about seems like it's referring to human death. Couldn't he have still done the animal skin thing as a picture of atonement AND there still have been animal death before that?

 

I'm totally not arguing-trying so hard to get my head around it again.

[Bluegoat]

So-

 

the general way this has been understood historically is that before the Fall there was no death - including death of animal life, usually. Because of human sin, death entered creation. Creation is understood to be hierarchical, with man as the priest representing and encompassing and mediating for all the lower parts of creation. So when humanity falls, it affects all of creation, not just human spirituality and biology.

 

Death is understood to be a physical phenomena, but also spiritual as well. The human soul is not impermanent like that of animals or plants, and so it doesn't just disapear, but it isn't really fully human any more when it is separated from the body. It was thought to exist in a kind of semi-concious state. When he hear of Christ descending to the dead and bursting the gates of Hell, it is those kinds of souls he is talking to and giving new life, even before they are reunited with their bodies in the New Creation.

 

When God wants to stop Adam and Eve from taking of the Tree of Life before they become immortal, this is usually explained to mean that, had they eaten of that tree in their fallen state, they would have become fixed in that state. Before the Fall their nature was to be with God. After, they have obscured that nature through their act of rebellion, but it is still there - we are still meant to be with God - as Augustine says, we are made to be with him and are never satisfied until we are. But to ear of the Tree of Life in that state would mean to make separation from God, or death, an actual part of our nature, changing it. So barring them from the Garden was, according to this view, a way to protect them.

 

However, the churches that continue to teach these things don't, in general, demand any sort of YEC view, so I would hesitate to say that this line of discussion is a good way to defend that viewpoint.

[Seeker of Schole]

This is what I've thought, but according to the Scriptures I'm finding, all the death I see talked about seems like it's referring to human death. Couldn't he have still done the animal skin thing as a picture of atonement AND there still have been animal death before that?

 

I'm totally not arguing-trying so hard to get my head around it again.

 

Hoping someone answers this, as I'm not seeing reference to animal death either. I do see that initially all were vegetarian, and it wasn't until Genesis 9:3 that man was given animals as food, but I'm not sure how that translates into no animal death prior to that.

[dangermom]

This was true for me too.

 

Then when I read a lot of Answers in Genesis stuff and became YE, I learned it is so important because if Genesis can't stand, the rest of Scripture including the Gospel falls apart. ("Can't stand" in YE terms, meaning if it took millions of yrs and there was death before the Fall, then the Gospel is meaningless, but for the life of me I can't remember WHY this was; thus, my question in this post!)

 

In understand your POV but don't agree with it. I believe in Genesis and a literal Adam and Eve and a real Fall. I also think that the account of creation is on the poetic side and does not need to be taken as an account of 6 24-hour days (the Hebrew does not seem to require that).

 

It seems to me that many YECs have fallen into a trap originally posited by materialists. They said "Evolution proves there is no God!" YECs said "You're right! Therefore we must, at all costs, prove evolution false." But as far as I can tell, the theory of evolution does not disprove God, or Genesis, or Christianity at all. The Bible tells us why the earth was created, and is much more concerned with how we treat each other than the exact process by which life was established on the earth. Evolutionary evidence just gives us some hints about that last part, nothing more.

 

To me, the position that YEC is crucial to Christianity just makes a lot of people decide that all of Christianity must be false. I believe that the necessary ingredient in Christianity is Jesus Christ, and the exact details of how we got here are not that crucial. God is probably a pretty good biologist, after all.

 

All this is to say--I don't particularly want to convince you that YEC is true or not true. But if you feel yourself shaky on that one point, please don't think that means you are losing your faith in Christ.

[Shelly in the Country]

Genesis tells us everything God made was good - so no death, animals didn't eat other, etc

 

 

:iagree:

 

Also, in Isaiah 65, in the description of the new heavens and the new earth, the Bible talks of lions eating straw like an ox in verse 25. This would seem to imply that the current state of the world, with animals eating one another, is part of sin and the curse. Once God restores his creation and redeems it, there will be no more animal death either.

[HappyGrace]

No, I'm completely confident in Christ. :) Praise His Holy Name!!!

 

In response to janajo's question about why is it all even a big deal if we're OE or YE, I was basically just restating what I learned in YE, that no death before the Fall is a cornerstone of Genesis and therefore the Gospel; that's why they (and up to now I, as a YE'er) say it's a big deal.

 

I guess before I even knew about YE, but didn't particularly support evolution, etc., I fell back on that it doesn't really matter anyway HOW it all started. YE changed me on that. But now I'm back to wondering.

 

Basically I just want to go by what Scripture says. I thought I had it figured out Scripturally with YE, but this one point has me reconsidering.

Edited April 5, 2012 by HappyGrace

[Mimm]

I think I'm getting shaky on my YE perspective. I am searching and I'm not seeing why all the usual references can't refer to either A) just to human death, or B) even just to "spiritual" death (separation from God).

 

See, like "wages of sin is death" but that was human sin-animals aren't capable of sin so why does that affect them?

 

Believe me, I've been a rabid YE for years-I don't know why I'm starting to question but my old reasons don't seem as sound anymore. I am trying to read some Ken Ham but it is not helping.

 

Might I suggest you read people who disagree with the young earth perspective and see if you find their reasoning sound? I try to read people I disagree with as well as people I agree with. Just the other day I went to Ken Ham's web site to see if he had anything to offer as a counterpoint to what I was reading at Biologos. I found nothing convincing and in fact his articles strengthened my ideas in the opposite direction. ;) Maybe the same will happen for you if you read the ideas of OE people. Or maybe you'll be convinced and come to the dark side. It's really not so bad over here. ;)

[HappyGrace]

Mimm-In between posts, that is what I'm doing. And seeing that there is just as much Scriptural backup on the OE side (at least for death before the Fall, which is my sticking point). So now I am :confused:

 

I *still* do not believe evolution-I strongly believe from Scripture that God created each creature specially, and certainly humans in His image.

[Bluegoat]

I don't think you can really say one way or the other if you are looking just for Scripture to state it boldly. There just isn't enough information given. And then the question would be - what about plant death, which is also a real kind of death.

[HappyGrace]

Bluegoat, yes, that's why I think I'm differentiating that plant or animal death before the Fall would have been ok-since they don't have souls and would not be subject to atonement and so on like humans.

 

And I'm starting to think maybe we can't know, weren't meant to know for sure. I know there are intelligent minds that fall on both sides of this issue, much more intelligent than I am, that have reasoned it out, examined Scripture, etc, and find one side or the other more compelling.

[jms]

I think the closest it gets is

 

Romans 8

19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

 

 

I understand the implication here to be that all creation was enslaved and subject to death because of the fall since it is waiting to be set free also. I have heard some say that corruption can be interpreted also as decay.

[6packofun]

Would death have been "bad" solely because Christ had not yet died for us? Because I don't look at death as all that bad considering I'll be with God afterwards! (Not that I have a death wish...lol)

[Mimm]

Bluegoat, yes, that's why I think I'm differentiating that plant or animal death before the Fall would have been ok-since they don't have souls and would not be subject to atonement and so on like humans.

 

And I'm starting to think maybe we can't know, weren't meant to know for sure. I know there are intelligent minds that fall on both sides of this issue, much more intelligent than I am, that have reasoned it out, examined Scripture, etc, and find one side or the other more compelling.

 

If you are going to relate Genesis so closely to salvation, I expect you'll find you belong on the YE side. Personally, I feel that if Jesus felt the age of the earth was vital to salvation, he might have said something. The YE attitude that unless we take Genesis literally, salvation "falls apart" is one that I find confusing and very misguided and even hurtful, as it seems to imply that people who believe in an OE aren't really Christians.

 

As for death before the fall, I believe that the death spoken of was spiritual in nature and that plenty of things died a physical death previously. Jesus spoke of death and rebirth frequently in this way.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Mimm
for clarity

[Bluegoat]

If you are going to relate Genesis so closely to salvation, I expect you'll find you belong on the YE side.

 

I don't think so - theologically there is no way to make sense of Christianity without talking about Genesis and linking it to Genesis. But that does not necessarily mean YEC.

Personally, I feel that if Jesus felt the age of the earth was the important, he might have said something. The YE attitude that unless we take Genesis literally, salvation "falls apart" is one that I find confusing and very misguided and even hurtful, as it seems to imply that people who believe in an OE aren't really Christians.

 

Yes, people seem to think it is on the level of "I believe in one God" at times.

[HappyGrace]

If you are going to relate Genesis so closely to salvation, I expect you'll find you belong on the YE side.

 

Great point-In fact, I think I relate it so closely *because* of being YE for my adult life-YE is what I read first when I found there was a difference, and it made sense to me (because I do not believe in evolution or pre-Adamic humans-Scripture says that man was created in God's image-did not evolve)

 

I believe your last point could be correct-upon reading some of these OE sites today, it *is* making me wonder if it could indeed be a spiritual death referred to rather than physical. (5 hours ago I would have disagreed vehemently)

 

ETA: I have always taught my dc (so far) YE but they understand OE and also that it should NOT be a divisive issue in the Church.

Edited April 5, 2012 by HappyGrace

[Georgiana Daniels]

If you are going to relate Genesis so closely to salvation, I expect you'll find you belong on the YE side. Personally, I feel that if Jesus felt the age of the earth was vital to salvation, he might have said something. The YE attitude that unless we take Genesis literally, salvation "falls apart" is one that I find confusing and very misguided and even hurtful, as it seems to imply that people who believe in an OE aren't really Christians.

 

As for death before the fall, I believe that the death spoken of was spiritual in nature and that plenty of things died a physical death previously. Jesus spoke of death and rebirth frequently in this way.

 

I'd never heard that before. Yes, very insulting to OE'ers, but do most YE'ers believe that salvation falls apart without a YE viewpoint? I hadn't heard that before, either.

[HappyGrace]

I don't think at all that YE'ers mean that salvation itself falls apart; I think the YE thought is more that the basis of the Gospel goes back to a literal Adam and Eve, death coming through one man and salvation through one man, that type of thing. (I do believe *that* part.)

 

I don't think a YE'er would say if you don't believe YE, you can't have saving faith in Christ. (I'm not sure about that, but you know what I mean, generally.)

[HappyGrace]

JMS-great verse, thank you-that is exactly the type of Scripture I am looking for to ponder over.

[Georgiana Daniels]

That's what I thought, too. It never occurred to me about the "falling apart" thing--I always learn new things while here!

[Seeker of Schole]

I understand the "all or nothing" point of view with regards to the Bible, but I'm not sure I see YE or OE as going against that. Isn't it also biblical that our concept of time is not the same as God's concept of time? Last I checked, the calendar was a human creation...

 

So while I believe the Bible when it says something was specific was created on each day, I'm wondering where in the Bible it states what a day is. That it is actually a 24-hour time period as we think of it.

 

I still have not determined where I stand on the YE vs. OE debate, so these discussions always suck me in as I'm always looking for more info.

[Guest]

In understand your POV but don't agree with it. I believe in Genesis and a literal Adam and Eve and a real Fall. I also think that the account of creation is on the poetic side and does not need to be taken as an account of 6 24-hour days (the Hebrew does not seem to require that).

 

It seems to me that many YECs have fallen into a trap originally posited by materialists. They said "Evolution proves there is no God!" YECs said "You're right! Therefore we must, at all costs, prove evolution false." But as far as I can tell, the theory of evolution does not disprove God, or Genesis, or Christianity at all. The Bible tells us why the earth was created, and is much more concerned with how we treat each other than the exact process by which life was established on the earth. Evolutionary evidence just gives us some hints about that last part, nothing more.

 

To me, the position that YEC is crucial to Christianity just makes a lot of people decide that all of Christianity must be false. I believe that the necessary ingredient in Christianity is Jesus Christ, and the exact details of how we got here are not that crucial. God is probably a pretty good biologist, after all.

 

All this is to say--I don't particularly want to convince you that YEC is true or not true. But if you feel yourself shaky on that one point, please don't think that means you are losing your faith in Christ.

 

For myself, when I was a YEC and started to question those beliefs, I did (and still do) see it as a crucial point. The story of creation and the fall, even if they are written poetically, have incredible bearing on whether the rest of the Bible can also be trusted as "God's Word." If one begins to chalk the Bible "stories" up as allegorical stories that have a point, but not necessarily ones based in fact, then why believe anything else in the Bible?

 

One reason why YEC believe a young earth is an important point is because of scriptural genealogies that give about 6,000 years from Adam to David. And that's even if you believe the average Genesis lifespan was 800 years.

 

I also don't see how one can honestly blend evolution into the Biblical account. They do seem mutually exclusive to me.

 

I de-converted from YEC while reading pro-YEC materials.

[HappyGrace]

Georgiana-Right, I think the "falling apart" refers to there needing to have been a literal Adam/Eve to have the Fall and therefore the need for atonement, etc.-thus the Gospel. I can see throughout Scripture (and especially Romans) where this is true.

[HappyGrace]

I de-converted from YEC while reading pro-YEC materials.

 

Can you explain more? Because you seem to back up the YE point of view in what you say. You can PM me if you want. I am honestly searching to understand, and I'd love to hear what changed for you.

[Guest]

I understand the "all or nothing" point of view with regards to the Bible, but I'm not sure I see YE or OE as going against that. Isn't it also biblical that our concept of time is not the same as God's concept of time? Last I checked, the calendar was a human creation...

 

So while I believe the Bible when it says something was specific was created on each day, I'm wondering where in the Bible it states what a day is. That it is actually a 24-hour time period as we think of it.

 

I still have not determined where I stand on the YE vs. OE debate, so these discussions always suck me in as I'm always looking for more info.

 

The specific language is, "...and the evening and the morning were the first day..." and so on. That seems pretty much perfectly clear to me what they call a "day." Also, the model in Exodus of working for six days and resting on the Sabbath is meant to reflect creation - that God worked for six days and rested on the 7th.

 

Another thing about "days" is that the sun was created after plant life. That would be really dumb if a couple of million years passed by before God got around to making sunlight.

 

So...there you go about "days". :tongue_smilie:

[Georgiana Daniels]

Georgiana-Right, I think the "falling apart" refers to there needing to have been a literal Adam/Eve to have the Fall and therefore the need for atonement, etc.-thus the Gospel. I can see throughout Scripture (and especially Romans) where this is true.

 

I see! Thanks for clarifying.

[HappyGrace]

I also don't see how one can honestly blend evolution into the Biblical account. They do seem mutually exclusive to me.

 

 

Thus my spinoff question about does it make sense that there could have been plant/animal death before the Fall but not necessarily evolution, because that's where my mind is headed.

 

Because in my studies today, I'm not seeing in Scripture that there was no plant/animal death before, but I also don't believe according to Scripture that evolution can stand-it plainly says that God created man in His image PLUS there needs to be a literal Adam/Eve to make sense of Christ's atoning death.

[HappyGrace]

The specific language is, "...and the evening and the morning were the first day..." and so on. That seems pretty much perfectly clear to me what they call a "day." Also, the model in Exodus of working for six days and resting on the Sabbath is meant to reflect creation - that God worked for six days and rested on the 7th.

 

Another thing about "days" is that the sun was created after plant life. That would be really dumb if a couple of million years passed by before God got around to making sunlight.

 

So...there you go about "days". :tongue_smilie:

 

See, you are a YE'er! ;) What do you think about animal death before the Fall?

 

hkchik-I think we YE'ers always point out (and this was one of the things that originally swayed me) that "yom" in the Hebrew in this text always refers in the Bible to a literal 24 hour day.

[Guest]

Can you explain more? Because you seem to back up the YE point of view in what you say. You can PM me if you want. I am honestly searching to understand, and I'd love to hear what changed for you.

 

One point stands out that was pivotal. I was reading the book Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation. I no longer recall who wrote the book. It's written in question-answer format. There was a question that asked why we are able to see light from stars that are billions of light-years away if the earth has only been here for several thousand years. The answer was that there is no reason God couldn't create light "in transit."

 

When I read that, it was truly like a switch flicked on in my brain. That struck me as the most ridiculous and far-fetched "answer" imaginable. (Sorry if that offends anyone; I just mean for me, it was too ridiculous.)

 

After that point, I felt that most of my questions were based in looking for ways YE could be true, rather than accepting that it was not. The Flood was another big deal-breaker for me - the more I read to "explain" problems with the veracity of the flood, the more it just looked like a bunch of silly excuses. It ended up seeming to me like someone could just as well say, "Well, magic is the reason."

 

If my points back up the YE view, it is only because you were asking to explain the YE reasoning. I am very familiar with the YE reasoning; I just don't believe it anymore.

[HappyGrace]

If my points back up the YE view, it is only because you were asking to explain the YE reasoning. I am very familiar with the YE reasoning; I just don't believe it anymore.

 

Oh, I see, thanks-you were just explaining the YE view because you're familiar with it, not backing any of it up as your current belief. That makes sense.

 

And I understand what you mean about the far-fetched-I've always had a few issues with some YE explanations, but on the whole thought it made sense.

 

Now with searching the Scriptures about this death before the Fall thing, it's just opening up questions.

[Seeker of Schole]

If my points back up the YE view, it is only because you were asking to explain the YE reasoning. I am very familiar with the YE reasoning; I just don't believe it anymore.

 

So explain to me the OE reasoning, beyond the science. How does OE reconcile the day by day account or creation with stars that are that old?

[susankenny]

And I understand what you mean about the far-fetched-I've always had a few issues with some YE explanations, but on the whole thought it made sense.

 

 

Honestly, do you not feel a lot of the bible is completely and totally far-fetched? Is any of it reasonable and with explanation? Why is this one thing a deal breaker, but you can somehow accept all of the rest??

 

 

Susan

[WishboneDawn]

May I please jump in here with some questions also? This is something that I have been pondering for a while. Genesis 4:22 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."

 

Doesn't that imply that there was death before the fall? That man was created to die?

 

Or since man was only forbidden to eat from the tree of knowledge and not the tree of life does that mean that while he was created to die, he was allowed to eat from the tree of life before sin and thus live forever?

 

Sorry, this is just one of many things that I have been questioning lately...

 

An excellent point that got lost in the discussion.

[Guest]

See, you are a YE'er! ;) What do you think about animal death before the Fall?

 

hkchik-I think we YE'ers always point out (and this was one of the things that originally swayed me) that "yom" in the Hebrew in this text always refers in the Bible to a literal 24 hour day.

 

When I was a YEC, my understanding was that animals did not die before the fall and nothing was carnivorous. There is the scripture someone pointed out up-thread where supposedly lions ate grass like an ox. That was why I thought that was true - that death itself is a result of the Fall and Paradise included no death. I don't know if there are any other scriptures that refer to this.

 

This was actually another problem for me - the animal thing, but not for the reason you're giving. It was a problem for me because animals have a particular design according to their diets. Lions that eat grass would not need the digestive system they have, the teeth they have, the type of eyesight they have, the social system they have, claws, agile bodies, camouflage. Also, why would there be vultures and other carrion-eaters, unless God decided he would have to make those later, given now there were dead bodies around to eat.

[Bluegoat]

For myself, when I was a YEC and started to question those beliefs, I did (and still do) see it as a crucial point. The story of creation and the fall, even if they are written poetically, have incredible bearing on whether the rest of the Bible can also be trusted as "God's Word." If one begins to chalk the Bible "stories" up as allegorical stories that have a point, but not necessarily ones based in fact, then why believe anything else in the Bible?

 

One reason why YEC believe a young earth is an important point is because of scriptural genealogies that give about 6,000 years from Adam to David. And that's even if you believe the average Genesis lifespan was 800 years.

 

I also don't see how one can honestly blend evolution into the Biblical account. They do seem mutually exclusive to me.

 

I de-converted from YEC while reading pro-YEC materials.

 

Because some parts of scripture are not necessarily meant to be understood as history, while others are. It isn't a matter of painting the whole thing with one brush, but understanding how it was written and why.

[HappyGrace]

An excellent point that got lost in the discussion.

 

:iagree:

 

I asked a question a couple months ago on here about the tree of life. This is more to the point though regarding my OP here.

[WishboneDawn]

I am not a YEC (but I used to be). The reason you're looking for is that the "wages of sin is death." There was no death before the original sin, goes the logic. Paradisal Eden was free from death, including animals eating each other and, presumably, dying.

 

Then that seems to be rather bad logic. That's saying the wages of sin is death but it doesn't follow that death wouldn't happen without sin.

[tex-mex]

An excellent point that got lost in the discussion.

:iagree:

 

I am leaning towards the Pre-Adamic theory in which the Dinosaurs ruled the Earth and DIED. How does one explain that?

[Guest]

So explain to me the OE reasoning, beyond the science. How does OE reconcile the day by day account or creation with stars that are that old?

 

Beats me. The stars are old and so is the earth. That's what I believe now. God made stars and they are old. I don't believe in a 7-day Creation anymore. It's why I don't understand the point-of-view that says the Bible is true, but the creation story is just a poetic story.

[HappyGrace]

Honestly, do you not feel a lot of the bible is completely and totally far-fetched? Is any of it reasonable and with explanation? Why is this one thing a deal breaker, but you can somehow accept all of the rest??

Susan

 

Because I wholeheartedly believe that the Word of God is Truth. That it is all God-breathed. He is sovereign and I don't know why He put some of the seemingly far-fetched things in there, but He did it for His perfect purposes. He is supernatural and beyond natural laws.

 

Obviously, both YE and OE can't be true, so I'm trying to puzzle it out for myself from the Word of Truth which one is correct. It may not be possible to know from what He has given us. And it does not affect my belief in Him in any way. But it is interesting to study and ponder.