10 theological questions no young-earth creationist can answer

Aww, they look so cute when they're confused. Aww, they look so cute when they're confused.

Most debates between young-earth creationists and those who accept evolution go something like this:

E: Rargh, I am a scary evolutionist! Prepare to be crushed beneath the weight of my mighty evidence and properly utilized scientific principles!

C: Not so fast, Mr. Evolutionist! Or should I say, “EVIL-lutionist”?! For, behold, I have this! (Holds up a Bible.)

E: Nooooooo! Quotes from the Bible! My only weakness! (Collapses to the ground.)

I had to take out some subtext to simplify things for our purposes, but that’s basically it. As far as most young-earther proponents are concerned, this is a dispute between science on one side and the Bible on the other, and the Bible will always trump science. Period.

Unfortunately for them, this neat little picture is complicated by the fact that there are people who also hold the Bible in extremely high regard, and who have no problem with the fact of evolution or the ancient age of the earth. People like yours truly. And we happen to think the Bible does not support the young-earth creationist view nearly as well as its teachers think it does.

Actually, we think their theology is quite bad. Really quite bad. Really, quite, terribly, awfully, really-are-you-serious-with-this-theology?this-is-actually-what-you-believe?, just horribly, incredibly bad.

That’s why I’ve prepared the following list of questions, painstakingly compiled through my years of intense research working on this site. I hope it sparks some good discussion, but I also hope it illustrates that the young-earth crowd does not have the market cornered on biblical truth like they pretend they do, and that, really, their pie-in-the-sky claims fail on theological grounds, without ever having to get into the finer details of the fossil record or the human genome.

1. What was the point of the tree of life?

The tree of life, so named in Genesis 2:9, is one of the most baffling of the many problems spawned by the literal interpretation of the creation accounts. Literalists often pretend like the purpose of the tree is vague and unclear, but the truth is — unlike many things in Genesis 1-3 — the power possessed by the tree of life isn’t vague at all. Genesis 3:22 makes it abundantly clear: Have a little nibble on the fruit of the tree of life and you live forever. Eat your heart out, diet and exercise.

The tree of life: A marvelous, wonderful creation of God, whose miraculous power served absolutely no purpose.

The tree of life: A miraculous creation of God, whose unique and wondrous power served absolutely no purpose.

This presents a huge problem for the young-earth view, because they believe physical death was not part of God’s original creation. According to them, neither humans nor animals were capable of death, pain or suffering until after Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden. Because, obviously, causing the death of every living thing for all time is a perfectly fair and reasonable punishment for a single act of disobedience.

Of course, this raises the question of why, exactly, did God create a magical tree that grants immortality in a world where every living thing was already immortal? If the young-earth theology is correct, then this tree’s miraculous power served absolutely no useful function until after the fall of man — at which point God barred access to the tree with bad-ass angels and a flaming sword. So why’d he make it in the first place?

And speaking of the tree of life, where is it now? Because, again, God didn’t mulch it at the end of the story. Young-earth proponents maintain it was destroyed in Noah’s flood, but not only does this require exactly the kind of extrabiblical conjecture that makes people like me such “compromisers,” but it also implies the tree of life can die (!), which sort of makes my brain explode a little bit.

"This is the tree of life, which grants immortality to whomever eats of its fruit. Also, it can die if it doesn't get enough sun."

“This is the tree of life, which miraculously grants immortality to whomever eats of its fruit. Also, it can die if it doesn’t get enough sun.”

2. If human sin is the reason animals die, why can’t they be saved?

Let’s recap: young-earth creationists believe all death, even animal death, is a consequence of human sin. Now, ignoring for a moment the fact that the Bible never once actually says animal death is a consequence of human sin (seems significant enough to warrant at least a mention or two, don’t you think?), this creates some pretty problematic theology.

Consider, for example, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22: “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” You see where I’m going with this. The young-earth crowd can’t say animals are among those who “die in Adam,” but not among those who “shall be made alive in Christ.”

... but only if they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

… but only if they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Of course, no young-earth creationist really believes goats and hamsters and dragonflies can become born-again believers in Jesus, but they can’t have it both ways. Scripture doesn’t allow them to. To argue otherwise is not only to nullify this passage and many others, but also to call into question whether Christ’s sacrifice really addressed the full ramifications and consequences of our sin.

Some may respond to this that 1 Corinthians 15 is just about people, not animals, and I agree, of course. The only problem is that this is one of the very few biblical proof-texts that have ever been offered to justify animal death as a consequence for human sin in the first place. Without them, the doctrine is based on nothing but the assertions of folks like Ken Ham, which — confident and self-assured they may be — aren’t much to go on.

And, really, that’s as it should be. The whole notion of animal death being a “not-good” amendment to God’s perfect original creation is ridiculous on its face, one I suspect always had a lot more to do with “Bambi” and people’s sentimental notions about animals (not to mention providing a simple solution to the problem of natural evil) than it ever had to do with the Bible and what it actually says.

Please, let’s jettison this silly dogma once and for all, and have a purer — and more biblically accurate — faith to present to the world.

3. If physical death is part of the punishment for sin, why do Christians still die?

So at this point, you may be saying, “OK, that’s all well and good about animal death, but what about human death? Because there are definitely verses that say human death came from Adam’s sin.” Fair enough. Let’s look at one of those verses, shall we?

Romans 5:12: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.”

Now, look at what the verse is really saying, and don’t — as we are so often tempted to do — neglect the second part: “… death spread to all men, because all sinned.” If this is talking about physical death, then it clearly implies that we don’t become capable of physical death until after we sin, which makes absolutely no sense.

What I believe is that this passage is talking about something different entirely: spiritual death — which is a pretty common theme in scripture as well. Like, for example, just a couple chapters later in Romans, when Paul writes, “I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died.”

Since it’s unlikely that Paul was an unusually eloquent zombie when he penned the Book of Romans, it rather obvious that he’s talking about a non-physical type of death here. And, since the two contexts are identical (discussing the consequences of human sin), the same is almost certainly true of Romans 5.

This was not the Apostle Paul when he wrote Romans.

This was not the Apostle Paul when he wrote Romans.

But there are more insidious implications of this notion that physical death is part of the punishment for human sin. Central to the Christian faith is the idea that Jesus “paid it all,” that his sacrifice was fully sufficient to atone for our sin, remove the punishment that was due us, and reconcile us back into a right relationship with God.

The only problem is that every single Christian who has ever lived has also died. Which has to make you wonder how that’s possible, if physical death was part of the punishment for human sin and Jesus paid the full sum of our punishment with his death on the cross. Fact is, they can’t both be true. Either Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient to cover all the consequences of our transgressions (which throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the past 2,000 years of Christian theology and tradition), or death just isn’t one of those consequences.

Personally, I side with the latter. I believe God “appointed” that man should die once, not as a punishment, but as an inherent part of the current created order and a symbol of what’s to come — when that order is ultimately done away with.

4. Why was Eve named “mother of life”?

Immediately after Genesis 3:17-19, which is when God “curses” mankind, Adam names his wife Eve. And when I say “immediately after,” I mean, literally, the very next verse. This is significant, because the curse is the part of the Bible that young-earth creationism proponents cite as the genesis (geddit?) for all death and illness and disorder and pretty much any bad thing that’s ever happened (even though, again, the Bible says nothing remotely like that).

Genesis 3:20 explains that Adam chose the name “Eve” for his previously anonymous wife because she “was the mother of all (the) living/life.” The name comes from the Hebrew Ḥawwāh, meaning “living one” or “source of life,” and is related to ḥāyâ, “to live.” I don’t know about you, but it just seems slightly odd (not to mention a little insensitive) that Adam would name his wife “source of life” immediately after she had supposedly just been responsible for cursing the entire universe with death, suffering and misery for the rest of time.

Maybe Adam thought "Royal-screw-up-who-is-responsible-for-the-death-of-everyone" was too much of a mouthful.

Maybe Adam thought “Royal-screw-up-who-is-responsible-for-the-death-of-everyone” was too much of a mouthful.

I mean, I know Adam may not have been the smartest guy in the world (he needed supernatural revelation to realize he was in his birthday suit, after all), but give him a little credit.

And, while we’re on the subject…

5. How did Adam and Eve know what death was?

When God first commands Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge, he warns him what the punishment will be for disobedience: “You will surely die.” The woman hadn’t been made yet at this point in the story, but based on her reference to the penalty during her conversation with the serpent, we can assume the message got passed along in some fashion.

The confusing thing about this is, how did Adam and Eve know what death was? You know, considering the fact that they had just been molded into existence earlier that same day, and were living in a world in which there was no such thing as death. You ever try explaining death to a small child? It’s very difficult. You ever try explaining death to a one-day-old child? It’s even harder.

"Hey, wake up, kid. Daddy's gotta explain you what death is all about."

“Hey, wake up, kid. Daddy’s gotta explain you what death is all about.”

Now, to be fair, groups like AiG have tried to answer this one before. Using their X-trabiblical Vision™, that superpower common to young-earth creationists which gives them the ability to know what God’s word says about things that aren’t actually in God’s word, they reveal that Adam was a super-genius who would’ve known everything there is to know about death simply from hearing the word.

But again, a guy who’s not with it enough to tell that he’s naked doesn’t really inspire confidence that he’s capable of grasping complicated abstract ideas. When God dropped a supposedly foreign concept like death on him, I’m pretty sure the dude would have had some questions.

Like, “What is that,” for example.

Along those same lines…

6. If the punishment for eating from the tree was that Adam and Eve would physically die … why didn’t they physically die?

At first glance, you might be confused by this question. You may be thinking, “Wait a minute. The Bible says they would die, and they did die. What’s the problem?”

Well, the thing is, there’s a little more to it than that. The Bible doesn’t just say they would die, it says they would die “in the day” that they disobeyed. And, fortunately, we know from the literalists that the word “day” in the Genesis creation accounts can’t mean anything other than an ordinary, 24-hour day.

Only, this is a little confusing, since — according to the story — neither Adam nor Eve actually died the day they ate from the tree of knowledge. We don’t know exactly how old Eve was when she shuffled off this mortal coil, but Adam lived to the ripe old age of 930. Now, I’m no mathematician, but I’m fairly certain 930 years is a lot longer than a 24-hour day. And I’m not aware of any coroner who begins his investigation into the cause of death by asking about fruit the deceased may have eaten 900 years prior.

God: You should have seen your face. Oh man! Oh, that was classic. Woman: Oh. [laughing] I really thought I was gonna die. Michael: Oh, really? Pam: Yeah. 'Cause you said I would...

God: You should have seen your face. Oh man! Oh, that was classic.
Woman: Oh. [laughing] I really thought I was gonna die.
God: Oh, really?
Woman: Yeah. ‘Cause you said I would…

The young-earthers have all sorts of creative ways they attempt to avoid this rather obvious discrepancy. A common one is to assert that, in this very special case, maybe the word “day” does refer to a long, indeterminate period of time (even though the people God was talking to clearly understood that the effects would be immediate, such that the woman feared she would die from simply touching the fruit).

My personal favorite is this delightful little exercise in hand-wavery: “(After eating the fruit,) Adam and Eve began to die.”

Ha! “Began to die” — isn’t that great? Setting aside for now that that’s, you know, not what the Bible says (it doesn’t say “begin to die,” it says ”die” — “surely die,” as a matter of fact), what does that even mean? Because as far as I can tell, the definition of “beginning to die” is no different than “being alive.”

Which makes it pretty useless as far as I’m concerned. When any human being older than a zygote qualifies as having “begun to die,” I think the phrase has pretty much lost all meaning as a concept.

So what was God talking about in Genesis 2:16-17? I think the only interpretation that makes sense is the only one that made sense of Romans 5 and 7 earlier in this post: spiritual death.

Humans did not physically die the first time we disobeyed God, nor did we lose the immortality we supposedly enjoyed (for a few minutes, anyway) after our original creation. What happened was that we died spiritually, because our decision to sin severed us from our spiritual source of life — God. Faith in Christ is our one hope of restoring that connection, and restoring that connection is our one hope of eternal life, because our spirit — not our physical bodies — is the only part of us that can live forever.

7. Can you name any other piece of literature in which the existence of a talking snake and trees with magical powers would suggest to you that it was meant to be taken literally?

This one is funny, because when you start discussing the proper interpretation of Genesis with young-earth creationists, they tend to refer to contextual clues a lot. To give just one example, this Creation.com piece, which goes to hilarious lengths to compare the use of the Hebrew “yom” (“day”) to the 2,282 other Old Testament uses of the word.

Somehow, in this author’s detailed analysis of the use of ordinal numbers in conjunction with “yom,” he managed to miss out on a couple of fairly significant contextual clues, like, I dunno, the freaking snake that is TALKING TO PEOPLE. Because I actually just completed a survey of 6,842 stories that feature talking animals, and — wouldn’t you know it — none of them were history.

Then you have the trees whose fruit bear obvious magical properties, which happens to be another astoundingly common theme in one particular type of writing: fiction writing.

Librarian 1: "Hey, what category do I list this book under?" Librarian 2: "It's got a lot of talking animals in it. Better file it under non-fiction."

Librarian 1: “Hey, what category do I list this book under?”
Librarian 2: “It’s got a lot of talking animals in it. Better place it in non-fiction.”

Some young-earthers have responded to this with the story of Balaam’s donkey, but unlike in Genesis 3, the donkey’s ability to talk is explicitly described as a miraculous act of God. Of course, their exhaustive comparative studies never include Proverbs 3:18 and 13:12, two instances in which the biblical authors revisit the concept of the tree of life — in an obviously figurative context.

8. Why do Genesis 1 and 2 contradict?

I have a much more detailed post on this issue here, so I’ll be brief.

Here is the order of some of the things God made in Genesis 1:

Plants (1:11-13)
Fish and birds, concurrently (1:20-23)
Land animals (1:24-25)
Men and women, concurrently (1:26-27)

Now here’s the order of the same stuff in Genesis 2:

Man (2:7)
Trees (2:9)
Land animals and birds (2:19)
Woman (2:21-22)

Notice any differences? Oh, wait, it’s all different. Now, if these two stories are meant to be theological allegory, as I believe they are, then there’s no issue. But if they are — as the young-earthers insist — historical accounts of the same creation of the same universe, then we have a problem … because they are irreconcilably different.

Some may criticize this question’s inclusion on this list. True, it’s not like young-earthers haven’t tried to answer it before. (Not that they really have a choice — if they can’t even get past the second chapter of Genesis without their literalist exegesis falling apart, they’re in big trouble.) Unfortunately, their explanations are utterly unfaithful to the very story they purport to be defending.

The primary explanation is that the verb in verse 19 (NASB: “Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky…”) should be translated in the past perfect: “had formed.” And indeed this is how some modern translations like the New International Version and the English Standard Version render the verse, even though the only reason to do so is to serve the translator’s underlying theological presuppositions.

Morphosyntactic considerations aside, if you do render the verse 19 verb “had formed,” it kind of completely wrecks the story. Whereas, in the NASB, verse 19 proceeds logically from the preceding one (18: God says, “I will make a helper suitable for man.” 19: He makes a bunch of helpers), the NIV is hopelessly muddled (18: God says, “I will make a helper suitable for man.” 19: God suddenly reverses course: “Actually, never mind. I forgot I already made all these things. Will any of these work?”).

And don’t forget, this is only one of many problems that the literalistic, young-earth hermeneutic creates. It has to make you wonder: If these really are two literal accounts which are meant to be read as one harmonious history, why do you have to change or ignore so much of what they say to make them harmonize?

9. Why is incest wrong?

Ken Ham claims the most common question he’s been asked is, “Where did Cain get his wife?” Well, consider this the follow-up.

You see, young-earth groups are pretty up-front about where they think Cain’s wife came from: He married his sister. According to the young-earthers, God’s divine plan necessitated that men to procreate with their sisters or mother at least twice: following Noah’s flood and right after our original creation.

Somehow I can't help but question a worldview in which geology must be treated with the utmost caution, but sex with your blood relatives is OK in the proper context.

Somehow I can’t help but question a worldview in which radiometric dating is met with the greatest skepticism, but sex with your blood relatives is OK in the proper context.

Besides being weird and disturbing and more than a little icky, this is problematic because, biblically, incest is repeatedly and consistently described as a sin. It happens to be mentioned in scripture at least as many times as homosexuality, and I think we all know what Ken Ham thinks about that.

So why does incest get a pass?

Two reasons: Because there would “fewer genetic mistakes” the closer the happy couple was to Adam and Eve, and because God hadn’t issued his Mosaic-era prohibitions against incest yet.

Unfortunately, the first defense was arrived at using X-trabiblical Vision™, and since I don’t possess this power, I’m not really qualified to respond.

But the second is — pardon my French — total BS. News flash: According to the young-earthers, God hadn’t issued any commands at this point in history beyond “Don’t eat that fruit,” but it still seemed to be a pretty major party foul when Cain murdered Abel.

"Gee, Cain, I really wish you hadn't done that, but since I didn't specifically tell you not to, I guess it's all right." — God ("Cain Slaying Abel," Peter Paul Rubens)

God: “Gee, Cain, I really wish you hadn’t done that, but since I didn’t specifically tell you not to, I guess it’s all right.” (“Cain Slaying Abel,” Peter Paul Rubens)

So if God’s moral prohibition against murder was in effect before Heston — er, I mean, Moses — laid down the law on Sinai, then so was his moral prohibition against incest. Which makes it pretty unlikely that he would have set up his creation in such a way that it required incest almost immediately, don’t you think?

10. And finally, if it is so vitally important that Christians take Genesis literally, why did Jesus never once instruct us to take Genesis literally?

Things-Jesus-Never-Said

Sure, it’s an argument from silence. But it’s still worth considering why Jesus — who often addressed Old Testament passages that religious people had a habit of misinterpreting, and surely knew the issue this would one day become in the church. Preventing all that would have been as simple as this:

And again the Pharisees came to test Jesus. “Great teacher,” they said, “there are some who say the creation accounts are like your parables, and not meant to be read as history. What do you say to this?”

And then Jesus replied, giving the exact right answer that would preemptively end decades of harsh debate almost 2,000 years later.

But there’s nothing remotely like that in the gospels. Which proves that, regardless of whose interpretation of Genesis is correct, it doesn’t really matter in the end.

Because, if one particular view of the creation accounts was remotely necessary to the true understanding of Christianity, I’m pretty sure the founder of Christianity would have mentioned it.

Tyler Francke is founder of God of Evolution and author of Reoriented. He can be reached at tyler@godofevolution.com.

  • Alan Christensen

    Good list! Regarding point 3, it occurred to me that by the time Paul started writing his epistles some Christians had already died physically. And yet this doesn’t seem to pose a theological problem for him. Cf. I Thess. 4, where he talks about those who have “died in Christ,” assuring the Thessalonians that they’ll be raised at the 2nd Coming but doesn’t say boo about why they died in the first place.

    • Some very good points, as well, Alan! Thanks so much for sharing! And we know from scripture that there had been some believers who had died before Paul wrote Romans. For example, the first martyr, Stephen (Acts 7:54-60) happened before Paul had even converted to Christianity (Acts 9).

  • Seth

    I have long thought it would be entertaining and instructive to see a Creation / Evolution debate that was strictly limited to theology.

    • It would be especially funny to see the young-earth creationist come in all cocky, then get ripped to shreds by someone like Peter Enns or Karl Giberson.

  • Charles Weston

    Fun post!

    Mainly, the Genesis accounts are a collection of “just so” stories, to answer questions akin to “Daddy, why is the sky blue?”

    “Daddy, why do all of the animals except snakes have legs?”

    “Well, son, it goes all the way back to the very beginning and it happened like this….”

    And while on the subject of the snake….it’s literal, literal, literal, literal, symbolic, literal, literal….. Was it a snake or was it Satan?

    • Headless Unicorn Guy

      And did it speak in a voice like John DeLancie?

      • Jumin Rhee

        Not sure about satan, but god sounds like morgan Freeman.

  • Chris Mason

    Fan-tastic! (In case anyone’s wondering, I like to write it that way for emphasis) There were several things here that I never even thought of before. At the same time, it makes it all the more humiliating that I used to be a YEC. Thank God I’m done with that crowd.

    • Carl Unger

      I’m new here………………………don’t change your style………..no one would read it.

  • Clinton

    Man, your arrogance is extremely off-putting. I’m not a YEC, but if I was, you would have just strengthened my resolve. Most of these are actually quite easy for a YEC to answer (I used to be one).

    • Hey Clinton, I’m sorry the writing was so off-putting to you. I don’t mean to be arrogant (though I definitely was aiming for humorous and maybe more than a little snarky), but I do think the arguments I present here are quite strong. If you can answer any of them clearly and convincingly, you’d be the first person I’ve met to do so.

      • Clinton

        Well, for one thing, let’s take your last one:

        “Sure, it’s an argument from silence.”

        Your first sentence refutes your last point, but you still felt compelled to point it out. Number ten is clearly fallacious, but you present it as a strong counterargument to YEC claims. Jesus also never said “don’t cut the brakes in your neighbor’s car,” but he clearly would have been against that behavior. Why would Jesus have felt the need to bother to point out Genesis should be read literally? I don’t recall Jesus concerning himself with proper methods of hermeneutics while he was here on Earth. He did, at times, respond to bad interpretations of Scripture, but only when it came to religious fundamentalists excusing their sinful behavior. The age of the earth debate simply was not on Jesus’ radar.

        For that matter, this is the same kind of argument atheists use against Christianity. “If God exists, why didn’t he tell us how to cure certain diseases, or warn us about Hitler,” etc.? This argument just is not a very good one.

        • Your first sentence refutes your last point, but you still felt compelled to point it out.

          That sentence doesn’t “refute” anything. It points out a potential weakness in the argument, but arguments from silence are not always fallacious, nor are they necessarily incorrect. An argument from silence can, in fact, be quite powerful and convincing if, based on other evidence, it seems reasonable that the source in question should have said something about the given subject, which I would argue is the case here.

          Jesus also never said “don’t cut the brakes in your neighbor’s car,” but he clearly would have been against that behavior.

          Ha! And you accuse me of fallacious arguments. Jesus taught on the proper interpretation of Old Testament scriptures all the time. What’s more, the interpretation of Genesis was a real issue in his day. The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Christ; he taught an allegorical view of Genesis (and most of the rest of the Bible) and his exegesis influenced several early church fathers.

          So, yes, Jesus’ silence on the matter is noticeable and perplexing, especially if this topic is as important as the leading young-earth groups claim (Answers in Genesis, for example, is fond of saying their literal view is the foundation of the gospel and the Christian faith). Your attempt to compare it to Jesus’ silence in regard to a technology that wouldn’t exist for almost two millennia is silly.

          I don’t recall Jesus concerning himself with proper methods of hermeneutics while he was here on Earth.

          You should read some of the conversations he had with the Pharisees.

          For that matter, this is the same kind of argument atheists use against Christianity. “If God exists, why didn’t he tell us how to cure certain diseases, or warn us about Hitler,” etc.? This argument just is not a very good one.

          I don’t see how my argument compares to the atheist one you reference.

          • Clinton

            “That sentence doesn’t ‘refute’ anything. It points out a potential weakness in the argument, but arguments from silence are not always fallacious, nor are they necessarily incorrect.”

            Okay, but it is a known fallacy. You can’t say “it’s not always a fallacy” to justify using it fallaciously.

            “Ha! And you accuse me of fallacious arguments.”

            Yes, and my argument wasn’t a fallacy. I should reiterate that I’m not impressed by hubris. I’m only out to discover truth.

            “Jesus taught on the proper interpretation of Old Testament scriptures all the time. What’s more, the interpretation of Genesis was a real issue in his day. The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Christ; he taught an allegorical view of Genesis (and most of the rest of the Bible) and his exegesis influenced several early church fathers.”

            It may have been a real issue during his day (I don’t know enough about the history to argue otherwise), but it doesn’t follow that Jesus would have concerned himself with it. There were many things that were issues in his day. Jesus was concerned about salvation and warning people of their sins. He wasn’t concerned about chiming in on the philosophical issues of his day. He may have responded to the Genesis debate if anyone had asked him about it, but there’s no reason to believe he would have just blurted it out in one of his teachings, especially given the numerous other philosophical issues he could have spoken to but refrained.

            “So, yes, Jesus’ silence on the matter is noticeable and perplexing, especially if this topic is as important as the leading young-earth groups claim (Answers in Genesis, for example, is fond of saying their literal view is the foundation of the gospel and the Christian faith).”

            That’s AiG, though. I never believed it was a salvation issue while I was a YEC.

            “Your attempt to compare it to Jesus’ silence in regard to a technology that wouldn’t exist for almost two millennia is silly.”

            Okay, but you’re taking me too literally here. I could just have easily said Jesus never spoke out against abortion and infanticide, and my argument would have been the same. Your misunderstanding of my point is silly.

            “You should read some of the conversations he had with the Pharisees.”

            Could you cite some examples?

            “I don’t see how my argument compares to the atheist one you reference.”

            It’s the same type of argument they use. They use arguments from silence all the time. Some examples: Jesus never spoke about against same-sex marriage or abortion, so therefore he considered them permissible. If God exists, he surely would have told us how to cure diseases. Etc.

          • Okay, but it is a known fallacy. You can’t say “it’s not always a fallacy” to justify using it fallaciously.

            I don’t believe I did use it fallaciously, and I think I’ve explained why quite clearly.

            He may have responded to the Genesis debate if anyone had asked him about it, but there’s no reason to believe he would have just blurted it out in one of his teachings, especially given the numerous other philosophical issues he could have spoken to but refrained. … That’s AiG, though. I never believed it was a salvation issue while I was a YEC.

            I admit, if you don’t believe young-earth creationism is the “foundation of the gospel” (as groups like AiG teach), then the argument is not as strong.

            However, as I explain in the featured comment on this post, these arguments are also not really aimed at YECs who respect others’ views; they are specifically aimed at the AiG-thinking folks, whose teachings I believe to be unbiblical and harmful to the gospel message and the ministry of the church.

            Okay, but you’re taking me too literally here. I could just have easily said Jesus never spoke out against abortion and infanticide, and my argument would have been the same.

            Those arguments would have been much better.

            Could you cite some examples?

            Christ’s teachings on the Sabbath are a good and oft-repeated one. In John 5, for example, Christ addresses the Pharisees’ literal interpretation of the Sabbath being a day of rest, because they believe God literally rested. But he explicitly rejects that view, saying, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.”

            You may not agree with my interpretation here, but I think it’s underscored by the fact that in the very next verse it says the Pharisees tried all the more to kill him, because they believed him to be committing blasphemy by contradicting what they thought was a clear teaching of the word of God.

            It’s the same type of argument they use. They use arguments from silence all the time. Some examples: Jesus never spoke about against same-sex marriage or abortion, so therefore he considered them permissible. If God exists, he surely would have told us how to cure diseases. Etc.

            I don’t believe these arguments demonstrate what God does or doesn’t find permissible, but I do believe, as I reiterated above with the creation accounts, that they shed some light on what God does and doesn’t find important.

            I don’t believe Jesus’ silence on the interpretation of Genesis shows what he believed about the subject one way or another, but I do believe it shows he did not in any way think it was foundational to the gospel, as asserted by many YEC proponents today.

            Likewise, I don’t believe Jesus’ silence on the issue of homosexuality and abortion indicate that he considered them moral, but I do believe it indicates that he doesn’t want them to be the two primary, distinguishing issues his church’s ministry should be based around.

            And I don’t believe God’s silence on vaccines and whatnot in scripture indicates that he does not care about sick people or disease, but it is more evidence that the Bible was not meant to convey scientific truth, but theological truth.

  • Gary Hinchman

    Answers to All Questions

    1. What was the point of the tree of life?

    Originally, in a state of innocence, the eating of the tree would maintain physical life and preserve it in its innocence, without sin. But once Sin entered in the human framework, it could only be conquered and overcome by a “life for life” sacrifice. Hence, the sacrificial system of the OT and the ultimate “once for all” sacrifice of the eternal Incarnate Son in the NT. So the tree of life returns after Christ’s return to bring healing to all the nations, which would have existed at the beginning but must wait until the end, now that there is an eternal sacrifice for all Sin in existence for mankind as a whole. Healing of physical damages will still be necessary.

    Rev_22:2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

    2. If human sin is the reason animals die, why can’t they be saved?

    Animals, as indeed all of creation, do not need to be saved because they already believe in their Creator, as He is. Mankind needs salvation because he lives in a state of Sin that can only be cured by faith in the Creators provided means of salvation by faith. The whole creation waits for the redemption of God through Christ in man and then when Christ reigns supreme over all, all will be redeemed from the corruption of death that exists in creation because of man’s disobedience. The corruption of death is in the creation because man brought it about in disobedience. It is ultimately cured by the full redemption of man in time and by a transformed creation which does not exist in full yet, as a result.

    Rom 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
    Rom 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.
    Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
    Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
    Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
    Rom 8:23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
    Rom 8:24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?
    Rom 8:25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

    3. If physical death is part of the punishment for sin, why do Christians still die?

    Because Sin, and its deadly effects, still dwells in the flesh of Adam the way a corrupt cancer gene still exists and is passed on to one generation to another in the creation genetically. Christians have eternal life by faith, but the corrupted body in Adam must die in order to enter into eternity with a sinless soul kept alive by an indwelling Holy Spirit that gave eternal life in the first place by faith in Christ’s work at the cross and in resurrection.

    Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

    Rom_7:17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
    Rom_7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
    Rom_7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

    Rom_6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    4. Why was Eve named “mother of life”?

    The biblical context controls the definition of “all life” or “all living.” And in context, it is through the woman that all human life comes, hence “the mother of all [human] life.” Don’t make scripture say what the text in its context does not say.

    5. How did Adam and Eve know what death was?

    They did not know experientially until they disobeyed God’s Word and then “knew” they had sinned because they were made self-aware of their nakedness, which a state of innocence never takes into account. Furthermore, there may have been a “life cycle” in the garden like there is in all gardens, beginning with a seed that transforms in maturity in various stages until maturity brings death and nutrients by which next generations feed and grow comes about [dust to dust]. A tended garden must deal with the beginning and end of life cycles. Therefore, Adam and Eve saw death in the garden as a form of necessity for next generation life-cycle forms of fruit bearing to continue. They had never seen this life-cycle in themselves, but they did see it in the garden of life-cycles for other organisms.

    Death is a separation from life over time. Therefore, a seed must die in order for the plant, with its fruit, to come life from the seed. And there were seeds in the garden breeding life everywhere from the beginning, before Adam and Eve were created..

    Gen_1:11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so.
    Gen_1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
    Gen_1:29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.

    6. If the punishment for eating from the tree was that Adam and Eve would physically die … why didn’t they physically die?

    They did physically die in a “process of death” whereby the eating of the fruit was only a beginning of the process of death which ends in total physical incapacitation. But first comes mental death [dementia], emotional death [dementia], and then finally physical incapacity [bodily death].

    7. Can you name any other piece of literature in which the existence of a talking snake and trees with magical powers would suggest to you that it was meant to be taken literally?

    The fact that such historical literature does not exist merely shows a one time occurrence in history where it was possible, but then time and state-of-being changed so that it would not repeat itself again.

    Gen_3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.

    Intelligence in the animal kingdom is confirmed by the Bible and Science. That a God who created all things could manipulate that creation for His purposes in time and space is conceivable if the premise of Genesis 1:1 is even entertained for a moment.

    8. Why do Genesis 1 and 2 contradict?

    Who says they “contradict”? Why can’t they merely compliment one another in literary presentation the same way a man and a woman compliment each other in human presentation. Men order things in one way and women may order things in another way. But that does not make either ordering wrong. So the order of Genesis 1 is different than the order of Genesis 2. that reality does not make either order “wrong” or “contradictory.”

    9. Why is incest wrong?

    The Mosaic law against incest was given by God for establishing a new people of God called “holy” or separate from the polluted nations all around.. Maintaining a consistency in the gene pool meant not polluting the pool any further. So God stopped the pollution through a law against incest. Perhaps the gene pool before the Mosaic law against incest could handle the pollution of the human gene pool and yet that came to an end by God’s Levitical commands for purity in the social structure of Israel.

    10. And finally, if it is so vitally important that Christians take Genesis literally, why did Jesus never once instruct us to take Genesis literally?

    Jesus certainly told us to take marriage between a man and woman literally and literally references to Genesis 2 in order to make his point.

    Mat 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
    Mat 19:5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?
    Mat 19:6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

    Furthermore, Jesus repeatedly refers to historical characters, events, and places from the book of Genesis, taking them as literal historical realities in his teachings. If Jesus, the person we found our faith on, can take Genesis literally, why can’t His followers?

    Mat_10:15 Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.
    Mat_11:23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

    Jesus predicated the future on his belief in a literal historical Genesis:

    Luk 17:26 “And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:
    Luk 17:27 they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
    Luk 17:28 “It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building;
    Luk 17:29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.
    Luk 17:30 “It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

    Asked and answered.

    • Hey Gary, I really appreciate the time and effort you obviously put into this, so I’m sorry to tell you that most of these answers simply aren’t valid. It appears that all you did was try and answer the bolded questions, completely ignoring the explanatory text that follows the questions. But you can’t really do that, because the explanatory text serves to refine the questions and provides additional and supporting arguments. Let me show you what I mean.

      1. What was the point of the tree of life?

      Originally, in a state of innocence, the eating of the tree would maintain physical life and preserve it in its innocence, without sin. But once Sin entered in the human framework, it could only be conquered and overcome by a “life for life” sacrifice.

      You see, first of all, this ignores parts of scripture (quoted in the OP), which explained the purpose of tree of life: it did not “maintain life,” the Bible strongly implies that if you take and eat from the tree once, you live forever. Also, God explained this after “sin entered in the human framework,” so clearly the tree’s power did not become ineffective at that point. The tree still granted immortality after Adam and Eve’s sin, which is exactly why God felt compelled to station the guard to prevent access to it.

      But all that’s neither here nor there. Your entire answer ignores the primary issue, which is not really the function of the tree of life, but what was the point of having it in a world where (supposedly) nothing was capable of dying anyway?

      Your answer to the second question provides a lot of assertions, but the only scripture you offer is Romans 8, which doesn’t apply. Even if Romans 8 really is talking about the universe (it’s just as possible the phrase “whole creation” refers to mankind, as it clearly does in Mark 16:15), then the fact remains that nothing in this passage remotely implies that the “groaning” or “bondage” or “corruption” that is referenced is a punishment for human sin. Nothing in the passage references Adam or Eve, the garden of Eden, or anything like that. In fact, the passage describes exactly who is responsible, God, and why he did it: not as a punishment, but “in hope” that by allowing physical death and decay into the created order, something greater would be revealed.

      Your third answer doesn’t address the question. Is physical death part of our punishment for sin, or isn’t it? You make it sound almost like it’s a clinical, hygienic issue.

      The biblical context controls the definition of “all life” or “all living.” And in context, it is through the woman that all human life comes, hence “the mother of all [human] life.” Don’t make scripture say what the text in its context does not say.

      You’re the one adding to what scripture says, not me. But that’s not even the issue. The question was, doesn’t it seem a little odd for Adam to have picked that name, immediately after she had just supposedly been responsible for causing a curse that poisoned the entire universe with death for the very first time??

      They did not know experientially until they disobeyed God’s Word and then “knew” they had sinned because they were made self-aware of their nakedness, which a state of innocence never takes into account. Furthermore, there may have been a “life cycle” in the garden like there is in all gardens, beginning with a seed that transforms in maturity in various stages until maturity brings death and nutrients by which next generations feed and grow comes about [dust to dust]. A tended garden must deal with the beginning and end of life cycles. Therefore, Adam and Eve saw death in the garden as a form of necessity for next generation life-cycle forms of fruit bearing to continue. They had never seen this life-cycle in themselves, but they did see it in the garden of life-cycles for other organisms.

      The internal timeline of the story does not allow for your creative extrabiblical conjecture that Adam and Eve “observed a plant life cycle.” God’s warning was given to man before he formed woman, which, according to the constrictive timeline imposed by the young-earth creationists’ literal reading of both Genesis 1 and 2, means it all happened within the span of one day, and no plant’s life cycle is that short.

      Adam had just been created. If the story had meant to convey that no death existed in the universe, he would have asked God, “What is death?” and you know it.

      They did physically die in a “process of death” whereby the eating of the fruit was only a beginning of the process of death which ends in total physical incapacitation.

      The Bible doesn’t say they would “physically die in a ‘process of death’ whereby the eating of the fruit was only a beginning of the process of death which ends in total physical incapacitation.” It says they would “DIE” on the day they ate the fruit.

      The fact that such historical literature does not exist merely shows a one time occurrence in history where it was possible, but then time and state-of-being changed so that it would not repeat itself again.

      Considering that the Bible is, after all, God’s special divine revelation of himself to humanity, in a way that we would be able to understand, which do you think is more likely:

      a) that God used common and easily accessible literary devices, talking snakes and magical objects, and that like all other uses of these devices, they tell a fictional story, but in this case, one meant to carry very important theological and symbolic truth; or

      b) that this is the only example ever of historical non-fiction using such devices, and God just hoped we would be able to distinguish it and tell the difference, despite the obvious clues to the contrary?

      Who says they “contradict”?

      Lots of people, one of them being me. I explain it in great detail, both in this post, and the one it links to several times.

      Why can’t they merely compliment one another in literary presentation the same way a man and a woman compliment each other in human presentation.

      They can’t complement one another, because they don’t complement one another. They contradict. You would understand what the question was asking if you actually read the piece.

      Men order things in one way and women may order things in another way. But that does not make either ordering wrong. So the order of Genesis 1 is different than the order of Genesis 2. that reality does not make either order “wrong” or “contradictory.”

      You do know the meaning of the word “contradictory,” right? If you have two historical accounts of the American Civil War, and Account A says the timeline of the war was Fort Sumter, First Battle of Bull Run, Second Battle of Bull Run, Antietam, Gettysburg, Siege of Vicksburg, Surrender at Appomattox, and Account B says the timeline of the war was Antietam, Second Battle of Bull Run, Fort Sumter, Surrender at Appomattox, Siege of Vicksburg, Gettysburg, and First Battle of Bull Run, those accounts would be contradictory, would they not??

      The Mosaic law against incest was given by God for establishing a new people of God called “holy” or separate from the polluted nations all around.. Maintaining a consistency in the gene pool meant not polluting the pool any further. So God stopped the pollution through a law against incest. Perhaps the gene pool before the Mosaic law against incest could handle the pollution of the human gene pool and yet that came to an end by God’s Levitical commands for purity in the social structure of Israel.

      So, you believe the prohibition against incest was not part of God’s everlasting moral law (murder, stealing, adultery, etc.), but rather, part of the ceremonial laws, like the dietary restrictions and prohibitions against cutting one’s sideburns — the ones that Christians believe don’t apply anymore? So, as a Christian, I should be able to marry my sister or mother now?

      Jesus certainly told us to take marriage between a man and woman literally and literally references to Genesis 2 in order to make his point.

      He’s not talking about creation here, and he’s not talking literally. He’s making a theological point about divorce, and he’s using the passage from Genesis theologically. I could use the passage in the exact same way, and that doesn’t mean I take it literally (because, in fact, I don’t).

    • Spartan093

      Thanks for the time that you put into this. I was wondering whether I was gonna have to do it.

      Referencing the apparent contradiction between Genesis 1&2 there is a lot more to it.

      It is apparent from ANE literature that creation accounts had a more general first account and then a more specific summary. There’s more here: http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.php (I hope external links are allowed).

  • Arnold Gill

    Once when our pastor was on sabbatical, I offered to do a sermon. It was an anti-YEC sermon, basically saying that YEC is extremely bad theology, and really forces one to place attributes onto God which generally are only placed on Satan (devious liar is the obvious one). The congregation was rather dumbfounded by it and didn’t know how to respond, except for one elderly gentleman who had spent most of his life as a missionary in India. He LOVED it! This was 30 years ago now, while doing my astrophysics PhD, but I may still have a copy of it sitting around.

    Oddly enough, I was never asked to do a sermon again….

    • That is hilarious! At least the congregation didn’t storm the pulpit and try to string you up.

  • Carrie M

    If the tone weren’t so snarky I’d share this on my facebook page. No one wants to feel like they’re being mocked when confronted with possible issues with a closely held belief (my YEC friends). Thanks for your ideology and creative use of pictures, but please consider writing without the brash attitude in future. I’d love to be able to send my friends to a site that would challenge their ideas intellectually and respectfully rather than insult them.

    • Hey Carrie, thanks for the comment. Let me explain that this is aimed at one particular type of young-earth creationism: the type that not only believes their interpretation of the Bible is correct, but that any other believers are “compromising Christians” (or not Christians at all!), whose faith does not match up to theirs. As far as I’m concerned, such an arrogant view deserves and demands to be challenged in the most direct way possible, and in no way do I believe I stepped over the line here. Such a view needs to be challenged, not just because it’s wrong, and unbiblical, but also toxic to church unity and detrimental to the gospel message.

      Now, fortunately, what I described above is not the only type of young-earth creationists who exist. There are many bright, faithful, reasonable people, who believe what they may, but understand there are other bright, faithful, reasonable Christians who believe otherwise, and their views are just as valid. I have no quarrel with such people, and this post is not meant for them. Do I think their interpretation of Genesis are incorrect? Sure I do, just like they think mine is incorrect. But ultimately, we both recognize the subject is not essential to salvation or an effective and godly Christian life.

      TLDR: If the “YEC friends” you’re talking about believe that they’re right, and everyone else is second-class Christians and compromisers, then they deserve to be challenged in this way. If your friends believe that they’re right, but that the views of other Christians who disagree with them on this subject are just as valid, then those aren’t the people I want to challenge in the first place.

      • Nadine Sikkema

        Hi Tyler,
        I understand your desire to reply in kind to these YECs, but please do keep in mind that one of the most effective ways of interacting with people who disagree with you is to be terribly pleasant. Don’t give them ammunition. When people see humility and patience, they are more likely to think about it deeply, rather than simply write it off.
        I really appreciate the work that you are doing, and I know how frustrating it can be to remain calm and collected when dealing with the arrogant YECs. I urge you to be forgiving instead of snarky.

        • Thanks, Nadine. I appreciate (and agree with) the perspective, and am considering doing an alternative, “un-snarky” version of this post, as suggested by another commenter.

  • Jim

    Tyler, earnest inquiry: please clarify question 7. It seems to imply that the entire creation account or at least The Fall were just fable and not history. There’s a difference between looking at Gen 1-2 as history vs. scientific history. Its not a science report. And there are certainly poetic and apocalyptic elements in the nuance of the text. But its primary purpose is to point us to God’s redemptive plan for his people. I would contend this message falls utterly on its face if The Fall is reduce to simple fable and not an actual historical event.

    • Hey Jim, thanks for the question. I don’t know if you intended to do this, or if I’m misunderstanding, but I refuse to draw a line around “truth” and say it can only be found in accounts that are literal history. Because I believe all of the Bible is “true,” and the majority of it is not literal history. Furthermore, I believe the parables of Jesus were some of the most important stories human ears have ever heard, and none of them were literal history either.

      I think you get the point. Now, all that being said, what I believe about Genesis 1-3 is that they are not historical records, but they are symbolic accounts of things that actually happened. The creation of the universe, the creation of man, God’s offer of relationship, our rebellion and the fall of man — all of these things actually happened. We can know this from simply looking around us as much as we can from scripture; the fact that humans are fallen, sinful creatures is about as obvious as that we have two arms and two legs.

      But even though I do believe those events were real points in history, again, I do not believe the accounts in Genesis were intended to convey reliable historical details about them. The purpose of these stories was to teach us the theological truth behind these events, not their superficial historical details. And, I would argue, the theological details of these weighty events are far more important than the historical version.

      Knowing that mankind is fallen before God in such a way that we can’t repair the damage ourselves will have an enormous impact on my faith and the way in which I live my life. Knowing exactly when it happened, or the names of the people involved — not so much.

      I often use the analogy of a house fire. If your home is on fire, you do not need to know how it happened or when it started to know that it’s a problem that must be dealt with immediately. It’s no different with sin and the fall of man.

  • Corey

    I kind of feel like I missed something here…I would have appreciated a more direct association with evolution. I don’t have the Biblical knowledge and such that you have, but I think it’s crazy to take everything literally. As far as we know God’s 7 days amounted to 985 thousand years…in such time which He watched monkeys slowly stand upright and bash each other over the head with wooden clubs…when the dawn of humanity happened, and at which point he took the two evolved humans into Eve…I just can’t understand all that. I haven’t the faintest idea. Or even if Eden was real…maybe Eden was Africa? And the tree of life was a metaphor entirely? Perhaps the eternal life that was referred to was the ascension of the spirit and not literal? Could the forbidden fruit could have been something as simple as self-awareness and a natural evolution of humanity? Again…that would mean the first sin was not really a sin by biblical standards…especially if we’re assuming Evolution is the truth and 100’s if not 1000’s of monkey men were previously raping, pillaging and killing other monkey men…or does that not count until we’re actually the Adam and Eve people? Really freagin confusing…

  • 1. The two trees represent priestly submission and kingly dominion, later seen in Abel and Cain, the two pillars of the temple, bread and wine (or manna and grapes), and the temptation and exaltation of Christ. Not only was the Tree of Life a gift, it required dependence upon the Giver. The second tree was only prohibited temporarily for the humbling of Adam under God. If he submitted to heaven, he would be given dominion of the earth. This was his qualification. Adam was disobedient. But he was not an idiot. Eden was destroyed in the flood. There is a series of seven mountains in the Bible which together follow the pattern of Genesis 1. Ararat corresponds to Day 2, Moriah to Day 3, and Sinai to Day 4, Zion (the renamed Moriah) to Day 5, Olivet to Day 6, and Christ’s heavenly throne to Day 7.

    http://www.biblematrix.com.au/the-highest-of-the-mountains/
    http://www.biblematrix.com.au/seven-mountains-in-matthew/

    2. Bible history is chiastic. The Covenant obligation in Adam was fundamentally physical, or “creational,” thus all creation suffered judgment. To avoid another flood, a “social” land and sea was established in Abraham, which is why the Gentile armies invaded as “floods,” and why the prophets, including Jesus, use creation language to describe judgments, including the destruction of Jerusalem as “the days of Noah.” Israel was a sacrificial substitute for the entire cosmos. So the symmetry is:

    Physical – Social (Israel) – Personal (Christ) – Social (Church) – Physical. Based upon this, it appears that the animals are yet to come.

    3. Death is certainly the physical result of “ethical” death. The animals which atoned for Adam’s sin died a physical death. Animals were save on the ark, but the humans outside it died a physical death, a reversal of the incident in Eden. In the original creation, there is a Garden – Land – World architecture, seen also in the microcosmos of the Tabernacle and Temples. Jesus rose again in the Garden, the first resurrection (of all the OT saints) took place around AD66 (avenging Abel) and the resurrection come will cover the entire World. So the answer is architectural. The sin of Adam in the Garden spread until the entire World was destroyed – physically.

    4. Adam was promised fruitfulness in the land and the womb, but failed to qualify. Once his sin was atoned for, he was given these blessings, although they were limited with curses. Abraham experienced barrenness in land and womb (famine and infertility) as a substitute for all nations (these themes are in the book of Ruth, also). Adam’s disobedience brought a curse on his labour (land) and on his ability to multiply (womb). You can see the relationship between land and womb in the offerings of Cain and Abel.

    5. How did Adam know what death was? The same way he understood any of the other words the Lord said to him. And then Adam underwent a symbolic death, a deep sleep, did he not? So did Abraham, interestingly.

    6. See above. Animals were slain to cover his sin, and the pattern of events is replicated in Israel’s annual calendar, this step corresponding to the day of Atonement. See Leviticus 23. The animals died “in the day” he sinned, just as Jesus said “Now is the judgment of this world.” Image is legal representation, based on the relationship between the Father and the Son.

    7. The talking snake? Yes, the talking donkey and the angel in Numbers. As angels are servants in heaven, so animals are servants/subjects on earth, given to help and teach us. The serpent/angel was the first false teacher, a union before God’s time, a hybrid of heaven and earth, a false “incarnation” like most tyrannies. Yes, they are both miracles. If you are expecting things to be explicitly stated, you are not going to understand Hebrew literature (or even God’s word to Adam, which left room for meditation in faith, gaps which the serpent filled with slander, as do you). If you can’t deal with the serpent, you can’t deal with the rest of the Bible, either.

    8. Genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict. Genesis 2 carefully describes events in a theological order which replicates the physical order of Genesis 1. Instead of repeating this lie, read http://theopolisinstitute.com/covenant-structure-in-genesis , and also give James B. Jordan’s “Trees and Thorns” commentary a read concerning the supposed “contradictions.”

    9. Parent-child incest is clearly forbidden in Genesis 2:24-25. Man was made in the image of God, and man was not given authority as a judge to execute man until he qualified. Noah was a man who truly imaged God (physically – Genesis 1, socially – Genesis 2, and ethically – Genesis 3) and this is why not only was Noah given this authority as a representative of God, he was the first to offer an “ascension offering” for the sake of the world. Noah’s authority to cut off the flesh was extended to all flesh, and meat eating became the norm.

    10. All the biblical authors quote Genesis as literal history. If the New Testament writers were inspired, then it follows that the account given in Genesis is historically accurate. Geisler and Nix give a list of thirty-two people and events of the Old Testament which are referred to as historical by New Testament writers. Fifteen of these are from the first twelve chapters of Genesis:

    Creation of the universe (Gen. 1), John 1:3; Col. 1:16
    Creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1-2), 1 Tim. 2:13-14
    Marriage of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1-2), 1 Tim. 2:13
    Temptation of the woman (Gen. 3), 1 Tim 2:14
    Disobedience of Adam (Gen. 3), Rom 5:12; 1 Cor.15:22
    Sacrifices of Abel and Cain (Gen. 4), Heb. 11:4
    Murder of Abel by Cain (Gen. 4), 1 John 3:12
    Birth of Seth (Gen. 4), Luke 3:38
    Translation of Enoch (Gen. 5), Heb. 11:5
    Marriage before the flood (Gen. 6), Luke 17:27
    The flood and destruction of man (Gen. 7), Matt. 24:39
    Preservation of Noah and his family (Gen. 8-9), 2 Peter 2:5
    Genealogy of Shem (Gen. 10), Luke 3:35-36
    Birth of Abraham (Gen. 11), Luke 3:34
    Call of Abraham (Gen. 12-13), Heb. 11:87

    The most controversial miracles are not just alluded to but authenticated as historical events by the New Testament.

    Your post is not only insulting to Christians, but also to the Scriptures themselves, of which you are clearly ignorant. If you do have the Spirit of God, you will seek answers to the tough questions, not write arrogant posts that cause the weak to stumble. As your brother in Christ, I hope you will consider these arguments.

    http://www.biblematrix.com.au

    • OK… Uh, thanks for your comment, Mike.

      • Headless Unicorn Guy

        Sounds like someone’s got too much time on his hands.

        • Yeah, I wasn’t quite sure what to do with that one…

  • Nick Hodgetts

    Hi Tyler, Your ’10 questions’ post is excellent – thank you. I really enjoyed reading it and all your points are both good and highly entertaining. I do not think you stepped over a line, and yes the YECs need challenging. But Carrie M has a point. I think a non-snarky edited version would be an extremely valuable tool, and would probably be more effective in countering YEC too.

    • Thanks, Nick. I am considering it.

      • Yep, most YEC people I know are really emotionally sensitive to snark – the bulk of them actually are interested in hearing why their view is wrong because they feel trapped in it, but see no theological option out of it – but snark just drives them away.

    • Greg Carlet

      Agreed, although I really appreciate the “snark” and sarcasm, as humor is such a great thing for everyday life. 🙂

  • D. Humeston

    If the Garden of Eden was supposed to be so perfect, what the heck was a deceiving snake doing hanging out? (Satan). I smell entrapment! Even the worse lawyer could have gotten that case tossed in a NY minute.

    • Haha! Good point, Dart!

    • lzzrdgrrl

      Just as in the story of Job, Satan’s purpose is to find something important to G_d, point it out and then put it to test. In this case, Man as Adam and Eve, seen different from all the other beasts in the Garden and aspiring to be like G_d and not merely His creation……..

      • Jumin Rhee

        Satan in job seems more like the attorney-general or prosecuting attorney than a bad guy. God’s the one that allows it. Jesus is good cop, satan is bad cop.

    • Jumin Rhee

      In the US entrapment is legal if called a sting operation. 😉

  • Rachael McKenna

    “incest is repeatedly and consistently described as a sin. It happens to be mentioned in scripture at least as many times as homosexuality, and I think we all know what Ken Ham thinks about that.”

    Wait where did it mention homosexuality?

    • Homosexuality is referred to in the Old Testament several times in conjunction with the incest passages, e.g. 18:22 and 20:13.

      • Headless Unicorn Guy

        Which brings to mind something I overheard on the 480 bus from the Metrolink station a couple weeks ago:
        “Duggars bla bla bla They’re CHRISTIAN bla bla bla Guess it’s okay to diddle your sisters as long as you’re not GAY.”

  • Thomas Frye

    Ok, so the point to the tree of life is a pretty easy explanation when you look at all of redemptive history. Throughout time God has given man tangible physical representations of a spiritual truth. Some examples are the circumcision that all jewish males received as a sign of the covenant with Abraham, marriage was given as a picture of the unity of the Godhead and the self sacrificing love that Jesus showed for His people, communion and baptism are now given as a remembrance of the body and blood that Christ gave and to symbolize our death to sin and our new life in Christ. The tree of life had nothing magical about it. God never said in Genesis (which means beginnings) that if they ate of the tree they would live forever. He said that He barred them from the garden lest they take of the tree and live forever. Lest means to prevent any possibility of, therefore God was showing the man that he had no chance of living forever for what he had done. In the same way the tree of the knowledge of good and evil wasn’t magical either. It was the sin that gave the man knowledge of good and evil. You’ll notice that Eve ate first and her eyes weren’t open until Adam ate. The man was given headship and responsibility over the woman and when he failed then their eyes were open.

    That leads us into the next question, why do the animals have to die and why can’t they be saved? Just as the man was given headship and responsibility over the woman, he was given the entire earth to fill and subdue. God had every right to curse the entire world that He had made for Adam’s sin, and He did so. But animals are not made in the image of God and were given to the man so animals do not have a sense of self or a soul that makes them aware of anything more than their own instincts. they weren’t given intelligence or logic or reasoning and they aren’t even capable of believing. They do not need to be saved because they weren’t made to be.

    Next one is why do Christians still die if it’s the punishment for sin? Well that isn’t what God actually said. In Genesis 3 He said that the ground is cursed because of Adam, that we will have pain getting our food from the ground, thorns and thistles would grow, till he returns to the ground. He also said when He gave the commandment that in the day that he eats of the fruit, he will surely die, it can also be translated begin to die. So all of those things are the punishment for sin along with eternal punishment for the unrepentant sinners. Every Christian will freely admit that they have sinned and deserve hell for eternity. In light of realizing that, spending less time in the sin cursed world and then eternity in a world that God promises to make right when He decides the time is right is not really that terrible to think about. We have eyewitness accounts of Jesus being raised from the dead and having a perfected body. Jesus had to die and He never sinned once… I don’t regret that I will not spend all of that time waiting for the resurrection living in a sin cursed world. Paul says “to live is Christ, to die is gain.” I have already experienced the resurrection of my spirit and i know that Jesus paid my eternal debt so i don’t think it’s necessary for God to lift the curse on the entire world seeing as the death of Christ only paid for those who will believe.

    Eve was named the mother of all living because, well… She is? if we trace our lineage all the way back to the first woman who is that? I feel like further theological revelation is unnecessary for this question.

    Adam and Eve knew what death was before they experienced it. You’re reading this and you know what death is. Did a parent ever explain it to you? I think God could have told them what that meant. Just because the explanation wasn’t penned, that’s no reason to assume it wasn’t given. Especially since they already knew what it was. To compare explaining death to a fully formed and intelligent adult that just finished naming all the animals and explaining death to a baby is just ludicrous. I keep seeing this thing about nakedness too. Its not that he didn’t know he was naked. It was the fact that until he sinned he wasn’t worried about his wife seeing his faults, he had none!

    Number six i explained above that the words you will surely die imply that after the sin was committed that death was a surety, not an immediate thing. But it sure as heck is a sure thing. It’s just word play that everyone thinks that it’s gotta be immediate or Gods lying. If I said to you “Billy on the day that you show you can be responsible, you will surely have a car.” No one in their right minds thinks I’m going to immediately go out that day and get him a car. But as he has shown that he is responsible the surety is there that he will have a car.

    Number 7. You are ganna be skeptical about a talking serpent, but I’m trying to convince you that God spoke the world into existence… and yet there are many birds that can emulate voices… Can i convince you that I taught my parrot God save the queen? Does that go in fiction section? I rest my case.

    Number 8. Oh boy are you ganna be annoyed, cause it’s really easy when you think about it. Genesis 1, God does all of His creation work. Genesis 2, the sixth day gets a close up in the garden of Eden. God leaves the ground bare so as to cultivate it specially for the man, and then forms the animals right in front of Adam to show Adam His power. Why do you think the serpent went for Eve? Adam wasn’t ganna be fooled by a serpent. He watched God create all the animals! But a beautiful wife enticing him would have worked a lot better eh?

    Which leads to incest! Why is incest wrong? Well because at a certain point God said there’s enough people and no more marrying family. Why genetically is it wrong? Well at this point the genetics have been copied hundreds of times. If you copy a piece of paper and then copy the copy, it doesn’t take long for the paper to become illegible. Even a computer program after a couple copies it won’t run. How amazing it is that we’re a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of Adam and we still function at all! But God already knew that with sin comes defects in the copying. So He said no more closely related marriages BECAUSE if the copies are too closely matching, the errors become magnified. Not because it’s inherently immoral to marry your sister, as gross as it sounds! It’s been a rule for quite a while and i don’t think any Christian ever will want to rescind it. Those mistakes weren’t anywhere near as bad in the first dozen generations so marriage between close family was promoted to keep God central in the family. You’ll notice i hope that God’s original and His method of copying are way better than any humans have ever created I hope!

    Finally, Jesus never told us to take Genesis literally? The New Testament has a total of 60 allusions to Genesis 1–11 specifically, and when we widen the search to include all of Genesis, the number grows to 103. But simply giving a list of references to Genesis proves nothing—we must look at how the how the new testament authors used Genesis in order to discern their view. Overwhelmingly, it is presumed to be a historical document; the only place where it could even be argued that it is not necessarily used historically is in the borrowing of Edenic symbols in Revelation to describe the New Jerusalem (depending on one’s eschatological view). But this is the exception, and in any case, even a symbolic use has an underlying literal reality—the figurative “strong as an ox” would mean nothing unless an ox were literally strong, and the allusion to an Edenic paradise underscores the reality of this pre-Fall world without a curse. Jesus’ use of Genesis sets the tone for how it will be used in the rest of the New Testament. He uses it both to explain doctrine and to draw historical analogies. An example of the former use is in Matthew 22:15-22 (parallels in Mark 12:13-17 and Luke 20:20-36) where the Pharisees and Herodians questioned Him about taxes. For Jesus, because the coin bears Caesar’s image, it is Caesar’s property and should be rendered to him—but He adds the command to give to God what is God’s. In the context, the image on the coin determines who owns it, so specifically what is in view here is that which is in God’s image. Jesus is referring back to Genesis 1:26-27:

    “In the present, proper humility before God requires the payment of Roman taxes, but if it is true that some of one’s money should go to the Caesar, it is so much more true that all that one is needs to be handed over to the God in whose image one is made.”

    Of course, if humanity had not actually been made in the image of God like Genesis teaches, the whole precedent would fall apart.

    So i hope that this makes sense and if you’d like to talk over any single point at a time further I’d be happy to oblige.

    • Hey Thomas! Thanks so much for your answers. I think you’ve done the best job of anyone I’ve seen so far, and you also managed to do so without being a feminine hygiene product, so I appreciate that.

      However, I do think you’ve missed the mark, and I’ll explain why.

      Ok, so the point to the tree of life is a pretty easy explanation when you look at all of redemptive history. Throughout time God has given man tangible physical representations of a spiritual truth. Some examples are the circumcision that all jewish males received as a sign of the covenant with Abraham, marriage was given as a picture of the unity of the Godhead and the self sacrificing love that Jesus showed for His people, communion and baptism are now given as a remembrance of the body and blood that Christ gave and to symbolize our death to sin and our new life in Christ.

      This is a fair point, probably the best answer anyone could give (though you’re the first I’ve seen). But then you go off track a bit…

      The tree of life had nothing magical about it.

      … except for the part about making people immortal?

      God never said in Genesis (which means beginnings) that if they ate of the tree they would live forever. He said that He barred them from the garden lest they take of the tree and live forever.

      Dude. You pretty much just said, “Genesis doesn’t say if they ate of the tree they would live forever, it says if they ate of the tree they would live forever.”

      Lest means to prevent any possibility of, therefore God was showing the man that he had no chance of living forever for what he had done.

      … except they did have a chance of living forever. They could eat the fruit of the tree of life. And then they would live forever. So, to prevent that, God stationed angels to guard the tree, and used more magic to create a flaming sword to bar the way.

      In all seriousness, Thomas, the text could not possibly be more clear about what it is saying in regard to the tree of life. I’m OK with it being a symbol, but it’s still a symbol with magical powers that were completely useless, according to YEC theology.

      Just as the man was given headship and responsibility over the woman, he was given the entire earth to fill and subdue. God had every right to curse the entire world that He had made for Adam’s sin, and He did so. But animals are not made in the image of God and were given to the man so animals do not have a sense of self or a soul that makes them aware of anything more than their own instincts. they weren’t given intelligence or logic or reasoning and they aren’t even capable of believing. They do not need to be saved because they weren’t made to be.

      Yeah, this is what everyone keeps saying: Animals are different. I understand that. I’ve always understood that. What no one, including yourself, is really engaging on is that scripture teaches, very clearly, that the things that die in Adam are offered life in Christ. (The passage from 1 Corinthians I presented is just one example.) And if, as YECs insist, animals are among those who deaths result from Adam, then you create inconsistency in the text by saying animals are not offered life in Christ.

      I agree with all your points about animals not being the same as humans. But it does not address this fundamental inconsistency.

      He also said when He gave the commandment that in the day that he eats of the fruit, he will surely die, it can also be translated begin to die.

      I know this is a really popular argument with young-earthers, but can you explain why, then, not a single one of the major English translations render Genesis 2:17 as “begin to die”? They are all variations of certainly or surely die.

      In light of realizing that, spending less time in the sin cursed world and then eternity in a world that God promises to make right when He decides the time is right is not really that terrible to think about. We have eyewitness accounts of Jesus being raised from the dead and having a perfected body. Jesus had to die and He never sinned once… I don’t regret that I will not spend all of that time waiting for the resurrection living in a sin cursed world. Paul says “to live is Christ, to die is gain.” I have already experienced the resurrection of my spirit and i know that Jesus paid my eternal debt so i don’t think it’s necessary for God to lift the curse on the entire world seeing as the death of Christ only paid for those who will believe.

      I agree with a lot of your thinking here, but I don’t really see you engaging with the key tension of the question. Your “death is a mercy” argument may be true, but it is fundamentally at odds with the “death is a punishment” argument that underlies YEC theology, and it is the latter argument that my question engages with.

      Eve was named the mother of all living because, well… She is? if we trace our lineage all the way back to the first woman who is that? I feel like further theological revelation is unnecessary for this question.

      You miss the point. Eve was called the mother of all living, but she was named from the Hebrew word for “life.” And the inconsistency here is, why the heck would Adam have named his wife after this word, immediately after she had supposedly just been responsible for poisoning the entire universe with death?

      Adam and Eve knew what death was before they experienced it. You’re reading this and you know what death is. Did a parent ever explain it to you?

      I understand what death is because I’ve experienced it, and I live in a universe in which it is a fundamental part of life. If I were living in a universe in which death is a foreign concept that had never previously existed, I’m pretty sure I’d have trouble with the concept.

      I think God could have told them what that meant. Just because the explanation wasn’t penned, that’s no reason to assume it wasn’t given. Especially since they already knew what it was.

      Sure. This is possible, though I still think it’s unlikely, given the YEC premise that this text is supposed to explicitly take place in a universe in which everything was immortal and death was a completely foreign concept). And, I can’t help but point out that you can’t arrive at this place without relying on assumptions that are not remotely hinted at in the text, which is exactly what literalists rail at us “compromisers” for doing.

      Number six i explained above that the words you will surely die imply that after the sin was committed that death was a surety, not an immediate thing.

      This is a plausible interpretation. However, interpretation can be a dangerous thing, because two people can read the same text and come away with very different interpretations (a great example is how Muslims read the gospel of John and come away saying Jesus doesn’t really claim to be God). What is helpful in minimizing this danger is to look at how the original listeners in the story reacted to and understood the message. And, as I said in the previous post, the strong indication is that they understood the consequences to be immediate, such that Eve believed she would die the moment she touched the tree.

      Number 7. You are ganna be skeptical about a talking serpent, but I’m trying to convince you that God spoke the world into existence… and yet there are many birds that can emulate voices… Can i convince you that I taught my parrot God save the queen? Does that go in fiction section? I rest my case.

      A parrot mindlessly mimicking human speech is not remotely what is being discussed here, and you know it.

      Number 8. Oh boy are you ganna be annoyed, cause it’s really easy when you think about it. Genesis 1, God does all of His creation work. Genesis 2, the sixth day gets a close up in the garden of Eden. God leaves the ground bare so as to cultivate it specially for the man, and then forms the animals right in front of Adam to show Adam His power.

      I’m not annoyed, but you are sorely mistaken if you really believe this clears up the contradictions. Genesis 1 is quite clear. God makes plants on day 3, birds on day 5, animals on day 6 and then humans last of all. It does not say God made plants on day 3, birds on day 5, animals on day 6, and then one human, then some more plants, then animals and birds again, then one more human, which is the order in Genesis 2. Besides, the opening of Gen 2 (verse 5) directly contradicts the day 3 account by saying no plants had yet appeared on the earth prior to the creation of man. This is all in the article I linked to in the OP.

      Which leads to incest! Why is incest wrong? Well because at a certain point God said there’s enough people and no more marrying family. Why genetically is it wrong? Well at this point the genetics have been copied hundreds of times. If you copy a piece of paper and then copy the copy, it doesn’t take long for the paper to become illegible. Even a computer program after a couple copies it won’t run. How amazing it is that we’re a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of Adam and we still function at all! But God already knew that with sin comes defects in the copying. So He said no more closely related marriages BECAUSE if the copies are too closely matching, the errors become magnified. Not because it’s inherently immoral to marry your sister, as gross as it sounds!

      OK, fair enough. So it is not inherently immoral for siblings to marry and have sex with each other. In that case, do you believe a Bible-believing Christian man should be permitted to marry his immediate sister, if both siblings agree to undergo sterilization procedures to ensure they won’t procreate?

      Finally, Jesus never told us to take Genesis literally? The New Testament has a total of 60 allusions to Genesis 1–11 specifically, and when we widen the search to include all of Genesis, the number grows to 103.

      I didn’t say New Testament authors, I said Jesus, and I clearly was not talking about all of Genesis or even Genesis 1-11, but the Genesis creation accounts, chapters 1-3. But let’s keep going.

      But simply giving a list of references to Genesis proves nothing—we must look at how the how the new testament authors used Genesis in order to discern their view.

      Very true. Thank you for saying this.

      Overwhelmingly, it is presumed to be a historical document; the only place where it could even be argued that it is not necessarily used historically is in the borrowing of Edenic symbols in Revelation to describe the New Jerusalem (depending on one’s eschatological view).

      I very much disagree. Most of the times Jesus or the New Testament authors refer to or allude to Genesis, they are making theological points that do not require the text to be teaching history. They only require that the text is theologically correct, which I believe it to be. You also somehow missed Galatians 4:24, where Paul explicitly refers to Abram’s wives as allegories, symbolic of the new and old covenants.

      Your interpretation of Matthew 22:15-22 (parallels in Mark 12:13-17 and Luke 20:20-36) is very interesting (honestly, I do like it a lot and had not previously heard someone explicitly tying this back to the imago dei in Genesis 1), however it does not actually conflict with my views at all. I do believe humans are made in God’s image and bear his image, but I believe (and this is a very common theological view that dates back to at least Aquinas) this refers to our spiritual natures, not our physical forms. To believe otherwise would be to believe God has a physical form, which, of course, he does not (John 4:24).

    • AmbassadorHerald

      It should be noted that Thomas Frye used a quotation from the article “The use of Genesis in the New Testament” by Lita Cosner on 24 August 2010 http://creation.com/genesis-new-testament but did not specifically state so.

    • Spartan093

      Here’s some help with the assumed contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2: http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.php
      Apparently it was standard among ANE creation stories to have a dual structure much like we see, of a more general story, then a specific summary.

      • Except for the fact that no ANE creation story I’m aware of actually does that, and your article doesn’t cite any. The two most common accounts that are speculated to be raw material for Genesis are Enuma Elish and the Epic of Atrahasis, both of which are completely linear.

        Could you point me to the majority of ANE creation texts that evidence the specific retelling of a general story was the standard practice?

        • Spartan093

          I had a hard time, but I found it in the Eridu Genesis. The first 30 lines are missing, but the accounts starts with the birth goddess’s creation of antediluvian cities. Then it launches into the aforementioned retelling of the creation account how how people and animals were made, and then it continues from there.

          Here is the source on page 11: http://www.grisda.org/origins/11009.pdf

          • Did you read the paper?

            In the introduction, the author writes:

            “A comparison of the contents of the Mesopotamian Creation-Flood texts leads to the conclusion that both follow a distinct chronology or linear time line, with successive events relating logically to each other as cause and effect.” (top of p. 10)

            In the fragments the author has access to, it does nothing like what you describe. In fact, after the passage about cities, the paper’s author says about the passage you describe as a “more detailed” account: “Then follows a summary statement on the initial creation.”

            The fragment says those things happened at the same time the gods created the people. It is six lines long and not even close to launching into a more detailed retelling.

            As to what those 30 missing lines are, the author says:

            “It is probable that the missing section of text related the development of mankind’s plight. This idea is confirmed by the text from Ur which refers to a time when there was neither agriculture nor weaving of cloth.”

            So, the whole first group of fragments starts with mankind and goes through their development, then we get a short statement that says the gods made animals (heretofore completely absent from the text) at the same time they made mankind.

            That doesn’t look anything like the scheme you’re claiming for Genesis. If anything, this paper soundly refutes it by pointing out the linear nature of these accounts then directly saying that the Genesis account matches these accounts -in form-.

            So, I’m still waiting to hear how this is a standard for ANE texts. If Genesis is doing what you claim it does, it will be the -only- ANE creation text that does that despite following the formula everywhere else.

            Just to cover my bases, I also consulted the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is not only linear, but also follows the Eridu pattern of creation of man followed by cities.

          • Spartan093

            I expected as much, WW1 type resistance. If you have institutionalized access you would enjoy reading this other article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3266116?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

            It argues how there was likely a creation account of man and animals in the first 36 lines, and how we know the four main Gods involved because of the secondary summary here (pg 516). After the creation account we would have been shown the plight of man. Then the attempt at city construction. Then this:

            “When An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursaga fashioned the dark-headed people they had made the small animals that come up from out of the earth, come from the earth in abundance and had let there be, as it befits it, gazelles wild donkeys, and four-footed beasts in the desert.”

            And then the continuation of this passage is missing in the next 30 lines. We can’t tell if it is more detailed afterwards, and we can’t tell where the destruction of the city begins.

            But what I don’t understand how you can’t see the past tenses here.

            Just like in Genesis 2 he author refers to the past in connection to the animals, contrary to the claims of this website. The linear argument doesn’t fall on the wayside when there is general cause and effect in most of the record. And you claim that there was no description of the previous creation of animals, when in fact the statement itself refers to the past. The journal article also supports me, go to page 516.

            As a closing argument, it seems you didn’t read further on in the Michael H. Shea paper. He has quite a lot to say on the Genesis 1 and 2 repetition and not from Eridu Genesis on page 12.

            “Such repetition in Atra-hasis is another example of the Semitic parallel writing style that is also found in Gen 1-2. It is particularly prominent in the Gen 1 account of the acts of Creation on the first six days. This parallelism can be seen either in terms of smaller literary units, as is the case with Atra-hasis or Gen 1-2. When judged by the literary standards of its time and place, separating Gen 1 from Gen 2 and attributing them to different sources written down centuries apart appears artificial and arbitrary.”

            Even more, this repetition is reminiscent of the one J.P Holding
            identified in our original article where each part of genesis 1 has a
            corresponding part in Genesis 2.

            All of this of course is done to refute the JEDP hypothesis, which is why he emphasizes the causal structure of it all, and at the same time relates the parallelisms of Gensis 1&2 to ANE literature. So I am in line with Michael Shea here, not against him!

            If you think I am absolutely mistaken you can take it up with Michael Shea. I’m no ANE scholar, and I don’t wanna do a huge thread like you did with everyone else. Personally I am quite convinced that ANE literature does repetition in light of the Eridu Genesis and the Atra-hasis. I think this is what J P Holding was originally referring to about Babylonian and Sumerian, and it seems accurate enough. If you wanna argue at length about whether it is more detailed or not, I think I’ll pass.

          • Well, honestly, YECs coming here, linking to a bunch of stuff, and being incapable of discussing the material involved but still demanding that people refute it is pretty common.

            If you don’t want your arguments to be open to critique, it probably isn’t a good choice to make YEC drive-bys at what you know is a site about relating evolution to Christian faith.

            Personally, I don’t know why you guys feel the need to post here at all, but if you’re going to, it’s pretty disingenuous to make sweeping claims (like it’s -standard- in ANE mytho-history to have a more specific repetition of a more general story) then disappear in a squid-like ink cloud.

          • Spartan093

            I do love your persistence, but I think I’ve said my peace. You might be right, I personally put “standard” in there, I should not have, and the detailed part is up for grabs.

            But I found my Sumerian and Babylonian references in two creation stories. I will mail the original writer and see where his sources are, it would be useful.

          • Yeah, I really disagree those creation stories are doing what you say they’re doing.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            It has already been established that YEC’s are working under presuppositions… well, this is yours.

          • Well, first of all, everyone works off presuppositions. I think you meant “assumptions.”

            But, no, the burden of proof is on Spartan to establish that having one creation account, then following it with a more specific account that covers the exact same territory is a feature of of ANE mytho-historical literature.

            When asked to produce examples, he said it was hard to find one (no kidding), but he pointed out Eridu Genesis where a long account of humanity’s creation and development is followed by a short paragraph that basically said, “Oh, by the way, when the gods made humanity, they made all the animals, too.”

            When confronted with the fact that this doesn’t come near constituting a more specific rehearsal of a former creation account, he posited that this must be in the missing lines, then jumped to Atrahasis, which I had already dealt with. He then claimed he had two examples and the case was closed. That argument wouldn’t satisfy anyone who wasn’t already convinced. He was a man searching for backup for something he’d already decided was true.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            Don’t try to pretend like you aren’t trying to prove what you already decided was true. You cannot disprove Spartan’s sources on the missing lines any more than they can disprove your sources. You choose to believe the missing lines are not creation-centric and they do, so it is neither side’s case in regards to the lines themselves. They are missing. Using rational, you can try to fill them in, but we won’t know for sure.

          • People making the positive assertion have the burden of proof.

          • Gary Murray

            Phil: Is your statement a positive assertion? If so what proof do you provide to validate your claim?

            AmbassadorHerald: Everyone begins with a presupposition, typically their presupposition is what defines their worldview and belief… if their presuppositions are wrong, it typically follows that their worldview and belief system is also.

          • Matthew Funke

            Phil: Is your statement a positive assertion? If so what proof do you provide to validate your claim?

            Yes, it is. Validation lies in the logical proof that conclusive evidence of a negative assertion is impossible.

            I can supply the formal proof if you like, but it basically goes like this: A positive assertion only needs to provide limited knowledge about the predicate to demonstrate the truth of the assertion. A negative assertion needs to demonstrate total knowledge about the predicate to demonstrate the truth of the assertion.

            Perhaps an analogy would help. In order to assert that the claim that there is a spider in this room is true, I only need to know a small part of this room to demonstrate the truth of my claim. In order to assert that the claim that there is no spider in this room is true, I need to demonstrate knowledge of the entire room in order to show that my claim is true. It should be pretty plain that the person making a positive claim needs to provide evidence — not just because it makes no sense to believe a claim simply because someone makes it, but also because complete knowledge of a subject is rarely possible.

            To link this to Spartan’s assertion, in order to demonstrate that Genesis follows a pattern typical of ANE mytho-historical literature, Spartan needs to supply a document that corroborates this.

          • *piece.

  • Kenneth Cowen

    Quick point about incest, your point only applies to Adam/Eve, not Noah/Ms. Noah.
    Ham Shem Japheth and their better halves would have children, who (if privy to genetics and the dangers of inbreeding) would preferably marry only first-cousins. Still incest, but at least not brother-sister incest.
    Just pointing this out for consistency.

    • Very true, Kenneth. Though, given how the families appear to have spread out quickly following the flood, still a good chance that Sis would have been the closest available bachelorette if you read the Noah’s flood account as a global event. But your point is fair that other, slightly less closely related relatives might have been available too. Thanks for your comment!

    • Jumin Rhee

      Also depends on if flood was local. Land in some contexts in OT refers to people.

  • ashleyhr

    Tyler. That purveyor of YEC propaganda, ‘Cowboy’ Bob Sorensen (who bans me from his Facebook page), who always prefers attacking critics of YEC-ism ‘behind their back’ rather than ‘to their face’ on non-YEC run pages where censorship of dissent is NOT the norm – has said here: https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman “Tyler Francke, founder of the Biblical Creation-bashing God of Evolution site, has written a post called 10 Theological Questions No Young-Earth Creationist Can Answer. Oh my … Tyler begins his article with a straw man that basically sets the tone for the rest of his piece.” (He then flags Part 1 of the Tony Breeden responses.) I assume the alleged strawman in question must be where you write “As far as most young-earther proponents are concerned, this is a dispute between science on one side and the Bible on the other, and the Bible will always trump science.” But that is NOT a strawman. The YEC claim that it’s all about ‘worldviews’ affecting how evidence is interpreted, and that their interpretation is equally or MORE valid scientifically (even though it has to be ‘biblical’ too) sounds good in theory but simply does NOT work in practice. Their ‘theories’ eg that the fossil record is a record of Noah’s Flood simply does not work when you look at it in detail. (But of course Sorensen will never look at things in detail.) Thus the words of Breeden “he left out the part where we also present evidences from the sciences and logical arguments” means little (and Breeden does also say “it’s clear that he resents the idea that the Bible will always trump science” that being the nub of the issue). Sorensen has also commented under Breeden’s Part 3 – where he told Breeden “It amazes me how some people claim to be Bible-believing Christians, and then join forces with atheists in ridiculing biblical creationists. WHY do they need to perform massive eisegesis, elevate science philosophies into a magisterial position, add to God’s Word (Prov. 30:6), and deny the plain teachings of Scripture so they can have long ages? I agree with some other people, that they do not really believe the Bible, and are actually deists — which would explain a lot of things.”

    • Such delightful guys. Let them talk. But honestly, I understand why they feel threatened. They can’t just sit idly by when a belief they hold to be of — at least — equal proportion to the gospel itself is compellingly shown to be completely ridiculous, even on purely theological and biblical grounds.

  • ashleyhr

    The Facebook page is Piltdown Superman/The Question Evolution Project.

  • ashleyhr

    Another YEC is reading your blogs as well: http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/creation-groans.html (fourth para referring to your question 3). He does not think the death in question is spiritual but physical. But he FAILS to mention Romans 5:12 and does not link to this blog post either.

    • Hey Ashley, thanks for the link. I thought it was funny that he says Romans 5 refers to animal death, when it actually explicitly does the opposite: “Sin entered the world through a man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned.”

      Also, I didn’t have a problem accessing the link you posted.

      • AmbassadorHerald

        Sir Francke, you need to be more fair to people. Twice you ridiculed Tony Breeden for a mere typos, which are accidental:

        http://www.godofevolution.com/the-goat-charmer-returns/#comment-2127694398
        http://www.godofevolution.com/the-goat-charmer-returns/#comment-2128946338

        Yet here you misrepresent Charlie Wolcott because not once does he reference Romans 5. In fact, even Ashley testifies to that by stating, “But he FAILS to mention Romans 5:12”, which is the exact verse you now quote. Do not bear false witness, which is a Biblical Commandment.

        • You’re right. I was thinking of a different article that Ashley posted. I apologize for misrepresenting this one.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            Thank you for saying sorry.

          • This is the one I was thinking of, FYI: http://chapmancreationmissions.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/god-of-evolution-exposed.html. Ashley posted it this morning on a different article.

          • ashleyhr

            Only just seen these further exchanges. In his blog dated 12 July Chapman wrote the following: “While other places, such as Romans 5 and Romans 8 are talking about the entire creation. We don’t use Corinthians to argue that all death is the result of sin, we use Romans. Again you are making things up! And it’s interesting that you say there are no scriptures that say animal death is the result of mans sin, then quote Romans 5 which does state that animal does is the result of mans sin. Key phrase: “entered the world”. http://www.chapmancreationmissions.blogspot.co.uk/ But having looked at Romans 5:12 and 5:18 in their context, they appear to be mainly/wholly referring to HUMAN physical death.

        • ashleyhr

          I agree. But at the same time Wolcott was addressing Francke comments, where the latter DID mention Romans 5:12 … Wolcott did NOT address that verse in his comments nor post a link to Tyler’s post in question in his blog post. Yet he wished to inform his readers: “this article’s author does not understand Christianity”. Why did he fail to explain the meaning of Romans 5:12 I wonder. Especially since Tyler did specifically discuss it in this blog post.

  • ashleyhr

    PS The site is still refusing to post my links properly. The 10 July post at Worldview Warriors by Charlie Wolcott is entitled ‘Creation Groans’.

  • AmbassadorHerald

    PART 1 OF 12: INTRO AND Q1

    Before I get down to answering Tyler Francke’s (the Mod’s) 10 Questions (June 24th) http://www.godofevolution.com/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/ I’d like to briefly address this introductory statement of his, “As far as most young-earther proponents are concerned, this is a dispute between science on one side and the Bible on the other, and the Bible will always trump science. Period.”

    There is a reason that we use the name Scientific Creationists and that is because we do not think it is “Science vs. The Bible”. To the contrary, we stand by Science. What we actually believe is that it’s “Evolution vs. The Bible”, or basically “Humanism vs. God Almighty”, or honestly “Secularists vs. True Science”. The Holy Bible will win without fail, but it wins with the aid of Science.

    Clarification Note: all Sacred Scripture quotations are from the Authorized King James Version unless specified. The most often deviation is the KJV’s Marginal Notes, where additional KJV translations are given. Many people are familiar with the way the KJV reads, yet are not familiar with the alternative ways they render certain words and phrases. This is why I have opted to use them where possible, but most of the verses remain unaffected by these substitutions.

    Heads Up: this article is intended to be pretty comprehensive—about 15,600 words total, start to finish—though there is always more that could be said. For comparison, the original 10 Questions are around 3,900 words, but 5,300 if you include the expanded Q#8. Unfortunately, I do not know how to bold, indent, underline, italicize, or anything special on Disqus comments. I hereby apologize for the plainness of the text.

    1. WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THE TREE OF LIFE?

    Up front, we must remember the passage which Dr. David Tee brought up (July 01st) https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/07/01/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/

    Isaiah 55:8-9 (KJV)—“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” saith The LORD [Yahweh]. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.”

    We can always inquire after things which we can only understand through The Sacred Scriptures and prayer, but there is no telling if we shall ever know the answer before we reach Heaven (assuming Salvation has been obtained). However, this does not mean trying to find the answer is not a worthwhile endeavor. While I admit I do not know for sure, there are a few possibilities.

    Gary Hinchman provided a verse in response to this question (June 24th) http://www.godofevolution.com/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/#comment-2098281066

    Revelation 22:2—In the midst of the street of it [the New Jerusalem, the Holy City, the City of God], and on either side of the River [of Life], was there the Tree of Life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

    The first thing to glean from this verse is that this is likely what happened to the Tree of Life. God transplanted it into “the midst of the Paradise of God” as seen in Revelation 2:7. As is pretty commonly known, Eden at its root means Paradise, so it is possible the entire Garden of Eden was transported to Heaven, now the Paradise of God. It was therefore not destroyed in the Noachian Deluge, and explains why there is no location on earth being guarded by Cherubim and a Flaming Sword (Genesis 3:24).

    The next thing of note is what the leaves are for. According to James Strong’s Concordance, the word translated as healing is “therapeia”, and it is used only four times in the New Testament, half of which for a household: Matthew 24:45; Luke 9:11; 12:42; and Revelation 22:2. It could be the leaves are to make a home for all nationalities, to bring peace to the world. A healing which is more of spirit than of body.

    Of course, we cannot exclude what Tyler Francke brought up at the end of Q7, which are the following two verses:

    Proverbs 3:18—A Tree of Life she [Wisdom] is to those laying hold on her, and whoso is retaining her is happy.

    Proverbs 13:12—Hope prolonged is making the heart sick, and a Tree of Life is the coming desire.

    Though Tyler Francke apparently missed the following two verses:

    Proverbs 11:30 (alternate KJV reading)—The fruit of the righteous is a Tree of Life; and he that taketh souls is wise.

    Proverbs 15:4 (alternate KJV reading)—The healing of the tongue is a Tree of Life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit.

    The Hebrew words here in Proverbs are the same as in Genesis for “Tree of Life”: `ets chay. The important thing is the absence of the definitive article—the. Unlike in Genesis and Revelation, this is not THE Tree of Life, and is as Tyler Francke stated, “an obviously figurative context”. Therefore, we cannot use these Proverbs with confidence to study Genesis and Revelation.

    However, we cannot forget what Thomas Frye said in response to Q10, “even a symbolic use has an underlying literal reality—the figurative “strong as an ox” would mean nothing unless an ox were literally strong” (July 01st) http://www.godofevolution.com/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/#comment-2111733942 Even though Proverbs is not describing the literal Tree of Life, it is making use of that actual tree for its analogy.

    So, this brings us back to the things learned from Revelation 2:7 and 22:2. The Tree of Life could have been a source of homey-ness for Adam and Eve. The centerpiece that made the Garden of Eden feel like home. We are also told that the Tree of Life grows 12 different fruits, one during each month of the year. It would be illogical to assume that all 12 did exactly the same thing, just like apples and oranges do not.

    It is true, God said that eating from the Tree of Life after death had begun would allow Adam and Eve to live forever.

    Genesis 3:22—And The LORD God [Yahweh Elohim] said, “Behold, the man is become as one of Us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Tree of Life, and eat, and live for ever:”

    Interestingly, God made no reference to which of the 12 fruit would grant eternal physical life. Assumedly, we can conclude that all 12 would, being that this was the Tree of Life. But this doesn’t mean other secondary benefits, which had previously been primary benefits, did not exist in each fruit. We do not know what these other possible benefits are/were. If anything, Wisdom may have been one, if we are able to read Proverbs 3:18 in that light, which would apply to Q5.

    Tony Breeden (Sirius Knott) makes this excellent contribution (June 25th) https://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/10-theological-questions-theistic-evolutionists-think-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer-part-1/ (Part 1), “We know from several Biblical passages that God foreordained the plan of salvation from the beginning of the world (Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:4; Hebrews 4:3; 1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8; 17:8). Given that fact of Biblical revelation, we read Genesis 3:22 again. We note that God bars access to the tree with said “bad-ass” angels (plural, dude) and a flaming sword which turned every way AFTER He decreed his punishment. What was His punishment? Death. And here was a Tree of Life, whereby man could remedy himself without addressing his sin. Can you imagine a world of immortals capable of some of the things you see on the evening news? Even in the act of barring us access to that tree after Adam sinned, we see God’s wisdom and grace demonstrated. Only but through Christ could we defeat both death and sin.”

    This right here is evidence in and of itself that physical death was part of the punishment (Q2, #3, and #6), because otherwise the Tree of Life was merely Spiritual Life, as argued for later in the Original Post (OP). Unless the Tree of Life could in some way impede God’s decree for our sin there was no reason to hinder our approach to that tree. If living forever in our physical bodies was an issue for God’s judgment, then physical death had just been instituted.

    Whatever the case may be for the Tree of Life’s now secondary benefits, Dr. David Tee was right in his application of the below verse to this question:

    1 Corinthians 13:12 (alternate KJV reading)—For now we see through a glass, in a riddle; but then face to face: now I [Paul] know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

    • David Evans

      It is not “Evolution vs the Bible”. YEC is contradicted by a wide range of sciences. Just some examples I have to hand:

      (1) We can see objects much more than 6,000 light years away. Even this article in CMI https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_1/j19_1_97-106.pdf which argues that some features of the galactic center disprove the standard timetable, admits (as I think it would have to) that those features are 26,000 light years away. Other CMI articles admit that the Andromeda galaxy is over 2 million light years away, and that other galaxies are billions of light years away.

      I see two main possibilities

      (a) God created the light from those objects already on its way to us. We are not seeing those objects at all, and some might question whether they are even there. Some of them we will never see before the end of our world. In which case, what is the point of creating them?

      (b) The speed of light was much greater in the past, and/or is much greater in the far reaches of space than it is here. That has other problems. The average speed of light inside our own galaxy would have to be at least 4 times what we measure here. But we make all sorts of detailed observations within our galaxy. We measure velocities assuming c is constant, which gives us one way of measuring the mass of extrasolar planets and binary stars. We can sometimes see eclipses, which gives us a second, independent way of measuring those masses. The measurements are never inconsistent by a factor of 4.

      (2) Light echoes. The light from a supernova flash will illuminate the surrounding medium in a region which grows at the speed of light. If we see this region grow, and know the distance to the object, it gives us a check on the speed of light near the object. Light echoes have been seen around several supernova remnants. Notably around SN1987A which is in the Large Magellanic Cloud, and therefore is at a distance of about 164,000 light years. So, under hypothesis 1(b) above, the speed of light in its vicinity must be at least 27 times its value here. Needless to say, the observed light echoes don’t show that, in fact they fit well with the assumption that the speed of light is c there as it is here.

      http://www.eso.org/public/unitedkingdom/news/eso8802/

      (3) Tidally interacting galaxies. We see many galaxies where long tails of stars stretch out towards a nearby galaxy. Their forms can be explained in detail (via computer simulations) as the result of gravitational tidal forces between the galaxies as they pass close to each other. The simulations show that the tails must take many millions of years to form (they certainly can’t form in 6,000 years, they would have to move faster than light to do so)

      http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept11/Duc/Duc6.html

      http://burro.cwru.edu/JavaLab/GalCrashWeb/dynamic.html

      • AmbassadorHerald

        Congrats for finding my Independence Day project! I’m impressed you found me here, I assume you are subscribed to this topic to keep an eye on it. So was I as soon as I heard about it. Honestly, though, you are not a believer in The Holy Bible so I don’t see why Theological answers interest you. However, you did answer my introductory scientific statement, so that works. Although Theology is the “Queen of the Sciences” according to Martin Luther.

        Seeing as you clearly want me to address these points, I will, but over at the original time you sent them to me. Here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2015/05/genesis-1-fixed-it-for-you.html#comment-2121959472

        May Jesus Bless you!

        • David Evans

          I didn’t actually come here looking for you. I do not believe in the Holy Bible, nor in the Qur’an, but they concern me because of the damage some of their believers do.
          For instance: several US politicians have argued on Biblical grounds that man-made climate change is not an important issue. Either because God promised Noah not to flood the world again, or because His world is so well made we cannot harm it, or because He has already chosen the date for the end of the world (and climate change might even be His instrument)
          From my point of view this is dangerous lunacy. Ignoring climate change might be the biggest mistake humanity would ever make – and possibly the last.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            —–“I didn’t actually come here looking for you. I do not believe in the Holy Bible, nor in the Qur’an, but they concern me because of the damage some of their believers do.”

            I didn’t mean found in the sense of searched for, but you still found my comments.

            As for the damage done by religious people, I’m glad you included Islam because most just point the finger at Christianity. But you still neglect the damage secularists do, such as Hitler who was putting into action Darwin’s own philosophy.

            —–“For instance: several US politicians have argued on Biblical grounds that man-made climate change is not an important issue. Either because God promised Noah not to flood the world again, or because His world is so well made we cannot harm it, or because He has already chosen the date for the end of the world (and climate change might even be His instrument).”

            I rarely follow what politicians do except at when voting time arrives, and then I vote straight-ticket Pro-Life. If a person is willing to stand up for the defenseless lives in the mother’s womb, then they are likely brave enough to stand for other good ideals. So I wouldn’t know how politicians use The Bible in their speeches. Frankly, many of them only use The Bible when convenient for their campaign, whether or not they’d ever open one or go to church. Don’t be fooled by people who play to their audience, they aren’t necessarily Bible believers.

            As for YECs, we don’t believe climate change is happening, man-caused or otherwise. There is a pretty sizable secularist group who deny it too, many of whom are climatologists. This is not just a stance by those who are “biased” to Biblical matters. God has made a pretty stable planet, as can be seen more clearly in a 6,000-year-history. The Ice Age being a stabilizing effect of The Noachian Deluge when the oceans were warmer.

            —–“From my point of view this is dangerous lunacy. Ignoring climate change might be the biggest mistake humanity would ever make – and possibly the last.”

            This POV (Point-of-View) is based entirely on the assumption The Bible’s future predictions are untrue. You are one of the scoffers spoken of in 2 Peter 3:4 saying, “Where is the promise of Jesus’ coming? Because since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the universe.”

            But you say that because you are willingly ignorant of that by The Word of God the heavens were long ago, and the earth consisting of the water and in the water: whereby the world that at that time, being deluged with water, was destroyed: but the heavens and the earth, which are in the present, by the same Word of God are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the Day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men (v5-7).

            —–“Luther wrote before “science” had its modern meaning. “Science” these days describes making hypotheses which are testable by experiment or observation, regarding them as more and more probable as they pass more tests, and discarding them (no doubt reluctantly and after a struggle) if they fail crucial tests. That’s why it succeeds, and why other studies try to borrow the name for its prestige. Theology is not science in those terms.”

            This definition still applies to Theology, when one is truly understanding of spiritual things. If one assumes all of The Holy Bible is literal insomuch as it is intended to be, then The Bible becomes a means to test ideas against. In the same way God responds to prayer and that becomes a way to test ideas. And The Holy Spirit indwelling believers, He will gently guide you, drop thoughts in your mind, give directions, and help you test ideas.

            Theology is a Science in a Godly framework, as demonstrated by George Washington Carver who saved the Allies in WW2 with his synthetic rubber made from peanuts. George Washington Carver made his discoveries through prayer and following The Holy Spirit. Today science is being watered-down by secularists, perverted from what it was intended by God to be.

          • David Evans

            Hitler was no secularist, look at these quotes

            http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/23/list-of-hitler-quotes-he-was-q/

            and note also that he banned atheist groups.

            Darwin was a man of his time, he said some regrettable things about “primitive” peoples. But unlike many of his contemporaries he argued that they could be brought up to a”civilized” level by improving their conditions, and he was strongly against slavery. He would never have agreed with Hitler that the Jews and the Russians were genetically inferior.

            “This POV (Point-of-View) is based entirely on the assumption The Bible’s future predictions are untrue”

            History is on my side here. There have been hundreds of biblically based predictions of the end times, all false.

            “If a person is willing to stand up for the defenseless lives in the mother’s womb, then they are likely brave enough to stand for other good ideals.”

            That doesn’t take great courage in the US. Abortion doctors have been killed, not pro-lifers (as far as I know).

            “As for YECs, we don’t believe climate change is happening, man-caused or otherwise.”

            Then what is going on here?

            http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/12/22/global-temperature-a-century-ago-vs-today/

            and

            http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/trends.htm

            I should be interested to know the names of your secular climatologists who deny man-made climate change. According to this

            http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

            they are a tiny minority.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            —–“Hitler was no secularist, look at these quotes [link] and note also that he banned atheist groups.”

            Seeing as the article in question provides a very pointed classification for Hitler—namely Catholic—I figured I’d see what the Catholics themselves had to say about this issue. http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/was-hitler-a-christian.html They basically concluded what I thought straightway: you cannot trust what a politician seeking power says. Most of these quotes are from Hitler’s rise to power, not from when he was in control. Converting the Freethinkers Hall into a religious place was likely such a move, to win the church-goers over. It was done 6 years before the war began! My Dad has a saying, “Those who will kill will lie”. Hitler killed many, so he would have lied, and he did many times, admittedly so.

            —–“Darwin was a man of his time, he said some regrettable things about “primitive” peoples. But unlike many of his contemporaries he argued that they could be brought up to a “civilized” level by improving their conditions, and he was strongly against slavery. He would never have agreed with Hitler that the Jews and the Russians were genetically inferior.”

            This isn’t what I heard. Darwin believed they were genetically inferior as well, so Hitler just put it into practice. And agreement is not needed, all that matters is what the doctrine allows. There are no ethics in evolutionary process, in fact, civilized man has gone against evolution. The better killer is who lives, the one who is more fit does not get eaten. Death is key to “advancement” in evolution, so Hitler was well within the “rules”.

            —–“History is on my side here. There have been hundreds of biblically based predictions of the end times, all false.”

            You’re referring to “date-setters” which is not allowed Biblically. If you knew what Bible Prophecy said, you’d know that. You may still know it but be ignoring that in light of mocking God’s Word. Besides, to argue that the past is evidence against the future is a nonsensical argument.

            Mark 13:32 (with Matthew 4:36)—But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither The Son, but My Father only.

            Matthew 25:13 (KJV)—Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein The Son of Man cometh.

            —–“That doesn’t take great courage in the US. Abortion doctors have been killed, not pro-lifers (as far as I know).”

            I wouldn’t know, but it would not surprise me any. Abortionists are murderers, and in fact the worst kind: Serial Killers. God has been clear ever since Noah in Genesis 9:5-6 that Capital Punishment is the only way to deal with murderers, at least governmentally. Unfortunately, our government is not dealing out proper judgments about the slaughter of innocents, so a few angry individuals have done so.

            Everyone understands and expects outrage at a murderer’s revealing, which is why the police hold back the crowd. Why are people shocked at the outrage against abortion by those who know what it is? No one hates people who stand up to support life. That is why food banks and such do so well.

            Besides, these people who killed abortionists, they are likely in jail now for murder, yes? So honestly, they got their legal punishment, yet you act as if they didn’t.

            —–“Then what is going on here? [Link] and [link]”

            Both links have an issue, the graphs provided are limited to the last century or so—from 1860/80 till today. I once got a free secular DVD only 15-minutes long on the Global Warning Hoax (its sitting at my parents’ house because I am married now and back then I was under-age). They showed a graph going all the way back to before Jesus’ time. Their graph showed that during the Roman Empire period, which lasted several centuries, the climate was much warmer than today and reliably so—no spikes and drops, all an even line. The Romans left us detailed records so we can measure the climate from them.

            It was around the fall of Rome that the temperature plummeted and the Middle “Dark” Ages began. It really explained why life was so hard during that time. Not only had the unification force been eliminated, allowing people to struggle for power, but the climate was very harsh, which promoted hunger and disease. Slowly, as we reached the end of the Middle Ages, the climate began to near where it had been before, but not as stable, not by far. We had and continue to have spikes and cooling and warming trends.

            The above is generally confirmed by this Discovery article http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/climate-change-ancient-rome-110113.htm and I do believe the volcanic eruption blamed is Krakatoa.

            Now this AiG article specifically states https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/climate-change/global-warming/ “Practically all atmospheric scientists (the author included) agree that global warming has occurred. The raging debate is over how much of it is caused by man and whether global warming will be harmful. …The amount of warming since 1880 has been about 1.2°F (0.67°C). However, a certain percentage of this warming is likely due to natural fluctuations, especially on the sun.”

            Yes, in the last 100 years we have had a warming trend, and Creationists don’t deny trends. However, we are colder today than what Rome had, and less reliably. Graphs are only as good as the window they show, and only showing modern history does not reveal what the past was. If we are going to fear anything, it is a Big Freeze, not a Meltdown. When my father was a child, he heard scare of another Ice Age. How easily frightened by a few minor fluctuations scientists are. I recommend a look through both articles above.

            —–“I should be interested to know the names of your secular climatologists who deny man-made climate change. According to this [link] they are a tiny minority.”

            I would provide the ones in the video I had but I’d need to have it mailed to me to provide it for you.

          • David Evans

            So you maintain that Hitler was a secret secularist? It seems unlikely. Why would he ban atheist groups, and why did he attach such importance to the Spear of Longinus (after he came to power)? In Mein Kampf he seems to think naturally in religious categories: “Thank God”, “I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven”, “Sooner will a camel pass through a needle’s eye”, “Verily a man cannot serve two masters.”.. http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

            “This isn’t what I heard. Darwin believed they were genetically inferior as well,”

            I can find no evidence for that, and it seems very unlikely. I think you need to provide evidence.

            “So honestly, they got their legal punishment, yet you act as if they didn’t.”

            Their punishment is irrelevant. I was saying it’s safer to be a pro-lifer in the US than an abortionist, and the facts bear me out.

            More later

          • David Evans

            “You’re referring to “date-setters” which is not allowed Biblically.”

            It may not be allowed, but lots of Christians have done and continue to do it. If I wanted to quibble I would point out that many of them did not claim to know “that day and that hour”, but the year or even the decade. And of course Matthew 13:32 follows closely on the embarrassing 13:30 “Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.”

            “Besides, to argue that the past is evidence against the future is a nonsensical argument.”

            Of course it isn’t. That many have claimed to build perpetual motion machines, and all have failed, is evidence that the next claimant is also likely to fail.

            The middle graph here
            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/08/16/206601/hockey-stick-paper-mcshane-and-wyner-statisticians/

            goes back to 1AD. It does indeed show a slow cooling from 1 AD to about 1800 AD. But then it shows a much sharper increase, corresponding to the increase in use of fossil fuels and deforestation. Something has changed. You can’t compare modern global temperature readings with temperatures inferred from only one location.

            “When my father was a child, he heard scare of another Ice Age.” I’ll bet he didn’t hear that 97% of climatologists predicted an ice age, as 97% now predict increased global warming.

          • David Evans

            “Today science is being watered-down by secularists, perverted from what it was intended by God to be.”

            I would say that science really started making progress when it got out from under the thumb of religion. Why was there so little scientific progress during the centuries when the Catholic Church dominated the intellectual life of Europe?

            You can’t base such a sweeping statement on one man. Another viewpoint is that Stalin saved the Allies – if Hitler had not had to worry about his Eastern front he might well have overrun the UK. And many Allied lives were saved by the atom bomb developed by Oppenheimer (who quoted the Hindu scriptures on seeing the first test).
            But this is all nonsense. Some scientists are inspired by their Christian beliefs. Some are not. When I think of a scientist who benefited mankind, the first one that comes to mind is Jonas Salk. Who was brought up Jewish (he couldn’t get into his first choice of research institute because of quotas), a believer in evolution, and gave his polio vaccine freely to the world.

        • David Evans

          Luther wrote before “science” had its modern meaning. “Science” these days describes making hypotheses which are testable by experiment or observation, regarding them as more and more probable as they pass more tests, and discarding them (no doubt reluctantly and after a struggle) if they fail crucial tests. That’s why it succeeds, and why other studies try to borrow the name for its prestige. Theology is not science in those terms.

    • Hey, I appreciate your interest, but obviously, I’m not going to read and respond to a 15,000-word website comment in 12 parts. Believe it or not, I do have a life outside this blog. I hope you got something from the process, and/or are able to generate some discussion from sharing the links around as I’ve seen you doing, so it wasn’t a total waste of your time. Now, if you have one or two questions or criticisms you’d really like to see addressed, then please present them in a more manageable form and I will be happy to respond. Thanks again.

      • AmbassadorHerald

        Dear Mr. Francke,

        Honestly, do you appreciate my interest? Because I notice the only other long and detailed reply, nearly as long as mine, by Tony Breeden was also ignored. Did you really expect YECs to stand idly by as you brag about having 10 Kryptonite Bullets? You want me to chop up my very complete refutation into 2 small, bite-sized pieces so that you can chew them up and spit them out. Well, I’m not going to give you that satisfaction or opportunity to mock-win this.

        You claim you do not have time for even reading it, yet you had time to do another blogpost today. If you really do not have the time to properly deal with the repercussions of your actions than perhaps you had better stop blogging about them. I surely hope that I do not see a single new blogpost unless it is in response to the evidences provided against you, either by me or one of the other detailed responses by my contemporaries.

        In regards to expectations, I expect you to at the very least read what has been given to you. You dared challenge us, and now the ball is in your court. It is your duty to take it like a man. I expect a reply and one that is not flippant as this one is. And, you had better never ever make the claim that these 10 Questions are impossible to answer, because I have done so, as have numerous others. You will be found a liar if you do so, by God if not before.

        Proverbs 30:5-6 (KJV)—Every Word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His Words [i.e. evolution], lest He reprove [correct] thee, and thou be found a liar.

        You’re welcome and have a good day,

        Amb. J.C. Nathanael Eisner
        (2 Corinthians 5:20)

        • Hey, much better! This I can respond to.

          Honestly, do you appreciate my interest?

          Yes.

          Because I notice the only other long and detailed reply, nearly as long as mine, by Tony Breeden was also ignored.

          Um, I didn’t ignore Tony’s response. I did an entire post about it, linked to it and said it was pretty good, except for the childish put-downs and logical fallacies. Look, if I really didn’t appreciate yours, I could just delete it. But I’m not going to do that.

          Did you really expect YECs to stand idly by as you brag about having 10 Kryptonite Bullets?

          No, I expected that you would try to answer the questions.

          You want me to chop up my very complete refutation into 2 small, bite-sized pieces so that you can chew them up and spit them out.

          Seems reasonable to ask you to be more brief. I wouldn’t dump 15,000 words on someone else’s website and expect them to respond.

          Well, I’m not going to give you that satisfaction or opportunity to mock-win this.

          Suit yourself.

          You claim you do not have time for even reading it, yet you had time to do another blogpost today.

          Yeah. It was 750 words and took me about 15 minutes. I did it while I was drinking my morning coffee. Well, some of my morning coffee.

          If you really do not have the time to properly deal with the repercussions of your actions than perhaps you had better stop blogging about them.

          Responding to a comment that is five times longer than the original post, and 20 or 30 times longer than a typical post, is not in the job description of any blogger.

          I surely hope that I do not see a single new blogpost unless it is in response to the evidences provided against you, either by me or one of the other detailed responses by my contemporaries.

          I’m sorry… are you threatening me? Because you sound awfully silly.

          In regards to expectations, I expect you to at the very least read what has been given to you.

          Oh, I probably will at some point.

          You dared challenge us, and now the ball is in your court.

          Very intimidating.

          It is your duty to take it like a man.

          Right.

          I expect a reply and one that is not flippant as this one is.

          How am I doing?

          And, you had better never ever make the claim that these 10 Questions are impossible to answer, because I have done so, as have numerous others.

          Yeah, about that… The title was meant for no other purpose than to spark interest and discussion. I never expected that no young-earth creationists would answer the questions (or try to, at least). I called the post what I called it because “10 theological questions that are difficult for young-earth creationists to answer” is not as good of a blog title.

          It’s not my fault that you took something literally that was never intended to be taken literally (wait a minute, why am I getting déjà vu right now?).

          Proverbs 30:5-6 (KJV)—Every Word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His Words [i.e. evolution], lest He reprove [correct] thee, and thou be found a liar.

          This is so ironic it’s funny. Pretty sure the author of Proverbs, writing 3,000 years ago or so, was not thinking about evolution when he penned these verses. By trying to make this a prohibition against scientific inquiry, you’re doing exactly what the teaching condemns.

          Amb. J.C. Nathanael Eisner
          (2 Corinthians 5:20)

          My, my. Someone has a high opinion of himself.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            Why don’t you read and answer one part each day, I kept them all under 2,000 words a piece. Not dealing with the evidence is just cowardly, and dishing out what you are not willing to take is being a bully. I am willing to give you 12 days to respond, even if only workdays. David Evans is not afraid to respond as he has time, little by little. So why are you? Do you honestly think I have no life and spent 24/7 working on this? I too did it bit by bit, but I am not one to upload something unfinished.

          • Why don’t you read and answer one part each day, I kept them all under 2,000 words a piece.

            Not a bad idea. Perhaps I will. Especially since I read the first few “answers,” and they are rather underwhelming, so this shouldn’t take as long as I thought it might. (Side note: Seriously, why did you quote from answers on this thread that I’ve already responded to and pointed out how they are invalid?)

            Not dealing with the evidence is just cowardly, and dishing out what you are not willing to take is being a bully.

            Yeah? And what category does threatening someone like a petulant child fit into? Would that be bullying, or…?

            I am willing to give you 12 days to respond, even if only workdays.

            How generous of you! Sorry, but that doesn’t work for my schedule. I generally do website stuff on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

            David Evans is not afraid to respond as he has time, little by little. So why are you?

            I’m not afraid to respond. Your questions are rather easy, you know?

            Do you honestly think I have no life and spent 24/7 working on this?

            Um, those two things are not mututally exclusive. You may not have worked on this 24/7, but that doesn’t mean you have a life.

            I too did it bit by bit, but I am not one to upload something unfinished.

            That’s great, but no one else who responded on this article had to post their comments in 12 parts. I liked theirs a lot better for that.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            Are you planning to continue answering the 11 remaining parts? Yesterday was Tuesday and today Wednesday, a week after you agreed to do one a day. You also often to a wrap-up on Fridays.

          • Are you planning to continue answering the 11 remaining parts?

            Maybe. The first part was so bad and presented absolutely nothing new (in fact, rehashed a lot of already refuted points from others’ attempted responses) that I don’t really see the point. But I’ll try to make it through the first three at least.

            Yesterday was Tuesday and today Wednesday, a week after you agreed to do one a day.

            I said no such thing. I said it wasn’t a bad idea, but doesn’t work for my schedule, since I usually do website stuff Tuesday and Wednesday. Something came up yesterday so I didn’t touch the site at all.

            You also often to a wrap-up on Fridays.

            Which is typically written on Wednesday and scheduled for Friday.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            I have a strong suspicion you rigged your question order in such a way that the hardest to answer questions were first, which would require more speculation, so that you could write off our answers before you got to the solid evidence at the end. I expect to have 12 answers total, even if only 2 each week. I added a lot to Q1 that no one before me had contributed, as anyone can see at a glance, so stop lying.

          • I have a strong suspicion you rigged your question order in such a way that the hardest to answer questions were first, which would require more speculation, so that you could write off our answers before you got to the solid evidence at the end.

            You are quite right. Everything I do is meticulously structured around how I believe the createvantariat will respond.

            I expect to have 12 answers total, even if only 2 each week.

            Again with the threats. Good luck with that.

            I added a lot to Q1 that no one before me had contributed, as anyone can see at a glance, so stop lying.

            You’re right. You did add the completely ridiculous conjecture around the tree’s 12 fruits, which is probably because it is so obviously symbolic that you’re the first person to ever take it literally.

          • Hey, Tyler, I offer as counter-argument the entirety of the AiG website. I demand you comprehensively refute every article in your Friday wrap up. Otherwise, “we” will know how sincere you are, and we will expose you as a fraud as soon as we’re done not getting vaccinated.

          • Phil, you are a man after my own heart.

          • Ha!

            It’s just ridiculous. You know, I have some people I look up to who have a more literal way of understanding Genesis, but they are very humble people and understand their view has significant weaknesses that they’re just willing to live with because that’s where they’re at right now. Even though I strongly disagree with that position, it is just not anywhere near center to their concerns and, on the rare occasions we discuss it, the discussions are nice and calm and honest.

            But stuff like this – this is why people have the popular conception that you can’t be a Christian AND think, so they choose atheism or agnosticism, largely because people like our friend here have made it clear that those are your only options.

            You, I have only recently discovered, but you and Biologos and other like minded folks (Pete Enns, Andrew Perriman, etc.) are the best things to happen to evangelism since people quit buying Chick tracts.

            These guys… ugh. And they always have screen names like TrueDisciple77 and HeraldOfTheProphets and SoldOut2Him.

    • There is a reason that we use the name Scientific Creationists and that is because we do not think it is “Science vs. The Bible”. To the contrary, we stand by Science. What we actually believe is that it’s “Evolution vs. The Bible”, or basically “Humanism vs. God Almighty”, or honestly “Secularists vs. True Science”. The Holy Bible will win without fail, but it wins with the aid of Science.

      The reason you use the name “scientific creationists” is so that you might appear “scientific” to the uninformed masses that are your exclusive audience. If you really cared about science, or were capable of doing science, you would be engaging in the scientific process: doing research, conducting experiments, publishing papers, and trying to get your ideas to gain traction that way. Of course, you know you would be utterly incapable of convincing someone who knows what they’re talking about (i.e., a real scientist), so you go straight to those who don’t know any different.

      My, you’re not off to a very good start.

      The first thing to glean from this verse is that this is likely what happened to the Tree of Life. God transplanted it into “the midst of the Paradise of God” as seen in Revelation 2:7. As is pretty commonly known, Eden at its root means Paradise, so it is possible the entire Garden of Eden was transported to Heaven, now the Paradise of God. It was therefore not destroyed in the Noachian Deluge, and explains why there is no location on earth being guarded by Cherubim and a Flaming Sword (Genesis 3:24).

      Ah, the Xtrabiblical Vision strikes again! Serious question: Why do you think it’s OK, and not completely hypocritical, to lambaste evolutionary creationists for eisegesis, when you do exactly the same thing?

      However, we cannot forget what Thomas Frye said in response to Q10, “even a symbolic use has an underlying literal reality—the figurative “strong as an ox” would mean nothing unless an ox were literally strong” (July 01st) http://www.godofevolution.com/… Even though Proverbs is not describing the literal Tree of Life, it is making use of that actual tree for its analogy.

      Right. Analogies can only work if they refer to real things. Like, if I said my friend was “as strong as Hercules,” that proves Hercules is a legitimate historical figure. And if my aunt compared her new day spa to the fountain of youth, that proves the fountain of youth is every bit as real as the tree of life in Genesis.

      So, this brings us back to the things learned from Revelation 2:7 and 22:2. The Tree of Life could have been a source of homey-ness for Adam and Eve. The centerpiece that made the Garden of Eden feel like home.

      Until God kicked them out of their home, and stationed a flaming sword to guard the “centerpiece”? Yeah, I don’t think that really fits the story.

      We are also told that the Tree of Life grows 12 different fruits, one during each month of the year. It would be illogical to assume that all 12 did exactly the same thing, just like apples and oranges do not.

      Yeah, because nothing in Revelation is symbolic at all. First of all, read some commentaries. Twelve is a biblical number of completeness (12 tribes of Israel, 12 disciples of Jesus, etc.). Additionally, to an agrarian-based society, the fact that the tree bears fruit every month (12 times more often than an ordinary crop) would signify that there is plenty for all, another theme of Revelation, and the New Testament generally. Overall, the verse expresses the completeness of the life offered through Christ in Paradise.

      You see, this is why I think the literalist view is so detrimental to the Christian faith and scripture. Using it, you’ve taken a beautiful expression of God’s love and provision for the faithful (which is held as such by most commentators), and reduced it to a biology lesson about a symbolic tree.

      This right here is evidence in and of itself that physical death was part of the punishment (Q2, #3, and #6), because otherwise the Tree of Life was merely Spiritual Life, as argued for later in the Original Post (OP).

      Wrong. I believe the tree of life does symbolize eternal life with God. I just don’t believe mankind was originally created immortal.

      Whatever the case may be for the Tree of Life’s now secondary benefits, Dr. David Tee was right in his application of the below verse to this question:

      So, to sum up, a bunch of conjecture about “once-primary, now-secondary benefits” that are not even remotely hinted at in any of the biblical texts that reference the tree, and “I don’t know what its purpose was, but God probably had a reason.”

      The tree is called the tree of life. The purpose of the tree is perfectly clear in Genesis. The only thing that doesn’t make fit or make sense is the YEC insistence that all living things were originally created immortal. It is that theology that makes the tree a ridiculous and superfluous farce, not God’s word. If you can address that, then maybe you’ll come close to actually answering the original question.

      • AmbassadorHerald

        EISEGESIS AND SYMBOLISM

        —–“If you really cared about science, or were capable of doing science, you would be engaging in the scientific process: doing research, conducting experiments, publishing papers, and trying to get your ideas to gain traction that way. Of course, you know you would be utterly incapable of convincing someone who knows what they’re talking about (i.e., a real scientist), so you go straight to those who don’t know any different.”

        Actually, we can do science and are researching, experimenting, and publishing papers, even peer-reviewed ones. See the below links:

        http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=search&f_typeID=12

        https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/

        http://creation.com/journal-of-creation

        These are just three examples of professional scientific work done by Scientific Creationists: one by the Institute for Creation Research, one by Answers in Genesis, and one by Creation Ministries International.

        The reason you and others think we do not do anything in scientific papers is because no secular papers will publish our work. We would publish in them if allowed, but we are banned, so we needed to make our own. Basically, you made a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it only serves to make you feel better about yourselves.

        This fact has lead your crowd into falsely claiming that we are only religious, but never actually critique the science that we are doing. Because you are the ones trying to make the uninformed masses think evolution and science are synonymous, when in fact they are not. Evolution is not observable, testable, or repeatable, and all three of those are needed to be actual science.

        —–“My, you’re not off to a very good start.”

        You probably rigged this to have YECs not be able to start on a good foot. The Tree of Life question, for example.

        —–“Serious question: Why do you think it’s OK, and not completely hypocritical, to lambaste evolutionary creationists for eisegesis, when you do exactly the same thing?”

        Clarification question: How is using The Revelation of Jesus Christ to understand Beginnings eisegesis, or in other words, applying extra-Biblical ideas to The Holy Bible?

        —–“Until God kicked them out of their home, and stationed a flaming sword to guard the “centerpiece”? Yeah, I don’t think that really fits the story.”

        Why Not? Does not “in the midst of the garden” (Genesis 2:9) and “in the midst of the paradise of God” (Revelation 2:7) explicitly make the Tree of Life the centerpiece?

        —–Most of the remaining response revolves around the Tree of Life being symbolical through-and-through.

        What textual evidence can you provide from Genesis that the Tree of Life is merely symbolic? I say Genesis because if that tree is not real then neither is the one in Revelation, yet if it is real in Genesis then to conclude it is not real in Revelation is inconsistent.

        Also, a literal Tree of Life only adds to the truth of the “beautiful expression of God’s love and provision for the faithful”. No longer do we have a symbolic picture of the “completeness of the life offered through Christ in Paradise”, but a literal example of how the eternal life through Jesus is beautiful, loving, and complete! We’re given an extremely profitable tree and river.

        —–“The tree is called the tree of life. The purpose of the tree is perfectly clear in Genesis. The only thing that doesn’t fit or make sense is the YEC insistence that all living things were originally created immortal. It is that theology that makes the tree a ridiculous and superfluous farce, not God’s word. If you can address that, then maybe you’ll come close to actually answering the original question.”

        You do realize that there is more to life than simply moving and breathing right? Bodily motion is not all there is to living, as is another way this word is used in Genesis: living creature in 1:21, v24, 2:19, 9:10, v12, v15-16; living soul in 2:7 (all KJV). Living is much more than simply being alive. You live in a home. Eden was home and the Tree of Life its center. Which puts us back to what we see about the leaves in Revelation—peace of spirit, homey-ness.

        Plus, the root of your objection is again that this tree cannot be real, but you have given no evidence to support it being symbolic from the Hebrew text of Genesis 1, 2, and 3. If the tree is described in The Sacred Scriptures as being real, then this objection against YECs is unfounded and ill-aimed.

        • The reason you and others think we do not do anything in scientific papers is because no secular papers will publish our work. We would publish in them if allowed, but we are banned, so we needed to make our own. Basically, you made a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it only serves to make you feel better about yourselves.

          Riiiight.

          You ever wonder if there was a reason real scientists won’t publish the work of the createvangelists? I’ll bet the flat earthers have had trouble getting their stuff published in scientific journals too, and it’s not because of an atheist conspiracy. It’s because no amount of mumbo-jumbo and science-y sounding words can cover up the fact that their ideas are complete nonsense.

          This fact has lead your crowd into falsely claiming that we are only religious, but never actually critique the science that we are doing.

          Young-earth creationists publishing their own work in their own vanity press journals is not “doing science.” It’s a cargo cult if it’s anything.

          Evolution is not observable, testable, or repeatable, and all three of those are needed to be actual science.

          The theory of evolution is observable and testable. If being “repeatable” were really necessary to do science, then we couldn’t do physics because we can’t make our own universe.

          You probably rigged this to have YECs not be able to start on a good foot. The Tree of Life question, for example.

          I didn’t “rig” anything, but I’m glad to see we agree that you did not start well.

          Clarification question: How is using The Revelation of Jesus Christ to understand Beginnings eisegesis, or in other words, applying extra-Biblical ideas to The Holy Bible?

          This coming from the guy who, later in his same post, demands I answer a question about the tree of life using no text other than Genesis.

          Why Not? Does not “in the midst of the garden” (Genesis 2:9) and “in the midst of the paradise of God” (Revelation 2:7) explicitly make the Tree of Life the centerpiece?

          In the “midst” can mean the direct center, but it often does not. The Hebrew word tavek is translated by the NASB 153 times as “among” or “within” and only 42 times as “middle” or “center.”

          Also,why didn’t you respond to the part about the analogies? As embarrassingly weak as it was, that was one of your stronger points.

          What textual evidence can you provide from Genesis that the Tree of Life is merely symbolic? I say Genesis because if that tree is not real then neither is the one in Revelation, yet if it is real in Genesis then to conclude it is not real in Revelation is inconsistent.

          Sorry, but that’s not how this works. What textual evidence can you provide from the parable of the good Samaritan that the man’s donkey is symbolic? There is nothing wrong with looking outside of a text to establish the proper context, or with comparing a particular phrase or device to how they are used in other texts. If this were wrong, we would not have been able to translate the Bible in the first place.

          Also, a literal Tree of Life only adds to the truth of the “beautiful expression of God’s love and provision for the faithful”. No longer do we have a symbolic picture of the “completeness of the life offered through Christ in Paradise”, but a literal example of how the eternal life through Jesus is beautiful, loving, and complete! We’re given an extremely profitable tree and river.

          You have a very strange understanding of how symbolism works.

          You do realize that there is more to life than simply moving and breathing right? Bodily motion is not all there is to living, as is another way this word is used in Genesis: living creature in 1:21, v24, 2:19, 9:10, v12, v15-16; living soul in 2:7 (all KJV). Living is much more than simply being alive. You live in a home. Eden was home and the Tree of Life its center. Which puts us back to what we see about the leaves in Revelation—peace of spirit, homey-ness.

          What does this have to do with anything?

          Plus, the root of your objection is again that this tree cannot be real, but you have given no evidence to support it being symbolic from the Hebrew text of Genesis 1, 2, and 3. If the tree is described in The Sacred Scriptures as being real, then this objection against YECs is unfounded and ill-aimed.

          The evidence is that magic trees are always fictional devices in every other piece of writing in which they’ve appeared, eternal life is a central theme throughout scripture and is often treated symbolically, and the tree of life itself is used by other biblical authors in clearly symbolic ways. Also, that the Bible never again references it in a historical context, despite the fact that Genesis 3 leaves every indication that it would still exist in the garden, if it were in fact “real.”

          • AmbassadorHerald

            TRANSLATION VS. ORIGINAL

            —–“The theory of evolution is observable and testable. If being “repeatable” were really necessary to do science, then we couldn’t do physics because we can’t make our own universe.”

            Really? I’ve seen entire posts from you saying evolution is NOT observable, which contradicts your current claim. So, now that we know it should be observable, give me some observable evolution. On top of that, how about some testable evolution?

            As for physics, we can observe, test, and repeat physics experiments. The Creation of the universe is outside of physics, as even Big Bang cosmology agrees.

            —–“I didn’t “rig” anything, but I’m glad to see we agree that you did not start well.”

            No, we agree that you forced YECs not to start well. I see now that I should’ve reversed your questions and counted down from 10-1. As a result, it is important you make it through all 12 Parts, because the best evidence is found near the end.

            —–“This coming from the guy who, later in his same post, demands I answer a question about the tree of life using no text other than Genesis.”

            Yeah… so you are willing to point fingers at others and say “your answers aren’t valid”, “not a real answer”, “you don’t really address the question”, etc. and then pull the exact same thing? Answer the question, Mr. Francke.

            —–“In the “midst” can mean the direct center, but it often does not. The Hebrew word tavek is translated by the NASB 153 times as “among” or “within” and only 42 times as “middle” or “center.” ”

            Confirmation that you do prefer the NASB, thank you. Also, the KJV is similar on one count but vastly different on another. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8432&t=KJV midst (209x), among (140x), within (20x), middle (7x), in (6x), between (3x), therein (3x), through (2x), into (2x), misc (23x). That is 160 times in the KJV for among/within, just slightly more than the NASB, but 216 times for midst/middle, which is way more than the NASB.

            The real question is, why do you feel that “the Tree of Life also among the Garden of Eden” or “the Tree of Life also within the Garden of Eden” is better? Among doesn’t make any sense in context, and within changes very few of the facts. Middle still works perfectly.

            Plus, you ignored the Greek word “mesos” in Revelation 2:7. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3319&t=KJV midst (41x), among (6x), from among (with G1537) (5x), midnight (with G3571) (2x), misc (5x). This one means middle 43 times in the KJV, if you include Middle-Night. The same question applies here, though. Why do you feel that “the Tree of Life, which is among the Paradise of God” is better? Again, among makes no sense.

            —–“Also, why didn’t you respond to the part about the analogies? As embarrassingly weak as it was, that was one of your stronger points.”

            Because it was simply making mockery of real evidence. Let’s look at your examples. Anyone who’d use the analogy “as strong as Hercules” is probably an ancient Greek, who literally believed in Hercules. Hercules is considered not real today, but at the time he was considered as real as you and me. Biblically, Hercules was likely a Nephilim spoken of in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33.

            Similarly, anyone comparing to “the Fountain of Youth” is probably living in the Middle Ages or earlier, and it was a literal belief. This one, too, does have a Biblical counterpart. Buddy Davis on his 2002 CD “Soar” has a song “The Fountain of Youth”. The Chorus says, “But the Fountain of Youth, I know it exists! I found its source and I know where it is! It springs in Heaven and I know that I’m right, the Fountain of Youth is the River of Life! If you seek this adventure, stick to me like glue, this Bible’s a map to the Fountain of Youth. There is a river that never shall run dry, the Fountain of Youth is the River of Life.”

            However, comparing ideologies which are not based on God’s Sacred Scriptures to what is inside The Holy Bible is not fair to God. You’re telling Him that just because other cultures had false beliefs, that that means He recorded falsely. You are saying God lied in His historical records. Evolutionists often like to ask, “If God created 6,000 years ago, why does the universe indicate billions of years?” I would like to ask you the same question, only reversed: If God created everything using evolution, why would He indicate 6-days repeatedly in His Pure Word?

            —–“Sorry, but that’s not how this works. What textual evidence can you provide from the parable of the Good Samaritan that the man’s donkey is symbolic? There is nothing wrong with looking outside of a text to establish the proper context, or with comparing a particular phrase or device to how they are used in other texts. If this were wrong, we would not have been able to translate the Bible in the first place.”

            You’re right, we always must take other instances into account, but there is a Hermeneutical Rule about this. “The First Place an object, topic, or word is used, it likely sets the baseline understanding of said item in the future.” So, since Genesis 2 and 3 is where the Tree of Life is first discussed, it sets the tone for all future places at the foundational level. How does Genesis use the Tree of Life? Literally or Figuratively?

            —–“What does this have to do with anything?”

            The fact you could translate the Tree of Life as the “Tree of Living”, which is not the exact same thing. Translations do their best, but the original word defines its meaning, and this is well within its usage. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2416&t=KJV live (197x), life (144x), beast (76x), alive (31x), creature (15x), running (7x), living thing (6x), raw (6x), misc (19x).

            —–“The evidence is that magic trees are always fictional devices in every other piece of writing in which they’ve appeared, eternal life is a central theme throughout scripture and is often treated symbolically, and the tree of life itself is used by other biblical authors in clearly symbolic ways.”

            When is eternal life ever used symbolically?

            —–“Also, that the Bible never again references it in a historical context, despite the fact that Genesis 3 leaves every indication that it would still exist in the garden, if it were in fact “real.” ”

            And here you answer my question above by stating that Genesis 2 and 3 are a historical context, meaning the Tree of Life is intended to be literal. Very good! However, you again missed the Noachian Flood which would have wiped out the Garden of Eden, so it would not exist today.

          • Really? I’ve seen entire posts from you saying evolution is NOT observable, which contradicts your current claim. So, now that we know it should be observable, give me some observable evolution.

            Large-scale evolutionary changes (which are the accumulation of many small changes) are not observable. They take millions of years. What is observable are the small changes that drive large-scale changes, as well as all of the mechanisms that make evolution work.

            No, we agree that you forced YECs not to start well. I see now that I should’ve reversed your questions and counted down from 10-1. As a result, it is important you make it through all 12 Parts, because the best evidence is found near the end.

            Oh boy, I can hardly wait. You’ll probably have to stop doing these little follow-ups though, if you really want me to ever get to them.

            Yeah… so you are willing to point fingers at others and say “your answers aren’t valid”, “not a real answer”, “you don’t really address the question”, etc. and then pull the exact same thing? Answer the question, Mr. Francke.

            Sure, no problem. You didn’t “use” Revelation to come up with your crazy, nonsensical interpretation. Revelation doesn’t say God dug up the tree of life before the flood, held it in a pot in Heaven for a few thousand years, then plans to re-plant it on the new earth after the second coming. Those are all extrabiblical (and rather ridiculous) assumptions. Also known as eisegesis.

            The real question is, why do you feel that “the Tree of Life also among the Garden of Eden” or “the Tree of Life also within the Garden of Eden” is better? Among doesn’t make any sense in context, and within changes very few of the facts. Middle still works perfectly.

            The point is that the word doesn’t necessarily mean “the exact center.” It could just as easily be simply saying the tree is in the garden, somewhere.

            Because it was simply making mockery of real evidence. Let’s look at your examples. Anyone who’d use the analogy “as strong as Hercules” is probably an ancient Greek, who literally believed in Hercules. Hercules is considered not real today, but at the time he was considered as real as you and me. Biblically, Hercules was likely a Nephilim spoken of in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33.

            Similarly, anyone comparing to “the Fountain of Youth” is probably living in the Middle Ages or earlier, and it was a literal belief.

            Um, no. Hercules and the fountain of youth are both well-known tropes in this modern age, such that anyone can use them as an analogy for the characteristics they represent.

            It was a really bad argument. Yes, I admit that I probably went a little too far for mocking you for it, but still, you’re just embarrassing yourself worse by trying to defend it.

            However, comparing ideologies which are not based on God’s Sacred Scriptures to what is inside The Holy Bible is not fair to God.

            I wasn’t. I was comparing your absurd argument to perfectly valid counter-arguments.

            You’re telling Him that just because other cultures had false beliefs, that that means He recorded falsely. You are saying God lied in His historical records.

            No, I’m saying it’s not a historical record at all. It’s allegory and poetry and metaphor, which are all pretty common in scripture.

            I would like to ask you the same question, only reversed: If God created everything using evolution, why would He indicate 6-days repeatedly in His Pure Word?

            Because it’s a metaphor.

            You’re right, we always must take other instances into account, but there is a Hermeneutical Rule about this. “The First Place an object, topic, or word is used, it likely sets the baseline understanding of said item in the future.”

            Doesn’t seem to be a very common rule: https://www.google.com/search?q=%E2%80%9CThe+First+Place+an+object%2C+topic%2C+or+word+is+used%2C+it+likely+sets+the+baseline+understanding+of+said+item+in+the+future.%E2%80%9D&oq=%E2%80%9CThe+First+Place+an+object%2C+topic%2C+or+word+is+used%2C+it+likely+sets+the+baseline+understanding+of+said+item+in+the+future.%E2%80%9D&aqs=chrome..69i57.1207j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

            So, since Genesis 2 and 3 is where the Tree of Life is first discussed, it sets the tone for all future places at the foundational level. How does Genesis use the Tree of Life? Literally or Figuratively?

            Like all other magic trees in the history of the written word, figuratively.

            The fact you could translate the Tree of Life as the “Tree of Living”, which is not the exact same thing. Translations do their best, but the original word defines its meaning, and this is well within its usage. http://www.blueletterbible.org… live (197x), life (144x), beast (76x), alive (31x), creature (15x), running (7x), living thing (6x), raw (6x), misc (19x).

            OK…

            When is eternal life ever used symbolically?

            Read some of Jesus’ parables and get back to me if you’re still confused.

            And here you answer my question above by stating that Genesis 2 and 3 are a historical context, meaning the Tree of Life is intended to be literal. Very good!

            Again, your reading comprehension is so bad it would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. K, so that ^^^ is not what I said. I said that if the story was meant to be read as a historical record, it leaves every indication that the tree would still exist. And yet, it is never mentioned again in an actual historical context.

            However, you again missed the Noachian Flood which would have wiped out the Garden of Eden, so it would not exist today.

            Oh, right. I forgot how sensitive magic trees are to floods.

  • AmbassadorHerald

    PART 2: Q2 FIRST HALF

    2. IF HUMAN SIN IS THE REASON ANIMALS DIE, WHY CAN’T THEY BE SAVED?

    I would like to thank Tyler Francke up front here for this question. It has helped me a lot! He provided further evidence for the case I am going to make. The main premise of this question is the below passage:

    1 Corinthians 15:21-22—For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

    The point being that Scientific Creationists (Young-Earth Creationists, YECs) supposedly point to this passage to say that animal death came through Adam’s sin. So, if the “First Adam” affected animals, then the Last Adam should as well (1 Corinthians 15:45). Granted, many people never go into the flipside here, but that doesn’t mean Jesus did not, does not, and will not affect animals.

    We’ll get to the second half later, but first why animals were cursed for Adam’s sin. Thomas Frye gave a good answer to this (please see the links provided at the first quotation of each individual), “Just as the man was given headship and responsibility over the woman, he was given the entire earth to fill and subdue [Genesis 1:28]. God had every right to curse the entire world that He had made for Adam’s sin, and He did so.”

    Genesis 1:28 (alternate KJV reading)—And God [Elohim] blessed them, and God said unto them, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

    This is 100% true. The earth was given to Adam. The earth was a gift to us from God. Since we broke God’s law on how to take care of it, it was broken as well. Furthermore, often a punishment is put forth to match the crime and force you to make up for it. You break your neighbor’s window, you pay the money for the replacement. You spray-paint on their walls, you repaint them yourself. Government often does this too with Community Service. Adam sinned in his tending of the Garden of Eden, so Adam’s work was made 10x harder.

    Animals suffered because they belonged to us and we broke the law. Gary Hinchman used the following verses to illustrate this, which Tony Breeden says is the actual passage YECs point to:

    Romans 8:18-25 (alternate KJV reading)—For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of The [Holy] Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit [know], the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

    Tyler Francke responded to this passage by saying (June 25th) http://www.godofevolution.com/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/#comment-2099031235 “Your answer to the second question provides a lot of assertions, but the only scripture you offer is Romans 8, which doesn’t apply. Even if Romans 8 really is talking about the universe (it’s just as possible the phrase “whole creation” refers to mankind, as it clearly does in Mark 16:15), then the fact remains that nothing in this passage remotely implies that the “groaning” or “bondage” or “corruption” that is referenced is a punishment for human sin. Nothing in the passage references Adam or Eve, the Garden of Eden, or anything like that. In fact, the passage describes exactly who is responsible, God, and why he did it: not as a punishment, but “in hope” that by allowing physical death and decay into the created order, something greater would be revealed.”

    The parenthetical note about the “whole creation” in Romans 8:22, as rendered in the common KJV text, referring only to mankind is refuted by v23 where we expand from “not only they”—the creatures—to “ourselves also”. The KJV footnotes agree, since the “whole creation” becomes “every creature”, which matches the literal Greek better. Furthermore, Christians are groaning inside ourselves (en heautou), while creatures are groaning outwardly. The word used for us (stenazo) is the root word of the one for the creatures (sustenazo). They mean the same groaning, only the creatures do it collectively (sun + stenazo = sustenazo). Therefore, verses 19-22 are speaking of animals.

    Which is what Charlie Wolcott pointed out (July 10th) http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/creation-groans.html “There are scientific explanations for how they [natural disasters] form and what they do, but science cannot explain why. It can only explain what happens. But Scripture gives us some insight to why “nature” gives us the disasters. Take a moment to read Romans 8:18-25. Leading up to this passage, Paul has been talking about the problems and challenges we face as Christians – the trials, the mocking, the ridicule, the persecution, all of it. Paul tells us that it is only temporary and he has his goal set on eternity. But he says something very interesting in this passage, that creation groans with the same longing: for the ultimate redemption and restoration that we as Christians should expect.”

    The above also applies to the second half of the question. Charlie Wolcott added later, “I frequently hear from the Old Earth crowd that man’s sin had nothing to do with animals. I beg to differ, because such an argument does not understand the aspect of authority. In Romans 8:20, we learn that the creation was not a “willing participant” of the corruption placed upon it. That tells us the reason why animals kill each other and why we see natural disasters was not a result of “that’s how God made them,” but rather a result of the choices of another: Adam.”

    As for no reference being given to Adam and Eve in these particular verses, everything doesn’t need to be said everytime. The Holy Spirit through Paul is making a case, and death being through Adam was already established previous to this.

    Romans 5:14—Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.

    We are already supposed to understand that death came from and is reigning as a result of Adam’s sin, and that is why all creatures groan today. And we know from Genesis 3 that God did cause the groaning of creation through the curse, but that curse was a punishment on Adam. Plus, Romans is being written in light of Jesus Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection, enabling Salvation and Heaven for the world. We who are Born Again (John 3:3,7) now have something to hope for beyond the grave. Death has lost its sting (1 Corinthians 12:55-56)!

    Tony Breeden also makes the above comments, but goes further to point out such a universe is crucial to The Gospel. In response to Q1, Tony Breeden provides a quote of Bodie Hodge of Answers in Genesis (September 15th, 2006) https://answersingenesis.org/suffering/is-this-answer-in-genesis/ (from an article not linked to in the OP):

    “You might be tempted to think that it would have been better if God had created a universe where the ACTIONS OF ANOTHER PERSON AFFECTED ONLY THAT PERSON AND NO ONE ELSE. At first, this kind of spiritual “insulation” sounds great. But salvation would not be possible in such a universe—because Christ’s actions on the Cross could have no effect on us. If we sinned even once, we would have no hope. Fortunately, God designed a universe where the actions of another person can be imputed to us; this means we can be redeemed BECAUSE OF WHAT CHRIST DID IN A SIMILAR WAY THAT ADAM’S SIN AFFECTS US. Christ doesn’t have to die individually for each person but once for all.” (Emphasis original, just changed from italics to caps.)

    If the punishment for sin could not spread beyond the single person who sinned, then the forgiveness for sin could not extend beyond a single person. Jesus Christ’s sacrifice was therefore in vain and all Christians are destined for hell. No one is saved! It is upon this quote that Tony Breeden builds the case for why God could not allow Adam, Eve, or any future person eat of the Tree of Life, as provided in Q1. Adam needed Jesus, not a fruit, to live forever. The fruit could not make Adam right with God, only Jesus can do that.

    • I would like to thank Tyler Francke up front here for this question. It has helped me a lot! He provided further evidence for the case I am going to make.

      I seriously doubt that. My article does nothing but point out the logical, theological and biblical failings of the young-earth hermeneutic, which is exactly why committed YEC apologists such as yourself are so desperate to “respond” to it.

      But sure, whatever, I’ll listen.

      We’ll get to the second half later, but first why animals were cursed for Adam’s sin. Thomas Frye gave a good answer to this (please see the links provided at the first quotation of each individual), “Just as the man was given headship and responsibility over the woman, he was given the entire earth to fill and subdue [Genesis 1:28]. God had every right to curse the entire world that He had made for Adam’s sin, and He did so.”

      I never argued that God “doesn’t have the right” to punish animals for the sins of man (he made everything; he can do whatever he wants), I argued that it doesn’t make sense, and since the Bible doesn’t teach it, there’s absolutely no reason to believe in it.

      This is 100% true. The earth was given to Adam. The earth was a gift to us from God. Since we broke God’s law on how to take care of it, it was broken as well.

      That doesn’t really follow, man. And it’s all conjecture. God articulates very specifically what the consequences of the man’s and woman’s actions will be in Genesis 3, and he doesn’t say anything about the entire world being “broken.”

      Furthermore, often a punishment is put forth to match the crime and force you to make up for it. You break your neighbor’s window, you pay the money for the replacement. You spray-paint on their walls, you repaint them yourself.

      You commit a single act of disobedience, every single living thing for all time everywhere is punished with pain, suffering and death. Yeah, you’re right, it’s just like breaking a window.

      Adam sinned in his tending of the Garden of Eden, so Adam’s work was made 10x harder.

      I agree. Just wanted to commemorate the first thing you’ve said so far that made any sort of sense.

      The parenthetical note about the “whole creation” in Romans 8:22, as rendered in the common KJV text, referring only to mankind is refuted by v23 where we expand from “not only they”—the creatures—to “ourselves also”.

      Regardless of whether the passage is talking about the whole creation or just humans, it’s obvious that the “ourselves also” refers to a specific group — believers in Christ — not all of humanity. Unless you believe nonbelievers and believers alike possess the “firstfruits of the Spirit”?

      Which makes the rest of your rather tedious discussion of the original Greek superfluous.

      Animals suffered because they belonged to us and we broke the law.

      Actually, animals belong to God, like the rest of his creation. Read some Job, some Psalms. Actually, just read the Bible in general more. I think that will help a lot.

      The above also applies to the second half of the question. Charlie Wolcott added later, “I frequently hear from the Old Earth crowd that man’s sin had nothing to do with animals. I beg to differ, because such an argument does not understand the aspect of authority. In Romans 8:20, we learn that the creation was not a “willing participant” of the corruption placed upon it. That tells us the reason why animals kill each other and why we see natural disasters was not a result of “that’s how God made them,” but rather a result of the choices of another: Adam.”

      It is entirely because of God. The “he who subjected creation to futility” is God, not Adam. Or do you believe Adam sinned in the garden “in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God” (Romans 8:21)? That sounds a lot more like God to me, but you createvangelists do believe some pretty weird, extrabiblical stuff about Adam.

      As for no reference being given to Adam and Eve in these particular verses, everything doesn’t need to be said everytime. The Holy Spirit through Paul is making a case, and death being through Adam was already established previous to this.

      That’s not how exegesis works, my friend. You could use an argument like this to justify a lot of really bad interpretations. The fact is that Paul is clearly delving into new theological territory here, and he unambiguously refrains from mentioning anything that YECs claim is the instigator for everything he’s talking about.

      You can conjecture all you like, but the stronger argument will always be that the divinely inspired Paul said what he meant, not that he meant things he didn’t say.

      We are already supposed to understand that death came from and is reigning as a result of Adam’s sin, and that is why all creatures groan today.

      Wrong. The reason the creation is groaning is because it was subjected to decay by God, in hope that something greater would be revealed. That’s what Romans 8 says. Period. If you want to believe something else, then be my guest, but no pretend like the Bible agrees with you.

      And we know from Genesis 3 that God did cause the groaning of creation through the curse, but that curse was a punishment on Adam.

      Gee, I must have missed that part of Genesis 3. In what verse, specifically, does God say he’s going to subject the entire universe to futility and enslave it to corruption as punishment for man’s sin?

      Plus, Romans is being written in light of Jesus Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection, enabling Salvation and Heaven for the world. We who are Born Again (John 3:3,7) now have something to hope for beyond the grave. Death has lost its sting (1 Corinthians 12:55-56)!

      I agree, but it doesn’t help your argument.

      If the punishment for sin could not spread beyond the single person who sinned, then the forgiveness for sin could not extend beyond a single person. Jesus Christ’s sacrifice was therefore in vain and all Christians are destined for hell. No one is saved!

      Clever, but Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient, once for all, not because of the “universe” in which we live, but because he was God. Hebrews 9 makes this abundantly clear, contrasting his perfect sacrifice through the Spirit with the temporary and ultimately useless sacrifices of the old covenant. Romans 3, Revelation 20, and many, many other passages of scripture are clear and consistent in the message that people are, in fact, judged and punished according to our actions, not those of our supposed ancestors.

      It is the fantasy world of the YEC apologists that Hodge and Breeden are describing, not the real world taught by scripture.

      • AmbassadorHerald

        ROMANS AND STRUCTURE

        —–“You commit a single act of disobedience, every single living thing for all time everywhere is punished with pain, suffering and death. Yeah, you’re right, it’s just like breaking a window.”

        First off, you very conveniently left out my point about, “Government often does this too with Community Service.” You serve the community which you hurt. You left this out because it is not a one-time-fixes-it punishment but a repaid-over-time punishment.

        Which leads to the second thing, not even you believe that every single living thing of “all time” will endure pain, suffering, and death. You believe Jesus is going to one-day eliminate death and pain, so you’re contradicting yourself. God is only doing a Community Service type punishment, it takes a while to make-up for the crime, but everything will be put right in the end.

        —–“Regardless of whether the passage is talking about the whole creation or just humans, it’s obvious that the “ourselves also” refers to a specific group — believers in Christ — not all of humanity. Unless you believe nonbelievers and believers alike possess the “firstfruits of the Spirit”? Which makes the rest of your rather tedious discussion of the original Greek superfluous.”

        Seeing as you have not read Part 2 of this question’s answer, you do not see what has been offered there which would apply here. This is why I wanted you to answer all at the same time, even if you needed to work in the background for a week, because you’d see the whole of what I said at one go. Therefore, I will refrain from offering more answer until you have seen in detail what the base for the response is.

        —–“Actually, animals belong to God, like the rest of his creation. Read some Job, some Psalms. Actually, just read the Bible in general more. I think that will help a lot.”

        You again contradicted that you agreed earlier with that God gave the planet earth to Adam and Eve. Anything a designer makes belongs to the designer, but if the designer gives what he made to another, it is now equally that other’s possession. Everything is God’s, but it also was Adam’s.

        —–“That’s not how exegesis works, my friend. You could use an argument like this to justify a lot of really bad interpretations. The fact is that Paul is clearly delving into new theological territory here, and he unambiguously refrains from mentioning anything that YECs claim is the instigator for everything he’s talking about. You can conjecture all you like, but the stronger argument will always be that the divinely inspired Paul said what he meant, not that he meant things he didn’t say.”

        You just basically denied the very structure of Romans, as practically every commentary will tell you. Of all the Pauline writings, Romans is the most meticulous, point-by-point, structured theological thesis of them all. It starts from square one and works to the completion of the theology. So using Romans the way I did is 100% valid and you know that. Death through Adam is a done deal previously, and now we see that said death affects “every creature” and “the whole creation”.

        After all, I don’t think anyone, even you, would disagree that the usage of “ktisis” in Romans 8:39 means animals. This is direct context too, so why question it earlier? YECs are not conjecturing in the slightest. Romans 8:38-39 (KJV), “For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

        This is how doctrine in formed, you take multiple verses on one topic and put them together—3 distinct ones minimally.

        —–“It is entirely because of God. The “he who subjected creation to futility” is God, not Adam. Or do you believe Adam sinned in the garden “in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God” (Romans 8:21)? That sounds a lot more like God to me, but you createvangelists do believe some pretty weird, extrabiblical stuff about Adam. … Wrong. The reason the creation is groaning is because it was subjected to decay by God, in hope that something greater would be revealed. That’s what Romans 8 says. Period. If you want to believe something else, then be my guest, but don’t pretend like the Bible agrees with you.”

        You answered the second quotation of Charlie Wolcott but ignored the first, on which the second is based. Ignoring relevant info will not win the intellectual battle.

        “There are scientific explanations for how they [natural disasters] form and what they do, but science cannot explain why. It can only explain what happens. But Scripture gives us some insight to why “nature” gives us the disasters. Take a moment to read Romans 8:18-25. Leading up to this passage, Paul has been talking about the problems and challenges we face as Christians – the trials, the mocking, the ridicule, the persecution, all of it. Paul tells us that it is only temporary and he has his goal set on eternity. But he says something very interesting in this passage, that creation groans with the same longing: for the ultimate redemption and restoration that we as Christians should expect.”

        The fact that you did not call him out on his usage of the Romans context building up to chapter 8 demonstrates you do know you can and are required to use Romans in this way.

        —–“Gee, I must have missed that part of Genesis 3. In what verse, specifically, does God say he’s going to subject the entire universe to futility and enslave it to corruption as punishment for man’s sin?”

        Mike Bull for Q6 points to Genesis 3:21 for animals being subjected to death. Here is what you apparently missed, “Unto Adam also and to his wife did The LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” This was an act of God, as was the curse in the four verses previous, but all done thanks to Adam. God did subject animals to death just as Romans 8 says.

        —–“Clever, but Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient, once for all, not because of the “universe” in which we live, but because he was God. Hebrews 9 makes this abundantly clear, contrasting his perfect sacrifice through the Spirit with the temporary and ultimately useless sacrifices of the old covenant. Romans 3, Revelation 20, and many, many other passages of scripture are clear and consistent in the message that people are, in fact, judged and punished according to our actions, not those of our supposed ancestors.”

        Congrats on saying exactly what I did, which you completely ignored. “It is upon this quote that Tony Breeden builds the case for why God could not allow Adam, Eve, or any future person eat of the Tree of Life, as provided in Q1. Adam needed Jesus, not a fruit, to live forever. The fruit could not make Adam right with God, only Jesus can do that.” But we are condemned for our own sins on Judgment Day, but we also all die thanks to Adam. Both are true.

        Plus, you claim to believe Jesus is God, yet accuse Him of being false, that is a clever bit of gymnastics to pull off.

        • First off, you very conveniently left out my point about, “Government often does this too with Community Service.” You serve the community which you hurt. You left this out because it is not a one-time-fixes-it punishment but a repaid-over-time punishment.

          I left it out because it added nothing to your argument. The fact remains that such a “punishment” is absurd overkill that is not even remotely hinted at anywhere in scripture. You believe it, not because the Bible objectively teaches it, but rather because of the necessity of shoehorning scripture into your presupposed theological construct.

          Which leads to the second thing, not even you believe that every single living thing of “all time” will endure pain, suffering, and death. You believe Jesus is going to one-day eliminate death and pain, so you’re contradicting yourself. God is only doing a Community Service type punishment, it takes a while to make-up for the crime, but everything will be put right in the end.

          Um, no. Your theology says that, absent Christ’s work on the cross, no amount of time would ever “make up” for that single act of disobedience you believe happened thousands of years ago. If Christ hadn’t gone to the cross, it’s not like God would have eventually said, “OK, that’s enough death and pain and destruction. You’ve done your time. Everything can be immortal again.”

          Seeing as you have not read Part 2 of this question’s answer, you do not see what has been offered there which would apply here. This is why I wanted you to answer all at the same time, even if you needed to work in the background for a week, because you’d see the whole of what I said at one go. Therefore, I will refrain from offering more answer until you have seen in detail what the base for the response is.

          Actually, I have read the next part, and I have no idea what you’re talking about. I see where you referenced Romans 8 again (or rather, where you quoted somebody else referencing Romans 8), but it does not in any way impact the portion of the passage I discuss above, nor the way I believe it should obviously be interpreted.

          You again contradicted that you agreed earlier with that God gave the planet earth to Adam and Eve. Anything a designer makes belongs to the designer, but if the designer gives what he made to another, it is now equally that other’s possession. Everything is God’s, but it also was Adam’s.

          I don’t remember saying I believe God “gave” the planet to Adam and Eve, but if I did, I apologize. I do not believe that. As I said, I think scripture is quite clear and consistent that all of creation belongs to God, including every one of our breaths and our very lives. He gave us a higher and role and responsibility within the created order, but he did not concede to us that which rightfully belongs only to him.

          You just basically denied the very structure of Romans, as practically every commentary will tell you. Of all the Pauline writings, Romans is the most meticulous, point-by-point, structured theological thesis of them all. It starts from square one and works to the completion of the theology. So using Romans the way I did is 100% valid and you know that. Death through Adam is a done deal previously, and now we see that said death affects “every creature” and “the whole creation”.

          I say it’s not valid. You only think it is because it’s convenient for your theology. When Paul was writing about Adamic theology, he evoked Adam, and when he wasn’t, he didn’t. Again, your argument — that a certain part of Paul’s theology can be tied to any other part even if the text doesn’t mention it, as long as he wrote about it previously — could be used to justify virtually anything.

          In fact, if you continue to insist that Romans 8 is about sin and death, I can simply say that Paul’s talking about everyone’s personal sin, not Adam’s sin, since he wrote about personal sin in Romans 3, and spiritual death, since he wrote about spiritual death in Romans 6, and — voila! — it still fits perfectly with my view.

          You answered the second quotation of Charlie Wolcott but ignored the first, on which the second is based. Ignoring relevant info will not win the intellectual battle.

          Nor will ignoring my points on a perceived technicality. If you want a detailed response of every single thing you’ve written, try posting a comment that’s shorter than 15,000 words next time.

          “There are scientific explanations for how they [natural disasters] form and what they do, but science cannot explain why. It can only explain what happens. But Scripture gives us some insight to why “nature” gives us the disasters. Take a moment to read Romans 8:18-25. Leading up to this passage, Paul has been talking about the problems and challenges we face as Christians – the trials, the mocking, the ridicule, the persecution, all of it. Paul tells us that it is only temporary and he has his goal set on eternity. But he says something very interesting in this passage, that creation groans with the same longing: for the ultimate redemption and restoration that we as Christians should expect.”

          The fact that you did not call him out on his usage of the Romans context building up to chapter 8 demonstrates you do know you can and are required to use Romans in this way.

          You’re right: I missed this. My response is I think the interpretation is ridiculous. The passage has nothing whatsoever to do with natural disasters. The only way someone could possibly read Romans 8:18-25 and conclude that it is talking about natural disasters is if they have already presupposed that that’s what it means.

          Mike Bull for Q6 points to Genesis 3:21 for animals being subjected to death. Here is what you apparently missed, “Unto Adam also and to his wife did The LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” This was an act of God, as was the curse in the four verses previous, but all done thanks to Adam.

          I didn’t “miss” anything, it just (like pretty much every other verse you use) doesn’t say what you claim it says. The verse doesn’t even explicitly say God killed animals. It just says he made garments out of skin, so it’s equally possible he made them ex nihilo.

          What it does not even offer the barest suggestion of, is that all animals in the universe, present and future, which were created immortal, would now be capable of death. Out of all the nonsensical interpretations you have shared on this post, this one takes the cake.

          God did subject animals to death just as Romans 8 says.

          It doesn’t say that.

          Congrats on saying exactly what I did, which you completely ignored. “It is upon this quote that Tony Breeden builds the case for why God could not allow Adam, Eve, or any future person eat of the Tree of Life, as provided in Q1. Adam needed Jesus, not a fruit, to live forever. The fruit could not make Adam right with God, only Jesus can do that.” But we are condemned for our own sins on Judgment Day, but we also all die thanks to Adam. Both are true.

          We are not saying the same thing, pal, not even close, but I forgive you. Judging from your wild extrapolations from scripture I know reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

          Plus, you claim to believe Jesus is God,

          I do.

          yet accuse Him of being false,

          I most certainly do not.

          that is a clever bit of gymnastics to pull off.

          Aw, shucks, but I could never be close to as impressive as your attempted contortions of scripture.

  • AmbassadorHerald

    PART 3: Q2 SECOND HALF

    Now let’s focus on the second half of the question, centered on “saving” animals. We are all universally agreed here that animal life is different than human life, and that both of those are distinct from plant life. No need to go into that, as a result. Why can’t they be saved, though, if they die from our mistake? Gary Hinchman hit on the answer, and I will elaborate, “Animals, as indeed all of creation, do not need to be saved because they already believe in their Creator, as He is.”

    I have always held to that position, and Scripture has verses which would back it up. Following is a selection of nine passages I have found:

    Isaiah 43:19-20 (alternate KJV reading)—Behold, I [Yahweh] will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert. The beast of the field shall honour Me, the dragons and the daughters of the owl: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to My people, My chosen.

    Psalms 148:7-10 (alternate KJV reading)—Praise The LORD [Yahweh] from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps: fire, and hail; snow, and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling His Word: mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars: beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and birds of wing:

    Philippians 2:10-11—That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God The Father.

    Isaiah 11:6-9 (alternate KJV reading)—The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid [young goat]; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the [nursing] child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adders’ den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of The LORD [Yahweh], as the waters cover the sea.

    Isaiah 65:24-25—“And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I [Adonai] will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,” saith The LORD [Yahweh].

    Mark 16:15-18—And He [Jesus] said unto them, “Go ye into all the world, and preach The Gospel [Good News] to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; in My name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”

    Colossians 1:23—If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of The Gospel [Good News], which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

    Job 12:7-10 (alternate KJV reading)—But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of The LORD [Yahweh] hath wrought this? In Whose hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of all flesh of man.

    Romans 1:18-20 (alternate KJV reading)—For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest to them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead [trinity]; so that they may be without excuse:

    In these we see that animals have honored God in the past, including dragons. We see that all animals are told to praise God. We see that animals will most likely bow the knee to God, since they are “in the Earth”, and we know demons (under the earth), angels (in Heaven), and humans are included. We see, therefore, that animals will verbally declare Jesus to be Lord, which applies to Q7 below. We see that when Jesus Christ returns, enemies in the animal kingdom since The Fall will once again be friends like in the Garden of Eden. We see that The Gospel is to be and has been being proclaimed to animals. We see that we are to ask the animals for knowledge, and that they are answering us about the truth of God as Creator. And we see that as a result of the testimony of the animals, and all other things, no person has an excuse not to believe in God.

    I understand the application of some of these verses will be shocking but they all seem to be straightforward enough. Even if Jesus has not affected the animals yet, He will do so later. As Dr. David Tee said, “Man’s sin affects everything, which is why we see in Revelation [21:1] God destroying the old earth and making a new one.”

    This new universe is spoken of in other places, including the Old Testament.

    Isaiah 65:17 (alternate KJV reading)—For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come upon the heart.

    Isaiah 66:22—“For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before Me,” saith The LORD [Yahweh], “so shall your [Israel’s] seed and your name remain.”

    2 Peter 3:13—Nevertheless we, according to His [Jesus’] promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

    Revelation 21:1—And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

    There is absolutely no reason to think that this new Earth will not be populated with a supply of animals. Based on the verse in question and the verses listed above, one could even argue the animals from this Earth will be resurrected there. At the very minimum those animals who had a special place in some Christian’s heart—for example pets.

    Charlie Wolcott had this to say on the issue, “And what Paul is pointing out in Romans 8 here is that in the same way Christians will face temporary trials and sufferings, longing for the full restoration, so does Creation. To be frank, this world, the creation, and the universe we live in is going to perish. It is going to burn. But like with those who are in Christ, the creation will be resurrected, restored, and what it will be is so far above and beyond what we can imagine. We get a glimpse of this in Revelation 21-22.”

    And for all those equine lovers out there, there is a Heavenly Herd of horses in Revelation 19:14! “And the armies which were in heaven followed Him [Jesus] upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.” Those who follow Jesus will get their own horse for eternity, and white even!

    • Now let’s focus on the second half of the question, centered on “saving” animals.

      Cool. So, just to recap, in the “first half” of the question, you spent a couple thousand words ignoring the only issue that is really in contention, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, and the contradiction the YEC view creates within that text. And now, I’m expected to respond to another thousand words or so “proving” that animals can’t be saved, which was never in contention to begin with? Wonderful.

      Gary Hinchman hit on the answer, and I will elaborate, “Animals, as indeed all of creation, do not need to be saved because they already believe in their Creator, as He is.”

      Whether or not they believe in God is not the question. The question is, if they are among those who die in Adam, why are they not among those who can live in Christ?

      In these we see that animals have honored God in the past, including dragons. We see that all animals are told to praise God. We see that animals will most likely bow the knee to God, since they are “in the Earth”, and we know demons (under the earth), angels (in Heaven), and humans are included. We see, therefore, that animals will verbally declare Jesus to be Lord, which applies to Q7 below. We see that when Jesus Christ returns, enemies in the animal kingdom since The Fall will once again be friends like in the Garden of Eden. We see that The Gospel is to be and has been being proclaimed to animals. We see that we are to ask the animals for knowledge, and that they are answering us about the truth of God as Creator. And we see that as a result of the testimony of the animals, and all other things, no person has an excuse not to believe in God.

      I agree with most of your interpretations, with a few exceptions. I, like most modern translators, reject the rendering of the Hebrew tannin as “dragon.” I, like most commentators, believe Isaiah 11 refers symbolically to humans, not actual animal species. And I thoroughly reject your ridiculous assertion that Philippians 2:10-11 refers to animals. (Most animals and other organisms don’t even have knees, bro…)

      I understand the application of some of these verses will be shocking but they all seem to be straightforward enough. Even if Jesus has not affected the animals yet, He will do so later. As Dr. David Tee said, “Man’s sin affects everything, which is why we see in Revelation [21:1] God destroying the old earth and making a new one.”

      Isn’t it funny how you can only support your points by quoting other people who hold the same ridiculous views you do, rather than actual scripture (since there is no scripture that teaches what you do)?

      There is absolutely no reason to think that this new Earth will not be populated with a supply of animals. Based on the verse in question and the verses listed above, one could even argue the animals from this Earth will be resurrected there. At the very minimum those animals who had a special place in some Christian’s heart—for example pets.

      How cute. So all dogs go to heaven after all.

      So, to sum up: the question was, if animals among those who die in Adam, why are they not among those who can live in Christ? And your answer is, “Well, maybe they possibly could be. Because…why not, right?”

      • Dude, you will look so stupid when the difflugia corona are raptured.

        • LOL. Speaking of things that don’t have knees or tongues, but to which AmbassadorHerald nevertheless thinks his crazy reading of Philippians 2:10-11 applies…

          The only real question is if protozoans are raptured pre-trib or post.

  • AmbassadorHerald

    PART 4: Q3 AND Q4

    3. IF PHYSICAL DEATH IS PART OF THE PUNISHMENT FOR SIN, WHY DO CHRISTIANS STILL DIE?

    The primary verse of consideration here is only two verses before Romans 5:14, the verse brought forward in Q2 to demonstrate what Romans 8:18-25 was talking about:

    Romans 5:12 (alternate KJV reading)—Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned:

    Adam is the “one man” “in whom all have sinned”. As Gary Hinchman explained, “Because Sin, and its deadly effects, still dwells in the flesh of Adam the way a corrupt cancer gene still exists and is passed on from one generation to another in the creation genetically. Christians have eternal life by faith, but the corrupted body in Adam must die in order to enter into eternity with a sinless soul kept alive by an indwelling Holy Spirit, that gave eternal life in the first place by faith in Christ’s work at the cross and in resurrection.”

    Gary Hinchman used the following verses, as well as the primary verse, to illustrate his point:

    Romans 7:17,20,23—Now then it is no more I [Paul] that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. … Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. … But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

    Romans 6:23—For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    I would also include 1 Corinthians 15:42-45, which is just after Q2’s main verses—So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, “The first man Adam was made a living soul; The Last Adam was made a quickening spirit.”

    Christians die because, ever since Adam, “it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” as referenced in the OP. We must shed our corrupted bodies for uncorrupted bodies, which will be incorruptible in the new universe. This is why we die and are raised back to life, or Raptured if alive at the time Jesus returns (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). As the Christian Proverb goes, “Born Twice, Die Once: Born Once, Die Twice.”

    Charlie Wolcott gave this answer, “I read an article recently from a Theistic Evolutionist who claimed that the Young Earth crowd cannot give a theological answer for “if the penalty of sin is death, why do Christians still die?” I would answer by that this article’s author does not understand Christianity. Yes, Christians still die, but we die “in Christ,” both spiritually and bodily, and not apart from Christ. The difference is that those in Christ will be resurrected. Those apart from Christ will face the judgment and second death.”

    Tony Breeden had this to say about this passage, “As I asked Tyler when he made a similar comment on this site, if we were only sentenced with spiritual death, what hope have we of physical resurrection? Such a false dichotomy would undermine our Blessed Hope. Fortunately, we note that he is cherry-picking verses that seem to support his position without taking into account the revelation of 1 Corinthians 15 and similar passages on this subject. Those passages remind us that at some point in the future the physically dead but spiritually alive believers will rise first, then those believers who are physically alive, to meet Christ at His Coming (v52; compare 1 Thess. 4:16). I Cor. 15 also makes it clear that if we say that we are only saved from spiritual death, we deny all but a spiritual resurrection and by implication deny that Christ was physically raised from the dead. The two are intrinsically linked, making Tyler’s false dichotomy evident. Again, we experience spiritual resurrection at salvation, but will experience physical resurrection at Christ’s Coming.”

    Here again Tyler Francke destroys The Gospel by making it that Jesus could not physically have been raised from the dead, because physical death does not need to be reconciled. In fact, Jesus never died for the same reason. Suddenly the events foretold in Revelation 20:5-6 have less appeal because we’re all still dead. A literal Genesis does effect The Gospel, despite Tyler Francke’s denial.

    Additionally, my father reminded me of Hebrews 4:12—For The Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

    The “and” between soul and spirit and also between spirit and “of the joints” are two Greek words translated as a single English word. The verse could actually read “piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul with spirit, from both the joints and marrow”. In other words, God can preserve our inner-self from our physical body. So even though the body of Christians die, we do not die. We are in God’s image, after all, as agreed to in the OP, and God is triune and therefore so are we. Only our sin-filled body needs to be shed.

    4. WHY WAS EVE NAMED “MOTHER OF LIFE”?

    The key and only verse is:

    Genesis 3:20 (alternate KJV reading)—And Adam called his wife’s name “Living”; because she was the mother of all living.

    The Hebrew word study provided in the OP is spot on, and I applaud Tyler Francke for that. However, this has been answered at least three times before:

    Gary Hinchman—“The biblical context controls the definition of “all life” or “all living.” And in context, it is through the woman that all human life comes, hence “the mother of all [human] life.” Don’t make scripture say what the text in its context does not say.”

    Thomas Frye—“Eve was named the mother of all living because, well… She is? If we trace our lineage all the way back to the first woman, who is that? I feel like further theological revelation is unnecessary for this question.”

    Dr. David Tee—“The [OP] question is using the wrong [English] word. ‘Life’ should be changed to ‘the living’ for EVE is not the mother of ‘life’ but only those humans that came into existence. Adam called her that because she, like him, was one of the original parents for all living humans.”

    Unfortunately, Tyler Francke has responded every time with similar to this:

    “You miss the point. Eve was called the mother of all living, but she was named from the Hebrew word for “life.” The question was, doesn’t it seem a little odd for Adam to have picked that name, immediately after she had just supposedly been responsible for causing a curse that poisoned the entire universe with death for the very first time??”

    To further answer the question, this action by Adam makes perfect sense in light of the preceding circumstances. Now that death was in the world, there was no doubt that all people would be linked to Eve. No longer was there a remote chance that God would supernaturally create more people, as He had with Eve for Adam. Adam and Eve were going to die and this meant that procreation was a necessity. Then their descendants would die, so on and so forth, but all of it would begin with Eve. She was the mother of the human race.

    In confirmation, Tony Breeden provides the below verse and statement (June 26th) https://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/10-theological-questions-theistic-evolutionists-think-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer-part-2/ (Part 2):

    Genesis 3:16 (alternate KJV reading)—Unto the woman He [Yahweh] said, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be subject to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

    “This entire argument is predicated on the idea that Adam named her in the face of the curse and nothing else. In fact, Tyler asks us to keep in mind that verses 17 through 19 come before this naming. As luck would have it, the verse before 17 is verse 16 (imagine that!), and it mentions that Eve will bear Adam children. Granted, it mentions pain in childbirth as a punishment, but childbirth nonetheless. Immediately after verses 16 thru 19 (not just 17 thru 19), Adam names Eve. It takes special pleading to suggest that Adam had no good reason to name Eve the mother of all the living, when God had just promised them Eve would bear children to Adam.”

    While Genesis 3:17 is a logical place to begin looking, the curse for Adam who then named Eve, we must remember that there are three punishments dealt out here, all three building on the one before. It’s as if Tyler Francke completely forgot about Eve and the serpent here.

  • AmbassadorHerald

    PART 5: Q5

    5. HOW DID ADAM AND EVE KNOW WHAT DEATH WAS?

    The question is in light of YECs believing in a deathless world. Honestly, the simplest and shortest answer was given by Mike Bull (June 25th) http://www.godofevolution.com/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/#comment-2100805141 “How did Adam know what death was? The same way he understood any of the other words the Lord said to him.”

    Dr. David Tee expanded on that answer, “This question is based upon a faulty assumption. That assumption is that God created unknowing babies, but he created adults who had language abilities, feelings, emotions, and knowledge. … Creating something does not work in the same way as the item created was designed to operate. This means that while all humans since Adam and Eve were born without knowledge and must be taught, Adam and Eve most likely were created with knowledge.”

    Thomas Frye continues, “Adam and Eve knew what death was before they experienced it. You’re reading this and you know what death is. Did a parent ever explain it to you? I think God could have told them what that meant. Just because the explanation wasn’t penned, that’s no reason to assume it wasn’t given. Especially since they already knew what it was. To compare explaining death to a fully formed and intelligent adult, that just finished naming all the animals, and explaining death to a baby is just ludicrous.”

    Tony Breeden contributes, “Tyler’s answer actually ignores the revelation of Scripture in favor of a snarky objection. Reading the events of Day 6, we see that Adam speaks and is able to name things. So God didn’t created a blank slate or a man-baby. By inference, the very thing Tyler mistakes for a superpower (and I’ve written a book about superpowers, so I might just know the difference), we can say that God created a fully functional adult male whose mind came equipped with a bit more than a one-year-old typically has. The sci-fi writer in me wishes to take Tyler to task here. We can imagine adult clones imprinted with knowledge and fake memories, but Tyler seems to think God would have to give Adam an education before His image bearer could make sense of things, even though the text has Adam doing things contrary to this notion… What a tiny, tiny “god” the god of evolution must be.”

    And Gary Hinchman adds, “They did not know experientially until they disobeyed God’s Word and then “knew” they had sinned because they were made self-aware of their nakedness, which a state of innocence never takes into account.”

    Granted, these are primarily the “cliché” YEC answer, as stated in the OP. But this cannot be just dismissed because of how common it is. Especially in light of Thomas Frye’s point of possible details not being recorded. Everything recorded in Genesis chapter 3 could take place in less than an hour, so what happened during the other 23 hours? We don’t know and so we must keep that in mind. And Tony Breeden points out that we accept these types of answers in science fiction, so why not for God’s reality?

    Also, if one of the fruit of the Tree of Life was to impart wisdom, as possibly gleaned from Proverbs 3:18 in Q1, this might be where the knowledge of what death was came from. This should not be confused with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, since that is a specific type of knowledge—the difference between good and evil.

    Plus, we cannot blame Adam and Eve for not noticing they were naked. As Gary Hinchman said, innocence never takes notice of nudity. A baby is innocent in many aspects, and they could care less about being naked. Many young children only understand the wrongness of nakedness insofar as their parents tell them not to. It’s not till they get older and start realizing what it means, and what it does to people, that they fully understand.

    Adam and Eve were fully mature and intelligent adults but they lost their innocence the moment they both ate the fruit and sinned. Then they understood that being naked is wrong in a fallen universe. They had gained the knowledge of evil. They had a big “aha moment”.

  • AmbassadorHerald

    PART 6: Q6

    6. IF THE PUNISHMENT FOR EATING FROM THE TREE WAS THAT ADAM AND EVE WOULD PHYSICALLY DIE … WHY DIDN’T THEY PHYSICALLY DIE?

    The whole confusion here comes from the following verse:

    Genesis 2:17 (alternate KJV reading)—But of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, dying thou shalt die.

    Back in response to Q3, Thomas Frye had said, “In Genesis 3 He [God] said that the ground is cursed because of Adam, that we will have pain getting our food from the ground, thorns and thistles would grow, till he returns to the ground. He also said when He gave the commandment [Genesis 2:17] that in the day that he eats of the fruit, he will surely die, it can also be translated begin to die. So all of those things are the punishment for sin along with eternal punishment for the unrepentant sinners.”

    Thomas Frye repeats this interpretation again in his answer to this question, as does Gary Hinchman, “They did physically die in a “process of death” whereby the eating of the fruit was only a beginning of the process of death which ends in total physical incapacitation.”

    Tyler Francke responded to this interpretation by saying (July 02nd) http://www.godofevolution.com/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/#comment-2113157677 “I know this is a really popular argument with young-earthers, but can you explain why, then, not a single one of the major English translations render Genesis 2:17 as “begin to die”? They are all variations of certainly or surely die.”

    This claim is false, though, as even a simple glance through Bible Gateway will reveal https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis%202:17 If you had not noticed above, the KJV footnotes agree with this translation of Genesis 2:17. The KJV is a “major English translation”. Below is a list of ways Genesis 2:17 is translated apart from the most common “surely die”.

    Young’s Literal Translation, “dying thou dost die.”
    Bishops Bible, “thou shalt dye the death.”
    Geneva Bible, “thou shalt die the death.”
    Douay-Rheims Bible, “thou shalt die the death.”
    Complete Jewish Bible, “it will become certain that you will die.”
    Living Bible, “you will be doomed to die.”
    New Living Translation, “you are sure to die.”
    Wycliffe Bible, “thou shalt die by death.”

    Both the Bishops and Geneva Bibles are pre-KJV and were competing translations for popularity in those days. The KJV was authorized by King James in order to bring the five competing translations into a single Bible that all could use and agree on. It ultimately worked, but the Bishops and Geneva are both major English translations. The Douay-Rheims is Catholic and was used for over a hundred years, and many still favor it today. It is a major English translation.

    You will notice that the most common alternate translation is “die the death”. This is because the Hebrew literally says “muwth muwth” or “die die”. The same word repeated right after itself, to which Tony Breeden also testifies. It is hard to translate this as a result. But I have a supposition to propose.

    Tyler Francke responded to Gary Hinchman saying, “The Bible doesn’t say they would “physically die in a ‘process of death’ whereby the eating of the fruit was only a beginning of the process of death which ends in total physical incapacitation.” It says they would “DIE” on the day they ate the fruit.”

    And he responded to Thomas Frye the second time with, “This is a plausible interpretation. However, … as I said in the previous post, the strong indication is that they understood the consequences to be immediate, such that Eve believed she would die the moment she touched the tree.”

    In the OP he argues for, “So what was God talking about in Genesis 2:16-17? I think the only interpretation that makes sense is the only one that made sense of Romans 5 and 7 earlier in this post: spiritual death.”

    Now, here is my hypothesis: why could not the double usage of death mean “spiritual death and physical death”? The spiritual death is agreed to in longstanding Christian theology, and I have always thought of Adam and Eve’s spiritual death being caused at this point. They spiritually died “in the day they ate the fruit”.

    Furthermore, in a body which is not in any way, shape, or form dying, when it begins to die, it is now deader than it was before. Even though they did not keel over at that very instant, you can be sure they felt the physical life-force upholding them perfectly stop functioning and their bodies change to start deteriorating. They physically “died” that same day as well.

    And we cannot let it go unnoticed that this use of “day” (yom) is not combined with “evening”, “morning”, “number”, or “night” and therefore doesn’t have to be limited to a single literal rotation of the Earth, like it is in Genesis 1. YECs are linguists very often. Tony Breeden also makes this point, with the inclusion of 1 Corinthians 15:26 that physical death is known as “the last enemy that shall be destroyed”.

    Tony Breeden provides another quote of Bodie Hodge (March 09th, 2010) https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/adam-and-eve/why-didnt-adam-and-eve-die-the-instant-they-ate-the-fruit/ (this time from an article that is linked to in the OP) surrounding the following verse:

    1 Kings 2:37—For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die [dying die]: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.

    “This verse uses yom (day) and the dual muwth just as Genesis 2:17 did. In Genesis 2:17, yom referred to the action (eating) in the same way that yom refers to the action here (go out and cross over). In neither case do they mean that was the particular day that death would come, but the particular day they did what they weren’t supposed to do.

    (Quotation cont.) “Solomon also understood that it would not be a death on that particular day but that Shemei’s days were numbered from that point. In other words, their (Adam and Shimei) actions on that day were what gave them the final death sentence—they would surely die as a result of their actions. Therefore, the day, in Genesis 2:17 was referring to when Adam and the woman ate, not the day they died.”

    On top of this, there is Mike Bull’s interpretation, “Animals were slain to cover his [Adam’s] sin, and the pattern of events is replicated in Israel’s annual calendar, this step corresponding to the Day of Atonement. See Leviticus 23. The animals died “in the day” he sinned, just as Jesus said “Now is the judgment of this world.” [John 12:31] Image is legal representation, based on the relationship between the Father and the Son.”

    As a side note, since the Jewish Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) was brought up, Archbishop James Ussher believes this is the day Adam and Eve sinned. On the Gregorian calendar, Ussher calculated the earth began at sunset September 20th, 4004 BC. The first Day of Atonement, if it had happened that year, would have been sunset September 30th. This is exactly ten days later, and the Jewish calendar will match this exactly in 2017 for the New Year (Rosh Hashanah) and Day of Atonement. Under this assumption, Adam and Eve enjoyed four full days immortal. Being that God gave the Israelites their calendar, and being that God knew when He created the universe, we can rest assured that He lined the Jews up right on dates.

    Mainly, this Q6 all comes down to, again, a destruction of The Gospel. Jesus did not physically die if He did not need to, and many people believe He faked death. But physical death is crucial to The Gospel, as stated in 1 Corinthians 15. Lose that and we lose Salvation! This makes at least three times now that Tyler Francke has broken Christianity beyond repair!

  • AmbassadorHerald

    PART 7: Q7

    7. CAN YOU NAME ANY OTHER PIECE OF LITERATURE IN WHICH THE EXISTENCE OF A TALKING SNAKE AND TREES WITH MAGICAL POWERS WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT IT WAS MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY?

    Honestly, I have to side completely with Dr. David Tee on this one. “This is a nonsensical question because there is no biblical instruction telling us that a talking snake is evidence for being a literal story.”

    Even Jewish Torah Scholars (that is scholars on the Pentateuch who are Jews by blood) agree that the literary style of Genesis is historical in nature, and that goes for Genesis 1:1 through 50:26—from the first verse to the last verse. YECs are not the only bunch who have studied the linguistics and come to this conclusion, and Hebrew speaking Jews should know what they are talking about.

    As a result, you cannot just write off the first three chapters as made-up, or the first 11 either, because of the fantastic elements within. Just because modern literature, ever since Black Beauty, has used talking animals in a fiction setting doesn’t mean that Genesis needs to be seen that way too. As a matter of fact, Black Beauty was not written to be fiction, but to awaken a culture to the reality of animal cruelty, and it was accepted under that light because people listened.

    Context is everything, and the talking serpent is within a historical context and should be seen as historically accurate. In other words, the snake talked and that is the end of it. Philippians 2:10-11 would seem to confirm animals will talk again in the future (Q2).

    As Gary Hinchman commented, “The fact that such historical literature does not exist merely shows a one-time occurrence in history where it was possible, but then time and state-of-being changed so that it would not repeat itself again. … Intelligence in the animal kingdom is confirmed by the Bible and Science. That a God who created all things could manipulate that creation for His purposes in time and space is conceivable if the premise of Genesis 1:1 is even entertained for a moment.”

    It is often believed that Dolphins still have a complex communication so sophisticated that it qualifies as a language. The more scientists learn, the more other animals are thought to possibly possess their own language. Monkeys are known to be able to make all the sounds needed to speak human words, they just don’t have the intelligence to use their voice-box in that way.

    Thomas Frye contributed this example, “You are ganna be skeptical about a talking serpent, but I’m trying to convince you that God spoke the world into existence… and yet there are many birds that can emulate voices… Can I convince you that I taught my parrot God Save the Queen? Does that go in fiction section? I rest my case.”

    Thomas Frye used parrots as an example of animals who can still speak human words but just don’t have the intelligence to use them to talk with us. Talking animals is far from an impossibility. If nothing else, maybe we are who have lost the ability to understand what they are saying, but they haven’t ever stopped talking. This is not the scenario I believe The Bible teaches, though.

    In the OP the following argument was presented, “Some young-earthers have responded to this with the story of Balaam’s donkey, but unlike in Genesis 3, the donkey’s ability to talk is explicitly described as a miraculous act of God.”

    The verse in question is Numbers 22:28—And The LORD [Yahweh] opened the mouth of the [donkey], and she said unto Balaam, “What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?”

    The key word in this verse is pathach, translated “opened” in the KJV. James Strong defines this word as meaning to open wide, to loosen, to let go free, to ungird, to unstop, to let vent. You cannot loosen something that has not been tightened. You cannot free something that has not been trapped. You cannot open something that has not been closed. You get the picture I am trying to paint here. God may have closed animals’ mouths so that they can’t talk to us anymore, but Balaam’s donkey was allowed to again for a single minute.

    Mainly it all comes down to Mike Bull’s insight, “If you are expecting things to be explicitly stated, you are not going to understand Hebrew literature (or even God’s word to Adam, which left room for meditation in faith, gaps which the serpent filled with slander, as do you). If you can’t deal with the serpent, you can’t deal with the rest of the Bible, either.”

    Tony Breeden, however, reveals that Genesis 1-3 are explicit in what they say (July 07th) https://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/10-theological-questions-theistic-evolutionists-think-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer-part-3/ (Part 3):

    “So in the case of this talking donkey, Tyler says it’s OK to read the Bible as real history because it’s explicitly noted to be a miracle. Nevermind that the 6 Day Creation is also noted as an explicit supernatural act of God and is even mentioned in the Ten Commandments for crying out loud [Exodus 20:11]; all-natural science says no to that one. Of course, all-natural science also says no to talking animals of any sort and definitely no to miracles, so Tyler is guilty of straining gnats and swallowing camels. What Tyler’s double-minded objection fails to take into account is the question of what a history book that allows for supernatural things would look like. He allegedly affirms a supernatural Creator God. He tells us he believes that Jesus supernaturally rose from the dead. He believes that Balaam’s miraculously talking donkey is true history because it’s described as a supernatural act of God. We presume he believes the other miracles based on this statement, selectively at least. He accepts these elements that are virtually indistinguishable from magic elsewhere in the Bible as historical facts of history, but stumbles over them as fiction in Genesis.”

    I agree, why make one supernatural act “impossible” because secular scientists deny it, yet accept another supernatural act which is also denied by secular scientists? This is hypocrisy!

    As Gary Hinchman showed, we cannot be angry with snakes anymore, because they got the harshest punishment in the curse of the animal kingdom:

    Genesis 3:14-15—And The LORD God [Yahweh Elohim] said unto the serpent, “Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His [Jesus’] heel.”

    This is the first promise of a Savior, who would undo the effects of the punishments here given.

    Now, the second part of Q7 is “magical trees”. Dr. David Tee answered, “There is no evidence that the trees had ‘magical powers’ either, that identification is read into the passage by those who do not believe. What ability the trees may have was only because God made them that way and used his power to create them in that fashion. The trees had no mind so they could not work their ‘magic’.”

    Do we consider milk magical because it strengthens bones? Do we consider fireflies magical because they produce light without heat? Do we consider bees magical because they make honey and we can’t reproduce it? Or that they can fly while being too heavy for their wings? Do we consider spiders magical for making webs? Do we consider electricity magical, as many cultures still today would, just because it doesn’t use open flames? We could go on and on…

    Thomas Frye stated back for Q1, “The tree of life had nothing magical about it. … In the same way the tree of the knowledge of good and evil wasn’t magical either.”

    Just because we cannot scientifically examine the Tree of Life’s fruit to see how it gives eternal physical life, doesn’t make it magical for being able to do so.

    Besides, supposing many YECs were right that the Tree of Life remained on earth, we cannot rule out Dr. David Tee’s argument in his “Next Round” post (July 02nd) https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/10-theological-questions-no-yecer-can-answer-next-round/ “If it was destroyed in the flood then it was not a magical tree but a terrestrial one designed for a specific purpose”.

    But, it likely was not here, as Gary Hinchman stated for Q1, “So the tree of life returns after Christ’s return to bring healing to all the nations” Revelation 22:2.

  • AmbassadorHerald

    PART 8: Q8 FIRST HALF

    8. WHY DO GENESIS 1 AND 2 CONTRADICT?

    Things get a little changed up in the OP for this question, since Tyler Francke wants everyone to read the “As Different as Morning and Evening” article from 2013. This is his more detailed examination of the *supposed* Genesis 1 and 2 contradictions, which can be found here (August 08th) http://www.godofevolution.com/as-different-as-morning-and-evening-genesis-1-and-2-contradictions/ I will be pulling 90% of my info from that blogpost instead of Q8’s summary above.

    Before I get into it all, I’d like to provide Dr. David Tee’s insight, “Most of the time, the accusation of contradiction comes because the people making the accusations do not want to believe and only want to cause trouble.”

    I agree. And it doesn’t matter where the contradiction is found—Genesis, The Gospels, Prophecy, etc.—the enemy just wants to see what they want to see. As long as there is an answer which works, there is no contradiction, even if only a few select people have the complete answer. God does not make mistakes, especially in His Pure Word.

    Psalm 119:140 (with alternate readings in brackets)—Thy Word is very pure [tried, refined]: therefore Thy servant loveth it.

    Proverbs 30:5-6 (alternate KJV reading)—Every Word of God is purified: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His Words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

    The first statement that needs dealing with is, “The second creation story opens with an introduction (Genesis 2:4) that closely mirrors Genesis 1:1: “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” The verse in no way indicates that what follows is simply a more detailed look at creation from a different perspective, as YECs claim; it says, “This is the account.” ”

    This is the NIV rendering of Genesis 2:4 and the phrase of importance is “this is the account”, or in the KJV “these are the generations”. Account is truer to how the word is likely being used here. A scholar named P. J. Wiseman discovered the Towledah and its relation to the Genesis text. He named it the Tablet Theory. Under this theory, every time the phrase “this is the account [history] of ___” is used, it means the named person wrote those chapters, beginning after the previous sign-off. Genesis’ authorship would look as follows:

    1. Yahweh (Genesis 1:1-2:4a)
    2. Adam (2:5-5:1a)
    3. Noah (5:1b-6:9a)
    4. Noah’s 3 sons co-author (6:9b-10:1a)
    5. Shem (10:1b-11:10a)
    6. Terah (11:10b-27a)
    7. Isaac (11:27b-25:19a)
    8. Ishmael—incorporated into Isaac’s (25:13-18)
    9. Jacob (25:19b-37:2a)
    10. Esau—incorporated into Jacob’s (36:1b-43)
    11. Jacob’s 12 sons co-author (37:2b-50:26)

    Mysteriously, Genesis is absent a Towledah at its closing, but The Holy Spirit through Moses clears up all the confusion with His opening of Exodus 1:1, “Now these are the names of the children of Israel”. The word for name is shem and can be translated as report. This is also the root word for Noah’s son Shem’s name. God is making it clear that Jacob’s 12 sons coauthored the end of Genesis.

    This theory is supported by the fact that each section of Genesis is signed by a person who either lived the events or knew the person who lived them, such as Isaac for Abraham. Doubting whether writing existed is not wise anymore, as archaeology is finding older and older written tablets, now dating almost to when James Ussher dates The Flood. Plus, it assumes Adam and Eve were created illiterate, yet this is an unfounded assumption. One which The Bible denies in the second Towledah (Genesis 5:1), “This is the book [written document] of the generations [history] of Adam.”

    So, using this 11-author list of Genesis, who wrote the first Towledah? I already provided the answer above, because obviously the heavens and the earth did not write it down themselves (Genesis 2:4). God is the only one who could have done it. As a result, the chapter break between Genesis 1 and 2 is four verses off (maximum). The first three and a half verses of chapter 2 (minimum) should be part of chapter 1, since they are the final day of the Creation Week. Tyler Francke forgot that in Hebrew, the chapters and verses do not exist, but were added in English to make reading and referencing easier.

    The next statement that needs dealing with is, “Moving on, an individual man (the same Hebrew word is used as in 1:26, but it’s now translated singularly rather than as “mankind”) is the first thing God is described as making in Genesis 2. And this creative act occurs explicitly at a time when “no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up” (2:5), even though the plants and trees were supposed to have been made three days prior. Trees appear after this, when God plants the Garden of Eden in verses 8 and 9.”

    To start with, let’s go back to the KJV for Genesis 2:5—And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for The LORD God [Yahweh Elohim] had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

    Coke’s Commentary on the Holy Bible (1801) provides the answer, “That is, God when he made the heavens and the earth, made also, by his immediate power, every plant in its state of perfection, with its seed in it; before the several plants, thus produced, grew and increased in the natural and regular method by which they now grow and increase:”

    In other words, these plants were already “out of the earth” but had not “grown” to get to that point. God supernaturally created plants that were already “yielding seed” and “yielding fruit” with “seed in itself” and already “upon the earth” (Genesis 1:11-12). Seeds are put “in the earth” to grow out of the earth and into full grown plants. No contradiction exists here.

    Just an interesting discovery: the word for “before” is only used in 8 verses—Genesis 2:5; 27:4; Exodus 1:19; 10:7; Numbers 11:33; 1 Samuel 3:7; Jeremiah 1:5; and Haggai 2:15. “Terem” means non-occurrence.

    Also interestingly, Tyler Francke uses the NASB more often than the NIV in the 10Q’s post—16 vs. 8 times. This is true even in Q8—6 vs. 2 times. These results are based on a text and link search for “NASB” and “NIV”. However, in the recommended post, only the NIV is used. It should therefore be noted that had the NASB been used (or the ESV referenced later), the preceding explanation would still be workable. Tyler Francke chose to use the NIV in order to make his case stronger, to make a contradiction which doesn’t exist.

    • I guess I’ll start here, then move on to your second part.

      First, I agree that the NIV is not a great choice for settling translation disputes. The NASB is not tremendously better, but the NIV is known for being dicey in certain places, so I’ll give you that. I won’t be relying on either translation.

      Coke’s explanation does not rely on the Hebrew, obviously, but an attempt at harmonization. Since Gen.1 and Gen. 2 appear to contradict, his solution is that God must have created fully-formed plants in Genesis 1, but plants that grow hadn’t come about yet.

      This seems unlikely considering the verse is prologued by “in the day the Lord created the earth and the heavens (although I thought it was six days, but whateva).” Also, the absence of water is just as big a problem for existing plants as it is for new ones. Finally, the existing plants would have to reproduce through a process of decay, which many YECers are not ok with.

      In the Hebrew for v. 5, what usually gets translated with various shades of English meaning is actually a repetition in the Hebrew. I’ll transliterate because I don’t know how to make the Hebrew font show up here, it probably wouldn’t be helpful:

      “wekol siah hassadeh terem yihyeh baares wekal eseb hassadeh terem” (Masoretic)

      As you can see, it is almost exactly the same phrase except siah/eseb (siah being more like shrub, eseb being more like generally plants)

      English translations try to make colorful differences by using phrases like “springing up” and whatnot, but the Hebrew is almost exactly the same for both phrases. A more literal translation would be, “Before there were any wild shrubs on the earth, before there were any wild plants on the earth, they did not grow….”

      There’s no “springing up” or distinction between growing and full grown. The Hebrew qualifier is simply “on the earth” in both places. No. Other. Qualifiers. Period. The only way to make subtle distinctions to allow Genesis 2 to mean “not the original plants, but brand new ones growing” is to use nuances of English translations. As you can see, the Hebrew is almost exactly the same and “hassadeh” (on the earth) is exactly the same in both qualifiers.

      “Terem” does not mean “non-occurence.” Its root means that. The addition of prefix changes the meaning to “prior to occurrence.” The root is never used. “Terem” also occurs 14 times, not 5, and a whopping 56 times if you count small variances. It always means “before” in every occurrence that I’m aware of, but I did not look up all 56. It’s definitely that way for the 14 exact matches.

      • AmbassadorHerald

        Firstly, I do not know where you get “but plants that grow hadn’t come about yet” from what I have ever said. You used it once before “which do not grow at all” here: http://www.godofevolution.com/reader-testimony-i-was-in-a-cult-i-was-a-creationist/#comment-2205034261 What I have always said is God created them fully grown, but not that they were inanimate plants which did nothing at all.

        As for, “in the day the Lord created the earth and the heavens (although I thought it was six days, but whateva).” There are no day qualifiers here: night, evening, morning, and/or number. It is therefore not meant to be a literal 24-hour period. Literalists do know how to spot nonliteral terminology.

        In regards to, “the absence of water is just as big a problem for existing plants as it is for new ones.” There is no textual evidence for the absence of water, just the absence of rain, which is—you know—water from the sky? Genesis 2:6 (YLT), “and a mist goeth up from the earth, and hath watered the whole face of the ground.” See, water, no question. You’ve not once dealt with this, and is the immediate context of verse 5.

        On to, “the existing plants would have to reproduce through a process of decay, which many YECists are not ok with.” What decay exactly? Is it what Jesus spoke of in John 12:24 (KJV), “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.”

        Now for your “more literal translation would be, “Before there were any wild shrubs on the earth, before there were any wild plants on the earth, they did not grow…”” I feel the need to remind you of what you said here: http://www.godofevolution.com/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/#comment-2161740210 “Well, my main quarrel with [Young’s on] calling a translation “literal” is that is not a good translation decision. Preserving word order and the like can often obscure or even change the meaning of a text.”

        And, “So, really, my problem is that a translation that strives to change as little as possible is probably not a good translation.”

        So, in order to disprove me, you fall right into the hole you dug for yourself on that literal translations are bad for comprehension purposes. Honestly, I’m going to guess yours is very literal to the exact Hebrew, because even the YLT doesn’t do it your way, for likely the exact reasons you shared. Genesis 2:5, “and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth, …”

        However, I notice you said “on the earth” just like the NIV you dislike, instead of “in the earth” like the other translations mentioned. Are you striving to make contradictions, same as Tyler?

        Looking at your transliteration compared to your literal translation, I would like to see how you merge them together, because I notice another difference: wekol vs. wekal.

        • The reason I made a more “literal” translation is because your whole argument hinges on different shades of English meaning. I was illustrating that the actual Hebrew does not have those different shades. That’s the Masoretic text – look it up.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            A question relating to this comment and this quote from your other response, “My source for wayyass vs. asah is the actual Masoretic text. If you don’t believe me, you are welcome to look for yourself.”

            I requested sources, and you just tell me the Masoretic Text. Any suggestions for good places to get my hands on it?

          • Yes. Google.

            Here’s one: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

          • AmbassadorHerald

            Thank you for the link, and I see they disagree with your literal translation of Genesis 2:5 and agree with me and even Young’s!

            Compere: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm

            You—“Before there were any wild shrubs on the earth, before there were any wild plants on the earth, they did not grow…”

            They—“No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; …”

            YLT—“and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth, …”

            “In the earth” rather than “on the earth”, and “sprung up”. They also still include the mist in verse 6, which is water.

            What were you saying about the Massoretic Text being against me?

          • Once again, you’re arguing off an English translation. Do you ever get tired of being wrong or is it like an endorphin thing with you?

  • AmbassadorHerald

    PART 9: Q8 SECOND HALF

    Tyler Francke continues, “This is the first major contradiction in the literalist view. Genesis 2:9 says, “The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground — trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food,” after he made man (we haven’t even gotten to woman yet). But Genesis 1:24-31 provides no hint that additional plants or trees were made on the sixth day; all that had already been said and done, as it were.”

    The answer here builds off of the previous answer. The word used in Genesis 1 for God supernaturally making things—`asah—is only used four times in Genesis 2. Three of these times is on Day 7 in the first 4 verses in reference to the 6 previous days, the fourth is in verse 18 when God decides to create Eve. Additionally, the word for grow—tsamach—is not once used in Genesis 1 but has its first use in 2:5. Here is what The Bible says about Eden:

    Genesis 2:8-9—And The LORD God [Yahweh Elohim] planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground made The LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the Tree of Life also in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

    Here we see a direct contrast to Genesis 1 and even 2:5. In 2:5 no plant had ever grown from seed to maturity. Here God plants—nata`—a garden, and causes it to grow. God created Adam before any plants had grown, but now after Adam, Eden was grown from the seeds already available. God did not make new plants, He made use of the seeds and grew more plants. There is no contradiction here either.

    Next Tyler Francke says, “So, for example, Creation Ministries International author Don Batten (who has a Ph.D. in horticultural science, for crying out loud!) uses the fact that Genesis 2:5 mentions there being no one to “work the ground” as evidence that the passage refers only to “cultivated” plants, not plants in general.

    (Quotation cont.) “But in Batten’s effort to “take God at his word,” he has to omit part of it. He fails to note the more important reason Genesis 2:5 gives for why plants hadn’t yet appeared: because “the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land.” Cultivated plants may need someone to work the ground, but all plants need water, Dr. Batten. With your Ph.D., I would have guessed you already knew that.”

    Okay, while I may not totally agree with this cultivated plant idea, it might be true. My issue with it is that many plants we cultivate could grow on their own. We just wouldn’t have farms of them to produce the food quantities we need. God probably created these and even farmed them into the Garden of Eden. However, I disagree more with the interpretation of the OP.

    Again, Hebrew has no verse breaks in them, and so we must not dogmatically go with the ones we have. In this light, read the following text.

    “Because The LORD God [Yahweh Elohim] had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground, so there was a mist which went up from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.”

    This is a slightly altered reading of the KJV, which makes use of its footnotes as well, for Genesis 2:5b-6. This entire notation could be in reference to why God had an underground sprinkling system for watering the earth, because rain didn’t exist yet and man was clearly not created yet. Plants were not being grown for lack of water, but for lack of requiring growth, as pointed out earlier. Eden was supernaturally grown at a rapid pace, but that didn’t happen till after Adam. Still no contradiction here.

    Then Tyler Francke says, “The second way YECs try to ignore these contradictions is just as dishonest to the text, if not more so. As Answers in Genesis author Paul Taylor explains, they believe the verb used in 2:19, which the King James Version renders as “formed” could just as easily be translated “had formed.” (Presumably, this is also true of the verb used in verse 2:7, when God “formed” Adam, and the story would be all mucked up if we translated that instance as “had formed,” but I won’t go there.)”

    (Quotation cont.) “Indeed, this is how more modern translations like the NIV and the English Standard Version render 2:19, in an effort to skate around the contradiction. But this is obviously not faithful to the overall story. Read 2:18 again: “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’” He’s not saying he “has made” a suitable helper already, he’s saying he’s got some makin’ yet to do. And so, in the next verse, he proceeds to make land animals and birds.”

    First off, Tyler Francke is not showing himself to be very interested in watching all the details of the Hebrew, so his attack on this translation by YECs means little. Many words have multiple meanings, and even in tenses. He needs to demonstrate that “yatsar” cannot be both past (had formed) and present (formed) tenses. YECs are linguists, remember. Here are the verses:

    Genesis 2:18-19 (alternate KJV reading)—And The LORD God [Yahweh Elohim] said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet as before him.” And out of the ground The LORD God [had] formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

    The KJV footnotes say that the Hebrew literally says “as before him” rather than “for him” in reference to his helpmate. This opens up a whole new way of understanding what is being conveyed. “As before him” could mean one of at least two different things: A) a helper as seen in all the animals standing before Adam for naming, assumedly all a pair of animals, and B) a helper as was created for all the animals before he was created. It could even mean both simultaneously.

    Translations are never perfect and we must not forget that fact, it is vital to our understanding of The Holy Bible. If an issue arises in reconciling things, maybe we are wrong in our language, but the original is not contradictory. Such is the case here. God had made animals before Adam, and only now brought them to Adam in Eden to name.

    Now Tyler Francke provides the following chronology, “The YEC’s interpretation would, instead, make the story as follows:

    1. God knows Adam needs a wife, and that it’s something he has yet to make (verse 18).
    2. Instead of making the wife God knows is missing from creation, he brings before Adam a whole bunch of other things he’s already made, perhaps just to show off (verse 19).
    3. Adam politely explains that he is not interested in his wife being an ostrich or a buffalo (verse 20).
    4. And so (verse 21 being clearly tied to verse 20 by the conjunction “so”), God finally makes the thing he apparently knew needed to be made way back in verse 18.”

    Allow me to use an analogy. Your cellphone battery is low, you need to charge it. You go to the place you leave your charger all the time and… it is not there. So many times before you had found it and without much care plugged your phone in and let it sit to charge. Now you start to panic. Your phone is not going to last until tomorrow and you would prefer not to turn it off completely for the night. You turn over your entire room/purse looking for it. When unsuccessful you turn over your whole house. Finally, you find it, it had fallen down between two furniture that often do not allow things to fall into, but today they had. You love that charger so much because you had looked for it so hard and long.

    This is why God forced Adam to look for his wife, God wanted Adam to treasure her dearly. And God still made both Adam and Eve after all the other creatures, as Genesis 1 says. All of the animal naming could have happened in 5 hours, so there was plenty of time left to create Eve.

    This concludes the rebuttal of the supposed contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2, most of which would have been answered if a strict adherence to the Hebrew language was observed.

    • It is interesting that you ascribe “supernatural” creation to “asah” and mundane creation to everything else, since Genesis 1:1 uses the word “bara” for creation. If your logic is correct, that would classify the creation of the heavens and earth in Genesis’ early chapters as non-supernatural. Also, in 1:16, “he made” is completely absent. The Hebrew just says “the stars.” It doesn’t even use a word for their creation. Does that also imply their formation is natural?

      Second, “asah” is not used in Genesis 1 for create or make except in the very end (v. 31 to describe “all that the Lord had made (asah).” The word used is “wayyaas.” “Asah” is the root, but the root isn’t used. This is why you need to quit making arguments about Hebrew on the basis of your concordance. The concordance will always take you back to the root, not the biblical text. This has been a consistent problem with your Hebrew arguments. I would advise you to get a familiarity with Hebrew before staking these claims.

      The reason this is important is “wayyaas” occurs 236 times in Scripture and does not mean “supernatural creation.” It is the word used for Noah building the ark. It is the word used for Isaac making a feast. Absalom wayaased up himself a chariot.

      “Asah” occurs 358 times in the Scriptures and also does not mean supernatural creation. It is the past tense – “made/had done” – and is used almost everywhere you see the English word “made” or “had done” in translations and describes Moses sprinkling blood on the tabernacle, the Israelites defeating Amorites, and just about anything you could imagine.

      As for the tree stuff in 2:9, the word translated “made to grow” is wayyasma, which is the same word for Adam being formed from the dust (wayyasir) which comes from the common root yasar (which appears immediately after wayyasma in 2:9) which means “formed.” Once again, you’re making too much out of the English nuances that are absent from the Hebrew. Both wayyasir and wayyasma are extremely rare (1 and 2 occurrences, iirc), so I’ll give you that there’s not a lot to go off of to look for potential variation, but in the absence of such variations, it seems to make sense to interpret them similarly.

      • AmbassadorHerald

        Next we have, “It is interesting that you ascribe “supernatural” creation to “asah” and mundane creation to everything else, since Genesis 1:1 uses the word “bara” for creation.” I know Genesis 1:1 uses bara instead of asah, but I simply did not discuss it since bara is used only 3 times in Genesis 1, versus the 7 of asah. The argument still applies to Genesis 2, asah is used in reference to chapter 1 three times and once for Eve, compared to twice for bara only in reference to chapter 1. Both are mainly in Genesis 2:2-4.

        Moving on to, “”asah” is not used in Genesis 1 for create or make except in the very end (v.31 to describe “all that the Lord had made (asah).” The word used is “wayyaas.” “Asah” is the root, but the root isn’t used.” Sources needed, I don’t trust your personal opinion.

        As for, “The reason this is important is “wayyaas” occurs 236 times in Scripture and does not mean “supernatural creation.”” No kidding the word does not inherently mean a supernatural act, just what possible word would one use for nothing becoming something, anything, and everything! But when God Himself does a thing, it is supernatural by default. The same goes for bara, which is also used elsewhere in Scripture.

        Also, “”Asah” occurs 358 times in the Scriptures and also does not mean supernatural creation. It is the past tense – “made/had done”…” The YLT would disagree: 1:7 maketh, v.11 sowing (yielding, KJV), v.12 sowing, v.16 maketh, v.25 maketh, v.26 make, v.31 done (made, KJV), 2:2 made (twice), v.3 making, v.4 making, and v.18 make. Plus, the same goes here for what was said about bara and “wayyaas”.

        Finally, “Both wayyasir and wayyasma are extremely rare (1 and 2 occurrences, if I recall correctly), so I’ll give you that there’s not a lot to go off of to look for potential variation, but in the absence of such variations, it seems to make sense to interpret them similarly.” Who says they are not similar? But who says that they are not different? Trees grow from the ground, Adam was made from the ground, so those are similar yet different. And their limited use would not shock me either, since Adam was only created once, and the planting of the Garden of Eden only happened once.

        • My source for wayyass vs. asah is the actual Masoretic text. If you don’t believe me, you are welcome to look for yourself.

          Your argument was that “asah” is the word used for supernatural creation, and therefore creation must have been supernatural. Now, confronted with the evidence, you’re trying to go back the other way. It must mean supernatural because the creation was supernatural. Nice try.

          I don’t give a rat’s what the YLT says. The YLT disagrees with every other existing translation in many cases – translations done by teams of scholars and not one guy who can’t get a job teaching Hebrew.

          Adam and trees are different, but their coming from the ground isn’t, according to the Hebrew. There is no reason to have wayyasir and wayyasma have vastly different shades of meaning as your argument demands. It’s just specious.

          Sorry, bud. Out of your league, here.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            —–“Your argument was that “asah” is the word used for supernatural creation, and therefore creation must have been supernatural. Now, confronted with the evidence, you’re trying to go back the other way. It must mean supernatural because the creation was supernatural. Nice try.”

            You said it right in the first sentence, but then applied it incorrectly. Here is what I said originally, “The word used in Genesis 1 for God supernaturally making things—`asah—is only used four times in Genesis 2.”

            I said the word “used” in Genesis 1 for God supernaturally making things was asah, not that the word meant supernatural creation. Which is what I acknowledged in my response to you, “No kidding the word does not inherently mean a supernatural act, just what possible word would one use for nothing becoming something, anything, and everything! But when God Himself does a thing, it is supernatural by default.”

            God may not be limited in power, but He is limited to our languages for getting His points across.

            —–“I don’t give a rat’s what the YLT says. The YLT disagrees with every other existing translation in many cases – translations done by teams of scholars and not one guy who can’t get a job teaching Hebrew.”

            You’re back to attacking Young’s character again, like you’ve done almost nonstop from the beginning. You had apologized for it, but your apology is pretty parenthetical it appears. http://www.godofevolution.com/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/#comment-2161421793

            —–“Adam and trees are different, but their coming from the ground isn’t, according to the Hebrew. There is no reason to have wayyasir and wayyasma have vastly different shades of meaning as your argument demands. It’s just specious.”

            Intestinally, you just repeated what I said and acted like I didn’t say it, which Tyler has also done a few times. Why do you think I won’t notice? Original: “Who says they are not similar? But who says that they are not different? Trees grow from the ground, Adam was made from the ground, so those are similar yet different.”

            —–“Sorry, bud. Out of your league, here.”

            How is that now? You basically just added nothing new to the discussion, just repeated me, twisted me, and attacked Young’s more.

          • Intestinally?

            This answers nothing. I think, in your deep desire to “win,” you’ve long since forgotten your actual points. Bro, you have no case. None. The Masoretic is against you, the rabbinic tradition is against you, and even most YECers have not been so bold to come up with some novel take on the Hebrew – especially when they don’t know Hebrew.

            You’ve got nothing, but you’re going to cling to it with all your might. Well, I’ve got all the time in the world for people who can challenge me meaningfully and we can work through the evidence together, but I’ve got no time for a bag of hammers.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            The fact that you have given nothing of substance here to base your attacks on my personal character, and the evidence you provided has turned against you http://www.godofevolution.com/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/#comment-2240895539 , proves I am following The Holy Bible and you stubbornly reject it in doubt. You have made this move for the one reason of not having any further evidence to present, like you didn’t in the previous response either.

  • AmbassadorHerald

    PART 10: Q9

    9. WHY IS INCEST WRONG?

    For human protection, same as every other law God made. Tony Breeden correctly revealed that believing that Cain married his sister in Christianity goes back some 1,600 years! This did not begin with Dr. Henry M. Morris, founder of modern Scientific Creationism.

    John Chrysostom (347-407 AD)—“But perhaps someone will say: How is it that Cain had a wife when Sacred Scripture nowhere makes mention of another woman? Don’t be surprised at this dearly beloved: it has so far given no list of women anywhere in a precise manner; instead, Sacred Scripture while avoiding superfluous details mentions the males in turn, though not even all of them, telling us about them in rather summary fashion when it says that so-and-so had sons and daughters and then he died. So it is likely in this case too that Eve gave birth to a daughter after Cain and Abel, and Cain took her for his wife. You see, since it was in the beginning and the human race had to increase from them on, it was permissible to marry their own sisters.”

    The biggest insight for me, one which taught me, is from Mike Bull, “Parent-child incest is clearly forbidden in Genesis 2:24-25.”

    Genesis 2:24-25—Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

    Absolutely brilliant!

    The next biggest insight was by Kenneth Cowen (July 02nd) http://www.godofevolution.com/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/#comment-2113628158 “Quick point about incest, your point only applies to Adam/Eve, not Noah/Mrs. Noah. Ham, Shem, Japheth, and their better halves would have children, who (if privy to genetics and the dangers of inbreeding) would preferably marry only first-cousins. Still incest, but at least not brother-sister incest.”

    Now, answer #1 was given by Thomas Frye, “Well, because at a certain point God said there’s enough people and no more marrying family. Why genetically is it wrong? Well at this point the genetics have been copied hundreds of times. If you copy a piece of paper and then copy the copy, it doesn’t take long for the paper to become illegible. Even a computer program, after a couple copies it won’t run. … But God already knew that with sin comes defects in the copying. So He said no more closely related marriages BECAUSE if the copies are too closely matching, the errors become magnified.”

    This goes back to what I said before, human protection. Of course, the OP does mention this answer, “So why does incest get a pass? Two reasons: Because there would be “fewer genetic mistakes” the closer the happy couple was to Adam and Eve, and because God hadn’t issued his Mosaic-era prohibitions against incest yet.”

    Tyler Francke argues the following about the Mosaic Law, “News flash: According to the young-earthers, God hadn’t issued any commands at this point in history beyond “Don’t eat that fruit,” but it still seemed to be a pretty major party foul when Cain murdered Abel.”

    Firstly, murder is bad for humans. Murder is always bad. The genetic reasons, and population reasons, for allowing incest are not on the same standard as murder. Not doing incest would have meant suicide for the human race, period. Which is also murder. Murder is bad, incest when not yet outlawed by God is good.

    Secondly, Don Francisco’s song “The Ballad of Cain and Abel” (1994) reminded me that “Don’t eat that fruit” was not God’s only command before the murder of Abel.

    Genesis 4:6-7 (alternate KJV reading)—And The LORD said unto Cain, “Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not have the Excellency? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And subject unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.”

    God warned Cain that what he wanted to do was sin. While murder is not said by name, we know it is what God meant because in the very next verse Abel is premeditatedly murdered by Cain. God declared murder as sin, and therefore this conjecture by Tyler Francke is false. God had just set down a pronouncement about murder, yet none is provided against brother-sister incest.

    Tony Breeden elaborates on murder and why the punishment was changed from what Cain got in Genesis 4:15, “After the Flood, 8 souls were given the Noachian Covenant. They had seen what level of depravity and violence humanity could stoop to. In his wisdom, God established the Noachian Covenant and prescribed death as the penalty for murder. While there was a genetic bottleneck after the Flood and life was no less precious, the death penalty for murder was necessary in order to dissuade men from committing this sin IN A WORLD WHERE GOD HAD PROMISED NOT TO WIPE OUT MANKIND for such violence against His image. This caveat is important in comprehending why God changed the penalty for murder.” (Emphasis original, just changed from italics to caps.)

    Genesis 9:5—And surely your blood of your lives will I [Yahweh] require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.

    This, too, is brilliant! The law against murder is pre-Mosaic, and so is capital punishment, which Cain already knew in his mind in Genesis 4:13-14.

    Plus, the answer not given in the OP, answer #2, is Gary Hinchman’s, “The Mosaic Law against incest was given by God for establishing a new people of God called “holy” or separate from the polluted nations all around. Maintaining a consistency in the gene pool meant not polluting the pool any further. So God stopped the pollution through a law against incest. Perhaps the gene pool before the Mosaic Law against incest could handle the pollution of the human gene pool and yet that came to an end by God’s Levitical commands for purity in the social structure of Israel.”

    At the founding of the Jewish nation of Israel, in-breeding began to be a necessity because of them being their own bloodline separate from the other nations. This meant mutations would happen faster than ever before and close marriages would speed it up even more. Also, if other nations were doing incest, the Israelites not doing incest would make them stand out. God intended them to be a light to the world, and now we Christians have taken the torch as well.

    Tyler Francke responded to Thomas Frye with, “OK, fair enough. So it is not inherently immoral for siblings to marry and have sex with each other. In that case, do you believe a Bible-believing Christian man should be permitted to marry his immediate sister, if both siblings agree to undergo sterilization procedures to ensure they won’t procreate?”

    No, I do not. We still have the holiness image to uphold. Marrying siblings is not seen as good, except to perverted minds. Just because it was okay for the couple generations post-Fall to have incest, doesn’t mean it is okay for us.

    Tyler Francke responded to Gary Hinchman with, “So, you believe the prohibition against incest was not part of God’s everlasting moral law (murder, stealing, adultery, etc.), but rather, part of the ceremonial laws, like the dietary restrictions and prohibitions against cutting one’s sideburns — the ones that Christians believe don’t apply anymore? So, as a Christian, I should be able to marry my sister or mother now?”

    A) Mike Bull pointed out mother-son and father-daughter marriages were forbidden from the very start. B) It should be common knowledge to the OP why Christians have lifted the food-bans. It is because of:

    Acts 10:9-16—On the morrow, as they [two of Cornelius’ servants and one of his devout soldiers] went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city [Joppa], Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: and he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, “Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” And the voice spake unto him again the second time, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

    Tony Breeden expands the above passage into a list—Galatians 2:1-3; 5:1-11; 6:11-16; 1 Corinthians 7:17-20; Colossians 2:8-12, 16-17; and Philippians 3:1-3. Ceremonial and judicial/civil Levitical Law have passed away, but moral law has not because 9 of the 10 Commandments are repeated in the New Testament.

  • AmbassadorHerald

    PART 11: Q10 FIRST HALF

    10. IF IT IS SO VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT CHRISTIANS TAKE GENESIS LITERALLY, WHY DID JESUS NEVER ONCE INSTRUCT US TO TAKE GENESIS LITERALLY?

    I like the point emphasized by Clinton (July 01st) http://www.godofevolution.com/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/#comment-2111397181 which was just brushed aside in the OP, “ “Sure, it’s an argument from silence.” Your first sentence refutes your last point, but you still felt compelled to point it out. Number ten is clearly fallacious, but you present it as a strong counterargument to YEC claims. Jesus also never said “don’t cut the brakes in your neighbor’s car,” but he clearly would have been against that behavior.”

    One should not need to go farther than that, because logical fallacies are not good arguments. Ever. Period.

    However, if that is not sufficient, Dr. David Tee also hit the nail on the head, “Actually, this one is a simple question to answer, for Jesus did say to take Moses literally but he just did not use those exact words. Here is what Jesus said: [verses below] So yes, Jesus did say to take Moses’ words literally. Not taking Moses literally means you do not believe Moses and if you do not believe Moses you will probably not believe what Jesus said either.”

    John 5:45-47—Do not think that I [Jesus] will accuse you to The Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe My words?

    See also Luke 16:29&31—Abraham saith unto him [rich man], “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” … And he [Abraham] said unto him, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”

    Dr. David Tee added a clarification (July 01st) https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/07/01/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-2011 “I say this because there is nothing in scripture indicating that the first 10 chapters of Genesis, the Exodus account, his meeting God on Sinai, and other supernatural events were anything but literal history and actual events. Those who say they weren’t have yet to produce one scripture that supports their claims.”

    A-men to that! Will Tyler Francke accept the challenge to provide a verse which tells us not to take Scripture literally?

    Now, yes, I do not believe Moses wrote Genesis, as I detailed earlier in Q8 with the Towledah, but Moses did compile the different tablets together and edited them, adding notes where needed for understanding purposes. From what I’ve seen, the NIV often puts these edits in parenthesis. Examples are Genesis 14:2&8 for Bela/Zoar, Genesis 14:3 for the Vale of Siddim/Salt Sea, and Genesis 13:10 for before Sodom’s destruction. So including Genesis as a book of Moses is not in error.

    Of course, if that is still not enough, Gary Hinchman adds, “Jesus certainly told us to take marriage between a man and woman literally and literally references to Genesis 2 in order to make his point. … Furthermore, Jesus repeatedly refers to historical characters, events, and places from the book of Genesis, taking them as literal historical realities in his teachings. If Jesus, the person we found our faith on, can take Genesis literally, why can’t His followers?”

    Matthew 19:4-6—And He [Jesus] answered and said unto them, “Have ye not read, that He [God] which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?’ Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Mark 10:5-9—And Jesus answered and said unto them, “For the hardness of your heart he [Moses] wrote you this precept [bill of divorcement]. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. ‘For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh:’ so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    The comeback of Tyler Francke was, “He’s not talking about creation here, and he’s not talking literally. He’s making a theological point about divorce, and he’s using the passage from Genesis theologically. I could use the passage in the exact same way, and that doesn’t mean I take it literally (because, in fact, I don’t).”

    Just one problem with that interpretation, it again ignores the original Greek language, as had been done with the Hebrew for Genesis 1&2 in Q8. The Greek clearly says “at the beginning of the creation”, the words are all translated correctly and simply. A grade school student can understand the concept here. Jesus is saying Adam and Eve were made by God supernaturally at the beginning of everything in existence, and Day 6 is certainly that. Jesus did literally quote Genesis, and took Genesis as literal on the timescale it describes.

    The surprising thing is, as was revealed by Tony Breeden, Tyler Francke actually knows the above and openly admits to it back in 2013 in the second Related Article, “Did Jesus Believe in a Six-Day Creation and a Literal Adam?” (August 26th) http://www.godofevolution.com/did-jesus-believe-in-a-six-day-creation-and-a-literal-adam/ Tyler Francke just chooses to call Jesus a liar, thereby making Jesus less than the perfect sacrifice for sins, and becomes his fourth such attack!

    Tyler Francke (speaking like a Liberal Theologian)—“But let’s pretend for a moment, as the literalists will insist, that by “at the beginning,” Jesus meant the sixth day of Creation Week. If creation really took billions of years, does that mean Jesus was wrong? Yes. Sort of.

    (Quotation cont.) “YOU SEE, JESUS *WAS* WRONG, BUT ONLY BECAUSE *HIS LISTENERS* WERE WRONG. His audience believed that humans had always existed on the earth; they had no reason to think otherwise. And Jesus accommodated himself to their inaccurate views of our biological origins in order to remind them of a deeper truth: that we are made in God’s image, male and female, and that there is a grand, divine beauty in the marital bond that flippant divorce makes a mockery of.” (Emphasis original, just changed from bold to caps and italics to asterisks.)

  • AmbassadorHerald

    PART 12 (Final): Q10 SECOND HALF WITH CONCLUSION

    John 14:6—Jesus saith unto him, “I Am The Way, The Truth, and The Life: no man cometh unto The Father, but by Me.”

    John 17:17—Sanctify them [Christians] through Thy Truth [God’s Truth]: Thy Word is Truth.

    Numbers 23:19—God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: hath He said, and shall He not do it? Or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?

    Hebrews 6:18—That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

    Romans 3:4—God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, “That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.”

    Truth cannot condone error, or it is not truth. And Jesus called out many times the error in common beliefs, so why condone it here? Jesus even called out unknown truths by calling the Pharisees “whitewash sepulchers” in Matthew 23:27-28 and Luke 11:44. Jesus Christ is not the liar here, it is the OP, the Mod, Tyler Francke who is deliberately deceiving.

    On top of that, as if this repeated blasphemy wasn’t enough, not only does Tyler Francke admit his title was misleading and a “bait and switch”, he contradicts the header-picture’s caption! Namely, “Things Jesus never said (not even once): “Read Genesis literally”.” With, “There is precisely one instance in all of scripture where Jesus quotes from Genesis 1 and 2.”

    But wait, there’s still more! God provided us with an answer so clear, no one can mistake it. God wrote it with His very own finger even, and instituted them so that all people could attempt to follow them, no matter of age. The Ten Commandments, as Tony Breeden pointed out in Q7:

    Exodus 20:11—For in six days The LORD [Yahweh] made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore The LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    The New Testament did take these literally, even so much as stating, “Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)” (Ephesians 6:2). Does it have a promise? Yes it does!

    Exodus 20:12—Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which The LORD [Yahweh] thy God [Elohim] giveth thee.

    Every single one of the Ten Commandments can be found somewhere in the New Testament, that is except the Sabbath day one.

    Gary Hinchman further used the following verse, spoken by Jesus:

    Luke 17:26-27—And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of The Son of Man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

    Matthew 24:37-39—But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of The Son of Man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of The Son of Man be.

    Again, very easily translated and in grade school English. Jesus literally believed that the Noachian Deluge happened, that it destroyed the entire world and killed everyone, and that Noah survived inside the Ark. These are not merely theological references but very specific statements on the historicity of Genesis 1-11.

    Two more people’s answers which are more than worth restating:

    Thomas Frye—“The New Testament has a total of 60 allusions to Genesis 1-11 specifically, and when we widen the search to include all of Genesis, the number grows to 103. But simply giving a list of references to Genesis proves nothing—we must look at how the New Testament authors used Genesis in order to discern their view. Overwhelmingly, it is presumed to be a historical document;”

    Mike Bull—“The most controversial miracles are not just alluded to but authenticated as historical events by the New Testament.”

    So there you have it Tyler Francke. Consider your claimed “unanswerable questions” literally answered. I close with an extended quote of Tony Breeden which explains the heart of the issue, including a Bible passage afterwards to clarify the error of Tyler Francke:

    “Did you catch it? The entire premise of Tyler Francke’s list of questions is supposed to show us why the traditional Biblical (young earth) interpretation of the Bible is theologically problematic and therefore wrong, making his position of imposing long ages of theistic evolution onto the text the better choice. By claiming that the traditional Biblical (young earth) interpretation of the Bible is theologically problematic, he’s trying to demonstrate that it does matter which view of Genesis is correct and that his favored interpretation of Genesis is necessary to a true understanding of Christianity.

    (Quotation cont.) “In other words, his entire post undermines the very premise that “regardless of whose interpretation of Genesis is correct, it doesn’t really matter in the end.” [Q10] The very existence of this post, not to mention his entire Godofevolution.com website gives lie to the fact that Tyler Francke believes a correct interpretation of Genesis matters very much after all!

    (Quote cont. 2) “The real problem, for folks like Tyler Francke, is that the founder of Christianity did mention Genesis as a matter of historical record. But they need to explain that away because their ultimate authority is found neither in Christ nor the Bible, but to science chained to pure naturalism. Their pick and choose religion requires that they be the ultimate authority over both Scripture and science, arbitrarily deciding which authority prevails in each particular passage.”

    Proverbs 30:5-6—Every Word of God is pure: He [God] is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His Words, lest He reprove [correct, convict] thee, and thou be found a liar.

    See also Sirius Knott’s Summary and Conclusions (Part 4 “The Final Insult”, July 08th) https://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2015/07/08/10-theological-questions-theistic-evolutionists-think-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer-the-final-insult/ Reading all four start to finish, as well as Charlie Wolcott’s “Creation Groans” http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/creation-groans.html is highly recommended.

  • summers-lad

    This is my first time on your site, and it is absolutely superb. Nos 1, 2, 4 and 5 are all things I hadn’t thought of before, even though for many years I have argued, like you, that young-earth creationism can be opposed purely on the grounds of Biblical exposition, without the need to refer to scientific arguments. After all, if what God has revealed through Scripture is in conflict with what he has revealed through nature, we have a problem.

    Here’s another one: Why was Cain scared (Gen 4:14)? YEC version: Cain said to God “This punishment is too much. I will be a wanderer over the earth, and anyone who finds me will kill me.” God replied “No, you silly man – there isn’t anybody else yet. Haven’t you read your Bible?”

    • Haha! Awesome, man. You have officially inspired a meme:

      • Spartan093

        Considering that Adam lived to 930 and had many children, the death of Abel need not have been within 22 years of the fall when there were only four adults. Abel and Cain could have been married, and considering that Seth was born in Adam’s 130th year and he was named inheritor, he could have been born the year Abel died. As such, if a woman can get pregnant approximately very two years if she chooses to wean children after one year, Eve would have been the mother of 65 people, with Cain already having had a few children by then. The narrative in Genesis 4:17 does not need to be strictly chronological, considering the contexts is the story of Cain’s family.

        Sorry to be that guy that takes facts to a meme, but yours was text heavy as well :P.

        • You think the Bible mentions and names Adam and Eve’s first two children, then completely ignores the fact that their next 65 even existed, and then mentions and names their 66th child (Seth)? That seems like an honest and straightforward interpretation of the text to you?

          And I would have to disagree with you that Genesis 4:17 (and what follows) is not chronological, since it mentions Cain building a city. The city is clearly the city he built and lived in in the land of Nod, where he settled after killing Abel and leaving his parents (verse 16).

          • AmbassadorHerald

            You are missing Genesis 5:4 (KJV), “And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:”

            Oh yeah, wait… you believe none of these people even lived, much less had children. Won’t you be surprised when you get to Heaven and see Adam and Eve! And God will tell you that you had no excuse not to (Romans 1:20), because He told us about them right here in black and white. Even in red and white in Mark 10:6-9 and Matthew 19:4-6.

            However, what Spartan is trying to say is that Genesis 4:17 does not need to be fitting exactly as you claim, with only 2 children ever having been born. Cain is said here to be having intercourse with a female, who in the narrative has never appeared. Also, she is said to be his wife, yet it does not say he married her at this point. He may have been previously married, before Abel was murdered.

          • You are missing Genesis 5:4 (KJV), “And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:”

            I’m not missing anything. The verse says Adam had other sons and daughters after he had Seth. This does not explain how Adam could have had as many as 65 other children before Seth, without any of them being mentioned in scripture.

            And God will tell you that you had no excuse not to (Romans 1:20)

            You mean Romans 1:21. Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

            Wow, so God’s “eternal power and divine nature” refers to Adam and Eve? It never fails to amuse me how brazenly you twist, misuse and abuse the word of God, then have the audacity to criticize we who are actually trying to understand what it means.

            Even in red and white in Mark 10:6-9 and Matthew 19:4-6.

            Theological teachings about men, women and marriage do not a literalist hermeneutic prove.

            However, what Spartan is trying to say is that Genesis 4:17 does not need to be fitting exactly as you claim, with only 2 children ever having been born.

            I’m not saying it’s not possible that Adam and Eve could have had thousands of kiddos before Seth that the Bible is inexplicably silent about, I’m just saying it doesn’t fit the story or the established pattern in which it is told, and is therefore unlikely.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            —–“The verse says Adam had other sons and daughters after he had Seth.”

            Prove the Hebrew cannot include children before Seth and you may have a case. That is, it is only present or future tense, not past tense. The KJV makes it past tense with “begat”. Begot is present tense. The YLT makes it a continual tense with “begetteth”. It was happening, is happening, and continued to happen till death.

            —–“This does not explain how Adam could have had as many as 65 other children before Seth, without any of them being mentioned in scripture.”

            And you have not yet proven that God must include every… single… last… detail… of everything… in all history… in His Word. Literalists don’t even begin to claim this, we just claim that what we do have must be believed, because God did not write like ancient man did, He wrote as He wrote.

            You have also not answered Spartan’s point: why did Adam wait 130 years to have a third child? Is that not an unreasonably long time? Adam may not have had 65 other children, that is a reasonable max limit, but to say he had zero others is absurd.

            —–“You mean Romans 1:21.”

            No, I meant v20. You know God is God because of what He made, and—shocker—He made Adam and Eve.

            —–“Theological teachings about men, women and marriage do not a literalist hermeneutic prove.”

            Ah, well, maybe I should use your tactic for once? That’s not what the verse actually says. It says people were A) created, B) by God, C) at the beginning, D) in two genders, E) with intent to marry. You know all this, yet only apply one fourth of it. I dealt with it in-depth in #10’s Answer, which you cannot refute because you haven’t.

            —–“I’m not saying it’s not possible that Adam and Eve could have had thousands of kiddos before Seth”

            Good, I’m glad.

          • Prove the Hebrew cannot include children before Seth and you may have a case. That is, it is only present or future tense, not past tense. The KJV makes it past tense with “begat”. Begot is present tense. The YLT makes it a continual tense with “begetteth”. It was happening, is happening, and continued to happen till death.

            I think the fact that the text says “after Seth,” makes the order pretty clear.

            And you have not yet proven that God must include every… single… last… detail… of everything… in all history… in His Word. Literalists don’t even begin to claim this, we just claim that what we do have must be believed, because God did not write like ancient man did, He wrote as He wrote.

            No, you claim what you believe has to be believed, regardless of what the Bible actually says or doesn’t say.

            You have also not answered Spartan’s point: why did Adam wait 130 years to have a third child? Is that not an unreasonably long time? Adam may not have had 65 other children, that is a reasonable max limit, but to say he had zero others is absurd.

            Sorry, where in the Bible does it say Adam was zero years old when he fathered Cain and Abel? For all we know, he could have been 128.

            The fact is, the Bible does not say anything about any other children until after Seth was born: Cain, Abel, Seth, then other sons and daughters. You can believe otherwise if you want, but your belief in that case would obviously be based on something other than scripture.

            No, I meant v20.

            That was a mistake on my part. I apologize.

            You know God is God because of what He made, and—shocker—He made Adam and Eve.

            I’m going to quote the verse again: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

            So, just to be clear, your contention is that the evidence of God’s eternal power and divine nature refers to two people who had supposedly lived and died thousands of years before Paul wrote Romans?

            Ah, well, maybe I should use your tactic for once? That’s not what the verse actually says. It says people were A) created, B) by God, C) at the beginning, D) in two genders, E) with intent to marry. You know all this, yet only apply one fourth of it.

            I’m curious what part you think I apply. And I’m also curious how you got the fraction one-fourth out of five possible criteria.

            Of course, I don’t actually reject any of these beliefs, so the correct statement would be that I apply five-fifths of them, which can be simplified to 1.

            I dealt with it in-depth in #10’s Answer, which you cannot refute because you haven’t.

            I would have to be interested enough to read the thing before my capability of refuting it can be determined.

            “I’m not saying it’s not possible that Adam and Eve could have had thousands of kiddos before Seth”

            Good, I’m glad.

            You missed a part of my statement. Here it is again.

            I’m not saying it’s not possible that Adam and Eve could have had thousands of kiddos before Seth that the Bible is inexplicably silent about, I’m just saying it doesn’t fit the story or the established pattern in which it is told, and is therefore unlikely.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            The only thing that really needs answering is:

            Quote—I’m curious what part you think I apply. And I’m also curious how you got the fraction one-fourth out of five possible criteria.

            Of course, I don’t actually reject any of these beliefs, so the correct statement would be that I apply five-fifths of them, which can be simplified to 1.—unquote.

            You only use the theological marriage part of the passage. You can’t deny it, you openly say that all the time, over and over. You deny the creation “at the beginning” which is what Jesus said, but according to you lied about. If Adam and Eve were not at the beginning, then Jesus was either mistaken about history or allowed a misconception be propagated further. If either of those are true, He was not The Messiah, who had to be sinless to pay for sins. Lying is a sin and ignorance is inexcusable for God.

          • The only thing that really needs answering is:

            I wonder why this is the “only point” that needs addressing? Maybe because your arguments were ineffective, at best, and a demonstrable misuse of scripture at worst?

            But that’s fine. I’m more than happy to streamline the discussion. I’ll answer your question, then I’ll ask you one of my own. Sound fair? Sure it does.

            You only use the theological marriage part of the passage. You can’t deny it, you openly say that all the time, over and over.

            Well, I can deny it, because I’ve never said that. (See? That wasn’t even hard.) What I said was that Jesus’ answer was in a theological context. They are talking about marriage, and specifically, the God-ordained purposes of it. I.e., theology.

            In other words, Jesus is not talking about creation, history, the age of the earth, etc., so using this passage as though he were talking about any of those things is a pretty blatant misuse of the Bible. (Which one would think might bother you. But I digress.)

            You deny the creation “at the beginning” which is what Jesus said, but according to you lied about. If Adam and Eve were not at the beginning, then Jesus was either mistaken about history or allowed a misconception be propagated further.

            Wow, those are some pretty serious allegations there. So if someone believes mankind was not made at the beginning of creation, then Jesus is a liar. Well, I guess both you and I are guilty then. I don’t believe man was present at the beginning of creation, and neither do you. We both believe mankind appeared very near the end of God’s creative process.

            Fortunately, Jesus is obviously not referring to the beginning of creation, but the beginning of mankind. I.e., since the beginning of mankind, God has made us male and female. Which both of usus completely affirm.

            So, yeah. And the rest of your comment is irrelevant.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            And you just denied it again, you do not believe Jesus meant what He said. Why not just leave out the “beginning” part and only quote Genesis to get its theology? Yet Jesus did say beginning, and He meant beginning. The Greek word “creation” here does not mean “act of making” as Scientific Creationists use it today and you are using it now. It simply refers to anything that has been made, “the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” (Exodus 20:11 YLT).

            Seeing as everything was completely finished in 144 hours and Jesus was living at least 35,040,000 hours into history (24 x 365 x 4,000 = 35 million, 40 thousand), Adam and Eve qualified as “at/from the beginning of the creation” (Mark 10:6-9 & Matthew 19:4-6). I strongly suspect that even if you had a big memorable event happen on January 6th, you’d count it as “the beginning of the year” even though it was nearly a week into it. And it would be, 144 hours out of approximately 8,760 in the year.

            Compare this to your 14 billion years—not hours—of mythology and… no, you do not believe this verse, or Jesus, and openly reject His message. You are pulling a technicality on me because I count 144 hours as the beginning, when it honestly still is, because you want me to look as bad as you are at trusting Jesus Christ’s testimony. I believe Jesus here on all 5-points, and you can use 1/5th if you want, but don’t think for one moment that makes you a believer of these verses.

          • You speak as though God were burdened and constrained by time, when scripture (not to mention logic and traditional theology) says quite clearly that he is not. Why would a supernatural being be bound by any aspect of a universe he transcends?

            If you believe God is human like you and me, your point would be valid (though it would create another problem or two). Such as it is, though, your argument is based on nothing but simple prejudice against any scriptural view with which you disagree.

            And you did not answer my question.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            Ah, so when pressured, you go ahead and agree Jesus specified a time, but pull the “God has no time” card. Are you telling me that God does not know how to communicate with mankind on our level of understanding? That Jesus would use “God’s timing” even knowing people would misunderstand Him? That He lied to us in plain Greek? I believe Jesus bound Himself to our timescale on purpose, because after all, He made Himself a human and lived in our timescale. He was still God, but He was a man too. That duality was needed to pay for sins as well, on top of sinless.

            Oh, I thought your “question” was the fact neither of us believe in man being at the “beginning”, but I see you edited your post and attached a real question. You have several times demonstrated that you know what Jesus really said here and reject it. So, since there is no contention as to that Jesus took the 6 days literally, if I did not, I would cast away His testimony, just as you have. The difference, I would realize He could not be the Savior if He lied, was mistaken, or allowed error to be believed. Simply, my answer is: no.

            Besides, Jesus told us to believe Moses in John 5:46-47 and—reality check—Moses gave us Exodus 20:11 which God wrote for him in stone. If God got it wrong here as well as in Jesus, than Yahweh is not really God, is He? Having looked at your blog archives a few times, I have not seen you deal with Exodus 20:11 yet. Too hard for you? Too contrary to your “god of evolution”?

          • Ah, so when pressured, you go ahead and agree Jesus specified a time, but pull the “God has no time” card.

            It’s not a “card,” it’s a simple, theologically orthodox view of God based on countless scriptures. The only reason you reject it is because all you have to base your argument on is, “But golly, 14 billion years is so much longer than six days!!!” Well, to a Being that is outside of time, no, it really isn’t.

            Are you telling me that God does not know how to communicate with mankind on our level of understanding?

            That implies that you and I have the same “level of understanding.” I have no trouble whatsoever understanding what Jesus is saying in this passage. You on the other hand…

            That Jesus would use “God’s timing” even knowing people would misunderstand Him?

            Well, since the only people who have “misunderstood” him are those who are more devoted to their own preconceptions than actually understanding what Jesus said and meant, I don’t think he would have worried about you guys too much. You can lead a horse to water, and all that, etc.

            That He lied to us in plain Greek?

            You are such a funny individual. You misinterpret what Jesus meant, and that means he lied?

            AmbasshatHarald’s wife: Honey, I’m going to run down to the store. Be back in a minute.

            *30 minutes later*

            AmbasshatHarald: You were gone for 30 minutes! LIAR!!!!

            I believe Jesus bound Himself to our timescale on purpose, because after all, He made Himself a human and lived in our timescale.

            I suppose Jesus “lied” in Matthew 16:28 and 24:34 too, eh?

            PS: Please don’t tell me you believe the Apostle John and Cain are immortals wandering the earth and posing as Bigfoot.

            He was still God, but He was a man too. That duality was needed to pay for sins as well, on top of sinless.

            Being a man does not necessarily entail having the woodenly literalist approach to everything of Drax the Destroyer. That defect is unique to you modern-day young-earthers.

            Besides, Jesus told us to believe Moses in John 5:46-47 and—reality check—Moses gave us Exodus 20:11 which God wrote for him in stone.

            And Exodus 31:17. Why do you chuckleheads always leave out 31:17?

            Oh wait, I know why.

            If God got it wrong here as well as in Jesus, than Yahweh is not really God, is He?

            Quite right, Ambasshat. If your interpretation of Exodus 20:11 (and 31:17) is incorrect, then both the existence of God and the divinity of Christ is disproven. Your logic is undeniable.

            Having looked at your blog archives a few times, I have not seen you deal with Exodus 20:11 yet. Too hard for you? Too contrary to your “god of evolution”?

            The thoroughness and accuracy of your knowledge of my blog archives is matched only by your scriptural insights. Might I suggest you try the search function next time?

            http://www.godofevolution.com/the-strongest-biblical-evidence-for-young-earth-creationism-refuted/

            Oh, I thought your “question” was the fact neither of us believe in man being at the “beginning”, but I see you edited your post and attached a real question.

            OK, first of all? Grow up. I left the comment as is because I had to go to a rehearsal dinner. I added the question a couple hours after the original comment — well before you replied. Sorry I do not have time to spend my whole life trolling on websites where people think I’m a goofy caricature.

            You have several times demonstrated that you know what Jesus really said here and reject it.

            You are confused. It is yourself you’re thinking of.

            So, since there is no contention as to that Jesus took the 6 days literally,

            If you really believe there is no contention that your ridiculous position is incorrect, in everything it entails, you are even thicker and more ignorant than I previously thought. Which is saying a lot.

            if I did not, I would cast away His testimony, just as you have. The difference, I would realize He could not be the Savior if He lied, was mistaken, or allowed error to be believed. Simply, my answer is: no.

            Though I despise your heretical position, I must admit I appreciate your honesty.

            Translation: If your interpretation is incorrect, Jesus is a liar. You have made the truthfulness of God wholly dependent on your fallible, human ability to have understood his word 100 percent, completely accurately. Yeah, that makes perfect sense, and is not a twisted mockery of the Christian faith at all.

            You do realize that means your faith is not in Christ at all right? It means you have put your faith in yourself. Christ is just a bit player in this production. He is the secondary, inconsequential effect, and you and your faith in yourself is the First Cause.

            Honestly, I think we’re done here. You are never going to convince me that is a proper or biblical understanding of what it means to follow Jesus, and continuing our discussion only increases the chances — however slight — that you would end up abandoning your faith, and I don’t have the desire to cause anyone to do that, however fragile and misplaced that faith may be.

            Though I do want to give you one more comment, if for no other reason than that I am morbidly curious as to what scripture you rip out of context and torturously bend to make that ^^^ seem OK.

          • Well, in Luke 16:23, Jesus talked about a man dying and going to Abraham’s bosom. Well, Abraham had a bosom, right? Once again, the inerrancy of Scripture is proven against your blatant atheism.

            I have a picture of Abraham in my Bible, and guess what – he has a bosom! What, too much evidence for you?

            I’d like to quote from High Dr. Ray Browntree from the Creation Old Testament Research Institute of Science and Archaeology, “Abraham clearly did not have a bosom.”

            As you can see, it is clear Abraham had a bosom! In the Hebrew, the word for bosom is “euclidean” (Strong’s H6645), which can also mean “cattle.” Did Abraham have cattle? Of course he did! Just as the True Word said he did! How does your Buddhism deal with that?

            Here is an article on the truth behind Abraham’s bosom:

            http://geocities.realmenstruth.com/moseswrotetheot/abrahamhadabosom.htm

            It only has 117 points, so I expect a complete refutation or an admission of defeat!

          • AmbassadorHerald

            Frankly, 90% of your post is just unashamed insults, and you told Brian Forbes that he needed to grow up when he pointed this out to you. http://www.godofevolution.com/reader-testimony-i-was-in-a-cult-i-was-a-creationist/#comment-2219855038 From the way you act towards Scientific Biblicist Creationists, you’d think our belief insults you, and if so, maybe it is your faith that needs to grow some.

            I will respond to the 10% of your post which actually matters, and I will do so with the deep honest message of my heart, the core of why I do what I do. Thankfully, it is also what you requested I share. If this is to be my last comment, I couldn’t hope for better.

            THE QUESTION we must ask ourselves about Jesus The Messiah when studying The Gospels is: just what exactly is He? The answer resounds so loud and echoes across all of The Sacred Scriptures, because we know “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” Hebrews 13:8 (all KJV or YLT).

            THE ANSWER: John 14:6—Jesus saith to him, “I Am The Way, and The Truth, and The Life, no one doth come unto The Father, if not through Me;”

            Jesus is Truth, but not only truth, THE Truth. Does truth ever give place to error? Can truth lie? Can truth be deceptive? Of course not! Truth is the same as fact, and a fact is not disprovable. A fact is reality, truth is reality. Jesus is The Fact and The Reality. There is none other except Jesus. After all, what was it He said?

            John 3:12, “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of Heavenly things?”

            The earth is physical, and physical things make up what we call Science, the study of the natural world. If scientific things are not trustworthy out of Jesus Christ’s own mouth, how should we be able to trust the things which are beyond our finding out? Can we really trust in Salvation? Science can’t prove Salvation.

            Seeing as Jesus cannot lie or lose His Godhood and Messiah-ship, what He said in the below passage must be true!

            Mark 10:6-7a, “but from the beginning of the creation, a male and a female God did make them; on this account…”

            You claim, Tyler, that Jesus was speaking only theologically here. But you go much deeper than that, you call Jesus a liar without remorse. A quote of yours from 2-years ago, also provided in my answer to “Dare 10”: http://www.godofevolution.com/did-jesus-believe-in-a-six-day-creation-and-a-literal-adam/

            Speaking like a Liberal Theologian—“But let’s pretend for a moment, as the literalists will insist, that by “at the beginning,” Jesus meant the sixth day of Creation Week. If creation really took billions of years, does that mean Jesus was wrong? Yes. Sort of.

            (Quotation cont.) “YOU SEE, JESUS *WAS* WRONG, BUT ONLY BECAUSE *HIS LISTENERS* WERE WRONG. His audience believed that humans had always existed on the earth; they had no reason to think otherwise. And Jesus accommodated himself to their inaccurate views of our biological origins in order to remind them of a deeper truth: that we are made in God’s image, male and female, and that there is a grand, divine beauty in the marital bond that flippant divorce makes a mockery of.” (Emphasis original, just changed from bold to caps and italics to asterisks.)

            You can try to rationale the reason for Jesus lying all you want, you can argue it was a “white lie” all you want, the trouble is: a lie is just that, A LIE!!! When I said that you have demonstrated you know what Jesus is saying here, I was not making it up. You right there proved it, and again when you recently confirmed Jesus specified a time but you made it “God’s timescale” instead of our timescale.

            Okay, what would Jesus need to do here to be able to use the theological concept of marriage and divorce WITHOUT lying? It’s simple… not put in that phrase about “at the beginning of the creation”! If Jesus wanted to 100% stay away from indicating a time in history on our level, He merely needed to not mention a time. The theology would still work, His “deeper truth” would still have been convincing.

            The thing is, Jesus did mention a time, and He did not deceive by using God’s timescale or lie on behalf of His listeners, because this would mean He was not the perfect God-sent Savior! Our choice is FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE or don’t, there is no halfway choice.

            Now, you listed a few other Bible verses, so I will deal with those.

            Matthew 16:28, “Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see The Son of Man coming in His reign.” Parallel verses: Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27.

            Similar passage: John 21:22-23, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou Me.” Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, “He shall not die;” but, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”

            Looking at these selections of Scripture on the same topic, the second adds a large amount of detail, does it not? Jesus did not say John would not die, but merely that before he died he would “have seen” the Second Advent. Seeing we only need to study the life of John, not all 12, we have our search cut down a lot.

            So, how is Jesus literally truthful here? Easy, and you likely know the answer already. It is the one New Testament book which gives us the title and we still insist on calling it the wrong thing, though in this case it favors the truth: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” (Rev 1:1) commonly known as “The Book of Revelation by John the Apostle”. John did literally see the age when God reigns on the earth (Rev 19-21), he just did not live 2,000 physical years to do so.

            Matthew 24:34, “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Parallel verses: Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32.

            The other person you mentioned was Cain, and in the respective order of verses and people, this passage is the one which should match Cain, but it doesn’t. You lost me with that.

            However, the best explanation for this saying of Jesus is that Jesus is not speaking of the then living generation He was addressing, but still speaking of the generation to come which would see the events aforementioned. If you see one event in these chapters happen, your generation will see them all. It is a quote intended to be future, not present.

            This is supported by Luke’s other end-times chapter, Luke 17:22—And He said unto the disciples, “The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of The Son of Man, and ye shall not see it.”

            The disciples would desire Jesus to return but they would not see it in their lifetimes, except for John who saw it miraculously but was returned to his own time.

            Exodus 31:17, “It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days The LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed.”

            Just why do you think this disproves anything? Because here the 6-days are a “sign”? Well, let me tell you, it is a pretty important sign, I mean… GOD HAS STAKED HIS REPUTATION ON IT!!! The 6-days are a sign between God Himself and His Chosen People. Those who follow God are to accept the 6-days as a sign God has given to us, a sign to follow.

            To put it another way, the 6-days are NOT a sign to non-followers of God. No creation myth used 6-days, and what do secularists say today? Billions of years. This sign is rejected by enemies of God, because it is not a sign for them, but for believers! Therefore God is telling us that if you are to follow Him, you must accept the 6-days because He did it for us.

            You have failed this verse by rejecting God’s sign to you. In Exodus 20:11 God wrote it in stone with His finger, and here God establishes it as important to Him personally, and uses it to connect Himself to His followers. Yeah, you can’t follow God with all your heart and reject this.

            John 5:17—But Jesus answered them, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”

            This passage comes from the link you provided on Exodus 20:11, but you also used it with Clinton on this blogpost here: http://www.godofevolution.com/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/#comment-2111512416 And by Phil Ledgerwood to Brian Forbes: http://www.godofevolution.com/reader-testimony-i-was-in-a-cult-i-was-a-creationist/#comment-2199478696 Of course, I already answered it to him at the following link, but I will repost it here for your convenience: http://www.godofevolution.com/reader-testimony-i-was-in-a-cult-i-was-a-creationist/#comment-2201738206

            “Have you missed what the 7th-Day literally says? [Genesis 2:1-4 in KJV and YLT] God was resting from the work He had pre-prepared for doing, and no more creating was needed. The end of God’s creative work, in the sense of universal creation, still continues today.”

            To clarify, God is technically always working. We have no reason to believe He did not have His first evening stroll with Adam and Eve on Day-7, which is doing something. Also, the world did not decay because God kept it that way, supernaturally, which is work. But the creative work He restrained from doing.

            Oddly, you gave your own reconciliation for how Exodus 20:11 does not contradict Genesis 2:3, that being by showing the Hebrew words are different. Genesis 2:2-3 uses Shabbat while Exodus 20:11 uses nuwach. You then try to make the word figurative by comparing that it is usually used to describe created things, but that doesn’t mean God cannot do it based on what it means.

            Strong’s H5117: to rest, settle down, cease, be confederate, lay, let down, be quiet, remain. Several of these God can and did do. Genesis 2:1-4 says God ceased to create. God stopped commanding things into existence, which is speaking, so He went quiet. God let down the list of the work He wanted to do. Genesis 1:31 says God remained still and looked over everything He created and made a pronouncement, it was “exceeding good” (Bishop’s Bible). Exodus 20:11 is literally true.

            Now, as for Exodus 31:17, the word for rested is the same as Genesis 2:2-3, Shabbat. As for “refreshed” the word is naphash, Strong’s H5314. It means to breathe or to be breathed upon. This word is used only three times in Scripture, so is hard to determine, but still fits Genesis 1:31-2:4. God took a breath at the work He had done and felt good about it. Also, the creation God had made let out a sweet scent to Him, a breath in a figurative sense, which He enjoyed. God was refreshed.

            So as you can see, even possibly using a figurative sense, the verses are still all completely literally true. But we are to expect this, since Almighty God put His Reputation with mankind on the line, put His Law on the line, and put Jesus Christ on the line. If God fails to be God—then we have no Old Testament, if God’s Law fails—we have no standards to live by, and if Jesus Christ fails—we have no Salvation.

            This is why I am a Christian, it is the life of my faith and of The Holy Bible. Truth is truth and there is no compromise. “God is not a man—and lieth, and [neither] a son of man—and repenteth! Hath He said—and doth He not do it? And [hath He] spoken—and doth He not confirm it [and make it good]?” (Numbers 23:19 YLT with KJV).

          • Frankly, 90% of your post is just unashamed insults,

            Hey, if the shoe fits, Ambasshat.

            From the way you act towards Scientific Biblicist Creationists, you’d think our belief insults you, and if so, maybe it is your faith that needs to grow some.

            That’s cool — you added the word “biblicist” to your preferred self-descriptive term. I like it. The “ism” makes it clear that you have made a cult out of your interpretation of the Bible.

            Also, I think I have made it quite clear that what “insults” me about you and your ilk is that you construct heretical and unbiblical obstacles before the gospel of Jesus, that you say nonbelievers must accept to be saved and “properly” understand the Bible.

            I will respond to the 10% of your post which actually matters, and I will do so with the deep honest message of my heart, the core of why I do what I do. Thankfully, it is also what you requested I share. If this is to be my last comment, I couldn’t hope for better.

            Well, darned if that doesn’t just give me the warm fuzzy wuzzies.

            THE QUESTION we must ask ourselves about Jesus The Messiah when studying The Gospels is: just what exactly is He? The answer resounds so loud and echoes across all of The Sacred Scriptures, because we know “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” Hebrews 13:8 (all KJV or YLT).

            Great start. You could have also pointed that Jesus asked his disciples the same question: “But what about you? Who do you say I am?” — Mark 8:29 (NIV) Or, in the nearly incomprehensible archaic translations you prefer: “And he saith to them, ‘And ye — who do ye say me to be?'”

            THE ANSWER: John 14:6—Jesus saith to him, “I Am The Way, and The Truth, and The Life, no one doth come unto The Father, if not through Me;”

            Quite right. You could have also included Peter’s answer in the above reference — “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16) — which Christ praised as the rock upon which his church would be built.

            Jesus is Truth, but not only truth, THE Truth. Does truth ever give place to error? Can truth lie? Can truth be deceptive? Of course not! Truth is the same as fact, and a fact is not disprovable. A fact is reality, truth is reality. Jesus is The Fact and The Reality. There is none other except Jesus. After all, what was it He said?

            You know, you could probably compose comments whose word counts don’t run into the thousands if you learned that repeating yourself four or five times doesn’t make you more correct. It just makes you sound like a mental patient.

            John 3:12, “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of Heavenly things?”

            The earth is physical, and physical things make up what we call Science, the study of the natural world. If scientific things are not trustworthy out of Jesus Christ’s own mouth, how should we be able to trust the things which are beyond our finding out? Can we really trust in Salvation? Science can’t prove Salvation.

            Maybe someday you and your friends will wake up to the conviction that your mindless and relentless proof-texting of scripture, regardless of context, does as much damage to the Bible as ripping off a person’s arm, using it to accomplish some menial task, and then offering to give it back to them.

            Let’s look at the context of John 3:12, shall we? What are the “earthly things” Christ is referencing? Of course, he is talking with Nicodemus about being born again, of the Spirit, which — though it happens in this life, and is therefore an “earthly thing” — is entirely a spiritual experience.

            When I was born again on Oct. 20, 2006, there was no physical, material or natural change that a doctor or scientist could have noted if they had examined me on Oct. 19 and again on Oct. 21. And yet, everything had changed, and I was completely new person.

            If anything, this passage shows the limits of science, and the vast superiority of the things of the Spirit and the supernatural things of God, but your destructive, ham-fisted hermeneutic forces you to see it as teaching that Jesus’ words are to be interpreted literally and then judged for accuracy against the findings of 21st century science.

            As Phil said, I guess I can only thank God that the church finally appears to be waking up to the terrible consequences of your snake oil. I only wish we didn’t have to lose so many young believers in the process.

            You can try to rationale the reason for Jesus lying all you want, you can argue it was a “white lie” all you want, the trouble is: a lie is just that, A LIE!!! When I said that you have demonstrated you know what Jesus is saying here, I was not making it up. You right there proved it, and again when you recently confirmed Jesus specified a time but you made it “God’s timescale” instead of our timescale.

            Again, you are quite right, as always, Ambasshat. Christ’s accommodation of the views of the day, when he knew better, was a lie, just as it was a lie when he took on the language and customs of the day when he was capable of using telepathic angelic speech that no human brain could comprehend. And just as it was also a lie when he was born as a human, when he was, in fact, the immaterial and transcendent God.

            Okay, what would Jesus need to do here to be able to use the theological concept of marriage and divorce WITHOUT lying? It’s simple… not put in that phrase about “at the beginning of the creation”! If Jesus wanted to 100% stay away from indicating a time in history on our level, He merely needed to not mention a time. The theology would still work, His “deeper truth” would still have been convincing.

            As much as I’m sure Jesus appreciates your helpful suggestions, he doesn’t need to change a thing. His statement is not “lying,” as is. All he really needs is for those who claim to follow him to have a brain capacity slightly greater than Amelia Bedelia’s (http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/catsandogs_9863_6832.png).

            Exodus 31:17, “It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days The LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed.”

            Just why do you think this disproves anything? Because here the 6-days are a “sign”? Well, let me tell you, it is a pretty important sign, I mean… GOD HAS STAKED HIS REPUTATION ON IT!!! The 6-days are a sign between God Himself and His Chosen People. Those who follow God are to accept the 6-days as a sign God has given to us, a sign to follow.

            Ooh, yes, you should definitely use caps-lock and multiple explanation marks more often. It really fits in with the whole crazed-extremist vibe you put off. I’m digging it.

            But it is just perfect that you have to ask, because it only further demonstrates how little regard you have for God, and how small your view of him really is.

            The issue with the literal interpretation of both Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 is that God did not literally “rest.” Even Jesus said as much in his response to Pharisees who were criticizing him for working on the Sabbath (based on the identical — and incorrect — interpretation of these passages that you share with them: “In his defense Jesus said to them, ‘My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.'” — John 5:17 (NIV).

            The statement that God “rested” — and the implication that God needs rest — obviously cannot be literal. Young-earthers try to skate out of this by saying the Hebrew word simply means “a stopping or cessation,” which you can do with Exodus 20:11, but not in 31:17, since it contains the additional phrase “and was refreshed.”

            This is why you chuckleheads never bring up Exodux 31:17: Because it is irrefutable that the second part of the passage is not literal, which makes it nonsensical for you to argue that, nevertheless, the first part of the verse cannot be anything but literal.

            To put it another way, the 6-days are NOT a sign to non-followers of God. No creation myth used 6-days, and what do secularists say today? Billions of years. This sign is rejected by enemies of God, because it is not a sign for them, but for believers! Therefore God is telling us that if you are to follow Him, you must accept the 6-days because He did it for us.

            Oh, and just to be clear, your bizarre claim that a literal view of the six-day creation account is “the sign” Exodus 31:17 references is more hilariously heretical proof-texting. It is not strict young-earth creationism that is “the sign” between God and his people, it is the keeping and honoring of the Sabbath.

            Here is the verse in context (remember context? It’s that thing that you hate): “The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever…”

            Oddly, you gave your own reconciliation for how Exodus 20:11 does not contradict Genesis 2:3, that being by showing the Hebrew words are different. Genesis 2:2-3 uses Shabbat while Exodus 20:11 uses nuwach. You then try to make the word figurative by comparing that it is usually used to describe created things, but that doesn’t mean God cannot do it based on what it means.

            Why would I think Exodus 20:11 contradicts Genesis 2:3? A theologically based moral command cannot contradict a symbolic story. That would be like saying Christ’s exhortation to “be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” contradicts his parable of the Good Samaritan.

            Strong’s H5117: to rest, settle down, cease, be confederate, lay, let down, be quiet, remain. Several of these God can and did do. Genesis 2:1-4 says God ceased to create. God stopped commanding things into existence, which is speaking, so He went quiet. God let down the list of the work He wanted to do. Genesis 1:31 says God remained still and looked over everything He created and made a pronouncement, it was “exceeding good” (Bishop’s Bible). Exodus 20:11 is literally true.

            This paragraph is like watching a cheesy staged wrestling match, where the two sides grapple with each other, and then one suddenly falls to the ground for no apparent reason, and the other declares victory. You have not explained why the vastly preferred and primary translation of the passage (even by your beloved YLT) — “rest” — is incorrect, nor have you dealt with the fact that “rest” has always been the traditional understanding of the passage. You have done nothing but say, “Hey, look: Here are some alternative translations of the word, and these could work, too,” then declared, on that inexplicable basis, “Exodus 20:11 is literally true.”

            Seriously, have you ever considered joining the staging team for WWE? You could make a mint.

            ow, as for Exodus 31:17, the word for rested is the same as Genesis 2:2-3, Shabbat. As for “refreshed” the word is naphash, Strong’s H5314. It means to breathe or to be breathed upon. This word is used only three times in Scripture, so is hard to determine,

            Well, it certainly is “hard to determine” if you ignore the three other contexts in which the word is used, which is exclusively that of weary people (and animals) resting and being refreshed.

            but still fits Genesis 1:31-2:4. God took a breath at the work He had done and felt good about it. Also, the creation God had made let out a sweet scent to Him, a breath in a figurative sense, which He enjoyed. God was refreshed.

            Yeah, your hermeneutic has a certain “scent” about it, too, but it ain’t sweet.

            So as you can see, even possibly using a figurative sense, the verses are still all completely literally true.

            And…facedesk.

            If God fails to be God—then we have no Old Testament, if God’s Law fails—we have no standards to live by, and if Jesus Christ fails—we have no Salvation.

            That “If,” you see, that’s your fatal flaw. Well, one of them anyway. Fact is, God cannot “fail to be God.” He is what he is. There is no “if.” The fact that you can even formulate a sentence like this shows how twisted and unbiblical your view of God is from the start, and proves that your “god” (little g) is one of your own devising, whose existence depends entirely upon your literal(-ish) interpretation of Genesis being correct.

            This [^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^] is why I am a Christian, it is the life of my faith and of The Holy Bible.

            Yeah, no kidding.

            In conclusion, you upvoted your own comment. I refer you here: http://img.memecdn.com/forever-alone_o_478711.gif.

  • genwheeler

    What I find interesting and somewhat sad about this is that when people do respond with a cogent argument you basically dismiss it out of hand, not to mention the snarkiness and derision you employ at times. You treat fellow believers with a distinct lack of respect. No matter what side of the argument we fall we should operate from a platform of respect and congeniality. There have been some pretty good answers here that actually respond to the basic premise of your argument. To reverse this I can easily come up with quite a number of problems with evolution that are unanswerable, particularly from the standpoint of a geneticist. It’s not hard to do at all. Your questions are answerable, but I’m not sure it’s worth the time because you have made up your mind and reject any answer you disagree with. I’ll give you one though off the top of my head — #6. The Hebrew used in Genesis 2:17 is an idiomatic expression better translated as to die shall you be dying. Hebrew does not lend itself to be always easily translated to either Greek or English. A better translation would be “Yet from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you are not to be eating from it, for in the day you eat from it, to die shall you be dying.” Learning Hebrew might be helpful. Peace.

    • I have actually learned Hebrew from a rabbi, and that translation makes no sense.

      • AmbassadorHerald

        Well, Robert Young’s Literal 1863 Translation disagrees with your knowledge of Hebrew, and Young did an entire Hebrew and Greek Concordance. Here is what his translation says:

        Genesis 2:17, “and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it—dying thou dost die.’ ”

        The 1611 KJV’s Marginal Notes provide detail into what the Hebrew literally says, and they agree. Here is how the verse would read integrating their footnotes in:

        Genesis 2:17, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof dying thou shalt die.”

        So your knowledge of Hebrew could be lacking.

        • No, I think the issue is probably your sources and the texts they had access to.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            Right now, this comes down to: you who learned to read Hebrew versus 52 of the best Bible scholars of the day for the KJV and one of the best Hebrew and Greek language scholars of history in Robert Young. The vote is very much not in your favor, so, I propose you provide real evidence and not just an assertion.

          • Um, no, lots and lots of translators have not translated the phrase that way. It’s not like I’m standing against the entirety of Hebrew scholarship.

            Robert Young failed to get a Hebrew professorship three times, and the fact that his translation is called “The Literal Translation” shows that he didn’t know much about translating.

            The 1611 KJV uses texts that have long since been proven to not be the best texts. That, and they were translating in 1611.

            Your best Bible scholars are actually pretty terrible. Why do you think no modern translation translates the phrase that way? Do you think our knowledge of Hebrew has lessened since 1611 or the 1800s?

          • AmbassadorHerald

            That’s pretty much what I expected, because not even Tyler Francke could provide any evidence against this translation. Question though, if you can read the Hebrew, what is the actual Hebrew word lineup for “surely die”? And based on what it actually is, how would you translate it?

          • You mean no evidence but that your sources are not credible and no modern translator translates the phrase that way? Good lord, man, what would count as evidence to you?

            The Hebrew root for “surely die” is muth. It is well attested throughout the Old Testament and is also used to denote dying as a penalty and/or dying as dished out by God.

            The word in Gen. 3:3 is “temutun,” which means “you will die.” It appears in precisely the same form as Psalm 82:7 and Isaiah 22:14, neither of which indicate spiritual death or the status of dying, but rather actually dying.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            Firstly—that modern translations and even older ones do not often translate Genesis 2:17 this way, I was trying to lead you to point something out which you only vaguely referenced.

            Secondly—what I wanted you to point out is that the Hebrew says “muth muth”, which you alluded to by saying the “root” word. “Muth muth” is hard to translate because it is not proper English to say “you will die die”. Several translations say “die the/by death” as a result. However, this same construct is repeated in 1 Kings 2:37 (KJV), “For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die [muth muth]: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.” But here again it does not mean immediate death, just as Genesis 2:17 did not. It means you will “surely die” but not at the instant of the act described.

            Thirdly—it may be that the below three passages all use the same “temutun” phrase, but notice they all carry a future tense to them, not an immediate tense.

            Genesis 3:3 (KJV) But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
            Genesis 3:3 (YLT) and of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden God hath said, Ye do not eat of it, nor touch it, lest ye die.’

            Psalm 82:7 (KJV) But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
            Psalm 82:7 (YLT) But as man ye die, and as one of the heads ye fall,

            Isaiah 22:14 (KJV) And it was revealed in mine ears by the LORD of hosts, Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord GOD of hosts.
            Isaiah 22:14 (YLT) And revealed it hath been in mine ears, By Jehovah of Hosts: Not pardoned is this iniquity to you, Till ye die, said the Lord, Jehovah of Hosts.

            God was not saying an instantaneous death as people like to mockingly claim.

          • It does not say “muth muth.” It says “temutun.” I don’t know who told “you that, but it is incorrect. 1 Kings 2:37 also does not say “muth muth” and uses a different construction than Genesis 3:3. It says “tamut mowt.” “It is certain you will die,” which is the same construction used in Gen. 2:17. In fact, in your 1 Kings reference, it also adds the phrase “ki teda” meaning “for certain.” This phrase is absent from Genesis 2:17, which is fine, because it just underscores the certainty.

            In neither case is the phrase used to mean “state of dying.” It means that you will certainly die. The emphasis is on the certainty of the event, and of course it’s in the future because the precipitating events have not happened yet. It doesn’t mean, “When X happens, you’ll enter a state of dying and will certainly die at some indefinite point in the future.” It is connected directly to the precipitating event.

            I’m not making this up. I’m looking straight at the Hebrew right this second. There is no “muth muth.” Sounds like you got bit by an exegetical urban legend.

            What -could- be confusing you or whoever told you this is, in interlinears, they will often break up the phrase “you shall surely die” and tie both to the root”muth,” so you’ll even sometimes see it listed in an interlinear breakdown as “muth muth,” but it’s not in the Masoretic text that way; that’s just the way interlinears link up both phrases to the same word and they also use the Hebrew root instead of the actual word.

            Just for kicks, I looked up 2:17 in the Septuagint since they often had access to better texts than the Hebrew Bible, and it uses the Semitic idiom “thanato apothaneisthe.” Literally, “You will die dead.” In this case, the emphasis is more on the fact that you will, genuinely, be honestly and sincerely dead, and not just sort of dead or what have you.

            And here’s a list of comparative translations of 2:17:

            http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-17.htm

            You’ll notice NONE of them translate the phrase “dying you shall die” except Young.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            I am using James Strong’s 1890 Concordance, to be clear here. He may not be the most detail dictionary out there but very rarely do others contradict what he says, but merely delve deeper. As is the case here, as it would appear. Which Hebrew text are you looking at, so I can know? Is it the Masoretic?

            The question I’d like to emphasize, though, is: why did Shimei not die the instant he crossed the Kidron? In fact, why did he not die even the day he crossed? The Companion Bible Notes say Gath was sixty-four miles away from Jerusalem, which is more than one day’s journey even in the one-way, we are talking round-trip here. Seeing as God was a part of both promises—to Adam and Shimei—did God lie both times?

          • Well, God didn’t tell Shimei he would kill him; the king did. Solomon allowed Shimei to live three more years before killing him. The text says all this, so I’m not sure where the ambiguity is. I guess if God had threatened Shimei and then allowed him to die a natural death of old age or what have you, you might have something.

            Strong’s lists the text as “muth muth” for exactly the reasons I cited above. Strong’s is listing the Hebrew root word, not the actual word, and it ties both phrases to “muth,” listing the word for each phrase and could give the impression that there are two “muths” in the text. There aren’t, though, that’s just the way Strong’s breaks out the sentence diagramming, and yes, I was using the Masoretic.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            Good, I’m glad you’re using the Masoretic, it’s the God-preserved text. But the KJV and Young both used that one, same as you, so how can you blame the manuscripts they had? They had what you have. And you have attacked Young’s character, but have not demonstrated he did not know his Hebrew or Greek. If his definitions are wrong, it should be easy to reveal.

            And it is true God did not say Shimei would die, but He was a part of the promise, which is what I said. Solomon said in 1 Kings 2:42, “Did I not make thee to swear by Yahweh?” If such a deed was agreed to in God’s name, God holds you accountable for bringing Him into it. God doesn’t get upset with Solomon, so God saw that the agreement was upheld. If it was not honored, God had every reason to get upset.

            And you did not even touch on God’s direct promise to Adam. Did God lie? Is there not even a chance that the phrase you are looking at could mean a death that would not need to be immediate?

            I do want to note and thank you for your interactions with me. Up till now no one had ever even attempted to show from the Hebrew that “dying thou shalt/dost die” is wrong. They would merely make the accusation we YECs are pulling at strings and never give evidence to support it. You have at least provided evidence and it seems I need a more in-depth lexicon than Strong’s.

          • I don’t think I’ve attacked Young’s character (and if I did, I apologize), but rather his competence as a translator. When virtually every other scholar translates things differently, and when you claim your translation is a “literal” one, that does not bode well for your abilities as a translator. Maybe he’s awesome and just had a few blind spots here and there; I don’t know. I -do- know, having translated biblical texts myself, that it is not a straightforward process, and I have no idea how someone could claim their translation was “literal.”

            I feel like you’re stretching on the Shimei thing. Obviously, swearing to Yahweh was not to obligate Yahweh to kill Shimei, but to seal Solomon’s commitment to do so.

            Of course there’s a chance that the threat to Adam means a natural death at some point in the indefinite future. I couldn’t fill a thimble with the things I’m 100%, rock-solid sure about when it comes to exegesis. We all just have to decide what is the most probable. I think what is most probable is that we are seeing proto-history from Israel’s point of view – the elect of God who have been exiled from their land and shattered as a nation. Adam’s story is their story. So, I see the “death” as being prototypical of Israel’s own exile and destruction as a nation. It relates to mankind in general in the sense that death is now the final, ultimate oppressor and exiler of God’s people. That’s why it’s the final enemy the Messiah has to destroy in his kingdom.

            It -could- be an explanation of why people die, sure; I just don’t find that to be the most likely and, once again in my opinion, sort of makes Genesis 2 and 3 sound more like the “Why It Snows in the Winter” types of myths. Obviously, people disagree, and that’s fine. It’s just not as clear cut as people make it out to be.

            I think your concordance is fine. I use Strong’s, myself. Just keep in mind the way it’s structured. It does not give you direct access to the text. It’s a help, but it’s more like a map than the territory. All concordances are like that.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            The most pointed attack at Young’s character was when you said, “Robert Young failed to get a Hebrew professorship three times”. This may be the case, I don’t know, but there are many reasons to be turned down for a position in academic circles, only one of which is poor knowledge of the topic. His competitors may have had connections he didn’t and got the job due to those connections. Maybe they just knew the languages better, but not that he was bad at them. Or maybe there was a separate issue they did not agree with him about, such as his stance on a Biblical Topic that they thought was wrong, so he was rejected on a basis other than Hebrew and Greek. Do you know what the reasons were?

            The second most pointed attack was restated above, “and the fact that his translation is called “The Literal Translation” shows that he didn’t know much about translating”. Does it really? Have you read what Young wrote at the beginning of his translation?

            1863—“Not to be considered as intended to come into competition with the ordinary use of the commonly received English Version of the Holy Scriptures, but simply as a strictly literal and idiomatic rendering of the Original Hebrew and Greek Texts.”

            The common English version to which he speaks is the KJV. Not many other translations were in existence yet, and the KJV was still more used than the others. In a world where there is not many versions of The Bible, saying yours is Literal is not a bad thing, especially when the very core of what he was doing was to keep the original word order and meanings intact in the English. No other translation before or since has tried so hard to not add or rearrange words in the English to assist us in understanding them, due to grammar differences. Even today he stands as the only Literal translation, so don’t quibble when it is an accurate title. I’m sure you’d find it to be so 90% of the time.

            Apology accept!

            Again, I did not say God had to kill Shimei, I said God had right to be angry with Solomon if Solomon did not literally fulfill “the oath of Yahweh” (v43). God made no indication that Solomon did not honor the agreement made in His name. If I were watching a transaction and someone made an agreement in my name, putting my own name on the line, I’d be upset if the agreement was broken. So, God was very much involved and stayed in the background, so the agreement was kept and to the letter.

            As for your “proto-history” statement, I think you’re missing what the Hebrew actually says. You know it is intended to be real history, and you know Adam wrote his own history down in Genesis 5:1. But I also gather that you do not believe in God being the overseer of The Holy Bible, or even the Torah/Pentateuch. Why would that be?

            Oh, I intend to keep using Strong’s, but I now see that if I meet a person who actually has language skills deeper than Strong’s, then I’ll need to go deeper too in order to properly discuss.

          • Well, my main quarrel with calling a translation “literal” is that is not a good translation decision. Preserving word order and and the like can often obscure or even change the meaning of a text. I remember translating the Attic Greek phrase “go to the crows” and struggling whether to render it “literally” (although, even then, I had to change the word order), even though this was an Attic idiom and not meant to be interpreted as a command to go to some crows.

            So, really, my problem is that a translation that strives to change as little as possible is probably not a good translation. It’s actually why I stopped using the New American Standard – the commitment to literalism made for some questionable translations.

            Solomon did kill Shimei. Once again, I’m not sure precisely the point you’re trying to make, here. Is it that Solomon didn’t kill him immediately? That would have been literally impossible.

            I think Genesis is intended to be history in the way the ancient near eastern peoples expected it to be history, which is not the same as our modern definitions of history. Those are two, different categories and where most of the modern mistakes are made. I do not think Adam wrote Genesis 5:1 and find such a hypothesis very unlikely.

            I do believe that the Bible is inspired by God and is the Bible He intends for us to have. However, the actual writers are writing things according to their own reception and understanding. God did not take control of their bodies, nor did He dictate to them. The various books of the Bible record the journey of God and His people together at that point in history as understood by the people producing the account, collated into small collections over time, then larger collections until a canonical collection was determined in the late fourth century.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            Did you miss that Young said he was not trying to replace the KJV with his translation, but supplement it? He expected you’d use the KJV as your base but be able to use his to help look at how the Hebrew and Greek literally said it, that way you’d see how we in English would say it and how it was before in English. I think he would agree with you that to get the full understanding of the text you need a good English translation, but he wanted to help us out in a way never before done and no one has done since. This can be helpful, don’t you think?

            You’re right, Solomon couldn’t have, but he still used a similar phrase that God did to Adam.

            On what do you base your rejection of Adam being able to write? It certainly can’t be on Genesis 5:1.

            And just why do you not think God could be sure The Holy Bible was 100% accurate from beginning to end? Why would God allow His Chosen People believe a lie about history? You’re making God a deceiver.

          • I don’t find a lot of value in an English translation that preserves word order, etc., no. The whole enterprise of translating is to communicate meaning into another language. If you want to get the original sense, then you go to the original language. I can’t imagine what additional meaning I’d get from an English version of the literal Hebrew syntax, but that’s just me. Maybe someone else would find a use for that.

            I think we’ve probably exhausted the Shimei line of reasoning. It seems to me like your argument is a very tenuous stretch.

            I don’t know if the Adam described in Genesis was able to write or not, although his ability to write in Hebrew would be remarkable. I don’t think Adam wrote Genesis 5:1 mostly because there is no reason to believe that. I don’t think Cain or Abraham or Tamar wrote Genesis 5:1, either. There’s just no reason why that would need to be the case.

            It’s interesting you accuse me of making God a deceiver when your position would make God creating a world that, by all empirical accounts, would seem to be immensely old while -actually- only being 6-10k years old. But nevertheless, of course God would be capable of producing scientifically accurate works, but that’s not what He did with the Bible. I don’t come to the Bible with pre-existing requirements for what it has to be. I look at what God has given us and receive it for what it is, and what he has given us is a collection of books that are not scientifically accurate.

            If I write a letter to my wife and say, “I thought of you as I watched the sun set,” that is not scientifically accurate. The sun does not set. The Earth rotates and the area I’m standing on turns away from the sun. But that’s not the point of my sentence. My sentence is 100% truthful even though it is not scientifically accurate. Making statements about how planets and stars work isn’t even on the radar of what I’m trying to communicate, and if someone said I was a “deceiver” because I said the sun set, I would say they were a moron.

            In addition, you can’t read the Bible as a 21st century westerner. You have to understand it on its own terms as a product in history of its own world and culture. The way they recorded history is significantly different from the way we’ve recorded history in the West for the past few centuries. And they have no problem with that. Even rabbis don’t interpret Genesis as a strictly literal, historiographical account.

    • What I find interesting and somewhat sad about this is that when people do respond with a cogent argument you basically dismiss it out of hand, not to mention the snarkiness and derision you employ at times.

      You know, I’m getting pretty tired of this. I have never “dismissed” an answer “out of hand.” When I thought the answers were good, I said so, but that doesn’t mean I ultimately agreed with it or even thought it was valid. If I have rejected answers, I have thoroughly explained why I believe they do not address the question or the core issues presented.

      I am perfectly within my rights to respond to comments on my own writing. Providing my honest opinions does not make me some sort of dictator. It makes me someone who has some familiarity and expertise in what I’m talking about, and who is not willing to let those whom I believe are misrepresenting scripture off the hook simply because they have made some superficial show of “answering” my questions.

      You treat fellow believers with a distinct lack of respect.

      And they treat me like an idiot or an atheist. Or both. So I guess we’re even.

      To reverse this I can easily come up with quite a number of problems with evolution that are unanswerable, particularly from the standpoint of a geneticist. It’s not hard to do at all.

      Apples and oranges. Your point may be true, but that’s because evolution, like all science, is an incomplete revelation. The process of acquiring knowledge and filling in the gaps of our understanding is continuous and ongoing, but far from finished. So it’s not surprising that there would be questions we can’t answer (yet). That doesn’t make evolution wrong, it makes it science.

      Theology is different. In this case, we are dealing with a complete revelation. Though it is true that we could never in our human understanding, fully comprehend God, the Bible is nevertheless complete and contains all that we “need” to understand. It should therefore be possible to develop a comprehensive, systematic theology, which makes sense of scripture without absurd contradictions or gaping holes in one’s interpretation.

      The Hebrew used in Genesis 2:17 is an idiomatic expression better translated as to die shall you be dying. Hebrew does not lend itself to be always easily translated to either Greek or English. A better translation would be “Yet from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you are not to be eating from it, for in the day you eat from it, to die shall you be dying.” Learning Hebrew might be helpful.

      Phil Ledgerwood has quite comprehensively obliterated this ridiculous and baseless argument below. I will simply point out, as he did, that there is not a single modern translation that looks anything like the “better” rendering you have suggested.

      So, we either have a case in which a slew of professional, expert translators, working independently, have all failed at producing the correct translation. OR the translation that you have suggested is not actually better at all, you only think it’s better because it fits what you have already presupposed to be true.

    • Spartan093

      Thank you for “dying you shall die”. We need to hear some true Hebrew scholarship around here.

      • Yeah, when I saw that he translated the Hebrew that way, I also thought we could use some true Hebrew scholarship around here. That translation is inaccurate.

        • AmbassadorHerald

          I no longer have any reason to believe your opinion on this matter. You couldn’t even refute my personal Hebrew study in response to Tyler’s Dare #8, which should be much simpler for a person with the claims you put forth.

          Also, for someone who says they have no time for doing these comment discussions, you sure put your nose into everything.

          • Says the man who trolls articles on blogs he knows disagree with him.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            I guess I might be considered a troll by this definition: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll But really, someone has to be on the front lines. Tyler is who called attention to himself.

            As for the Hebrew, I highly doubt you have any evidence whatsoever to disprove what I pieced together. If you wish to try to deal with it, the posts are still waiting without contention on this blog.

          • Well, yeah, I dropped it because you said several times you weren’t going to respond to anything further I had to say about it and that I had “already lost” because the opportunity had passed. Are you inviting me to pick it back up? Will you interact with it?

          • AmbassadorHerald

            Only if you do it on the posts themselves, because in external conversations you just rather pretend it isn’t there. I wanted Tyler to go through everything and he chickened out as the evidence thickened.

          • Ok, unless you’ve got a link handy, I’ll go back and find it and tell you why your construction is unlikely. It might be worthwhile, because I saw the exact same thing almost word for word on some other website, so it might be another one of those YEC urban legends making the rounds. Or it was your website.

          • Ha! Yes, there is definitely something laid on “thick” in most of your comments, but I’m pretty sure it’s not evidence. If it is evidence, then there’s also a whole lot of “evidence” piling up out in the barn.

          • “I wanted Tyler to go through everything and he chickened out as the evidence thickened.”

            Translation: Tyler got more and more fatigued the more wingnut conspiracy-theory toothless fundamentalist BS websites I linked to.

  • Nelson Banuchi

    I don’t get it. What’s so hard about answering Q1?

    First, I do not hold young-creationist views. I believe dinosaurs existed (merely from bias; I love dinosaurs) but I do not believe in evolution, namely, that we come from apes. I think it very possible that the earth can be some millions of years old and I do not think the days in Genesis necessarily refer to a 24 hour period. Nevertheless, I do not believe that God created man by Darwin’s or some like evolutionary process or any process that states we came from apes.

    I believe the creation account as recorded in Scripture is historical, not a fancy or a metaphor for divine creation.

    The Bible does not actually state why God created not only the “tree of life” but also the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Doesn’t even state what God created man in the first place. However, to the limit of what is revealed, I have no problems.

    The tree of life was apparently for the purpose of sustaining man’s physically mortal life indefinitely (Gen 3:22). There is no indication (a) that man was created with physical immortality, however, (b) man’s spirit was created intrinsically immortal and did not require nourishment from the tree of life.

    That is, God created the spirit of man as immortal and housed it in a mortal container, which because of it’s mortal condition as created, was dependent upon the tree of life for it’s permanence. Therefore, the purpose of the “tree of life” was to maintain indefinitely the physical life, which outwardly expressed the immortal life of the spirit, while the spirit of a man was created to live eternally.

    I do not know who your objectors are who explain that man was created immortal but they are correct insofar as the spirit is concerned but incorrect if they include the physical part of man’s being.

    Where is the tree of life now? Bible does not say, therefore, the question is irrelevant and open to mere conjecture if an answer is insisted.

    But to answer your question, conjecturally, whether or not the “tree of life” can be destroyed, you seem to suggest that because it is called the “tree of life,” it’s properties are eternal. That it is a tree that nourishes indefinitely those who eat from it does not mean it cannot be destroyed by outside forces or even by losing nourishment from the ground upon which all plant life depends. That it is a “tree of life” means that it grants life to those who eat of its fruit; it does not necessarily mean it can never be destroyed.

    If I have time, I will try and answer your other nine (somewhat silly) questions.

    Just one thing, assuming there are no answers to the questions you pose, how does that strengthen your evolutionary stance (which by the way, I should read up on exactly what it is you believe concerning “divine evolution”)

    • Where does it say in Genesis that Adam was created with an immortal soul?

      Also, evolution does not say we came from apes. How can you so stridently reject something you don’t understand?

      • Nelson Banuchi

        Your right, Phil, I’m not really up on the ida of evolution. As I understand (just now having checked it out), humans did not evolve from apes but from a common ancestor to both. But, I must ask, what was that “ancestor”? Has it been discovered? Or it is a theory? Conjecture?

        In any case, I apologize for the ignorance expressed on my part but my real concern was to specifically provide an answer to Q1 and not actually or directly rebut evolutionary theories, divine or otherwise. Thanks for the correction!

        As far as Adam being created as an immortal soul, I think the fact that God warned that in the same day he disobeyed by taking from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would die. As it seems he did not die physically, it seems apparent that his experience of death was spiritual, which is essentially, separation from God not cessation of existence.

        Does that help?

        • There have certainly been many fossils discovered of beings who seem to exhibit characteristics that are proto-human and shared with other primates, not to mention the extremely high DNA similarities. I’d say it isn’t conjecture.

          These are phenomena we observe for a great many species. I’m ok saying it’s a “theory” if we mean it in the same sense as “atomic theory” and in the sense of a hypothesis without supporting data.

          If the “death” threatened in Genesis is spiritual exile, why does that require an immortal soul?

          • Nelson Banuchi

            Phil, of course, I’m not a scientist and as admitted, not up with evolution; however, can the similarities in DNA posit, not necessarily evolution but only that there is a common Creator (which would not exclude the Genesis narrative as a viable historical account of creation that may dismiss views of evolution)?

            That you accept the term “theory” for evolution, is that an admission that evolution is not without a doubt or that the evidence the far is not conclusive as to be certain?

            The “death” threatened is not the cessation of the spiritual life or it’s being annihilated to a state of non-existence, but existence and life outside of God’s presence.

            The Bible depicts the essence of human existence as created to last forever:
            – “…and the dust (i.e. the flesh) shall return to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it [life]” (Ecclesiastes 12:7).

            Apparently, God made mankind with immortal souls/spirits and where we live out our eternal existence, whether in or outside the Presence of God, is left up to us to decide.

            Does that answer your question?

          • I can think of very little that is absolutely certain. Evolution is at least as certain as other scientific explanations that we accept without batting an eye, like atoms or gravity.

            The verse you quoted is from Ecclesiastes, which is an author’s semi-poetic reflection on life and what his work and riches have gotten him. You can’t build a theology of immortality from Ecclesiastes anymore than you can use it to prove that life is meaningless, which is also in Ecclesiastes, or that the same destiny takes both the righteous and the wicked.

            I honestly can’t think of a single text that establishes that the soul is by nature, immortal. That seems more like a product of Greek philosophy to me.

          • Nelson Banuchi

            Hi Phil, two things:

            1. If you read my initial comment I had posted a correction on the bottom of it because Tyler’s position that the First Parents had not yet eaten of the tree before that had sinned; I was wrong.

            2. Priorities and time have greatly limited me from getting into this discussion further discussion. Just let me say that I believe there are many texts that establish human spirit’s immortality as created by God, although I do agree that, considering the genre of Eccl, it is wrong to attempt building a theology from it alone.

            Maybe I will come at the furture leisure time and post some more stuff. It is quite interesting that there are Christians who believe in evolution; so, one day, I do need to catch up on it more thoroughly.

          • Sure. And just for the record, it doesn’t bother me at all that you take a different tack. My concern is more that the body of Christ recognizes that accepting evolution as an explanation for the data does not mean rejecting the Bible or biblical authority.

          • Nelson Banuchi

            Hi, Phil. Just for the record, it never came to mind that those who accepted evolution as a viable explanation of Creation rejected either the Lord Jesus as Savior or the Bible as authority for life, values, and belief.

    • Hey Nelson, I’m having a bit of a hard time following your question. But as far as I can tell, we don’t really seem to differ that much in our interpretation. The issue presented in question 1 is not so much the purpose of the tree of life (the purpose is made quite clear in the text), but rather, how that purpose so obviously conflicts with YEC theology, which does indeed hold that man, like all other living things, was originally created immortal, both spiritually and physically. Their contention is that death in all in its forms occurred only after, and as a direct consequence of, Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden.

      Obviously, the notion that every living thing was originally immortal raises the question of why God would make a tree that grants immortality. Seems rather pointless. And then, after man sinned and supposedly “became” mortal, God prohibits the use of the tree and even posts a guard. So why make it in the first place?

      I do think this was all pretty clear in the original, but I’m sorry if I confused you.

      • Nelson Banuchi

        Tyler, thanks for commenting. I apologize if I’m not clear; just goes to show I’m not that swift when it comes to this subject. As someone said to me many years ago, “If you can’t clearly explain what you mean, perhaps it’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

        Let me try to clarify and redeem myself as one who knows what he’s talking about.

        My point was that, unlike YEC, although I believe man was created with and immortal spirit, his physical self was not created with immortality.

        As I stated in my initial comment: “The tree of life was apparently for the purpose of sustaining man’s physically mortal life indefinitely (Gen 3:22). There is no indication (a) that man was created with physical immortality, however, (b) man’s spirit was created intrinsically immortal and did not require nourishment from the tree of life.

        “That is, God created the spirit of man as immortal and housed it in a mortal container, which because of it’s mortal condition as created, was dependent upon the tree of life for it’s permanence. Therefore, the purpose of the ‘tree of life’ was to maintain indefinitely the physical life, which outwardly expressed the immortal life of the spirit, while the spirit of a man was created to live eternally.”

        I concluded that Adam’s “spirit was created everlasting but died, (being separated from the Presence) while yet in an immortal state” of being.

        Let me just add that it seems too me that man’s physical self was mortal not because of sin but because the body required the nourishment provided in the trees and plants for its continuance. Apparently, there was the possibility it could grow weak and die (?) or, at least, become an inappropriate and unusable housing for the man’s immortal spirit.

        Of course, this is all conjecture, however, I think it possible that if our First Parents remained obedient to God, he would have either transformed the bodies created into new and immortal bodies or have us put off the originally created mortal bodies and create new bodies that would be intrinsically immortal for us to put on.

        Is that more clear? Make sense? Your thoughts?

        Anyway, what threw me off thinking my theory may be all wrong was the fact that you seem to suggest that, supported by the text you cited, man was not originally created with an immortal body or spirit. So, I tried, in my edited portion of the initial comment, to take what seemed to be your view into account.

        • Hey Nelson, thanks for clarifying. I do think my thoughts are largely in line with yours. I do believe humans were not originally created with immortal bodies, as you do. My one quibble with your thinking here is that I do not believe the plainest reading of the text would support the idea that the immortality granted by the tree is something that would require repeated eating from the fruit (like, for example, the elixir of life in the “Harry Potter” series).

          Instead, the text seems to rather strongly imply that it’s a one-time deal: “Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—'” (Gen. 3:22 ESV). It says “take … eat, and live forever,” not “take, eat, and live for a while, before he would have to eat again.”

          I do also believe that our spiritual natures, which are that part of us that is made in the image of the everlasting God, can live forever. But they also can die, when, through sin, they are separated from the source of our spiritual life, which is God. I am not entirely convinced that our souls could or would live forever in a spiritually dead state, and even Jesus seemed to imply that the “destruction” of the soul is possible (Matt. 10:28, Luke 12:5).

  • Laura Hamm

    I just stumbled upon this article and find it to be quite thought-provoking, and says a lot of the same, unanswerable problems I have had with the YEC model since I discovered the crux of their entire argument was that nothing ever died before Adam sinned. Or put another way, God created everything, then man (or Satan, or obviously somebody OTHER than God the Father through Jesus Christ) created disease, death, etc. (still haven’t been told how that ideal jives with John 1:3, but hey)

    I do however believe that your point #10, that Jesus never once spoke of a creation event in a way that implies it was literal, to be misinformed. Matthew 19:4-6 comes directly from this Genesis account. Quoting Jesus, “‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the creator made them male and female'”. This seems to be on its face an obvious reference to a literal interpretation of creation, at least in some fashion. Given the audience it was addressed to, I would expect that this presupposition was already understood. He didn’t have to explain again that it was wrong to murder, steal, etc, because that had already been established.

    I believe the better answer to your point is that it simply was not the issue it became in the future. Much in the ways the Church promoted the literal interpretations of OT scripture to “prove” the sun revolving around the Earth (Joshua 10:13) and not the other way around, Jesus never once said this was the wrong interpretation. Because it wasn’t as big a deal to Him as some people think. I think that the modern day debates we are having were something they could not have conceived in those days, because the foundational science behind the argument (carbon dating, for example) simply did not exist.

    Keep up the good work, love the blog!

    • Hey Laura, thanks for your comment! Glad you found the blog and appreciated this post. To your point about No. 10, I’ve actually addressed that particular passage in a different post: http://www.godofevolution.com/did-jesus-believe-in-a-six-day-creation-and-a-literal-adam. But in short, I don’t think that particular quote necessitates a literal reading of Genesis.

      Frankly, Christ is referencing a theological teaching of Genesis 1 and 2, in answer to a question about divorce (not creation or the age of the earth). Personally, I could use this passage in this exact same way, to make the exact same point about the same subject, all without taking Genesis literally. But your alternative suggestion is certainly a strong argument, as well.

      Thanks again for the comment! Best regards, Tyler

    • Spartan093

      Hey Laura, as a long time YEC I would like to shed some light on your first paragraph. The crux of our entire argument is not that nothing ever died before Adam sinned. In fact there is a difference of opinion among YEC researchers as to whether animals would die a natural death, or bacteria die, or fish, or plankton, or nematodes.

      The crux of the argument is Genesis 1:29-30: “And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that
      is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit.
      You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to
      everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of
      life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.”

      The fossil record is pretty clear that as far back as the Cambrian explosion, 500ma in the past, there was carnivory and wanton suffering in creation. Cancer, miscarriage, cannibalism, predation, infanticide. That doesn’t make much sense if God gives the green plants as food for all the beasts of the earth and air. And then a half ape called Adam arises 2ma ago, and is blamed for everything that happened before it? Hardly.

      But if the federal head of creation sins, Adam, then the curse extends to the whole Earth, as Romans 8 reminds us.

      • Hey Spartan, you believe a lot more than what the scripture you offer demonstrates. In no way does Genesis 1:29-30 teach that all living things were originally created immortal, or that there was no such thing as sickness, pain, suffering or death.

        At most, you might get from this that there was no carnivorism, but even that is stretching it, I think. The verse does not say animals and humans couldn’t eat meat, it just says green plants are God’s “gift.” It would be like me saying, “Help yourself to the fridge,” and you interpreting that as my forbidding you from ordering take-out.

        Genesis 3 also says nothing about death, sickness, et al., entering the world as a punishment for sin and applying universally, and Romans 8 certainly does not (seriously, what verse in that chapter do you think specifically refers to “the curse”?). So where — in the Bible — are you getting this?

        • Spartan093

          I never said the crux was immortal, just carnivorism. Methinks you’re stretching the verses when when you say that they don’t imply what they clearly say, that every land animal and bird who draws breath through their nostrils has the green plants to eat. I think you are underestimating the rationality of the original author. If anything Isaiah’s vision about a return to this tranquil state is founded on the prophet’s intimate knowledge of this verse, don’t you think?

          I know about your opinions on Romans 8 you were clear with everyone else, thanks for the reminder.

          PS I never even mentioned immortal here, don’t make stuff up!

          • I never said the crux was immortal, just carnivorism.

            OK, but I thought that’s what you were talking about when you said, “Hey Laura, as a long time YEC I would like to shed some light on your first paragraph. The crux of our entire argument is not that nothing ever died before Adam sinned.”

            Are you saying you believe animals were capable of death before Adam and Eve’s sin?

            Methinks you’re stretching the verses when when you say that they don’t imply what they clearly say,

            Well, I suppose that’s fair, since I think you’re stretching the verses when you say they imply what they clearly do not say.

            If anything Isaiah’s vision about a return to this tranquil state is founded on the prophet’s intimate knowledge of this verse, don’t you think?

            What about Isaiah 11:6-9 indicates to you that the author is describing a “return” to some previous state, rather than simply describing the way things will be in the future? Or is it possible that you are, again, interpreting the passage through a presuppositional lens, instead of simply reading it for what’s there?

            I know about your opinions on Romans 8 you were clear with everyone else, thanks for the reminder.

            Sorry, but it’s not my “opinion” that Romans 8 does not reference “the curse” or the fall — it is a simple fact.

          • Spartan093

            My view of Isaiah 11: 6-9 where he speaks of the time of the messiah is mediated by Isaiah 65:17-25 when he speaks of the new heavens and new earth and finally understood as a Christian in regards to the passage in Acts 17-21, especially 21.

            The prophets spoke of the coming of the messiah as a time of peace in nature, a time of happiness, a time of a new earth, and as Luke said, it is a time for restoring. Acts says the prophets speak of a restoration here when the shoot of Jesse sprouts, no doubt with the original Edenic plan in mind.

            For further support, Isaiah 11:8 shows that the emnity between the woman’s seed and the serpent is gone: “The infant will play near the cobra’s den, and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.” So again, we are going back on the curse that Isaiah understood to have been cast on us, humans and cattle, and snakes, in the beginning.

            So I am using presuppositions, but only in light of Genesis 1-3, Isaiah 65, and the NT. The Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and it it makes sense together.

          • Are you missing a chapter reference in your first paragraph, or did you mean to say “Acts 17-21”?

          • Spartan093

            Acts 3:17-21.

          • I see. Yeah, that sounds awfully reachy and ad hoc to me. I think it’s a lot more likely that the “restoration of all things” Peter is talking about is the same one Jesus referenced after the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:11), in which case, the context of Malachi (no doubt, one of the “prophets” Peter alludes to) 4 would seem to suggest a period or moral and spiritual restoration.

            Malachi 4:5-6 (NASB): “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse.”

          • Spartan093

            First of all the restoration part of the sentence is independent of the prophets speaking part, as indicated by the comma. The prophets would include Malachi and also Isaiah. Isaiah has a lot to say about the new heavens and a new earth, to claim that peter said prophets while being unaware of Isaiah is novel.
            Moreover Isaiah mentions Jesus right before he mentions the new heavens and earth In Ch 11! It closely parallels how Peter talks by mentioning Jesus’s suffering and glorification in Acts 3:18 and then talking of the restoration in Acts 3:21. Go read Isaiah 11, it speaks of this restoration after Jesus comes back as Peter says, or are you of the opinion that all nations are christian nations?

            You seem to say only Malachi, is this because of a textual consideration that I have missed or is it because you have no leg to sand on?

            I will leave it here, it seems that I can go on all night, you won’t be convinced. Let whoever reads this make up their own mind about our argument.

            PS go back and read Mathew 17:10-13.

          • First of all the restoration part of the sentence is independent of the prophets speaking part, as indicated by the comma.

            That’s really not a helpful detail. Ancient Greek had no punctuation whatsoever, and the same is true of our earliest copies of the New Testament writings. So the comma you mention is purely a translational choice.

            to claim that peter said prophets while being unaware of Isaiah is novel.

            That would be novel, but I made no such claim. What are you talking about?

            Isaiah has a lot to say about the new heavens and a new earth

            I never said he didn’t. The question is not whether Isaiah talked about the new heaven and new earth, the question is whether he described is as … simply the new heaven and new earth, which are to come some day in the future, or also a “return” to some previous state, as you claimed.

            Moreover Isaiah mentions Jesus right before he mentions the new heavens and earth In Ch 11! It closely parallels how Peter talks by mentioning Jesus’s suffering and glorification in Acts 3:18 and then talking of the restoration in Acts 3:21. Go read Isaiah 11, it speaks of this restoration after Jesus comes back as Peter says, or are you of the opinion that all nations are christian nations?

            This seems a bit muddled to me, but to answer your question, no, I do not think all nations are Christian nations.

            There is no question that Isaiah spoke of Christ, or of restoration to a future remnant of God’s people. But it remains quite a rather significant leap to extrapolate from there that God’s original design was cobras to play with babies and lions to eat straw. That is just simply not what the text says.

            You are misapplying and overapplying the term “restoration” to passages where it does not pertain in service to your presupposed theological construct.

            You seem to say only Malachi, is this because of a textual consideration that I have missed or is it because you have no leg to sand on?

            It’s because of textual considerations, which I explained quite clearly in my previous comment.

            Spartan, I was hoping you and I could have a real discussion, but you seem to be in the habit of getting flustered and back-tracking whenever you experience the slightest push-back or challenge toward your views. Get some rest — maybe you’ll think more clearly in the morning.

          • Spartan093

            It seems you like to do a CMI quote rebuttal. How about this:
            “But it remains quite a rather significant leap to extrapolate from there
            that God’s original design was cobras to play with babies and lions to
            eat straw. That is just simply not what the text says.”

            Genesis 1 says this. There is no significant leap in my logic. You’re misunderstanding stems from your significant usage of arguing from silence in regards to carnivory! You do it in your article above for point 8 and point 10, and you do it here in the comments wherever it bothers you. And if the main point of my paragraph seems muddled, well I can’t help you with English, read my comments more slowly.

            If you want to become more informed on this go read what Alec Motyer, Principal of Trinity College Bristol, has to say on this issue in The Prophecy of Isaiah, IVP, Leicester, UK, p. 124, 1993.
            I think we had a very real discussion, if too long. But not all discussions go the way you would like, and that might be my fault, in which case I apologize. Good night.

          • Genesis 1 says this.

            It does not. Your far-reaching interpretation of Genesis 1 says this.

            There is no significant leap in my logic.

            From two verses that say green plants are God’s gift for food, you interpret that there was no such thing as carnivorous animals in God’s original design. Given the rather obvious fact that there are many carnivorous animals in existence today, you further extrapolate that all of these animals must have undergone physical transformations as a result of “the curse” in Genesis 3 — all without being mentioned once in the scriptural stories you claim are historical accounts.

            Yeah, I’d call that a fairly “significant” leap.

            You’re misunderstanding stems from your significant usage of arguing from silence in regards to carnivory!

            You can call it an argument from silence if you like, but I’m far more comfortable with the idea that scripture says what it means rather than your assertion that it means things it didn’t say.

            And if the main point of my paragraph seems muddled, well I can’t help you with English, read my comments more slowly.

            I think it was more the muddled thinking I had trouble with than the language in which the thinking was expressed.

            I think we had a very real discussion, if too long. But not all discussions go the way you would like, and that might be my fault, in which case I apologize.

            You also seem to be in the habit of asserting that discussions have become too lengthy, while simultaneously ensuring that they continue by virtue of your own responses. If you personally think a discussion has reached its conclusion, you are by all means free to disengage.

            However, I can’t say I feel obligated to ignore comments on my site I disagree with simply because the commenter feels the discussion is “too long” (and yet can’t resist having the last word).

          • Isaiah 11 is not about Jesus; it’s about a Davidic king who will reunite Israel after the Assyrian conquest and bring shabbat to Israel. Isaiah uses apocalyptic language to describe the state of peace that will come. Even if we were to agree this passage is talking about Jesus (i.e. Isaiah jumps forward 700 years in his prophecy before jumping right back), those things did not literally happen when Jesus showed up.

            Isaiah 65 is also not about the end of the world, but rather the transformation of the people of Israel and their lives once the Lord delivers them. Who is he delivering them from? Isaiah 63:1. “Who is this who comes from Edom? In crimson garments from Bozrah, he who is splendid in his apparel marching in the greatness of his strength? ‘It is I, speaking in righteousness, mighty to save.'”

            God is going to save His people from the enemy nations and, once again, bring them together into their own land to dwell in safety, and as a response to God’s redemption, there will be a restoration of repentance, forgiveness, and renewed holiness and zeal.

            Later authors might look at those prophecies and say, “This is pretty much what Jesus did, but bigger,” and I think it’s fine to repurpose those prophecies to explain what Jesus did, but there is nothing in those prophecies that indicates Isaiah was talking about Israel’s actual historical situation, then all of a sudden flashed forward to the end of the world millennia later, then jumped back.

            Once again, even if we do take these as prophecies about Jesus. None of those things literally happened. By connecting it with Genesis 1, you’re basically claiming that didn’t literally happen, either.

          • Spartan093

            As a Christian I adhere to the orthodoxy that Jesus Christ is the hinge upon which all of the Bible must be interpreted as given down from the Gospel writers themselves. He is the shoot from the stump of Jesse. The prophecies spoken by Isaiah, the suffering servant, were declared by the Son of God to be fulfilled in Him. I won’t argue with that. If you want to argue, I will not stand beside you without a Faraday cage.

            But as an interesting point, what came into my head when you quoted Isaiah 63 was the trial of Jesus in the wilderness. He goes in the Judean wilderness in the direction of Edom, towards Brozah, he conquers the nations by rejecting them and their leader. He conquers them alone for there is no one there to help him. Just beautiful.

            So if you are Jewish, that’s fine, but Jesus accomplished more by rising from the dead than Simon bar Kokhba ever did. Consider that. And lastly the Holy Spirit is the one which says the prophecies, not Isaiah, which is why the so closely parallel Genesis and Acts.

          • Um, no, no Gospel writer ever said every prophecy in the OT is about Jesus, nor is that a matter of orthodoxy (you’ll have to point me to the creed that states this). That is a rubric you bring to the Old Testament.

            There are plenty of OT prophecies about the coming Messiah/Son of Man. There’s just no reason to think Isaiah 11 and 65 are prophecies like that.

            What does happen in the NT is that NT writers will use OT prophecies and even events and repurpose them to teach us something about who Jesus is or what he is doing. For example, Matthew’s use of Isaiah 9. The child that Isaiah prophesied about was a sign that God’s deliverance from Assyria was near. This is what the prophecy actually says and what the original audience would have heard. Matthew takes that prophecy and applies it to the birth of Jesus to show his Jewish audience that Jesus’ miraculous birth is also a sign that God’s deliverance of Israel from their current oppressors is near.

            Rejecting Satan is not conquering the nations. I hope that’s self-evident, and oddly allegorical coming from someone who wants me to believe in talking snakes.

            I am not Jewish; I am a Christian. But I also believe the key to understanding Jesus from the OT lay in understanding the texts as originally understood, because -that- is the meaning the NT authors are drawing from when they apply it to Jesus. It keeps us from getting crazily allegorical – much like your conquering scenario.

            I have serious doubts you have any idea what Jesus accomplished by rising from the dead, but I’m glad you affirm its importance.

            I think you need to read a couple of good books on the New Testament use of the Old Testament.

          • Spartan093

            Good talking to you. Always happy to learn a differing opinion of how prophecies should be interpreted in light of Jesus. I too had problems with how the gospel writers interpreted the passages sometimes (Isaiah 7:14), but the experience that they had with Jesus came first, so I assented. Many messianic prophecies might seem to us like they should be approached first historically, but when you take into account the Holy Spirit, many of them become fulfilled in Jesus. Clearly I don’t mean that the prophecy of Elijah concerning Ahab’s death was meant towards Jesus, but Isaiah 11 and 65 were taken as messianic for a long time (I can open my ESV to show). If you don’t think so, I don’t know how many scholars would agree with you, but I guess there is always room for differing opinion.

            But you are getting way too committed when you say: “There’s just no reason to think Isaiah 11 and 65 are prophecies like that.”

          • No, yours is not a sensical position.

            What you are basically saying is that Isaiah 11 had no relevance whatsoever for the people who actually received the prophecy in the 8th century BC. They would all be dead long before the events Isaiah was talking about would come to pass. And despite the fact that nations are specifically mentioned, your contention is that anyone who heard Isaiah would be greatly mistaken to think the prophecy was about those nations or Israel’s situation.

            You have made everything in the Bible completely ahistorical by saying, “Well, you know, the Holy Spirit actually wrote the whole thing, so the particular audience and situation of the people of God who received these writings is completely irrelevant to their meaning.” That’s a pretty low view of Scripture, I’d say.

            Also, I notice how you didn’t talk about how when Jesus showed up that lions didn’t start sleeping with lambs. What gives? Also, why should we interpret those parts literally when you dismiss all the historical particulars of the prophecy as irrelevant or allegorical?

          • Spartan093

            I had to correct you here: “You have made everything in the Bible completely ahistorical by saying”

            I was specifically talking about prophecies. Not Kings, or Joshua, or even the first chapter of Daniel. Don’t be under the impression that I am an Eastern Orthodox.

            The Lions didn’t start sleeping with Lambs yet because Jesus has not returned yet. As Peter said in Acts 3:21, the future restoration will occur when the Lord returns from heaven.

          • So, not only did Isaiah 11 have no relevance for Israel at the time he gave the prophecy, it also had no relevance for Israel’s expectation of the Messiah, but instead has relevance for a second arrival of the Messiah thousands of years later and counting. This is your contention. This is the primary referent for Isaiah 11. God desperately wanted Isaiah to know about an event that was thousands of years into the future long after their current struggles were buried in sand. All that stuff about Assyria and Edom is just window dressing. Just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly.

          • Spartan093

            Well considering that God is so infinitely selfish I would say Yes. God loves himself first. He loves himself so much he died to show just how awesome he is. He loves to put himself first because that is good! He does this all the time. So the texts primarily refer to Jesus. If they also have a secondary meaning for Isaiah’s time, they only partly fulfill the beautiful imagery.
            But God loves Jesus so much, essentially the meaning of love is between Jesus and His Father, that he wrote a poem about His triumph millennia before it would happen. Isaiah was so blessed to be the mouthpiece. And we are so blessed to have been included in the sphere of influence of God’s love.

          • I appreciate the poetic imagery, but the Bible doesn’t say any of that.

            I find it very unlikely that Isaiah would have a prophecy about Israel’s deliverance from Assyria that is entirely not about Israel’s deliverance from Assyria and is, in fact, about an event thousands of years removed from both parties and Isaiah, himself. I think there’s a lot of Isaiah that is extremely difficult to understand under this rubric, but you find this to be the most likely option, so I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

            So, when Isaiah also says that smoke will rise up from the destruction Edom forever, you would also place that into the distant future, since obviously smoke is not rising up from Edom. And when Ezekiel 26 says that Tyre will be covered by the ocean, that is also a prophecy about the distant future, since Tyre is not covered by the ocean. Those passages are not at all about the destruction of Edom or the conquest of Tyre that actually happened in history.

            I’m sorry – it sounds like you’re just bringing a lot of pre-established framework to the Bible and making it fit in odd ways. The texts never say any of what you’re saying. Further, it makes some of the NT commentary a little weird. So, when Jesus reads from Isaiah and says, “Today this is fulfilled in your hearing,” he should have said, “At some point in the distant future, this will be fulfilled in the hearing of whoever those people end up being.”

            All that stuff about prophecy being a love poem from God 2 Jesus sounds pretty, but where does the Bible actually say that’s what it is? You strike me as someone very committed to a theological framework but hasn’t perhaps put in the hard work to actually understand the Bible on its own terms.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            Tyre is under the sea, or are you not up on history?

          • Um, you can go to Tyre, today. It is a thriving city. It is most definitely not underwater. Here is a photo of modern day Tyre.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon#/media/File:Tyre2009b.JPG

          • AmbassadorHerald

            All you needed to say was “no” if you did not know. Why do you doubt The Holy Bible and the prophecies of God Almighty if you do not even know about the topics spoken of?

            Answer these three questions and you will know the truth about Tyre:

            Where was the original city?
            Why is the modern city where it is now?
            What happened to the original city?

          • 1. The original city was an island trade center off the coast of Lebanon with a suburb on the mainland called “Usu.” We know that Ezekiel is referring to the island city because he specifically says Tyre’s borders are in the heart of the seas (Ezek. 27:3-4) and the mainland settlement is Tyre’s daughters (Ezek. 26:6).

            2. The modern city is in the exact same place. In fact, you can still see the harbors. The only difference is that the causeway connecting the island to the mainland has been silted over so now it’s just one big isthmus. There is, ironically, even MORE land for Tyre.

            3. Tyre was destroyedand rebuilt a couple of times in the 4th century BC, although not by Nebuchadnezzar. Neither portion was ever under water.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            So, the only people you see fit to listen to and believe are those who want The Holy Bible to be wrong? You find doubt to be preferable over trust? Almost everything you just said does not take Scripture at what it says.

            It is thought that the island was the original city by modern scholars, but considering that those same scholars are the ones saying this prophecy failed, I do not believe their liberal testimony. Especially when we have the Roman declaration that Ushu (Ussu, Usu, Uzu) was Palaetyrus (Palai-Tyros) or the “Old Tyre” in Latin. The Romans considered the “island Tyre” to be “New Tyre”. Obviously, seeing as both cities were “Tyrus” to them, both were commonly called collectively just plain Tyre.

            Considering the Romans were living much closer to the times, had more extensive records, and all that fun stuff, they should have more weight put on their word over our more than 3,000-years removed liberal scholars, who have a personal agenda to discredit God.

            Moving onto Scripture itself, under your assumption, you need to explain how the island Tyre became like these below verses, which you deliberately left out of your references:

            Ezekiel 26:4-6 (KJV), “And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it,” saith The Lord GOD [Adonai Yahweh]: “and it shall become a spoil to the nations. And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am The LORD [Yahweh].”

            The YLT says “and made her for a clear place of a rock” which means totally flat and empty. This literally ONLY happened to Palaetyrus, or Ushu to you. Plus, fishermen use this extremely smooth open space to spread their nets to dry and fold. Prophecy literally fulfilled, but only if you consider mainland Tyre part of the overall city of Tyrus, as the KJV calls it.

            We are even told which city is older in The Bible: Ushu or Sur (the island).

            Joshua 19:29 (KJV), “And then the coast turneth to Ramah, and to the strong city Tyre; and the coast turneth to Hosah; and the outgoings thereof are at the sea from the coast to Achzib:”

            Here we see Tyre, same Hebrew word, is on the coast, not an island. So when the passage in Ezekiel says daughters, it may literally mean females with fathers yet alive, not a sister city. Confirmation of this could be in the other verses you referenced:

            Ezekiel 27:3-4 (KJV), “And say unto Tyrus, O thou that art situate at the entry of the sea, which art a merchant of the people for many isles,” Thus saith The Lord GOD [Adonai Yahweh]; “O Tyrus, thou hast said, I am of perfect beauty. Thy borders are in the midst of the seas, thy builders have perfected thy beauty.”

            What you call “the heart of the seas” the KJV calls “the entry of the sea” and YLT “the entrances of the sea”. I do not even know how you get heart from the Hebrew word for a haven—Strong’s #H3997 mĕbowah. But even if this does mean an island, the mainland city was evacuated to the island, which was then built up to be “the perfection of beauty” (YLT), and then conquered from the flattening of the mainland ruins.

            This is also how the city of Tyre is “in the midst of the waters” (YLT), or “covered by the ocean” as you put it.

            Ezekiel 26:12 (alternate KJV reading), “And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy the houses of thy desire: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.”

            The modern city of Sur is where it is because of God’s prophecy about the mainland portion:

            Ezekiel 26:14 (KJV), “And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I The LORD [Yahweh] have spoken it,” saith The Lord GOD [Adonai Yahweh].

            STOP DOUBTING THE SACRED SCRIPTURES!!! And get your history right!

            Sources:
            https://beliefmap.org/prophecy-fulfilled/tyre/ushu-was-part/
            http://beliefmap.org/prophecy-fulfilled/tyre/ushu-fortified/
            http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/t/tyre.html

          • Dude, if you were an ice cream flavor, you would be Pralines and Desperation.

            I was genuinely curious what weird, convoluted explanation you would offer for “becoming a place for the spreading of nets.” You did avoid the “they probably fished off the causeway” stupidity, but you replaced it with something even dumber. They spread their nets out to dry? That’s quite a trick, considering 26:5 says that they will spread their nets in the midst of the sea.

            We do not have a “Roman declaration” about Palaetyrus. We have Justin – a Roman historian in the 3rd century AD. That’s your source. “Tyre” means “rock,” which is obviously the island. Heroditus, a Greek historian in the 5th century BC, clearly says the island city was first. Josephus (Jewish historian, 2nd century AD) says that the island was the city of Tyre in the days of King Hiram (contemporary of King Solomon). Arrian (Roman historian, 1st century AD) says the temple to Hercules on the island was the most important temple “in the memory of man.” Jospehus also documents that Tyre on the island was the main city during the invasion of Nineveh, which they repulsed.

            So, every source that is earlier than yours, including Roman sources, says that the island was Tyre. Only one historical source that comes much -later- says the mainland was.

            That is an interesting take that “daughters on the mainland” refers to actual daughters (I guess the sons got away ok?), but even so, the verse is, “And she shall become plunder for the nations, and her daughters on the mainland shall be killed by the sword.” Why would Ezekiel point out destruction on the mainland if he already meant the mainland? Especially since the preceding verses talk about Tyre’s great fortifications, which were part of the island.

            Ezekiel 26:7-14 has Nebuchadnezzar destroying Tyre, which he did not. Alexander the Great did that much later. Further, Ezekiel 26:14 says, “You shall never be rebuilt,” and it was rebuilt at least twice.

            Ezekiel 26:19 says that God will make the deep come up over Tyre and the waters cover Tyre. Neither the island nor mainland was ever under water, and they still are not, today.

            Ezekiel 26:21 says that Tyre will never be found again, although clearly it was.

            The Hebrew word in 27:4 is not mebowah, it is beleb, and it means “in the middle of.” It is the same word in Exodus 15:8 when it says that the waters were congealed in the heart of the sea. Please, for God’s sake (literally) stop making arguments from Hebrew. You have not stopped being wrong in this department.

            Ezekiel 27:34 says “Now you are wrecked by the seas, in the depths of the waters.” This does not sound like the mainland, and also did not happen.

            27:26 – “You shall come to a dreadful end and shall be no more, forever.” And yet, they were rebuilt and are a city to this very day.

            The reason no one decried Ezekiel as a false prophet is because he is speaking apocalyptically, and no one took it as a literal description of exactly what would happen. It’s the same way six executioners did not pass through Jerusalem when it was sacked and pass over everyone with a mark on their forehead (Ezek. 9) or Edom can be on fire forever (Isaiah 34:9-10). If you would actually listen to the prophets and look what God did instead of forcing them to be what you want, this would be pretty clear to you.

            I’m sorry – your position isn’t even plausible. It’s the desperate flailings of someone who doesn’t know how to read the Bible and doesn’t care about what it actually says. Well, you claim to care about God; why don’t you put in the effort to study the Bible, then?

          • AmbassadorHerald

            Ezekiel 26:5 in the YLT says “A spreading place of nets she is in the midst of the sea”. The Hebrew doesn’t have punctuation like we do, so why should we assume this should be one single thought? It could be, and likely should be:

            “And I have scraped her dust from her, and made her for a clear place of a rock, a spreading place of nets. She is in the midst of the sea, for I—I have spoken—an affirmation of The Lord Jehovah,” (based on the YLT for 26:4-5)

            The mainland city has become the causeway, thrown into the midst of the sea JUST like Scripture said.

            Alternatively, Strong’s says this word for “midst”— tavek—can be translated with “out of”. That is to say, “It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst out of the sea” (KJV). Which would mean, “a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the city premises, when drawn out of the sea after going fishing”. Either of these explanations more than accounts for the apparent error in the prophecy. You want to demonstrate otherwise, give me a source other than your own interpretation.

            And I see you tried to refute my extra-Biblical sources, but not Joshua 19:29, which confirms Tyre at least included a coastal section, and this is Joshua’s time, much earlier than any of the extra-Biblical sources used.

            Also, I see you did NOT look at my sources at all, because my second link dealt completely with the fortifications of the mainland section of Tyre: http://beliefmap.org/prophecy-fulfilled/tyre/ushu-fortified/ I knew you would bring this up. At this link you will see the consensus of several scholars on the fortifications of Ushu, though less grand than the island city. You will also be pointed to that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege on the mainland city for 13 years, which is stupid unless it had fortifications. And finally you will be pointed to Joshua 19:29 again, which says the coastal city was “strong” (KJV) and “fenced” (YLT).

            Now, as for Nebuchadnezzar attacking Tyre in Ezekiel 26:7-14, well, you do not deny that he did attack the mainland section of Tyre, which you prefer to be called Ushu. Based on this logic, you would also say that if an army attacked Manhattan, then they did not attack New York. Of course, this logic is flawed, but this point was made at my first link: https://beliefmap.org/prophecy-fulfilled/tyre/ushu-was-part/

            As for Ezekiel 26:19-20, look at the YLT, “In bringing up against thee the deep, Then covered thee have the great waters. And I have caused thee to go down,” This was all literally fulfilled in the Ushu borough of Tyre. It is underwater, completely. It has been “brought down” (KJV). Alexander the Great saw to that fulfillment.

            And Ezekiel 26:21 (KJV), “I will make thee a terror [waste, YLT], and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again,” saith The Lord GOD [Adonai Yahweh].” This too was literally fulfilled, the Ushu district cannot ever be found. The LOCATION can be found, but the buildings cannot, the city itself is wiped clean. It was never found again after Alexander the Great’s work. We know where the debris is, it’s in the causeway, but we can’t even dig it up thanks to the modern city of Sur there.

            Also, if you had paid closer attention to what I originally said, I had made room for the island being referred to in Ezekiel 27:3-4. If you did not notice, chapter 27 comes after chapter 26, which means this should logically be chronologically after the former. I specifically said, “But even if this does mean an island, the mainland city was evacuated to the island, which was then built up to be “the perfection of beauty” (YLT), and then conquered from the flattening of the mainland ruins.” So while Tyre previously included both the island and the mainland, by this time it would be limited to the island only.

            Ezekiel 27:34 is indeed speaking of the island, and the mainland. “In the time when thou shalt be broken by the seas in the depths of the waters thy merchandise and all thy company [assembly, YLT] in the midst of thee shall fall.” (KJV) This is speaking of “the time when”, which is not immediately, because the island was not destroyed immediately after the mainland. But when the mainland city would be “broken by the seas in the depths of the waters” is when “thy merchandise and all thy company in the midst of thee shall fall.” This is telling of how the island would be conquered.

            Finally, Ezekiel 27:36 (alternate KJV reading), “The merchants among the people shall hiss [shriek, YLT] at thee; thou shalt be a terror [waste, YLT], and shalt not be for ever.” We’re back to the costal district of Ushu, which has not been built again and literally is used to spread nets, being flat as a rock.

            You just desire Ezekiel to be apocalyptic because you want it to not be literally true, because if The Holy Bible can be seen to be literally true, it damages your entire stance of symbolism. But it all literally happened to Tyrus as God said it would, and therefore does not support the notion that prophecies can’t be literal. Since prophecies CAN BE literal, there is no reason to think others cannot have more literal elements to them, including Revelation, which I see very little in which must absolutely be figurative.

            Plus, as for caring what The Sacred Scriptures actually say, well, Ezekiel 26-27 uses the name Tyre a total of 9x! So honestly, your arguing that it does not mean Tyre is not caring about what it actually says, and is exactly why you find fault in it, because you exclude “Ushu”.

          • Harold,

            Tyre has had a mainland and an island component almost from the very beginning, including Joshua’s time. But ancient historians are clear that the island city was first and most prominent, and that easily makes the most sense in the prophecy.

            In order for your scheme to work, you have to come up with the most concept-straining textual manipulation I have ever seen. It was tortuous to read. I have never seen someone so committed to not understanding the Bible.

            The mainland city was never underwater and was rebuilt. It’s there, today, doofus. Listen to yourself. “Well, but this one part of the mainland city is underwater and nobody can find it, so Ezekiel is literally true.” First of all, none of it is underwater or ever has been, and second, this is ridiculous. You have given all the evidence any reader needs that you are willing to twist and edit and chop and grind and adopt the most unreasonable propositions to get your narrative to work.

            I do not “want” Ezekiel to be symbolic anymore than I “want” Ezekiel to be literally true. I do not want Ezekiel to be anything. I want to understand Ezekiel from Ezekiel’s point of view, and Ezekiel’s prophecy is entirely consistent with THE REST OF EZEKIEL which is obviously apocalyptic (I notice you casually forgot about the Ezek. 9 example) as well as both OT and intertestamental Jewish apocalyptic literature (I notice you casually forgot about Isaiah saying Edom would be on fire forever – although you’d probably say that there’s some tree in Edom that gets harvested for firewood or some other desperate insanity plea).

            This is just the way the Bible is. I’m sorry. You and your “sources” do not understand the Bible and, arguably, basic reading comprehension. You are welcome to continue in your ministry to make God look foolish, but that is not a compelling path to me. I love the Bible we have, not the fundamentalist Scoffield Study Bible in your head.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            Allow me to introduce you to the video by Dr. Irwin A. Moon that introduced me to the prophecy of Tyre. It has been uploaded to YouTube by John Smith here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s5yRMDyQh8 Moody Institute of Science’s “Sermon from Science” #15 “The Professor and the Prophets”. Do not worry, it is only 28 minutes long. My apologies that the volume is so low, this was recorded from a VHS.

            The video begins with the prophecy of Jerusalem’s Golden Gate that went into Solomon’s Temple in Ezekiel 44:1-2. At about 6 minutes it moves on to Petra in Jeremiah 49:16. At just before 11 minutes it moves to Babylon in Jeremiah 25:12. More passages than just these are mentioned as well.

            At 14 minutes exactly it moves to Tyre, complete with on location 1961 motion footage. This includes fishermen spreading their nets on ancient Tyre’s Ushu district and a spring of fresh water literally pouring off of a rock into the sea, which may be the rock from which Tyre named themselves. Can you give me better evidence than this?

            At about 18½ minutes it moves on to the mathematics of Probability and why The Holy Bible has been so accurate, despite the odds against it. The reason is, namely, that God wrote it. At just after 25½ minutes it moves on into the Salvation Message, of which each and every episode closed with.

          • Well, Irwin Moon seems like a fine fellow, but he is a pastor and not a historian, and Moody Bible Institute is well established as an institution that cannot correctly interpret the Bible. I trust Moon’s heart, and he did a fine job speaking, but he’s just repeating the same basic statements you said, except for the fact that he doesn’t claim the mainland site is underwater, like you do, but instead assumes that Alexander the great using stones from the city to make the causeway fulfills the city being underwater.

            I’m also not sure where his footage came from as he did -not- film on location but bought stock film footage for his movies, but let’s say it came from the mainland of Tyre (incidentally, your fresh stream seems to be channeled over a man made duct, but that’s neither here not there).

            This is a satellite photo of Tyre, taken in 2014. http://associatesmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Tyre-satellite.jpg

            As you can see, Sur is a fully built city extending all the way to Al Bas. The two harbors you see in the south part of the photo are believed to be original and used to get to the island. You can also see a relative clear region marked as “Ruins of Tyre” and, as you can see, are not near the water.

            Here are some modern day photos of that area:

            http://www.religiousforums.com/proxy/vHlztQVSCgbienpzMynj1t%2BohoS1EITxs2g8ja7zjD32%2B%2Bim3Qopu0Q%2BMXgHMruAIAglLzSQtsRkMYBtpve2Nh9zGBvx/image.png

            http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/122/cache/archway-roman-ruins-tyre-lebanon_12240_600x450.jpg

            http://polosbastards.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/Tyre6.jpg

            Obviously, not great condition, but just as obviously rebuilt by the Romans, exactly as history records, and definitely not under water, nor a smooth area where nothing stands. One might speculate that it was completely smooth when destroyed, but that is speculation and, obviously, it was rebuilt.

            Jacob Katzenstein wrote “The History of Tyre” in 1973. He was working for the Shocken Institute for Jewish Research producing this book for the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. He wrote on page 9: “The location of the city of Tyre is not in doubt, for it exists to this day on the same spot and is known as Sur.” The JTSA is Conservative Judaism, and they published Katzenstein. For some crazy reason, the conservative Jews did not think identification of Tyre with the same location as modern day Tyre was a threat to their holy Scriptures. It’s almost as if they were interpreting them differently than you.

            I’d say the absolute very best you can do is something like, “Back when Tyre was attacked by Alexander the Great, his devastation of some portion of Tyre was so great that it was razed clean, and that area has never been re-discovered or rebuilt, and all its former buildings are under water. There is just no proof of this.” And even then, that makes for a pretty lousy condemnation. This is the great judgement that made the coastlands tremble? That -a small portion of Tyre- would be destroyed? Whooo!

          • AmbassadorHerald

            —–“I trust Moon’s heart, and he did a fine job speaking, but he’s just repeating the same basic statements you said, except for the fact that he doesn’t claim the mainland site is underwater, like you do, but instead assumes that Alexander the great using stones from the city to make the causeway fulfills the city being underwater.”

            Seriously? You pulled the “repeat what I have been saying” here too: http://www.godofevolution.com/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/#comment-2238457278 I have not once said that the mainland city’s location was underwater, and you cannot provide any quote to demonstrate your accusation. The only example you gave was the post before this one and it wasn’t a quote, though you still put it in quotations: “Well, but this one part of the mainland city is underwater and nobody can find it, so Ezekiel is literally true.”

            I feel really insulted that you think I have poor reading capabilities and you’re the one making a jumbled mess out of my words in your head. But, at least through Dr. Moon you finally understand my point. Because he is not repeating my arguments, I’m repeating his. So, now disprove this interpretation.

            —–“incidentally, your fresh stream seems to be channeled over a man-made duct, but that’s neither here nor there”

            You’re right, it is neither here nor there, because Tyre was a city after all. They needed water and they got it. Alexander the Great could toss rubble and dust into the Mediterranean, but a huge solid rock face, not so well.

            —–“This is a satellite photo of Tyre, taken in 2014. [Photo link here.] As you can see, Sur is a fully built city extending all the way to Al Bas. The two harbors you see in the south part of the photo are believed to be original and used to get to the island. You can also see a relative clear region marked as “Ruins of Tyre” and, as you can see, are not near the water.”

            Yeah, I see that Sur has built itself up until it spread off of the island, but I doubt it covers the original coastal Tyre, since God said it wouldn’t. Also, seeing as Alexander the Great destroyed the original harbor in his causeway construction, those are not the original. Plus, since the original Tyre was on the coast-coast, those Roman ruins are a later city built on a different location. That wide open spot near the ancient harbor could be where the mainland Tyre stood, since it is not rebuilt, and harbors would indicate ships docking, such as to spread nets.

            Faith, Phil. I have faith in God, faith in His Pure Word, and trust that nothing will stop them. Psalm 12:6-7 (alternate KJV reading), “The words of The LORD [Yahweh] are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, Thou shalt preserve every one of them from this generation for ever.”

            —–“Here are some modern day photos of that area: [Three photos here.] Obviously, not great condition, but just as obviously rebuilt by the Romans, exactly as history records, and definitely not under water, nor a smooth area where nothing stands. One might speculate that it was completely smooth when destroyed, but that is speculation and, obviously, it was rebuilt.”

            No, not speculation, but truth. Doubt makes you say these things, doubt makes you disbelieve. “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” (Matthew 14:31 KJV).

            —–“Jacob Katzenstein … The location of the city of Tyre is not in doubt, for it exists to this day on the same spot and is known as Sur.”

            I agree Sur is on the same location of Tyre… just the ISLAND district and not the coastal Ushu mainland district.

            —–“I’d say the absolute very best you can do is something like, “Back when Tyre was attacked by Alexander the Great, his devastation of some portion of Tyre was so great that it was razed clean, and that area has never been re-discovered or rebuilt, and all its former buildings are under water. There is just no proof of this.””

            That is not the best I can do, nor did do. I showed footage of the flat, barren shoreline of once Tyre, and fishermen spreading nets on it. Dr. Moon said he visited all the locations just prior to his video on them, why could he not have filmed them? So, if you want to find the original city, look for a wide open location that is used to spread nets, or at least was used before modern fishing technology.

          • You have faith in what’s in your head, but you don’t have faith in the Bible.

            I’m sorry, this has gotten so bad that now you’re rejecting photographic evidence because “God said” that wouldn’t happen.

            There’s really no point in discussing with you, because you will believe anything no matter how implausible if it supports your opinion, and you will reject any kind of logic or evidence if it contradicts your opinion. You keep confusing your opinion with the “Pure Word,” but it isn’t the Word – it’s your interpretation of the Word, and it’s untenable.

            But like I said, if you’re actually willing to have your mind changed about anything, we can have a discussion, but as long as you’ve decided to rule out a priori any evidence that’s going to disagree with what you already believe (a Ken Ham classic), what do we have to talk about?

          • AmbassadorHerald

            Untenable huh? Well, let’s put it to the test shall we?

            I refer you to the article at this link http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/07/Ezekiel-261-14-A-Proof-Text-For-Inerrancy-or-Fallibility-of-The-Old-Testament.aspx#Article at the Associates for Biblical Research by Paul Ferguson, Ph.D. on December 7th, 2009.

            He writes, most fascinatingly, “Secular historians have no religious agenda to promote. Thus they clarify and even defend Ezekiel, rather than condemn him. It is indeed ironic that Ezekiel is regarded as a false prophet by a large group of Biblical scholars, yet deemed generally correct by secular historians.”

            I guess it is to your detriment in this area to not be an atheist, Phil. Stop letting liberal theology close your mind.

            Dr. Ferguson also quotes two sources to demonstrate Ushu was indeed Tyre:

            A) Papyrus Anastasi 1 from 1290-1186 BC, “What is Uzu like? They say another town is in the sea named Tyre-the-Port. Water is taken to it by boats.” (Wilson 1969: 477).

            B) Maria Aubet, “It was considered to be a second Tyre on the mainland and lasted as a satellite city until it was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar” (1993: 30).

            If “Tyre-the-Port” was on the island, there must be a not “Tyre-the-Port” which would be on the mainland—another Tyre.

            Also, this reference to water confirms Dr. Irwin A. Moon’s motion footage of said water. You have not proven his footage is stock, and even if it could be shown to be stock today, I doubt you could prove it was stock in 1961, when Dr. Moon visited these areas.

            Dr. Ferguson also points out Diodorus 17.40 (Wells 1936) proves the coastal Tyre was stripped clean into the sea by Alexander the Great.

            Using the information of H. J. Katzenstein, a “specialist on the history of Tyre”, the precise location of mainland Tyre is a point of controversy because it was “totally dismantled by Alexander the Great in his famous siege…and disappeared totally” (1997: 15).

            This confirms my interpretation of Ezekiel 26:21, “though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith The Lord GOD.” (KJV)

            If you have any doubts that Nebuchednezar did attack Tyre, Katzenstein used E. Unger’s translation of a tablet to show, “for the king and his soldiers who went with him against the land of Tyre” (Unger 1926: 314–17; cf. Katzenstein 1997: 324).

            In fact, the King of Tyre got deported just like Jerusalem’s King in the Exile.

            The Greek historian Menander from the 3rd century BC said, “Sidon and Akko and Old Tyre and many other cities also revolted from Tyre and surrendered to the king of Assyria” (i.e., Shalmaneser V, 726–722; Katzenstein 1997: 225–36).

            This utterly demolishes your claim that, “We do not have a “Roman declaration” about Palaetyrus. We have Justin – a Roman historian in the 3rd century AD. That’s your source.”

            Old Tyre (Palaeo-Tyre in Latin) was a term some 600 years before Justin used it.

            According to Bury and Meiggs (1975: 460), Alexander the Great desired to sacrifice in the temple of Hercules on the island but the citizens of Tyre refused by inviting him to sacrifice in Old Tyre on the mainland. This invitation indicated the two cities could clearly be identified with each other.

            Antonio Ciasca said, “The mainland sector of the city of Tyre (called Ushu in Egyptian and Assyrian texts and Palai-Tyros in classical sources) was situated 6 km [3.7 mi] further south…The causeway built by Alexander the Great to reach the besieged city, and the gradual silting up around this line, contributed towards extending the artificial area which emerged…that of a peninsula jutting into the sea” (1988: 147, 148).

            I have used Google Earth Pro to photograph the area and see where 3.7 miles south would be.

            https://plus.google.com/115578770947853187008/posts/FJMhxJTxGAd?pid=6191794857839085714&oid=115578770947853187008

            Roughly, you end up on this stretch of coastline, which is still barren and only used for farming, from the looks of it.

            https://plus.google.com/115578770947853187008/posts/FJMhxJTxGAd?pid=6191794860586128626&oid=115578770947853187008

            Notice there is a nice wide spot to the left, which is very flat still. I think there is little doubt that the ancient mainland-coast Tyre is not rebuilt. While before I was speculating on data you provided, now I have given facts which you didn’t care to look for.

            And, just so you know, the above summary is only the HISTORICAL part of the article by Dr. Ferguson. From here he goes into the BIBLICAL aspect of his study. He deals with “The Text of Ezekiel 26:1–14”, “The Literary Structure of Ezekiel 26:1–14”, further history comparison to Ezekiel 26:1-14, and a Hebrew language study into specific words. He also deals with the supposed “apology” of Ezekiel 29:17-20.

            Can’t call me untenable now, because scholarship is on my side, not yours. God will not—I repeat, NOT—hold you blameless for attacking His Pure Word. Your doubt will be and is your undoing.

          • Blah blah blah blah, so on and so forth. I’m sure we’re all very impressed by your brilliant insights and rigorous research.

            Now, see my latest response, make your final comment and go find some other website to troll.

          • First of all, I am not an atheist.

            Second, you are really putting the “ass” in “ambassador” by continuing to call my study of the Bible an attack on it. You are not devoted to the Bible, and I will not accept that criticism from you.

            So, ABR is not a team of archaeologists or historians. They are a group of people who “biblically interpret” archaeological findings. In that sense, they are somewhat like you – they start with what they believe and accept or dispute evidence based on conformity with that belief. Paul Ferguson PhD does not appear to be an actual doctor, but was a PhD seminary student in 2003. Maybe he got his doctorate at some point, I don’t know. He has produced no other works that I could find except for this article.

            This article is already, out of the gates, basically saying, “We’re going to make the evidence support our understanding of the Bible.” No wonder you like it so well.

            Unfortunately for your case, and ultimately the article’s case, every piece of evidence they cite makes the island Tyre the primary site. They are trying to skate by on the prophecy by making a piece of the mainland satellite meant to be “Tyre” so technically, the prophecy is vaguely true in a literal sense (even though Nebuchadnezzar made a treaty with Tyre instead of putting them to the sword).

            However, like most literalists, he (and you) are so focused on trying to make this scheme work that you’ve completely lost sight of the meaning of the prophecy. The intent of the prophecy is to give Israel hope in the judgement and eradication of one of their most impregnable ancient foes.

            You, by contrast, are maintaining that the prophecy is REALLY about the total destruction of a small subset of Tyre. You’re like that one scene in “The Jerk” when Steve Martin is working a game at a carnival, and he keeps narrowing down the allowable prizes, “Step right up and win anything on this shelf! Well, on this one shelf, right here. Actually, any of the prizes between here and here on this one shelf.”

            This is basically what you’re doing.

            Ezekiel: “Even mighty Tyre will fall by God’s judgement, and the nations will tremble.”

            Paul Ferguson: “Yes! Tyre will fall! Actually, mainland Tyre will fall! Well, actually, this small piece of mainland Tyre will fall! This area 3.7 miles south of Tyre will actually fall! Praise the mighty hand of Jehovah! He who liberates Israel from the menace of a small strip of land 3.7 miles south of the actual fortress of Tyre!”

            This is ridiculous, and this is exactly why your brand of literalism is an enemy to understanding the Bible. You have to make everything work out literally, so you have to abandon the actual meaning of the passage. It’s disgusting, and I thank God almost daily that your brand of Christianity is almost dead in the U.S.

            I don’t know what you were thinking with those Google Earth photos, because the Lebanese coast south of Tyre runs north to south, not east to west like your photo. I went to Google Earth just now for a kick and used the Rule tool to measure out a 3.6 – 4 mile radius, and what did I discover along the coastland but another city! Go go Google Earth and you can see it right now, about 3.6 miles south of Tyre along the coast.

            There is farmland further inland and dots some points between metro areas on the map, but all that does is prove just how tiny your proposed area of destruction is and how little impact that would have been to Israel or the world economy in general. It would be like prophesying that the United States would be destroyed and someone destroys Hawaii. Except Hawaii would actually be the island in that case. What state did you say you were from, again?

            Sorry, you can cite as many literalist wingnuts as you want. They can’t change the fact that:

            A) Tyre was rebuilt both on the island and the coast.
            B) Nebuchadnezzar did not lay waste to either the island or the mainland.
            C) Tyre is fully inhabited to this day.
            D) No part of Tyre was ever covered by the sea welling up over it.

            Thus, a literal interpretation of Ezekiel is really an interpretation of unbelief and makes God a liar. Good luck with that.

            A -Christian- interpretation would stop and say, “Hey, maybe my interpretation of the Bible is wrong. Is there a way God can be true in both the text and actual history?” This will lead the scholar along the path of studying Jewish prophetic literature and coming to find that the OT prophets spoke in non-literal apocalyptic language constantly.

            God did not cut the stars out of the sky with a sword when Edom was destroyed, nor is it an everlasting lake of fire. The sky was not rolled up and cast away when Egypt was conquered. This is just how prophets communicated world-changing events. If you cared more about the Bible than your own school of thought, you would know this.

          • AmbassadorHerald

            First of all, have you ever heard of the theological principle of Two Fulfillments? Where a single prophecy can be fulfilled twice? Once historically in our past as a Minor Fulfillment, and once still in our future as a Major Fulfillment? Or do you categorically deny this principle?

            Second of all, based on this statement “those things did not literally happen when Jesus showed up”, are you trying to deny the Second Advent? Which is what Spartan is CLEARLY referring to in the restoration and new universe?

          • Yes, I deny that principle. It sounds made up to make a pre-existing theological schematic work, i.e. this prophecy MUST be talking about our future, and yet, it speaks in historical terms, so it must have two fulfillments.

            I don’t give a rats what Spartan was referring to. The events in Isaiah’s prophecy did not literally occur when Assyria was defeated, nor did they literally occur when the Messiah arrived. So, you can either say that the language is meant to be apocalyptic imagery and not literal, or you can posit some point in the indefinite future when, surely, those things will literally happen – which is both lazy and staggeringly ignorant of apocalyptic literature.

  • halflife2401

    Its funny how every YEC comment has the 1 upvote from the same guy….

  • Tom Riggle

    I understand. You are one of those insecure guys who don’t really care for real rebuttals of your position. I see that that other posts have been approved by you, but not mine. Fine. It’s your blog. Have fun.

    I do intend to continue dealing with the flimsy article you put up here, but on my FB page. Not wasting any more time here.

    • I have no idea what you’re talking about, man.

      • Tom Riggle

        I am talking about the post I sent twice. It never showed up here. Yet, strangely, this last one did. If you had nothing to do with the blocking of my earlier post then I apologize. I see that both posts of mine (actually the same post) were marked as spam. At any rate, I think I will just leave this site. No sense putting a lot of effort in writing only to have it blocked, by whatever reason.

        • Yeah, I didn’t have anything to do with that. The accusatory post was the first one I’ve seen by you. Sorry you had trouble.

          • Meanwhile, the admins of gourdofevolution.com are going, “Whoa, where did this guy come from?”

  • JBSchmidt

    You appear to cut and paste the Bible as required to make your point.

    1) No where in the Bible does God state that the tree of life was required for eternal life. Only that it could be eaten to produce it. It could have been a sacrament or relationship binder between Adam/Eve and God. Which is then broken with the injection of sin, where we are now separated from God.

    2)Sin ruined creation. Cursed the snake (Gen 2:14), cursed the body (Gen 2:16, 19), cursed the ground (Gen 2:17). As was stated in another comment, the whole of creation yearns for God’s return. Furthermore, only man was created in God image, everything else was designed to be used by man (Gen 1:28). As the pinnacle/focus of God’s creation it is not illogical that salvation would be geared towards man as well. Lastly, does the Bible say animals will not be in heaven? If not, your question holds no merit.

    3) The appropriate question you should be asking is: When are we judged for our sins? I doubt you deny that we are still sinning, correct? Hence, in a world cursed by sin (see my answer to #2) our physical bodies, burdened by original sin; will still die. On judgement day, those, who while living, had faith in Christ’s salvation, will be clothed in His righteous before the Father (Rev 3:4-6). This is the spiritual death that Christ has saved us from, eternal separation from God, sins true consequence. Christ paid our debt for sin, but God isn’t collecting that debt until judgement day. Aside from your assertion of man’s pre-sin state, you have no biblical proof of its reality.

    4)Up to this point in the Biblical story there are no kids. Since the story of children appear after the fall I think it is safe to make that assumption. God had just enacted the punishment he had promised, death, for eating of the tree. Not unlike a newly wed discovering his/her partner has terminal cancer, Adam and Eve must have thought it was the end. Yet, God had also revealed that Eve would have offspring (a savior at that). In that light, finding the hope of God that oozes out of the entire Bible narrative, Adam named his wife.

    5) Since we know God walked and talked with Adam ans Eve (Gen 3:8), they must have had numerous conversations. Those are not recorded in the Bible. To make the assertion they did not know about death puts words into the Bible that don’t exist.

    6)In Gen 3:19, God explains to Adam that he will return to the dust. Where did the dead go before this? This is the end of God’s curse after he explains to Adam he will struggle against creation his entire life. If death were immediate or already present, Gen 3:17-19 fail to make sense as he would be conferring a curse that would have already been present.

    7) Since it doesn’t exist, therefore it can’t? We have found archaeological evidence of countless civilizations, but have no record of how or when they developed. Does that mean they didn’t really exist? You again seem to have a better understanding of the pre-sin world than the Bible.

    8) You are missing any identifiers in Gen 2 that would indicate these are chronological events. Rather ch2 is the focus of God’s creation on man and his relationship with us.

    9) Was it ever condoned by God? Was incest a result of a sin ruined creation? Honestly, we have what we have. God in his omniscience created a world that could sustain itself in the presence of the sin problem.

    You have a larger issue if you accept an evolutionary God. Which hominids were saved? Did the first hominids interbreed with non-hominids? if so where their children saved? If they didn’t interbreed, did an entire non genetically similar tribe of saved hominids evolve at once?

    10) As for the words of Christ. He was one part of the Triune God. As such the words of the OT were just as much his as the words he spoke recorded in the Gospels. He did not need to affirm them as He was them. (John 1:1-2) Unless you reject the divinity of Christ, he didn’t need to recount the entire OT to make it true.

    • You appear to cut and paste the Bible as required to make your point.

      And you appear to have a hilariously poor sense of self-awareness.

      1) No where in the Bible does God state that the tree of life was required for eternal life. Only that it could be eaten to produce it. It could have been a sacrament or relationship binder between Adam/Eve and God. Which is then broken with the injection of sin, where we are now separated from God..

      Hey, buddy, check this out: Nowhere in the Bible does God state that the tree of life is a sacrament or relationship binder between Adam/Eve and God. I’m simply going off what the text says. You are adding a lot of extrabiblical conjecture, in order to serve your pre-existing construct, not the text itself.

      Sin ruined creation. Cursed the snake (Gen 2:14), cursed the body (Gen 2:16, 19), cursed the ground (Gen 2:17).

      You mean chapter 3, but otherwise the references are correct. But ultimately, this is just more extrabiblical conjecture. Far from showing the universality of the “curse,” the verses you offer illustrate how limited its effects were. Affected were one man, one woman, one serpent and the ground that the man would farm. Not all animals, not all people, and certainly not the entire universe.

      As was stated in another comment, the whole of creation yearns for God’s return.

      Actually, the passage (Romans 8) teaches that creation yearns for the revelation of the redeemed sons and daughters of God.

      Furthermore, only man was created in God image, everything else was designed to be used by man (Gen 1:28). As the pinnacle/focus of God’s creation it is not illogical that salvation would be geared towards man as well.

      It’s not a question of what’s logical, it’s a question of the clear and straightforward teachings of 1 Corinthians 15, as referenced above.

      Lastly, does the Bible say animals will not be in heaven? If not, your question holds no merit.

      Again, 1 Corinthians 15. Don’t bring in a bunch of extra nonsense and try to muck up the issues. Either respond to the verse presented, and the conflict I presented in the original post, or don’t.

      The appropriate question you should be asking is: When are we judged for our sins? I doubt you deny that we are still sinning, correct?

      No, actually, the appropriate question is, when do the spiritual effects of salvation become present in a believer’s life? When do we become a new creation, born again? When do we become forgiven and free from our sin in the eyes of God? When do we become sealed with the Holy Spirit? And the answer to all these is, immediately, when we repent and turn to Jesus in faith.

      It is true that we will still struggle with early sin — that is part of the process of sanctification — but that’s not what we’re talking about here. The issue at hand is what did Jesus mean when he said, “It is finished,” and the veil was torn? The process that became completed, that very moment, was that Christ, through his sacrifice, took onto himself all of the divine consequences for sin and negated them for our benefit.

      And if physical death was one of those divine consequences, you and I still have a problem because we will both physically die.

      Yet, God had also revealed that Eve would have offspring (a savior at that). In that light, finding the hope of God that oozes out of the entire Bible narrative, Adam named his wife.

      That doesn’t make any sense. God created mankind with the expressed purpose of multiplying and filling the earth with their offspring. It was literally the first thing he said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” The fact that they would have children is not something they learned during the curse monologue.

      Since we know God walked and talked with Adam ans Eve (Gen 3:8), they must have had numerous conversations. Those are not recorded in the Bible. To make the assertion they did not know about death puts words into the Bible that don’t exist.

      This is just hilarious. I’m honestly almost at a loss for words, but I’ll do my best to respond.

      OK, here goes. JB? I am the one who is simply going off what the text says, and nothing else. It doesn’t say they talked about death, so I’m presuming they didn’t. You are the one who is adding to the text, saying they must have had a conversation which the text does not remotely hint at.

      What makes it so ironic is that you accuse me of “putting words into the Bible that don’t exist,” when you are the only one doing that.

      In Gen 3:19, God explains to Adam that he will return to the dust. Where did the dead go before this? This is the end of God’s curse after he explains to Adam he will struggle against creation his entire life. If death were immediate or already present, Gen 3:17-19 fail to make sense as he would be conferring a curse that would have already been present.

      The punishment of Genesis 3:17-19 is that Adam would no longer be living in a garden planted by God, he will have to plant and grow and toil over his own food for the rest of his life. You are adding to the text by assuming that this is the moment he becomes mortal.

      A wife could leave her husband saying, “You will be alone until the day you die,” but that doesn’t mean she is conferring mortality upon him. She is simply referencing his mortal condition.

      Since it doesn’t exist, therefore it can’t? We have found archaeological evidence of countless civilizations, but have no record of how or when they developed. Does that mean they didn’t really exist? You again seem to have a better understanding of the pre-sin world than the Bible.

      I’m sorry, but this argument doesn’t make any sense to me.

      You are missing any identifiers in Gen 2 that would indicate these are chronological events. Rather ch2 is the focus of God’s creation on man and his relationship with us.

      I agree. The problem is that young-earth creationists insist Genesis 2 is an extrapolation of the sixth day described in Genesis 1. That’s what causes the contradictions within the text.

      Was it ever condoned by God?

      No, which is one of the reasons it’s so ridiculous to believe that is the way God set up the human race from the start.

      Was incest a result of a sin ruined creation?

      No, according to young-earth proponents, it was the way God set it up from the very beginning, before sin. He only made two people, after all, so the only way for them to “fill the earth” would be for their children to sleep with each other.

      You have a larger issue if you accept an evolutionary God. Which hominids were saved? Did the first hominids interbreed with non-hominids? if so where their children saved? If they didn’t interbreed, did an entire non genetically similar tribe of saved hominids evolve at once?

      None of these are issues for my view. They are just minor questions we don’t know the answers to. The equivalent for the YEC view would be, “Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?” or “What color was their hair?” The fact that we do not know the exact biographical details of the first people to whom God revealed himself does not change in any way what Genesis teaches us about the human condition or our standing before our Creator.

      As for the words of Christ. He was one part of the Triune God. As such the words of the OT were just as much his as the words he spoke recorded in the Gospels. He did not need to affirm them as He was them. (John 1:1-2) Unless you reject the divinity of Christ, he didn’t need to recount the entire OT to make it true.

      The problem is that neither I nor the young-earth proponents are saying Genesis isn’t true. It’s a question of interpretation. So Jesus speaking Genesis into being in the first place, and later affirming that it’s true, does nothing to bolster either interpretation, since both camps already agree that it is true.

      • JBSchmidt

        I answered, you deny that I am correct. Hence you win? This is like arguing against Ken Ham!

        1) I said ‘could’. I doesn’t say it is required either. You are simply arguing to ensure your world view is not effected. Not because of proper Biblical exegesis.

        2) Really, only farm land is effected by thistles? Only Eve suffers with childbirth (I will point that out to my wife). I won’t labor for food? Doesn’t the continued presence of the curses prove their universality? Does the curse of sin then extend to the effects man has made on this planet or would those things be around regardless of sin? So a post creation world absent sin would have eventually seen smog, ozone, superfund sites and endangered animals.

        Obviously the curse extended to all unless the curse existed from creation day 1.

        Has man brought death to the world? I would argue sin has killed countless animals (poaching?). Also, on the final judgement there will be a new heaven and new earth, vs 22 ‘all will be made alive’. Or does God destroy the old earth with all it flora and fauna for no proper reason.

        3)Romans 8:20 completes rejects your claim that creation is simply waiting for the glorification of man.

        Yes, our salvation is ensured through the work of the Holy Spirit, but the race isn’t won until we have completed our journey on this earth. 1Cor 9:24-27 makes it fairly clear, we are still subject to the consequences of sin.

        4)In the perfect environment of creation God made that command. Now, post sin, Adam saw that God’s curse came with hope. It fails to make sense because it clashes with your world view.

        5) Where does it say they experienced death in the physical world prior to sin. I raise plausible explanations and say plainly it is not in the Bible.

        Wonder if open discussion is in Ken Ham’s vocabulary?

        6) God was referencing condition? “From dust you are and to dust you will return”. To which Adam says, “Yeah So!”. If you you place death before Gen 3, the physical curse of sin is moot and so is the need for a savior. If nothing around me changed, what am I repenting for?

        7) Was your weakest question be far. Since it hasn’t happened it couldn’t or at least is it absolutely mythological. Do you accept that for all unproven historical instances. We can’t prove how the pyramids were built, hence they could not have been.

        8)”young-earth creationists insist Genesis 2 is an extrapolation of the sixth day described in Genesis 1.” This is an overly critical attack. It assumes old earthers walk lock step in full understanding of every portion of the text and thus young earthers must as well. Since the focus of Gen 2 is man, to assume it extrapolates day six maybe wrong, but still holds to the core notion of Gen 2; which is, man was God’s pinnacle.

        9) He didn’t, He set up perfection. Sin changed that. Originally it was perfect. I don’t know what God’s original plan for procreation was. Most likely (that means I don’t have biblical proof) genetic disorders that occur happen in the presence of sin. Since sin is a universal curse. Unless genetic malformation was present in the perfection of pre-Gen 3.

        “They are just minor question we don’t have answers too.” To quote a knowledgeable Saturday Night Live character, “Well isn’t that special.” I must have all the answers, while you can sit and pretend they will be revealed.

        Wonder if Ken Ham lives by that double standard?

        10) True. Then tell me when Christ said to make a mythology out of Genesis? If He didn’t say read it literally, He didn’t say read it as you wish.

        • I answered, you deny that I am correct.

          I’m sorry, pal, but you don’t get points for answering a question if the answer is wrong. I’ll bet your school math teachers felt the same way.

          This is like arguing against Ken Ham!

          You think so? Try posting some critical comments on his Facebook page (he doesn’t allow comments on his site) like you have done with me. Let me know how the discussion goes.

          I said ‘could’. I doesn’t say it is required either. You are simply arguing to ensure your world view is not effected. Not because of proper Biblical exegesis.

          Well, OK, but anything “could” happen. It takes more than an undisprovable “maybe” to trump what the text says in black and white, if the goal is really to understand what the text intends to say (which is my goal, anyway).

          Really, only farm land is effected by thistles?

          That’s not what I said, and that’s not what the text says.

          Only Eve suffers with childbirth (I will point that out to my wife).

          That’s not what the text says. Genesis 3:16 doesn’t say the woman would have pain in childbirth, it says the pain she was already going to have would be increased.

          The Hebrew word, “rabah,” is the same one used in Genesis 1 when God instructs birds and fish and humans to “multiply” and fill the earth. It speaks to an increase of something already in existence, not the appearance of something entirely new (“multiplying” zero by anything is zero).

          I won’t labor for food?

          Um, I don’t know if you are a farmer, but many people are not in this day and age. That does not mean they are any less under the *actual* consequences of sin.

          Doesn’t the continued presence of the curses prove their universality?

          No, because, No. 1, they aren’t, and No. 2, the text is quite limited and specific, as was already pointed out.

          Does the curse of sin then extend to the effects man has made on this planet or would those things be around regardless of sin? So a post creation world absent sin would have eventually seen smog, ozone, superfund sites and endangered animals.

          This is an interesting discussion to have, for sure, but it’s not relevant to the text of Genesis 3, since Genesis 3 and the punishment for Adam and Eve’s disobedience doesn’t speak to any of it. You’re conflating two different things, without any biblical reason for doing so.

          Romans 8:20 completes rejects your claim that creation is simply waiting for the glorification of man.

          Cherry-picking verses without any regard for their context or the passage’s overall point is a terrible way to read the Bible. You cannot ignore verse 19: “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.”

          Yes, our salvation is ensured through the work of the Holy Spirit, but the race isn’t won until we have completed our journey on this earth. 1Cor 9:24-27 makes it fairly clear, we are still subject to the consequences of sin.

          I already said this. We are still subject to the earthly, natural consequences of sin (e.g., I’m addicted to drugs, I became a Christian, God is not going to necessarily make my addiction vanish overnight), but not the divine consequences, the ones God alone mandated and is responsible for.

          In the perfect environment of creation God made that command. Now, post sin, Adam saw that God’s curse came with hope. It fails to make sense because it clashes with your world view.

          Um, no. It fails to make sense because it clashes with the idea that Adam and Eve had just been directly responsible with poisoning the entire universe with pain, sickness and death, which is the YEC contention.

          Where does it say they experienced death in the physical world prior to sin.

          The fact that God made a tree that offered eternal life is one clue.

          I raise plausible explanations and say plainly it is not in the Bible.

          And then criticize me for supposedly adding things to the Bible.

          Wonder if open discussion is in Ken Ham’s vocabulary?

          I doubt it.

          God was referencing condition? “From dust you are and to dust you will return”. To which Adam says, “Yeah So!”.

          No, I think Adam would probably have been pretty upset about no longer being able to live in the garden with God.

          f you you place death before Gen 3, the physical curse of sin is moot and so is the need for a savior. If nothing around me changed, what am I repenting for?

          OK, first of all, you’re still going to physically die. We talked about that back in question 3, remember? Being a Christian does not get you out of that, and it remains a rather significant problem that YEC theology says salvation should make us physically immortal but does not.

          If you are really unclear about what the need and purpose of salvation is, it is because we are separated from God by our sin, and faith in Christ removes our sin and restores us back into a right relationship with him. This separation from God is what Adam and Eve’s eviction from the garden is meant to symbolize.

          Was your weakest question be far. Since it hasn’t happened it couldn’t or at least is it absolutely mythological. Do you accept that for all unproven historical instances. We can’t prove how the pyramids were built, hence they could not have been.

          Yeah, I appreciate you trying again, but this argument still makes no sense. What the heck do the pyramids have to do with the literary device of a talking animal?

          “young-earth creationists insist Genesis 2 is an extrapolation of the sixth day described in Genesis 1.” This is an overly critical attack.

          Um, what? Describing the YEC position accurately is an “overly critical attack”?

          He didn’t, He set up perfection.

          Buddy, according to the young-earthers, he set up a system that necessitated incest almost immediately. You can describe that as perfection if you like, but the incest thing is not something that came about because of sin. It came about because, according to the YEC model, God made only two people and told them to populate the world.

          “They are just minor question we don’t have answers too.” To quote a knowledgeable Saturday Night Live character, “Well isn’t that special.” I must have all the answers, while you can sit and pretend they will be revealed.

          No one has all the answers, and that’s not what I’m asking of you. As I mentioned before, equivalent questions of the YEC model would be Adam and Eve’s belly button or hair color. We don’t know and it doesn’t matter.

          These questions above are different because they point to problematic contradictions in scripture and traditional Christian theology that are created by the YEC hermeneutic.

          Then tell me when Christ said to make a mythology out of Genesis? If He didn’t say read it literally, He didn’t say read it as you wish.

          Well, I disagree. I think the fact that neither he nor any of the divinely inspired biblical authors instructed us to take one particular view means it should be open to reasonable interpretation.

          • JBSchmidt

            I can post, I just must agree.

            In short, you assume because there was a tree of life there then had to be death (Bible verse?). Consequently, if death existed, pain and suffering also had to exist (Bible verse? if not). Hence, ‘it was good’ simply applies to the functioning of an intact system and not a world free of the suffering (Bible verse?). As a result Gen 1&2 are mythological representations written to educate a people unable to grasp the deeper understanding of how life works. Even as countless other early peoples have stories of people evolving from lower life forms.

            What of us after resurrection? Do we have the ‘it was good’ body or something all together different? Obviously sinless, but free from death or are we simply given the tree of life back (literal translation of Rev 2:7). Will heaven be more ‘good’ than the ‘good’ of creation pre Gen 3?

          • I can post, I just must agree.

            You can post all you want, but I’m not going to agree with you if I think you’re wrong. That seems pretty fair to me…

            In short, you assume because there was a tree of life there then had to be death (Bible verse?).

            That’s more just basic logic. It seems pretty unnecessary for God to make a tree that grants immortality if every living thing was already immortal.

            Consequently, if death existed, pain and suffering also had to exist (Bible verse? if not).

            Well, as I stated in my previous comment, the fact that Genesis 3 says the woman’s pain would “increase” seems to pretty clearly indicate pain and suffering were already part of the human experience.

            Hence, ‘it was good’ simply applies to the functioning of an intact system and not a world free of the suffering (Bible verse?)

            I don’t know why you expect me to provide a Bible verse here (other than your demonstrated love for proof-texting verses out of context). There is no verse that says “it was good” means physical death was impossible.

            As a result Gen 1&2 are mythological representations written to educate a people unable to grasp the deeper understanding of how life works.

            No, they are meant to teach us theological and moral truths about creation, God, mankind and the relationship between the two. Basically, the truths that we would be unable to obtain on our own. That’s why the theologians call it special revelation, as compared to natural revelation.

            What of us after resurrection? Do we have the ‘it was good’ body or something all together different?

            Read this. It should answer your question: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+15%3A35-58&version=NIV

            Obviously sinless, but free from death or are we simply given the tree of life back (literal translation of Rev 2:7).

            Death will be destroyed at that point. The tree of life is a symbol in Revelation 2:7 and 22, just as it is in Genesis.

            Will heaven be more ‘good’ than the ‘good’ of creation pre Gen 3?

            Yes, it will be far better.

          • JBSchmidt

            Was the Tree of Life a symbol or required food for immortality? When I suggested it could represent a sacrament, you denied it. Which is it? Is it a symbol as you are now stating or is it a required for eternal life?

            Early in this conversation you pointed out Romans 8:19 and claimed that Romans 8:20&21 are simply pointing back to Romans 8:19 and add nothing new. Even though it specifically claims that the bondage of decay came as an act of the fall. If your reading of the text is correct, how does the ‘bondage of decay’ relate to the the people of God being revealed? When read together and not cherry picking, it is easy to see that the the fall into sin ruined the entirety of creation and it yearns for judgement day and its subsequent renewal.

            In Gen 3:15 you like to take the first sentence and pretend the rest of the verse means nothing. In the second part of that verse it says, “with pain” assuming that pain had not existed. You also assume that you understand the point from which childbirth had increased. What was childbirth like prior to Gen 3? What did it increase from? Doesn’t ‘increase’, when taking in context with the second part of that verse mean an increase from nothing?

          • Was the Tree of Life a symbol or required food for immortality? When I suggested it could represent a sacrament, you denied it. Which is it? Is it a symbol as you are now stating or is it a required for eternal life?

            You seem to be conflating my views with something someone else said. I have never said and do not believe the tree of life was a sacrament, or a food by which one could obtain immortality by repeated eating. Please do not waste my time.

            Early in this conversation you pointed out Romans 8:19 and claimed that Romans 8:20&21 are simply pointing back to Romans 8:19 and add nothing new.

            I did not say Romans 8:20-21 “add nothing new.” That is idiotic. What I said was that they cannot be properly understood when ripped out of their immediate context, as you attempted to do.

            Even though it specifically claims that the bondage of decay came as an act of the fall.

            Wow, this should be fascinating. Please, tell us what verse in Romans 8 “specifically claims that the bondage of decay came as an act of the fall.”

            If your reading of the text is correct, how does the ‘bondage of decay’ relate to the the people of God being revealed?

            The idea, which is by no means a new one in theology, is that our temporal existence was created by God as a means to include us toward something greater, and eventually reveal that in us.

            This is, by the way, exactly what the text says. It does not say creation was subjected to “decay/futility” as a punishment, but “in hope” of the new heaven and earth that will accompany the revelation of the redeemed children of God.

            When read together and not cherry picking, it is easy to see that the the fall into sin ruined the entirety of creation and it yearns for judgement day and its subsequent renewal.

            It says nothing of the sort. But I can’t wait to see what you say is the passage’s “specific” reference to a literal, historical fall of man in Genesis.

            In Gen 3:15 you like to take the first sentence and pretend the rest of the verse means nothing.

            You mean verse 16, but the answer to your claim is no, I don’t.

            In the second part of that verse it says, “with pain” assuming that pain had not existed.

          • Even in a perfect world, it is hard to understand how you’d get something that big out of that space without some discomfort.

            Although, I have to admit I’m curious to hear what sort of construct YECs would need for that to be the case. Like, the hydrosphere is their answer to all the waters dividing. I’m curious as to what they’d come up with to allow childbirth with no discomfort. I’m thinking hinges.

          • Interesting side note: My wife grew up attending a private Baptist school that used the ACE curriculum (hardcore anti-evolutionist). However, we were talking about this passage yesterday, and she said that church and its pastor staunchly held to the idea that childbirth was painful in the original design, and that the curse just made it more painful. She said they used basically the same contextual arguments I’ve been using here.

          • That’s pretty impressive. I grew up in a particularly fundamental Baptist denomination and got pretty much the usual scenario.

          • Yeah, that’s what I would expect. Admitting that there was pain before the fall is surrendering one of the YECs’ most emotionally and rhetorically powerful weapons: the convenience of being able to blame everything bad on Adam and Eve.

        • Chris

          5) Where does it say they experienced death in the physical world prior to sin. I raise plausible explanations and say plainly it is not in the Bible.

          While you may be technically correct in saying the Bible does not out-rightly say there was physical death before the fall, it just as clearly does not say there was not physical death before the fall. Here is a good article referencing several great points to which a world with no physical death is simply not plausible. It’s not a logically good concept, which God did call all His creation “good”.

          Since most of the YEC position hinges on this ridiculous “puppies-and-unicorns” view that all death is inherently bad so God didn’t make it, as well as the equally fallible notion of inherited sin (read on), the entire view tends to fall on its face.

          If you you place death before Gen 3, the physical curse of sin is moot and so is the need for a savior. If nothing around me changed, what am I repenting for?

          Try reading Ezekiel 18. You are not repenting for Adam’s sin long ago, you are repenting for your OWN sin (Romans 3:23). Not sure where this notion of original sin being an inherited condition and without it there is no need for a Savior comes in, it certainly is not what my Bible says.

          • Quite right, Chris. Thanks for the comment. I especially liked the “puppies-and-unicorns” bit. I have often said the absurd idea that all animal death is evil, and therefore must not have existed before mankind’s “fall” owes much more to Disney and “Bambi” than it does to any real teaching of the Bible.

            I appreciate the link as well (it was missing a colon, but otherwise worked fine). I believe I’ve read it before, but it’s good to be refreshed!

          • Chris

            Yeah, it’s only the cute things and the ones we love which people tend to see death as being bad for. No one cries how sad when seeing a dead bug or rat, or even the villain in the Disney movies as you point out, and have no problem ignoring the finite space on planet Earth for the supposed original plan if nothing were to die. They can’t have it both ways, it’s either good, bad, or as we clearly see it, just an essential part of the life cycle since the beginning.

            I also find it funny in all the diagrams even from your favorite activist groups, Adam and Eve are always depicted as having plenty of hair and fingernails….which…. is dead cells. Wonder how they figure those features are “historically accurate” if death in any form were such an unknown concept? https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/cms/content/contentnode/header_image/original-sin.jpg

            Guess what I just realized. At the center of “Answers In Genesis” is “sin“.

            Fixed the link too, not sure why it did that thanks for letting me know 🙂

          • Yeah, that’s a good point, too. Not to mention the microbes that would have quickly overpopulated and burst Adam and Eve from the inside if they could not die.

            But I’ve heard YEC proponents argue that plant death is not the same as animal death, because plants don’t have blood (based on passages like Lev. 17:14). So maybe they would say microbes could die, too, because they also don’t have blood.

            For all we know, Adam and Eve could have slaughtered all the shellfish and jellyfish and insects that they wanted in God’s original “perfect” design.

            I appreciate the comments, Chris. Hope to hear more from you.

          • Chris

            Microbes, hair, jellyfish; any admittance of plausible concept of death before the fall is capitulation. They make the claim, can’t back down and admit they were wrong, and invent a new qualification on what they meant, throwing around Hebrew words like “nephesh chayyāh” to obfuscate us lay-folk who lack the scholarship to see that whatever they currently are saying is the actual concept or not. But considering the credibility of that source, I’d put my money on “not”.

          • That’s where I’d put my money too.

          • “The Blessed Immortality of Paramecia”

  • Interesting bit on the Tree of Life.

    John Calvin’s view was that Adam and Eve were allowed to freely eat of the Tree of Life prior to exile (Gen. 2:16), and that tree sustained their life as long as they could eat it. So, the exile was de facto a death sentence, because it cut Adam and Eve off from their “eternal life supply,” so to speak.

    Meredith Kline took the view that the Tree of Life was more of a sacramental prize of eternal life for passing their probation, and they had never eaten of it. They were supposed to get to eat of it, but they failed in their task (Gen. 3:22-23).

    The interesting thing about both views is that death is the normal condition and the Tree staves it off.

  • gospeloflove

    Tyler, being a brother in Christ ( I can say that as I have
    read your statement of faith, and providing it is honest, I would say we share
    a savior, Jesus the Christ) I would like to address your blog post and the
    questions you pose. I will try to write with respect, to your person and where
    possible for me your text, and answer prayerfully (with Christ’s help and
    inspiration) your questions because I felt inspired to respond. (2 Timothy 2:23-26)

    Before answering these questions I have to point out that your
    title is flawed. You say “10 theological questions no young-earth
    creationist can answer” of course you mean to say reasonably answer(which
    is a matter of ones opinion), but you are implying that Christians with a
    different scientific belief cannot answer these ten THEOLOGICAL questions .
    This is too absolute a statement and ignores God’s revelation in the lives
    of His children. Although, a useful
    title as a bait and hook topic in journalistic rhetoric, it appears far too
    arrogant a stance to say to a fellow believer (indwelt by the Holy Spirit).
    ” Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. If anyone supposes that he
    knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; but if anyone loves
    God, he is known by Him.” To imply that a brother in Christ is too foolish
    in their YEC science beliefs to answer questions for which they would need no
    science, but instead inspiration/revelation,
    can be viewed as an arrogant proposition. (because as you said they are
    Theological not scientific questions).

    To assume the Genesis account unequivocally can’t be
    interpreted literally, because of contemporary scientific points of
    understanding, is perhaps “great” science for those who choose
    science as the foundation for their faith, but bad theology. It would cage the
    power and truth of God to modern scientific theory, a dangerous place for any
    believer to take their stance, when their stance should be on the Rock/Word
    Christ Jesus. Science is NOT inerrant, nor can it be in a universe designed,
    maintained and sustained by God. It is under His law, power and authority. Good
    science can discover His methods, and by His grace understand them somewhat,
    but it cannot dictate them. And good theology looks to God, His word and His
    Spirit, for understanding and interpreting Scripture not to “scientists.”
    (they were never meant to be prophets nor teachers to the Christian, whose
    teacher is God!)

    Now to answer your first question, I am sorry that this is
    not a short simple answer, but the cell is not a simple cell either despite the
    name, but don’t worry , this answer will be no where near the complexity of a
    “simple cell” 😉

    “What was the point of the tree of life?” I would say(if you were a Sadducee, a pretend adherent
    to the truth) that you are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or
    the power of God. 😉 but as you are a
    believer I will assume you have read the Bible in full(probably a lot I hope)
    and prayerfully asked God to reveal His truth and power found in it to you. So
    I will remind you of what the point of the tree of life was in a theological
    answer (Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence
    of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of
    the hearers. 2 Timothy 2:14):

    1. You said “This presents a huge problem for the
    young-earth view, because they believe physical death was not part of God’s
    original creation.” Not entirely true,
    I do believe there was a kind of “death” before “the fall of man”.
    based on Genesis 1:29-30 “Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every
    plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which
    has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every
    bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I
    have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.” As you can see
    plants(which scientists say have a kind of “life”) were eaten by all
    flesh so it is reasonable to assume a concept of death, perhaps decay, and new
    life was visible outside of the earth born animal kingdom, perhaps you could
    argue that within marine life there was death as Genesis does not specifically
    say fish eat plants and fruit, but I doubt it at this stage, as they were only
    a day old and I believe the above verse included marine life 😉 . However, if
    from your perspective animals were dieing and eating each other for millions of
    years before Adam, then why did God impose the new dietary rules for the
    animals? Even from a non-literal view of this scripture it wouldn’t make sense
    for this to be in the text at all. What symbolic truth does a new diet for
    animals teach us that the dietary rules for man would not? According to
    scripture(and theology) here I believe there was no death yet among Adam(man)
    and the animals until after “the fall.” the animal kingdom was still
    young after all.

    2. You have said before that the tree of life taken
    literally is magic. To quote ” why, exactly, did God
    create a magical tree that grants immortality” To say the tree of
    life is magic and there by discredit it as fantasy(as you have done in previous
    posts as well)… is a silly argument (neither theologically nor scientifically
    sound), not understanding how a physical thing can impart life(or in this case
    life immortal), and then calling it magic, is very unscientific of you.
    Theoretically if you went back in time(or to a culturally isolated people
    today) with a needle of penicillin to the right patient and told them it would
    give restoration life, or showed someone there the magic of electricity or “pictures
    of light”(Tablets etc,) they might think you had magic powers due to their
    lack of understanding. So that any tale later told about you was considered a
    fantasy story no matter the truth of it. Just because you don’t scientifically
    understand scripture doesn’t discredit the truth of it, especially from a
    Christian world view in which the supernatural influences the world daily and
    life eternal is not up for debate. I remember one argument how the 2nd law of
    thermodynamics alone proves the perfect creation theory wrong but that is
    because they were thinking along a naturalistic view of the law, excluding the
    fact that the universe is not a closed system to God, who at any point can
    impart more energy into it should He desire. Theologically, laws are laws to
    those under them, not to God their creator. (sorry got off track there)

    To answer your sub-question “why, exactly, did God create a magical tree that grants immortality in a
    world where every living thing was already immortal?” we
    can see there may be a fairly straightforward answer to it…theoretically it
    is a flawed question also because it is dealing with assumptions on both sides,
    because both YEC and “theistic evolutionists” makes a supposition (theological
    theory) here: The physical immortality or lack thereof, of Adam. But I believe
    the YEC theory here to be more theologically sound. Was the earth called very good
    by God who hates sin(the power of death) and was there as of yet no curse, and
    no death in the animal/man kingdom? Yes, we can see that according to the
    scripture, whether taking it symbolically or literally. Adam was a day old and
    death was yet to be seen in the creation account, but to say that he was
    already immortal is an assumed claim. It is a theological theory, but one based
    on much theological evidence (not unlike your theory of evolution is based on
    scientific evidence.) Theoretically(unlikely but) the tree of life may not have
    been placed in an immortal world, but it was placed in one theologically
    assumed immortal, based on God’s descriptions of good as seen throughout
    scripture, and based on the fact that Adam was a living soul with the breath of God quickening also His mortal flesh
    as the Spirit quickens the Believers mortal flesh (Rom.8:11). The tree of life
    was placed in a very good new world of
    potential. Potential for continued
    life (immortality) shown in the tree of life, and for sin/death in the tree of
    the knowledge of good and evil. This is seen in the commandment God gave to
    Adam. It was placed in the garden for the same reason the tree of the knowledge
    of good and evil was, to give man a freewill choice to obey or disobey God and the
    ability to love and be loved by God. The trees gave Adam (and Eve) the ability
    to be righteous and in relationship with the eternal God almighty. As you know,
    man would have been a deterministic robot without such a choice/life. So both
    trees were a part of that purpose. Yet mankind chose one tree over the
    other(something people still do today when they reject Christ Jesus) Choosing to
    “be like God” knowing good from evil apart from a relationship with
    Him (Genesis 3:4-5 “The serpent said to the woman,
    “You surely will not die! For
    God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and
    evil.” which was a lie). The tree of life was also there to be a sign
    and a seal, assuring Him of the continuance of life and imparting everlasting
    life, physically and spiritually (it would have been a poor sign if it lacked
    that power, because Adam was created to be a physical and spiritual being). We
    can see in 1 Corinthians 15 that we all through Christ(the life giving Adam)
    are going to be changed, putting on immortality with new everlasting bodies. The
    tree of life was a symbol of Jesus, which is reveled throughout the new
    testament. It was then, as He is now, for the obedient Adam(children of God)
    not the disobedient sinner that rejects Jesus, their wages for sin(and
    unbelief) are, then and now, death.

    Here is a bit of a Bible commentary for a further
    theological answer: “We see also in
    the garden the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not merely so called to
    increase useful knowledge, but first, because there was an express positive
    revelation concerning this tree, so that by it man may know moral good and evil. What is good? It
    is good not to eat of this tree. What is evil? It is evil to eat of this tree.
    The distinction between all other moral good and evil was written in the heart
    of man by nature(instinct and conscience do not murder etc. ) but this, which
    resulted from a positive law, was “written upon” this tree. Secondly,
    Because in the event it proved to give Adam an experimental knowledge of good
    by the loss of it and of evil by the sense of it. As the covenant of grace has
    in it: Believe and be saved, but also, believe not and be damned (Mark 16:16)so
    that in these two trees God set before him in the garden, the blessing and the
    curse like in Duet. 30:19 These two trees were as two sacraments.”

    Yes, this scripture
    in Genesis is a symbol too, but so was the Israelite nation a symbol to the
    world, but that does not make their incredible, God filled, history untrue. He
    is God and has the ability to use natural true events to point to supernatural
    truths. As soon as someone discredits Biblical miracles as purely parables,
    then they are on a path to bad theology and ultimately to rejection of the
    miracle of the resurrection. Theologically
    the Genesis account can be, and should be, taken both literally and symbolically,
    to choose just one would be bad theology.

    3. As said above the tree of life was a symbol of the
    pre-incarnate Christ. Jesus is called THE LIFE,
    The bread(food) of life, the giver of everlasting life, The Vine to which
    believers, a part of a symbolic tree of life, are the branches. As I said, God
    throughout scripture uses true events as symbols to point us to truth, and
    prophetic truth, which therefore cannot
    be a matter of ones own interpretation. “2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture
    is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of
    human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture
    is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction,
    for training in righteousness.”

    We see a type of tree
    of life throughout scripture in places like Psalms 1:3 or Jeremiah17:7-8 both
    referencing the righteous as being like a tree(Christ) planted by living water
    (God). These were written Symbolically using the word “like” but
    referring to something literal a tree of life(with God presence). If you are
    thinking that Jesus’ presence could not, or would not, dwell in a literal tree
    then you are forgetting we also see a type of the tree of life, in the story of
    Moses and the burning bush, a physical tree full of the life of God’s presence
    that did not burn up or wither due to the “flame.” God’s presence made
    even the ground Holy ground. (Or is Exodus just a symbolic book or parable
    also) The New testament as I’m sure you’re aware also references the tree of
    life and in Revelation, Theologically you cannot say the tree of life is just
    magic or just a symbol. That is not a statement made by revelation but from
    human wisdom/understanding of naturalistic science and is something we should
    not lean on especially for our doctrinal beliefs. (and we know God rejects ‘the
    wisdom of the wise’ “For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the
    wise, And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.” Where is the wise
    man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made
    foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world
    through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the
    foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” 1 Cor. 1:19-21″ )

    4. Why my brother in Revelation (a book you may view as
    merely symbolic) does Jesus say “He who has an ear, let him hear what the
    Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life
    which is in the Paradise of God. Revelation 2:7″ Why, exactly, did God create a magical tree
    that grants immortality in a new world where every living thing was
    already immortal?” Why mention a “magic” tree
    of life for those to eat who are already given immortality in Heaven having
    overcome this world? Because it is a real tree as seen in Revelation 22, and a
    real truth. Or do you think that Spiritual and future physical things are less
    real and that current physical nature is more real. Theologically we know that
    eternal spiritual reality far out ways the temporal physical one. As His word
    says, these things today are but a shadow of the real that is to come.

    I could actually expound on this question more but I think
    that does give a theological answer to your first question. Which is what your
    title statement desired. 🙂 I have to go for now, but I would love to
    theologically answer the other nine for you sometime soon. If you would truly
    be willing to read my answers as this can be time consuming for both of us. But
    I learn/remember a lot too when I defend the hope that is in me. 😉

    Tyler,
    please do not let scientists dictate your doctrine, their science is ever
    changing(evolving) but the Rock on which we stand is the cornerstone of this
    world, the Word, The authority, Jesus the Christ! “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of
    God.” Faith doesn’t come by science. Building on anything else will lead to
    idolatry and a false Christ and a false doctrine(we are warned again and again
    against false doctrine in these last days) The enemy will come to deceive as an
    angel of light, look at the fruits of evolutionary science, a thing that has
    caused many to renounce their faith in Christ and the sovereignty of His word.
    “For the time will come when they will not
    endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will
    accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn
    aside to myths. 2 Timothy
    4:2-4” “O
    Timothy(Tyler), guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and
    empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called
    “knowledge”(Science)— which
    some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. 1 Timothy 6:20-21”

  • DarkX Studios

    I love this!! YECs don’t have enough evidence scientifically, but even more importantly, the Bible actually supports an Old Earth even more than a Young Earth if you use the original Hebrew language of the old testament. Thanks for this!!

  • Nate Brown

    I know I’m a bit late to the party! I am a 20 year old child. I will try my best to answer the questions based on what I believe in order to clear any confusion that you may or may not have now. You seem like a very smart man and don’t be afraid to open up your heart to see that he is great and loving God.

    1)
    Why did God make the tree? Why God gives us an option and then let us die? Society tends to think that if something is bad it cannot have good and if something is good it haa to be perfect. Both of which are incorrect. God wanted us to have a choice. We have a choice everyday to live in whatever manner we would like. God didn’t want us to be robots. If Adam and Eve continued being an image of him, life would be boring. Who wants to live a life where we never got to experience pain, hurt and risk? It would be like the parent that requires his child to have bubble wrap all around is body, padding everywhere in order to avoid any damage. I understand in some circumstances you don’t want your child to have risk. There’s some element of sadness put into that. That is why.

    I think the flood is a pretty good reason to why there’s no more tree of good and evil.

    2)
    I think animals were capable of death before the fall. Considering animals shows the power of God. So we could experience a glimpse of he is capable of. Humans had dominion over all things of the earth just as God has full dominion everything including humans. Animals can’t have salvation. Society has skewed animals to being as important as human being. Don’t get me wrong. Animals serve their purpose on this earth and we are to respect them as Jesus did when he came down for us. I don’t think we should sacrifice our body to save animals (unless you’d like to show the unconditional love God has shown us and really just depends on the situation), but I think if we just saved a dog from the hands of an abusive dog owner. That is a good start. But you shouldn’t feel like a hero. God is a hero. He’s like superman without the cryptanite. He knows no weakness.

    3)
    There’s two possible versions of death – Spiritual and physical. We die because of the sin we accepted into our life at birth. We came through our mothers womb and inherited sin. Speaking about physical. I don’t think I am to judge who is going to heaven or not. That is up to God and I won’t focus much of the spiritual simply because I am not God. I do however know you must believe in Him. A lot of people’s “fire” is too weak to sustain and thus no longer being saved. However, I could guess that you in the time you did believe would be saved. I know. That’s some real time travel stuff. Since God is outside the realm of time, maybe one’s past self is to be saved, but again I’m not one to know. Unfortunately I am not capable of being all knowing lol.

    4)
    I see you think about this a lot or at least did. Eve was named mother of life simply because she is of the original. She was the 1st woman and 2nd human to be created.

    5)
    I think Adam did not truly know what death was before eating the fruit.

    6)
    They did die. It says “in the day” not “in a day”. They will *surely* die does not have an immediate affect. It has no sense of when it will happen. It is assurance that we will die a physical death.

    7)
    Well keep in mind Adam was just created. I mean we have to tell children who were born recently to not walk across the street or you will get run over. The child attempts it anyway and we have to step in. We are all oblivious to some sin our lives whether big or small. That’s why we are children of God and we are not the all knowing God. Even though sometimes we like to this it. I do too. I have to catch myself and step back a few steps and find that sin and replace it with Him. What makes you different from any other child? There’s areas in my life I see a child and there’s other areas where I see none other than Jesus Christ.

    8)
    Plants/Trees – I believe he is saying he planted the seeds in chapter 1 and chapter 2 gave them the ability to grow into a beautiful creation.

    Animals – How I see this is he is allowing birth to occur without the animals. He is just placing a foundation of how birth between animals of their kind will work. The second chapter is speaking of the animals he created.

    Humans (man and woman) – He has the same constant behavior. He planned out the purpose of man and it is to be image of him and because of sin we have broken that image.

    9) I was not there in the beginning of time. It’s very possible God did not create just Adam and Eve. They were just first.

    10) God is all knowing. By saying you would think he would mention something when he could have is like saying “God I know what’s best for me even when you are being clear to me what I need to be doing”. All over scripture the man who worshipped himself and his desires died. We all have something to desire other than God. The objective of the bible is to push you away from selfish and bitter desires to having a relationship with you. It’s not up to me to give you salvation. I can help as much as I can, but only God can make man entirely new.

    If there’s any more confusion-
    Add me on Facebook – Nate W Brown (Charlotte, NC)
    Add me on Discord – 5ive_Head #0972
    Add me on Skype – nathanielbrown2
    Email me at 5iveHeadNation@gmail.com! Don’t be afraid to speak to me. I am here for you. Continue to question yourself as well as why he did it. It will lead to great things. Wish you the best!

    • Nate Brown

      Made a few grammatical errors. Forgive me. I am a human typing this on my phone lol. I reread and the only part I think could be confusing is where I say on the 7th point that “sometimes we like to this it” change the “this” to “think” and the rest of the mistakes you can figure out lol 🙂