I’m not sure that you’re yet explicit here. If I convince you of all those points (we’re already halfway there), is that enough? Or would it take more than that to convince you that Scripture teaches no death before sin?
I thought I was clear. “In short, convincing me of point 2 would likely not convince me that God’s creation did not contain animal death.” I’d have to see your argument, of course.
Let me try to frame this better. I am asking:
“If Scripture really intends to teach the concept that before the Fall there was no death or suffering on Earth, what sort of Scriptural evidence of this would you expect to find?”
I would expect something written explicitly, since it would clearly be contrary to the experience of the original audience of the text. From Genesis 3:
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”
This would probably be a good place to state “The nephesh chayyah too were cursed to suffer death, although none had known it before.”
To my understanding, the entire concept of “no death before the Fall” is propped entirely by personal interpretation of what the Bible says, not actually what the Bible says. I’m certain you have put more study into it than I have, though. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Good news. My position does not entail this. You will like the GAE. Have you read about it yet?
As for science overturning Scriptures teaching on the flood? Not what I proposed at all. I do not overturn scriptures teaching.
Oh yeah, there are tons of places in the Bible where it would be convenient for God to have inserted things like that to allow no potential wiggle-room. I am a solid Trinitarian, but wouldn’t it be nice if there were a neat passage of Scripture like “the one God eternally exists in three co-equal, co-eternal Persons?” God didn’t inspire Scripture textbook-style for the purpose of disallowing all possible false doctrines from being read into the text, and God must have his good reasons for that.
I’m certain you have put more study into it than I have, though. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I’ll try to address more of your statements as I get the time.
How about pointing out to us a scripture or two where the Bible states that no animals experienced suffering or death before the fall.
The tradition which assumes that no animals died before the fall arose in part because the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Romans has a lot to say about death—and many people assumed that the word death specifically referred to biological death among animals (and plants, actually), because that is the usual semantic domain for death in most modern Indo-European languages. Yet, if you notice the context of Paul’s statements about death, he was clearly talking about human death (physically and spiritually) in Eden which was the result of sin. (Genesis says this involved expulsion from the garden and thereby the loss of access to the fruit of the Tree of Life.)
When I was a YEC, the relevant Roman’s passages were always cited for this “no animal death before the fall” tradition—along with the popular logic of “God just wouldn’t ever allow a animal to suffer or die in a perfect creation.” (Of course, when I would ask where the Bible says that creation was perfect, the answer was always: “God is perfect. So wouldn’t you expect him to make a perfect creation?”)
The tradition has always been about human reasoning, poor exegesis, and a particular style of hermeneutics. Not specific scriptures.
I reject the idea of no animal death before the fall because I value what the Bible actually states more than I value popular traditions.
Wow! That’s so scientific! I’m not being facetious.
Since you are clearly capable of applying hypothesis testing to Scripture, what is it that prevents you from asking,
“If Genesis is a literal account of the creation of “kinds,” what sort of genetic evidence of this would you expect to find?”
I wouldn’t have any preconceptions there, because I wouldn’t presume to know how God would choose to write the genetic codes of the various kinds of creatures (how much similarity, etc.). This is exactly why nested hierarchies don’t prove or even particularly evidence anything at all about creation vs. evolution.
Because you reject genetics as science. It’s just fascinating that you can propose hypothesis testing with the Bible while doing so.
But we do know the predictions of common descent, and the data are consistent with them.
I do note your resorting to the creationist misrepresentation of the genetic evidence as merely vague “similarity,” pretending that there’s no mathematics involved.
And genomes are not “genetic codes.” The “genetic code” refers to the mapping of codons to amino acids. Again, you’re making it clear that you avoid the evidence that God provides us.
Non-sequitur. And not true.
Consistent does not equal correct. It still doesn’t help with anything. That whole process of cladistics is something you do with an assumed origin already in place. It doesn’t show what the origin actually was.
Consistent is how we describe it in science, as we are far more modest than you, treating all conclusions as tentative.
All that consistency underlies all of the physics and medicine you unquestionably accept.
It’s not ‘evidence for evolution’ if you have no reason to say it conflicts with the concept of divine creation.
I have every reason to say it, based on the genetic evidence.
At some level you agree, which is why you misrepresent that evidence as vague “similarity.”
No, that’s not even a genetic question. It’s a theological / philosophical one.
How would you know? You don’t directly examine the genetic evidence. All of your rhetoric indicates that you lack the faith to do so.
Because I’m talking about critical thinking here, not genetic data.
Critical thinking does not work well while ignoring the data.
So you’re abandoning the claim that science supports your interpretation of the Bible? That would be refreshing.