You made two claims in the previous post. Neither claim has any clear scriptural support.
Huh? I don’t recall any claims I made that don’t have clear scriptural support. So I am not sure how to respond because I don’t know what you are talking about.
EC theodicy is built on inferences, not just the plain words of Scripture—even though it is usually presented as much.
I wouldn’t grant this at all without a great deal of nuance. The YEC position is based on the plain words of Scripture. I don’t think there is any real doubt about that. It is generally granted even by the “other side(s).” They simply believe that the language is poetic or imagery of some sort or another.
Let’s remember that with evolution, humans are merely an animal in process of development. There is no room to distinguish human death from any other organism death, and any other organism may mutate into human-like features, given sufficient time.
The problem is the understanding of Hebrew. If translators can’t get that sentence correct, it doesn’t bode well for providing confidence that the Evangelicals can really place so much reliance on their interpretation … instead of the BioLogos interpretation!
This is your interpretation of evolution. It is not a necessary entailment of evolutionary theory. Most of your faithful Bible-believing brothers and sisters in Christ who accept evolutionary history would not agree with your statement. I would encourage you to consider that you’ve set up a straw man hypothesis, and to try and better understand what those who study evolution (particularly those who are your brothers and sisters within the Church) actually say. Presentations like this convince no one except those who are already inclined to agree with you.
True. But we are discussing biblical interpretation here, so it really doesn’t matter what the evolutionary model “has room for.” We are not confined by it in any way when discussing metaphysics. I know not a single person, not even an atheist, who looks to evolution for the sum total of their worldview and philosophy on what it means to be human.
@beaglelady, it wasn’t you, was it? It was @Christy! I was talking about the “magical view” of The Fall… that because of a decision by two humans, the whole Universe was metaphysically ruined…
And here’s my good buddy @EakinC … .stepping up to the plate to confirm my representations!
Good ol’ Cosmic Magic… stuff started dying everywhere … because 2 puny humans had sinned. But, interestingly, the humans didn’t die. It took them almost a thousand years to shuffle off their mortal coils…
Remind me real quick what your expertise in Hebrew is, and what you know that Hebrew scholars and professors do not know. The point remains that you have a misunderstanding of “death” if you think Adam and Eve didn’t die when they ate the fruit.
It is interesting that you draw a distinction between evangelical interpretation and BioLogos interpretation. My guess is that some of the BioLogos folks are cringing that you just ran them out of evangelicalism.
We need to ask whether ktisis is correctly translated as Creation ie cosmos in Rom 8. ktisis has several meanings and can mean humanity as in Mark 16.15 and Col 1 vs23 The word vanity is matiotes and takes us back to the human condition of Ecclesiastes
The ktisis is contrasted with believers, so it can’t be humanity in terms of believers.
The ktisis is eagerly waiting for the revelation of the sons of God, something not true of unbelievers, so it can’t be humanity in terms of unbelievers.
The ktisis will be set free from corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God, something not true of unbelievers, so again, it can’t be humanity in terms of unbelievers.
These points indicate that ktisis can’t be humanity because it isn’t true of humanity, either in the whole or in the part.
So the idea that the ktisis here is humanity is (1) a fairly rare use in the NT and more importantly (2) can’t explain the passage adequately. The better understanding is to take it more naturally–that it is, in fact, the creation itself (v. 21), or the whole creation (v. 22). This is what Gen 3 teaches about the curse and its effects on the creation apart from humanity.
Interesting again that here with the question, to take issue with Genesis in any way it to call God a liar. It miixes up what may be an inspired text in certain ways as being some kind an guarunteed historical fact. One we get away from a literal interpretation of Genesis there is no problem with millions of years of life, death and struggle for existence.
Death is a neccessary fact of physical existence otherwise there would be no space left on earth for anyting new. I am equally sure that in some way God will be the redeemer of all creatures and that something of all the previous natural beauty that has ever existed will somehow me kept in God. I expect to see something of a gentle T Rex in my ultimate existence with God, and mliions of birds from the history of avain evolution. (I watch birds as a hobby).
None of your points are valid. Ktisis is used in varied ways both in the NT and the apostolic fathers
Of course ktisis is used in various ways, but the question is how is it used in Romans 8. My points come straight out of the text in Romans 8 where the things Romans 8 says about the ktisis determine how we interpret it. My points are simply what the text tells us. So your original question is a great question. It’s what we teach in the exegetical process. But then you have to look at the text and the usage in the text to see what it means.
Firther Gen 3 does not teach a curse.
Wow. That certainly reveals the level this conversation is taking place at.
My goal is to run everyone out of the erroneous part of Evangelicalism. As you know by now, BioLogos is perfectly content (delighted even) with the Evangelical mission - - just not the part that teaches mistaken ideas.d
Now, out there in the big blue Internet … there is a recent article (can’t remember the name or the author, but I’ll look around too) that specifically addresses the exotic grammar of the God’s instruction about humans “dying” if they touch the fruit.
Instead of “death”, a more likely Jewish translation would be “you’ll be mortalized”; but “mortalized” is my paraphrasing. The author didn’t use such a clever catchy phrase!
But the author’s intent is to explain that Christian translations have been laying down a
Ham-fist (< hey, you see what I did there?) on that poor abused sentence … for centuries.
Instead of “will die” in the here and now, it meant “will be die-able” (< again, my paraphasing).
If I were forced to use a real English phrase, I would replace “will die” with “will become mortal”!
Welcome to BioLogos. As a proponent of the YEC interpretation, you can be a very helpful dialogue partner for many of us here. I wish there were opportunities for that at AiG, but they don’t have discussion boards–at least not any I can find.
Suppose I were to write something parallel to your statement above, as follows: Let’s remember that with gravitation, the Solar System is merely a set of large bodies in process of development. There is no room to distinguish it from any other planetary system, and other planetary systems may appear in the Milky Way galaxy, given sufficient time.
That’s a truism, as far as gravitation goes. Inferences about meaning and value go beyond gravitation, beyond evolution, beyond what science is capable of doing. Creation (whether by immediate fiat or by mediated process) is not science: it’s more than science, and more important than science.