Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>I therefore modify my definition accordingly, thus:
> For me, as a Bible believer and YEC, the term 'evolution'
> means any theory or doctrine of origins that requires its
> adherents to ignore, selectively 'interpret', or otherwise do
> violence to the Scriptures.
>I trust this now makes my position clear.
And what are your examples?
>Where we have gone wrong in the science-Bible debate is that we have
>formulated a biblical picture, a scientific picture, and a historical
>picture. And although the scientific and historical pictures may look
>similar, neither of them look like the biblical picture. YECs hold up
>a biblical picture, borne in ignorance, and disavow the scientific and
>historical pictures. What I have tried to do is to bring together the
>relevant data and evidence necessary to present one picture with three
>viewpoints - biblical, historical and scientific. But it's a lot
>easier when you have seen "the box."
> I suggest "the box" is inevitably defined by the presuppositions
> and predispositions of the individual commentator.
Actually, the picture on "the box" emerged after 12 years of
research. What you might find interesting is that I did have a
"presupposition" in 1986. I could see that Adam appears far too late in
human history that he could have started the human race, nevertheless, I
reasoned at that time that it might be possible that the flood terminated
all human life, and that the human race could have been restarted by Noah
and his three sons.
Noah was "perfect in his generations" descending from Adam, but his
nameless wife of uncertain ancestry carried the genetic markers showing the
link between humans and other higher primates. That part still
works. It's just that the rest of the world outside southern Mesopotamia
was still populated after the flood. The Nephilim, or "giants" in the KJV,
lived both before and after the flood according to the Old Testament (Gen.
6:4, Num. 13:33). So the presupposition was abandoned because of what was
learned in the research process. And so I am what is truly a rarity today
- a Bible apologist who actually changed his mind as a direct result of
discovering contrary data and evidence.
> Thus, for me,
> the _untarnished_ Scriptures make perfect sense. The 'picture' on
> "the box" informs me that "The heart is deceitful above all things
> and desperately wicked..." (Jer.17:9), and that unregenerate man
> is an enemy of God (eg Ps.2). Experience of myself and of the
> world around me confirms the logic of that assessment of the
> general human condition; and makes sense of the Incarnation and
> all that follows. It also explains why - in the absence of
> incontestable evidence - the 'theory' of evolution is so popular;
> and why, for many, it has become a 'fact' to be vigorously
> defended. For these reasons I cannot accept the 'imaginative'
> examples you provide, viz
>For example, the whole "earth" was not of one "language," there was
>one prevalent topic of conversation. The tower builders used bitumin
>to seal the bricks and stick them together, not "slime." The ground
>was not watered by "mist," the water came from a "fountain"
>(Septuagint). The "mountains" were not covered by water during the
>flood, only the "hills." (The word is the same in Hebrew.) And so
>on. Everything fits into one harmonious picture when the entirety of
>Genesis 2 -11 is viewed as Mesopotamian history from about 7,000 years
>ago to about 4,000 years ago, and nothing fits if you try to take it
>elsewhere, or slide it into some other time frame.
>I had then said:
> Clearly, it is essential as Christians that we make no
> foolish mistakes in respect of what God is actually telling us.
> Through the apostle Peter, he warns as follows: "His (Paul's)
> letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which
> ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other
> Scriptures, to their own destruction."(2 Pet.3:16, NIV). Dick, I
> suggest this must be a stumbling block for people like
> yourself; perhaps you can explain how you surmount this
> truth - and demonstrate your wisdom in doing so!
I'll take that challenge, Vern. This is taken from the book:
"Young-earth creationists maintain the Bible prohibits death, even in the
animal world, until Adam commits Original Sin. Genesis 3:17b and Romans
8:22 are summoned for oblique support, but essentially this idea of no
death in the animal kingdom before Adam hinges on their interpretation of
about one half of one verse in Romans.
Citing Romans 5:12, Henry Morris explains that death "entered into the
world" only when sin came by man. And, he continues:
... it is as obvious as anything could be that the fossil
record now found in the sedimentary rocks of the earth's
crust could only have been formed sometime after man sinned.
Is that what the Bible says? All the world's predator animals had to wait
for sin before they could put their claws and fangs into tasty red
meat? Can you envision black clouds of hungry buzzards egging Eve
on? Does that sound plausible?
Let us get some perspective. What did Paul say in Romans? "Wherefore, as
by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ..." (Rom.
5:12a). Does this mean Adam's sin caused death in the animal world
too? Did sin inflict both man and animals in the eyes of Paul?
There are at least two reasons that death was not dealt to the animal world
through Adam's fall. First, the fossil record is replete with over half a
billion years worth of animal death. That predates Adam by a wide
margin. The second reason is that animals do not belong in the same
"world" as man, attested to by the Bible writers themselves.
Notice that Morris did not use the entire verse. He stopped in
mid-sentence, in fact. This is what follows the semi-colon. Romans 5:12b:
"and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." So the Bible
tells us, "as obvious as anything could be," who or what is affected by
Adam's sin - men, not animals.
Additional clarification can be found in the following verse. Romans 5:13:
"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there
is no law." Who was under the law, men or animals? Did animals tithe,
fast, celebrate feasts, honor the sabbath, keep the commandments, or offer
up unblemished sacrifices?
In Romans 4:13: "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world,
was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the
righteousness of faith." Were animals "through the righteousness of faith"
to be joint heirs of the world along with the descendants of Abraham?
Had Adam's sin carried a death sentence for the animal world as well, those
concerned critters could take heart with I Corinthians 15:22: "For as in
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." So, if
young-earth proponents are right, keep stocking those pet cemeteries,
there's a new day a-comin'. The trumpet will blow, and millions of years
worth of animal life will burst forth!
Putting frivolity aside, Scripture forbids such a ludicrous interpretation
of Romans 5:12. Adam's sin of disobedience caused death unto all his
generations. In addition, the death referred to in this passage more
probably refers to spiritual death than physical death. With continued
access to the tree of life, Adam would have lived forever despite Original
Sin, according to Genesis 3:22.
Anyone entertaining the slightest, fleeting thought of signing on to
young-earth doctrine should weigh heavily the words of a certain apostle:
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall
be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies
..." (II Pet. 2:1).
In II Peter 3:3-8, the apostle warns of "scoffers," and affirms the
"heavens were of old," and "that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years."
Ignoring the words of the apostle, young-earth creationists scoff at the
overwhelming evidence of earth antiquity, insist the earth and heavens are
young, and assert that one day is with the Lord as 24 hours!"
>Finally, pursuing the notion that Adam, rather than Abraham, must be
>regarded as the founder of God's 'chosen people', you say:
>Surely God must have placed authority in Adam as his chosen man. Had
>sin not intervened, Adam would have been the only messenger needed.
>The covenant, the embodiment of the moral law was with Adam, but
>reestablished and redefined with Abraham after the Fall. Christ was
>the "second Adam." He was not the second Abraham.
> Your imagination has really taken flight here! I get the strong
> impression that you neither respect nor understand the Word of
Here is the text. How do you understand it?
1 Corinthians 15:45: "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a
living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 14:23:15 EDT