The Fall of Adam

[harvey1]

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned– for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come." (Romans 5:12-14)

Assuming the age of the earth is older than 10,000 years, please tell me the meaning of this scripture since it says that 'death' came into the world by sin. How can death come by sin if dying of animal life and other hominids came prior to when Adam would have lived (i.e., as a conscious intelligent modern human).

[YEC]

harvey, well your ideas certainly are unique...and you shouldn't get that PO'd when another student of the bible doesn't quite agree with your fringe idea.

One thing I learned, never base an idea on a single peice of scripture. There must be a few peices of scripture mentioning the same topic if you want to draw an idea from it.
for example:
The Genesis account of the sons of God and the daughters of men...and the Nephilim is to breif to draw any conclusions of what or who they might have been.
if other portions of the bible also mentioned it, then we might have a clue. But as for now it remains a mystery...interesting to speculate on, but still a mystery.

The Mormons make the mistake when they create a whole theology from a single verse in the bible about baptizing for the dead.

For the creationist, being hard lined on the "vapor canopy" falls under the same concept.
It sounds like there might be something there but the scripture really isn't conclusive on what the "canopy" was.

[harvey1]

harvey, well your ideas certainly are unique...and you shouldn't get that PO'd when another student of the bible doesn't quite agree with your fringe idea.

I don't think that was the basis of my reaction...

In any case, I do not think that I base my views on just one scripture. My understanding of evolution is not only entirely consistent with Christianity, I would say that Christianity requires an evolutionary viewpoint to be consistent with Christianity. Even you must agree that Christians change day by day and that it is a spiritual transformation. There are a number of places in scripture where the use of a type is a strong motivation for jumping from the physical view to an analogous spiritual view, so it is that there are clear enough reasons from jumping from a spiritual view to an analogous physical view.

I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but if you are just going to insult me, then what profit is there in having these fun conversations for either of us?

[YEC]

The 6 day creation and the creation of Adam from the dust is not a new concept. The early christians understood it. Need proof?

Special creation is the natural interpretation of Genesis...not evolutionism. Ask Billy Graham

Once again if God used evolution, why not say so?

Why not say that he created the mammals from a species derived from a fish via small changes?

Instead God said something completely different in the Genesis account.

[harvey1]

The 6 day creation and the creation of Adam from the dust is not a new concept. The early christians understood it. Need proof?

It's not what they understood, it is what God inspired in the scriptures. This is a very important principle since in order for God's revelation to be progressive, it must be based on the view that what was written is inspired writ - meaning that the writers might have been clueless as to what the true beliefs are in a situation. That is, they might not have had the true belief, but they wrote it in a way that the true belief can be extracted.

Special creation is the natural interpretation of Genesis...not evolutionism. Ask Billy Graham

There's a number of scriptures that have a 'natural reading' and the same scriptures have a deeper meaning that is needed to understand the text in full. For example, many of the prophecies that point to Jesus as Messiah are like that.

Once again if God used evolution, why not say so?

As I said, the text does say so if you look at them in their overall meaning. However, there's a biblical principle at play that I'd say is somewhat basic. In terms of being a Christian there is absolutely nothing hidden in how to be a Christian. The scriptures are extremely clear on that. However, in terms of understanding the things 'hidden in God' (Eph. 3:9), there are many such things. For example, the Trinity is such a doctrine. There are many non-trinitarians for the simple fact of the matter that the scriptures do not spell out this doctrine. Does it mean that the Trinity is a false doctrine? No. It only means that if you want to understand it you have to approach the subject with a little nuance. If you do, then the Trinity is very evident from scriptural teaching. Why does God do it this way? I'm not sure, but my own view is that God wishes much of evolution to happen with our finding out in a way that does breed controversy. The controversy in itself is needed for the generation of truth.

Instead God said something completely different in the Genesis account.

Yeah, he said "let the earth bring forth life, I'll watch".

[YEC]

Yeah, he said "let the earth bring forth life, I'll watch".

GEN 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

I don't think this verse represents anything close to evolution.

I could plant seeds then say...let the land produce corn. We all know I didn't mean evolution. I could also say concerning the same instance...let the land bring forth life. Once again the slightest hint in evolution isn't implied.
I could even say in my best Steve Irwin voice...." that the land of Africa brings forth all kinds of life" meaning that the land allows many species of animals to survive on its resources.

Then again I could say that the land did indeed produce life. The life in question went directly from "land" to a fully functional mature animal or plant...with out the need for the process of any evolution. This is what the bible seems to indicate considering that there is no mention of one animal changing into another kind of animal finally producing mankind.

The land did produce life. For example God used the land, or a small portion of it to create (form) Adam. The bible tells us in several places that God used the dust of the ground and formed man. (Adam) As you well know there is even a pun concerning the naming of Adam.
If Adam was formed from a pre-existing animal as you claim then Adam would not have been called Adam. The pun would have been to give Adam a name relating to "apes" or "animals" and not the dust of the earth.

[harvey1]

Yeah, he said "let the earth bring forth life, I'll watch".

GEN 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. I don't think this verse represents anything close to evolution. I could plant seeds then say...let the land produce corn. We all know I didn't mean evolution.

That's true, however in that case you are not creating anything. The act that God doned onto earth was the act of creation. In addition, God gave a very general commandment as to what kinds of creatures that he wanted created (i.e., "creatures that move along the ground"), so that in itself implies evolution since God is not dictating species by species. In the context it is clear that God is leaving it up to earth to do that.

Another problem for you is that the earth produces mammalian life very slowly (even you don't consider evolution this is true). You'd have to say that the earth produced life all in one 24 hour period, but that would be something that earth doesn't do. So, in a sense, such a commandment would be odd for earth since life isn't produced in such short timeframes. A much more natural and more understandable view is that the commandment was given on a particular day in the past, and that earth over vast amounts of time produced the life and God (on the day that he spoke the commandment) could 'see' that it was good - the end of the day came.

I could also say concerning the same instance...let the land bring forth life. Once again the slightest hint in evolution isn't implied.
I could even say in my best Steve Irwin voice...." that the land of Africa brings forth all kinds of life" meaning that the land allows many species of animals to survive on its resources.

If that were so, then God isn't doing anything and that is clearly contradicted by the context of Genesis. Obviously God is the ultimate cause of creation, that's clearly what is implied by those verses.

[YEC]

The bible contains instances of "instant" creation.

For example read the following

MAT 14:17 "We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish," they answered.

MAT 14:20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.

MAT 14:21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.

Your point about mammalian life being produced very slowly...then saying that the earth ....Through gods command".... could not produce all of the mammals in 24 hours doesn't seem to make much sense.

Where did all the fish and bread come from?

You do believe in miracles harvey? Don't you?

[harvey1]

The bible contains instances of "instant" creation. For example read the following MAT 14:17 "We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish," they answered. [ MAT 14:20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. MAT 14:21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children. ] Your point about mammalian life being produced very slowly...then saying that the earth ....Through gods command".... could not produce all of the mammals in 24 hours doesn't seem to make much sense. Where did all the fish and bread come from? You do believe in miracles harvey? Don't you?

Of course, I believe in miracles. However, the difference is that the multiplication of loaves did not involve a role for the natural processes of earth as Genesis alludes to with the earth bringing forth life. Nowhere did Jesus say "and let the earth bring forth extra loaves and fish". However, in the case of Genesis, it is clearly stated that the earth brought forth life and it did it without God specifying the details of this production of life. The timeframe is not mentioned to be speeded up in Genesis. Nowhere does the author say "and the animals magically popped out of the ground". Rather, it is evident that earth did it and that God only saw that it was good. If it is not mentioned, then one has to assume that it was done in a manner that is consistent with how earth produces vegetation and trees - over a long period. If it was a matter of magic, then why doesn't Genesis just say that God made them magically appear? Why say "the earth brought forth..." when everyone knows that the earth does bring forth life at a slow pace?

[YEC]

The concept of brought forth from the earth refers to a particular component from which we are made up of...from dust we were formed and back to dust we will return upon death.

We were brought forth from the earth. No need for an evo interpretation.

It would be like me creating a sculpture of man and the animals from clay (the earth) ...then breathing life into the sculptures. No need for evolutionism.

The natural translation is all that is needed.

Considering that the angelic being did not evolve...why the need for man to have evolved?

[harvey1]

The concept of brought forth from the earth refers to a particular component from which we are made up of...from dust we were formed and back to dust we will return upon death. We were brought forth from the earth. No need for an evo interpretation. It would be like me creating a sculpture of man and the animals from clay (the earth) ...then breathing life into the sculptures. No need for evolutionism.

There's more to it then that. The actual creative act was put into the earth's domain since God commanded the earth to do his bidding and the commandment was very general. God is the causative agent, but he is not the tactical agent.

Considering that the angelic being did not evolve...why the need for man to have evolved?

The angelic being did evolve, it just wasn't biological evolution, it was a derived evolution. Actually, evolutionary life is 'derived' too since we now know that we can simulate evolution in a computer (e.g., Conway's cellular automata "game of life"), but the mechanisms at play are physical (not spirit and not computer-based).

As to 'why' there is a need for evolution. I'd have to say that is the million dollar question. Why is there a need for 'time' at all in God's creation? My view is that which was stated by John Wheeler: "time is what prevents everything happening at once". Time allows for certain events to happen which couldn't happen without time. By proceeding forth from a 'mustard seed' (i.e., big bang) God is rolling out his creation in a manner that is consistent with the least action principle (e.g., the least will be the greatest, etc). Evolution is extremely consistent with the least action principle, so I think that God selected evolution to maximize his goodness.