RE: Re no death prior to the fall....

From: Hofmann, Jim <>
Date: Sun Sep 18 2005 - 20:14:19 EDT

I haven't been following all the details of this thread, but the initial subject was the issue of "no death before sin". I've only recently realized how important this is for generating resolute opposition to evolutionary biology. The following passage from Ken Ham's 'A young Earth-it's not the issue!'


made this more clear to me.

 "I want to make it VERY clear that we don't want to be known primarily as 'young-Earth creationists.' AiG's main thrust is NOT 'young Earth' as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively 'young Earth' (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.
When someone says to me, 'Oh, so you're one of those fundamentalist, young-Earth creationists,' I reply, 'Actually, I'm a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam redemptionist!' (which means I'm a young-Earth creationist!).

Here's what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin-this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noah's day)."

Clearly, when this position is adopted, no scientific evidence for evolutionary change will ever be enough to bring it into question.

Jim Hofmann

-----Original Message-----
From: on behalf of Glenn Morton
Sent: Sun 9/18/2005 2:44 PM
To:; Jim Armstrong; ASA
Subject: Re: Re no death prior to the fall....
Gotta have a destination first. Venus, too hot; Mars, too little of an atmosphere(even Tibetans would have trouble); the rest, too cold; planets around other stars, unknown and years and years away.
Travel to the stars with our current knowledge would reduce our population by sending most to their death in interstellar space.

Joanna Woo <> wrote:
but Jim, you've got a point in saying that we were likely made to have way more kids. i read somewhere that a woman's ovaries contain on the order of 10^5 eggs! yikes! the best suggestion i can think of to allow everyone to live forever is the one i gave earlier: that God must have meant for us to space travel. boy, with all that space in the universe and all the cool things to study out there, how could God *not* have meant for us to space travel?

Yahoo! for Good
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
Received on Sun Sep 18 20:16:35 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 18 2005 - 20:16:51 EDT