My point was to argue that your belief is true you have to actually believe it’s true. 
Many people argue for the truth of things they doubt, or outright think are false.
1 Like
For a reason, maybe money or fame, or pride, or they’re in the midst of a belief transition and they haven’t let go of it yet.
But you don’t do so for no reason. I believe YEC is what the Bible says is true about the world.
The point is that if you believe that Noah’s flood was worldwide, you build models to show that Noah’s flood is worldwide. You’re “guaranteeing the outcome” by design because you’re working with a belief set.
Perhaps, but then you also are not doing science, which doesn’t use preset outcomes like that.
Yes, and I think that is the interesting part. I don’t know how the Bible boxes you into YEC. Seems like there is space for an old earth.
1 Like
I was thinking of writing this in the review of your book, but I can keep that separate.
For me:
-
An old earth with evolution and common descent means death before sin, and that rebels against the idea that Jesus defeating physical death is Jesus defeating the consequences of sin. I can’t believe this. This is our hope.
-
An old earth with evolution but without common descent (I suppose this could be a framework hypothesis, maybe other things) doesn’t make sense of the flood being worldwide, as well as why the creation week is a pattern for us, and breaks the pattern of Jesus performing miracles as creator.
The second is perhaps more acceptable, but I think an old earth accepts the evolutionary worldview halfway, and ends up being self-contradictory.
1 Like
It will be particularly enlightening to pick up this conversation once you’ve finished reading and processing the GAE. Once again, let’s say you remain a YEC, would it really be so bad if one of your children ended up taking up a view similar to the GAE? I don’t think it would be so bad.
And this is what makes the approach unscientific. I really appreciate you saying this so clearly though, because most YECists that I’ve spoken with refuse to do so.
2 Likes
I think this comes down to how you define science. As you define it, it has to mean determining the nature of things without invoking God, or at least without invoking God in a way that would upset the construction of theories that were determined without invoking God.
Lol, if you followed that. I mentioned the latter as that’s what GAE did. 
Most definitely not. Science attempts to determine the nature of things based on evidence. The disagreement, I believe, is what constitutes evidence. In science, only objectively observed evidence counts (meaning it does not depends on the perspective of the observer and is repeatable by anyone), whereas in religion, subjectively revealed evidence also counts. Importantly, I am not saying that the subjective perspective is wrong, just that it doesn’t count as scientific evidence.
1 Like
The part we are objecting to is starting an inquiry into the age of the earth, having already presumed to know the answer. That is just circular. As scientists, we don’t approach that answer with a preset answer. It is not that we assume the earth is old, but we find that make most sense in light of the evidence.
1 Like
I would consider this logically inconsistent and then be concerned that they were in some danger of losing their faith then. But that’s in God’s hands, so I would pray they see the truth.
I actually read your book halfway and then realized consciously what was in the back of my mind the whole time: I had believed in Jesus because as I was growing up it seemed a logical way to make sense of the world and I understood I needed forgiveness. I had believed YEC was required to read the Bible consistently. As an adult, I’ve watched apologetics videos and appreciate that belief in Jesus is consistent with historical evidence. BUT, your book (well the interview I watched) was the first confirmation of scientific evidence that anything on the biblical timescale could be correct. I got excited and thought - again, I’m not sure how conscious this was - what other puzzles can I figure out? That was my first post here 
So then I started watching Jeanson’s work in the middle of that. I had been studying Genesis the whole time. That made me really interested in Genesis 10 and Abraham. I decided to look up Nimrod and the cities. That should be historically attested. I found lots of evidence that historians aren’t looking at the evidence correctly because of the Sumerian King’s list, which I believe to be put together poorly and badly translated, but it was probably used to make the Babylonian empire look good, and so was prolific. Lots of other stuff about that, but I could go on. Then now, I was started looking back at Genesis 1 and science. Well, I already believe in a risen savior and angels, and actually it’s sort of weird that other Christians think YEC is inconsistent 
So I’m finding that for a 6,000-10,000 scale to be correct for non-human origins, you really only need to think that something like a wormhole exists for light to travel and that rocks can do things we can’t observe when the composition of earth was very different before and that the climate changed in ways that we have a hard time comprehending. GAE just set me on a journey that strengthened the belief I’ve been logically consistent the whole time, and the scientific proof is underlying even science that unbelievers come up with. 
And I’m having fun too, and uncovered cool stuff. So thanks!
1 Like
This is interesting.How do you understand the following verses in the bible :
1Cor 15: 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.
Do you think Adam was created with a heavenly imperishable body or an earthly perishable body?
1 Like
Good question. I read the entire chapter for context - it’s all talking about the resurrection.
I would say, neither of those. He was given an earthly imperishable body. If he had not sinned, we don’t know what would have happened, but it can be inferred that at some point God would have given him a heavenly imperishable body as well.
Now we bear God’s image, but only very imperfectly. In the new heavens and earth, we will have both the image of man and the image of God perfectly. After his resurrection, Jesus’s body was not the same as before. He did things humans cannot do - his body also didn’t appear the same each time. That’s some evidence of what it may be like.
It’s also interesting that talks about the celestial bodies. I’ve wondered about angels. That confirms they are not made of the same stuff we are. At least not now and I think there will still be a distinction later as well because we’re made out of the earth.
Not true. He would have had to eat from the tree of life in order to become immortal, and we know he didn’t do that, as God says “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”, and then quickly expells him. This whole speech and expulsion would make no sense if he were already immortal. As it happens, his natural lifespan was huge by the standards of reality, but he wasn’t imperishable, or the tree of life would have been meaningless.
2 Likes
No. He was made from dirt just like you and me and every other animal. (The Bible says that humans are made from dust but a lot of Bible readers miss the statements in scripture that animals are also made from dust and likewise return to the dust after dying.)
Moreover, @John_Harshman beat me to this:
Also, the problem with the traditional “there couldn’t have been death before the Fall” attack on evolutionary biology is that the Apostle Paul in the Epistle Romans never claimed that NOTHING ever died before the fall. (If that were true, then an entirely new creation would have been required after the fall—one which introduced the recycling of nutrients in the biosphere through death and decay. There is no such “second creation” event in Genesis. Likewise, God didn’t create thorns and weeds after the fall. They already existed outside the garden—but Adam had no experience dealing with them in the garden itself. That’s because God didn’t plant a garden with weeds in it.)
No, if you read Romans carefully, the very scriptures which no-death-before-the-Fall advocates like to cite are all focused on the death of Imago Dei creatures, that is , the introduction of death into the lives of Adam & Eve and their descendants because they were kicked out of the favored environment of the Eden garden where the Tree of Life kept them alive. Romans is not a treatise on biological death in the animal kingdom. It doesn’t discuss the death of protozoa, Trichoplax, pleasiosaurs, or horses and doesn’t claim that they lived without dying before the fall. It is about humanity.
3 Likes
I don’t think your exegesis makes sense. You are not a Christian, correct?
It was only that he couldn’t eat of the Tree of Life after he sinned, so he wouldn’t live forever in sin. God had a plan of salvation.
How do you see it?
Romans 8
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits 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 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of [f]corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.
That’s correct, but why would that matter?
I see it as written. He was not originally able to live forever, and would have to eat from the tree of life in order to do so, so he had to be prevented from eating. You may say that there’s a non-literal meaning, but you can’t use the text itself as support for that meaning, because it’s pretty clear as written.
3 Likes
The Romans 8 passage says nothing to contradict my post. Yes, despite claims by many that the original creation was “perfect” (whatever that would mean), the Bible says it was created TOV (“good”, “appropriate”, as in just as God intended.) There is no reason to assume that there was an absence of death among plants and animals. In that creation, reproduction after an animal’s MIN (“kind”, “variety”) was necessary because otherwise death would wipe out those organisms. [Or were immortal organisms doomed to reproduce until populations exhausted the food supply, there being no means of nutrient recycling?]
Romans 8 states that even the original creation was planned by God to be succeeded by something far better.
As to the video, this forum follows the etiquette of many other forums: the poster should summarize the video and explain why readers might consider it worth the time-investment. (If the video is simply an artistic presentation of the Romans 8 concepts, that is certainly fine—and a caption with that description can be much appreciated by readers.)
By the way, I studied the Epistle to the Romans long ago under the late Leon Morris and I well remember the laborious exegesis of Romans 8. It included debates about whether KTISIS (κτίσις, and κτίσεως when in the genitive) should be translated as creation or humanity instead. Most commentaries note that KTISIS was used in both senses in Koine Greek—and a few others as well. (And as to those who emphasize KTISIS referring to the creatures of the creation, it is hard to justify Mark 16:15 as applying to the preaching of the Gospel to animals: “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” It only makes sense if it is referring to humanity. However, I am actually inclined to agree with you that the all of creation is included in the groaning and “anticipation” sense of the passage, even if it is a bit figurative. After all, do rocks and other inanimate objects and even plants and frogs truly and literally look forward to something better in the New Heaven and New Earth?)
I won’t go into a long tangent about the exegetical complexities of Romans 8 but I’ll just say that that experience makes me hesitant to accept the all-too-easy assumptions of the no-death-before-the-Fall traditions of my own fundamentalist church background. [Keep in mind that I don’t use the word “fundamentalist” with any sense of deprecation. I’m simply identifying my heritage, even while emphasizing that my evangelical theology has grown by a half-century of study. I wrestled over passages like these for decades. I retain the essentials of my fundamentalist roots but eventually rejected my ardent YECism.]
Great topic!
2 Likes
I think that the answer is in Revelation 22:1-3 - And he showed me a [a]pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.
The same tree of life, the curse is death, so it seems to me that being in the presence of the tree of life with God means you don’t die. There is no mention of eating of the fruit to negate the curse. Heaven, or New Jerusalem seems very similar to Eden, with every living thing living eternally in peace. So, I don’t think that a literal reading of Genesis requires that Adam needed to eat of the tree of life to live eternally, maybe just that you could live forever if you ate of it and were no longer in the presence of the tree and of God. Either way, if you take both Genesis and Revelation into account, it does not seem that you have to eat the fruit, but just be in its presence in Paradise with God.
1 Like