This entry is a continuation of my previous post, Ophidian's Oration. This time I'm going to discuss the Death before the Fall.
Often times, young-earth creationists claim that one of the reasons old-earth creationism is wrong is because they do not believe that anything died before the Fall. Old-earth creationists (of which I am one), however, claim that the world is millions of years old and that animals were dying long before the Fall.
Why do young-earth creationists believe no animals died before there was sin? They site this verse: Gen. 2:16-17 (ESV) And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Let's step back and examine this verse. This is the first and only command that God gives to Adam and Eve. Thus, breaking this one command is the only way they could have sinned. God makes a statement here "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die”. Death. What is death? How would Adam have known what it means "to die", if he had never seen anything dead? It would have been like God telling you not to eat the cookies on the shelf, for in that hour you will glostugiliath. I can imagine your blank face as you try to figure out what it means to glostugiliath. If Adam and Eve didn't know what death was, why would God tell them that they would die?
Also, I would like to point out that God appears to tell a lie. "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die". Well, we all know that Adam and Eve went on to live for a few years--enough to have several children--before they expired. How do we fit that in with God's warning?
I believe the answer appears a long time later, in book of Romans, chapter five.
"For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
So we see here that through Adam came death, but through Christ comes life. We all know that Jesus gives us eternal life, that's what we're taught from the very first time we hear about Him. Now follow me here, and pay close attention. Through Jesus, comes Life. Through Adam, came Death. Are we comparing apples and oranges; Physical death vs. Spiritual life? I don't think so. I believe that Paul is talking about Spiritual life and Spiritual Death. When Adam disobeyed God, he introduced not physical death, but the death of the soul. For added support, in John 8:51 when Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death." [This sounds vaguely like the other side of what God said back in genesis ("If you do not keep my word, you will die").] Is Jesus talking about physical death? Absolutely not. There is no one who has not died--Paul, John, Luke, Matthew, Mark--they died, some by very unpleasant means. So, we can see that He meant spiritual death.
Why would God punish sin with physical Death, while offering Spiritual Life through Christ? I believe that Adam brought Spiritual Death to mankind, while Jesus Christ brought Spiritual Life.
21 comments:
Good point...although, I have a couple things that I don't mean as a sign of opposition.
First of all, if Adam didn't know what death was because he had never seen it, how did he know what eating and talking was? also, it's quite possible (although not definite) that God gave his command before any animals had lived long enough to die.
But I do see your point about spiritual death rather than physical death. Very interesting analysis, and one that I think I agree on mostly, if not completely. AFter all, throughout the New Testament, Paul and the other letter-writers say that we died in/to sin. So it would be very logical that God was speaking of Spiritual death.
I once had a theory that Earth and Heaven were connected or something like that, but the "connection" was severed when sin and evil entered the world. I don't have anything to back that up though, so I won't start arguing...:)
:)Ian(:
Hmmm...You make a good point, but then again, how can the earth be millions of years old?
Research shows the moon moves 1 inch away from the earth every year. If we back things up millions of years, we have an earth-and-moon sandwich. But even if the moon began at a position relatively close to its normal orbit, it would be out of sight by now.
I'll have to ponder on the whole death before the fall thing, however...
Hey guys, thanks for your comments. Araken: you may be interested in this article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
Interesting, though I didn't really understand most of the terminology. Could you try to sum it up for me in a few sentences? It's sorta jumbled in my head right now...
Basically, it says that the moon's rate of recession has not been constant over the years.
Shouldn't they say "youngER-earth creationism?" Tens of thousands of years (as I think the earth would have to be to support all the generations in the Bible till now) is not really "young"...
Also, paleontologists (sp?) say that you can tell how old something is by how many layers of dirt it is covered in. That means that a certain amount of layers (I think it's a layer a year or something) would have to appear each year. But if the earth is millions of years old, then at the beginning of the world, the earth would be very small - and though I know there is an argument in that somewhere, I'll have to think about it for a while...heh heh...(I just know that the earth's size has something to do with all this!)
...oh yes, now I remember. The earth would not have the gravitional pull or resitsantce to keep from being pulled too close to the sun or keep the moon in a close orbit. So the moon would have actually moved rapidly away, so to be as close as it is now, it would have had to be quite close. Therefore, we can positively assume that the moon's distance variation is inconsistent; it used to be a lot faster.
This comes from my limited knowledge of relevant science. Thank you, thank you. :D
:)Ian(:
Kudos to Ian for effort! LOL
Well, they call themselves "young earth", because in comparison to "old-earth's" (Actually, it should be young-/old-universe) 14 something billion years, it's young.
Haha. ;)
Kudos to me? Yay!
Actually, I think now that my argument might not be so valid...apparently, the layers are from the material being eroded, not created. Oh well. That would make it hard for the paleontologists to determine whether material had been moved onto or off of their findings...
As for the earth's age, why does it matter? We can't tell for sure how long it was before Adam and Eve sinned, or how long the years were back then, or how long God spent actually creating the earth..."seven days" could mean anything if only God was there. "A thousand years is like a day to you..." So who knows? And why does it really matter? I don't think that's what the post was about, either....
kudos to us, the kings of getting off topic! :) (but yeah, I see why araken posted his original argument.)
:)Ian(:
Oh, Ian, maybe you shouldn't have gone to one of my pet peas! Perhaps I should make a blog entry on this so that I don't streach out too much, but I have a good bit to say about the Long Day Theory...
~Elliot
Hmmm...well if that was true, then 500 years were light, and 500 were dark. Then there wouldn't be plants or anything like that until the sun came around later the next day.
Actually, if you take Genesis 1 to be 100% literal (Literal according to the English translations), then there was no evening or morning until the fourth day, when God made the sun. And even more technically speaking, the moon (the lesser light) isn't a light at all--it only reflects the light given off by the sun.
So, how were there 24-hour periods of time--morning and evening--before there was a reference of morning and evening, marked by the position of the yet-to-be-made sun?
Agh...this is why humans shouldn't try to answer every single question we think of....
:)Ian(:
Hmmm...if you think too hard, the Bible becomes just another book. But Genesis says God separated night and day, and then there was morning and evening, next day. God doesn't need the sun to provide light. Check out this verse in Revelation, uh, Revelation 21:23, "The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp." So there ain't no need for a sun, just the Son. Tee-hee!
I would disagree with your last comment nuntius. I don't want to get into any huge theological dibate, but I do know some things I want to share:
1. According to the Hebrew translation of the Bible, there is only one word for day, meaning a literal day, and that is used in the Creation account. Therefore, if you were to take it completly literal, it would in fact be literal days.
2. Yes, it is true that the moon is not a light of its own, and that it reflects the sun's light, but for someone like Moses (who wrote Genesis), the moon would be considered a light, because man had not yet gotten that far into science.
3. True, the sun was not made until the forth day, but did God not say "Let there be light" and then seperate them? Morning and evening are relitive. For six months in the Artic there is complete darkness, and six months of complete light, even when the day cycle happens just the same.
~Elliot
nuntius, an absolutly amazing website for things along this line are in Answersingenesis.org , and they address (I think) every question you've mentioned from a Christian perspective.
~Elliot
Elliot, the Hebrew word for day is "Yom". According to "Lexical Aids for the Old Testament", it can be translated either as a day, or as a period of time of any length.
In other words, God revealed the creation account to Moses in terms he would understand? If he couldn't have understood how the solar system works, how much less would he have understood a billion+ year old cosmos?
It seems to me that this reasoning supports long "days" as well.
And I have been referred to "Answers in Genesis" quite often. I admire their sincerity and courage in proclaiming what they believe. However, they often misrepresent facts (or use outdated facts) to convince the reader that they are right, and anyone who disagrees with them is blind and stupid. They also rely heavily on emotional appeal and fallaciously jumping to conclusions.
Woah, I missed a lot in a few days...
Here's another thought, Nuntius, if death is a consequence of sin, which it is stated by God Himself in Genesis that it is, then how was there death before Adam sinned? Did someone else sin before Adam was created? If that's so, and Christ's lineage goes back to Adam then there would be some people on earth not able to partake of His redeeming work. So, either death is a consequence of one man's sin (Adam's) as stated in Genesis 1, or it was before sin and God is a liar.
You can't have suffering, death, cancers, disease, and all those things before sin if sin is the cause of those things as stated by the Lord Himself.
And while I admire your thoroughness in research and scientific method there is much in the Answer in Genesis that has been proven true and upheld in the highest of debates at colleges and universities all over the world. Their facts are solid. I would challenge you to look at their work again. Also, "In Six Day" I referenced earlier is not affiliated with them and has over 50 scientists of various fields telling why they believe the earth was created in a literal seven days. I would challenge you to look at that book as well. You have such a keen mind, I would personally like to have your thoughts on it.
Scribe, if physical death, suffering, etc. are consequences of sin (and did not exist before Adam sinned), then you are correct, my entire theory would absolutely fall apart. I will admit that I am no Bible expert; there may be passages that contradict me. If there are, I will be forced to re-examine my positions. But so far, I haven't found those.
My basic assumptions start with are: A) God did not make the world perfect to start with; that it was just "good". Heaven will be the only perfect place. B) The death God is warning about is Spiritual death (separation from Him). And C) that Animals were not affected by the fall.
Answers in Genesis does have some good resources, I can't deny that. I just heartily disagree with them. (One example of their double-standards, is that in the same article, they will direct the reader to read the creation account completely literally (That creation was made in six 24-hour days), and later they will direct the reader to take it figuratively (They interpret "On that day you will surely die" as "Then you will begin the process of dying" They are asking me to take two verses and apply different methods of interpretation. That does not make sense.(Though, we do need to be extremely careful of when and where we take the Bible to be figurative, and where to take it literally)).
I have ordered "In Six Days" from my library, and should get it within a few days. Thank you for the suggestion. And thanks for the great comments.
PS, when I finish the book, I'll post my thoughts about it.
Unfortunately, I've not gotten into the reading mood yet. *Sigh*
Post a Comment