RE: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent?

From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Date: Fri Sep 05 2008 - 14:31:48 EDT

Gordon said: " In fact, one
might ask how Adam was supposed to understand what it meant to die the day
he ate from the tree if he hadn't seen something that was dead."

My understanding is that young earthers deny animal/human death before the fall, but accept plant death before the fall. So they would be familiar with death- for plants. Plants come from the ground, grow, die, and return to dirt... they could foresee the same thing for humans. I'm not YEC, just saying how a YEC would respond.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of gordon brown
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:22 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent?

Bethany,

The "no sickness, no tears, no pain, no death" that conflicts with science
is an interpretation of Genesis, not what it actually says. In fact, one
might ask how Adam was supposed to understand what it meant to die the day
he ate from the tree if he hadn't seen something that was dead. The Garden
required watering and a human gardener. The really unusual thing in the
Garden was the tree of life. It isn't until near the end of Chapter 3 that
we get even a clue as to what it was for. I think that that is where the
question of literal interpretation and agreement or disagreement with
science is most readily raised.

Revelation builds on themes from the Old Testament. Just as Genesis almost
from the beginning introduces the Garden of Eden, Revelation almost at the
end describes a new Garden of Eden. However it is far more than a
recycling. In the new Garden or city there is no sun, no moon, and no
night. This is seen as being much better than the old Garden.

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Bethany Sollereder wrote:

> Gordon,
>
> Actually, if you look in the LXX, Gen 2:8 uses the word paradise (*
> paradeison*) to describe the garden of Eden. But the word just means an
> idyllic place or state - in fact when I just looked it up, paradise was
> defined as "the abode of Adam and Eve before the Fall in the biblical
> account of the creation: the Garden of Eden". It was a place where the
> forces of chaos had been dealt with by the acts of creation. Humans had a
> task, but it was one they were well able to do. They were in need of nothing
> - there was no sickness, no tears, no pain, no death. And to top it all
> off, God walked in the garden with them.
> In fact, take a look at the late chapters of Revelations and we see a
> recycling of many of the same things, only it is a garden-city in Rev, not
> just a garden.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Bethany
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Sep 5 14:32:30 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 05 2008 - 14:32:30 EDT