I’ve already answered this.
First, the translations do NOT say that any death other than human came from Adam’s sin; second, they do not say that the flood was global. In both cases, you are reading that into the text.
Even in English, “earth” does not necessarily mean the entire globe, it can mean the dirt in a field; and there’s no way to indicate with a translation what ancient literary genre an account is.
Possibly; there are other possibilities.
Ouch. But essentially correct. God does not ask us to ignore the evidence He has left us in the stones, in fact the assertion that the heavens declare His glory is one that should be extended to all of nature. After all, the Psalmist tells us that the creation itself praises Him!
I think it’s highly likely that the human authors of the Genesis creation narratives were thinking only about human mortality. Moreover, it’s possible that even the apostle has not implied animals’ inclusion into the glorious vision of divine victory over death (1 Corinthians 15:26-28). But the same apostle Paul has also written that his perception of the eschatological future couldn’t be quite clear (1 Corinthians 13:12). Therefore, a reader should pay attention to the general idea rather than to details the apostle himself could overlook or misrepresent.
The general idea of eschatological consummation, either in the Pauline Epistles or in the Revelation, is that of the most fundamental change: the new reality will replace the world that we live in; the eternal life in transformed bodies under the light of divine glory will replace the mortal existence to which we are confined today.
What can we do with this glimpse of the future? The same thing that the writers of the Bible did: we can try to comprehend it from our own vantage point. And from this vantage point, to spare humanity from its mortality is no less a transformation of the world (no less drastic, no less miraculous, and so forth) than to exterminate death completely - while the latter is more magnanimous and more fitting to the God who is Love.
As long as one awaits the complete extermination of death, one should be consistent and consider any death - that is, not only the human death - the corruption of creation.
Hi Roymond,
As I have said before, we will just have to agree to disagree!
In response to your post; the 63 Bible Translations plainly tell us:
a.) that the creation was made in six days,
b.) that Adam’s sin is how death entered the world,
c.) that the Global flood of Noah’s day was indeed covering all the Earth under heaven.
i get it that you disagree with what I have written, but please consider that the listed 63 Bibles translations that were painstakingly and carefully translated, make no mention of what you are inferring in the text because accurate translations from the original texts do not allow for what you are stating, thus the strange additions you wish to add to the Biblical text simply aren’t there in any of the 63 Bibles; i.e., things such as ‘deep time’ of billions of years is imaginary, any death before Adams sin is imaginary, a local flood is imaginary.
In Genesis 1:29-30 it is absolutely clear that God created plants, with seeds and fruits for all animals and man to eat as food. All living creatures ate plants!
26 Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.”
27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
29 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;
30 and to every animal of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.
31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Genesis 1:26-31
Shortly after the fall, God put the necessary curse upon all of Creation because of Adams sin:
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you;
With hard labor you shall eat from it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
Yet you shall eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You shall eat bread,
Until you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.” Genesis 3:17-19
All of creation continues even now under the curse that God put on the world when Adam sinned:
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope
21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. Romans 8:20-22
Death entered the world through the sin of Adam:
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned Romans 5:12
The Global flood was indeed Global:
17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.
18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.
19 And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.
21 So all creatures that moved on the earth perished: birds, livestock, animals, and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;
22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.
Genesis 7:17-22
The Biblical text states that, “ALL the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.”
That clearly isn’t a limited local flood, it is a GLOBAL FLOOD of catastrophic proportions. Again all 63 translations state the same thing.
If ALL the mountains under the heavens were covered by water then it is clearly a GLOBAL Flood.
It is not I that am misrepresenting the Holy Scriptures.
Perhaps you will provide straightforward answers to a couple of simple questions:**
1.) WHY was it necessary for Noah to spend ABOUT 70 TO 100 YEARS OF EXTREMELY ARDUOUS HARD PHYSICAL LABOUR BUILDING THE MASSIVE ARK if all he had to do was move about 100 - 200 kilometres (about 62 - 125 miles)?
2.) WHY did God bring two of EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH to the ark, if the flood was only a local flood restricted to a limited area of Mesopotamia or somewhere in that general vicinity?
The plain truth is clear, or at the very least it should be clear for all to see.
But as I have also stated previously, this is all about Worldviews!
I will continue to trust the Lord and believe what is so clearly written in the Bible over man’s opinions.
God Bless,
jon
Yes. And that’s exactly what I say: death entered the world because of Adam’s sin (you may check the dictionaries - “because of” is quite possible translation, no way worse than “through”). My reading confirms this truth as straightforwardly as yours.
Surely, God himself is not constrained by time. But the created world is a temporal reality. That’s how God has created it. Therefore, it needs time to unfold and mature; and we, the humans in this world, need time as well. Otherwise, the God who is Love would have never made us go through this earthly life with its troubles, but would have already established the Kingdom. But God gives temporal world time to develop before finally transforming it into the new earth and new heaven (Matthew 13: 31-33; Luke 13: 18-21).
Agreed, of course God is not constrained by time, I’ve never made any such assertion.
I am unclear as to why you think the creation needs time to unfold and mature?
We all have limited time here on Earth in our physical bodies.
I do not think the creation is maturing, but I do think it is deteriorating under the effects of the curse.
And 6,000 years as calculated by simple addition from the genealogies is a very long time by anyone’s standards I would have thought, unless of course a person is steeped into the ‘deep time’ belief of billions of years having transpired on Earth. That is another matter entirely!
The point I was making is that God performs His creative acts instantly.
He commands and it is so.
The passage of time is NOT necessary for God and indeed it is Not what we see in scripture as how He creates.
He definitely doesn’t watch billions of years of suffering and death and then proclaim the result is very good. That is plainly absurd for God who is Righteous, Loving and Good.
To believe that God used the myth of evolution to create is in dire error; if that is what you believe.
God bless,
jon
Actually, no. On day 3 God gathers the waters and allows dry land to appear. God names the dry land “earth.” Then God commands the earth (the dry land) to “put forth vegetation” and it does. The only plants mentioned grow on dry land.
On day 6 God gives people dominion over other creatures and gives the plants for food. If you read closely you’ll see that one kind of creature is placed in our care but isn’t given plants for food. It’s exactly the one we’d expect to be left out, since all the plants mentioned grow on dry land.
Since the fish aren’t given anything to eat, one can either hold that before sin fish didn’t eat at all, or one can accept that the creation week doesn’t list all allowed food sources. The point of giving the plants for food isn’t to say “you may only eat plants” but to say “plants are food”! This also fits with other passages, such as Psalm 104, that include prey for lions as another of the “good things” God’s hand provides (vv. 21, 27–28). If God can call predation a good thing, who are we to disagree?
As 1 Timothy 4:3–4 says, we shouldn’t reject certain foods (like sacrificed meat) because “everything created by God is good” and “created to be received with thanksgiving.”
I’m stunned that you read this verse that clearly refers to a death that spreads to all people as also referring to animals. Perhaps this shows that rejecting evolution is no guarantee that one will see how humans are unique. In this thread, it’s those who accept evolution who also accept that the Bible treats human death differently.
Also, note that the way death came to all people is not by “a matter of genetics in the physical sense,” as you wrote earlier. It is “because all sinned.” Those last three words don’t make much sense when Paul is read as talking about genetic descent, but then Paul has already made clear he isn’t talking about that kind of descent.
Just a few paragraphs earlier, Paul talked about Abraham’s active faith even before he made the Jewish cut: “The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, and likewise the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised” (Romans 4:11–12).
Abraham is the ancestor of all who follow his faithful example! It doesn’t matter if such people physically descend from him and carry some of his genes or not. Jesus had much the same view about Abraham’s true children. This is what Paul means by an ancestor and descendants.
When Paul brings up Adam a few paragraphs later, he’s talking about ancestry the same way. We descend from Adam because we sin, because we follow his example. Nobody needs a pedigree chart or DNA test to show they descend from Adam – they are Adam’s children if they sin.
We aren’t children of Adam because of our genes, and thank God, we don’t need CRISPR to become heirs with Christ. Look at all the things Paul says here we receive from Adam (death, judgement, condemnation) and Christ (grace, justification, righteousness, life). This isn’t about genes or modern science! We don’t need to show that Jesus physically had children that eventually include us. That’s not how salvation or condemnation works.
A strong case can be made that the inclusion of animals in the new creation will be due to their relationship with us humans. I think it was a C S Lewis story where there was a bear that was friend to a Christian, and the bear sometimes seemed more than just a bear, and the specific Christian expounded the view that in the new creation all those animals who’d had a relationship with humans would be there as well and would, just as our mortality out on immortality they too would be transformed to something greater. It strikes me as being a matter of our being the Image of God: as God draws us “upward and inward” so we as His imagers draw the "lesser’ creatures along with us.
So in terms of animal death before the encounter with that “Shining One” in Eden, it seems to be that they were not yet what they were meant to be, and that their destiny was tied with ours since we were appointed to be “as God” to them, they being in attendance in Yahweh’s temple and we being His image in that temple. So while in the future Eden of the new creation they may indeed be as freed from the reality of death as we shall be from that of sin, I don’t think we can project that backwards. The one exception might be those animals in the Garden since it was what God meant for humans to establish over all the Earth, but I’m skeptical about even that since in the Garden condition we were not more than provisionally immortal and thus they would probably have been no more than provisionally without death.
[If I had more time I’d draw an argument from the scholastics based on the order of Creation to support this, but with 98% of my library in storage that’s not happening.]
I don’t think there’s a logical connection there. Animal death may be short of the completion/fulfillment of Creation, but it isn’t necessarily corruption.
No, they don’t – you’re reading that into the text. The problem is, as I have explained, that the Hebrew words’ meanings got shifted due to contact with Greek culture thanks to Alexander the Great, then shifted again when translation was made into Latin, so that there is a bias towards something that is not in the text.
What I’m doing is refusing to add those things into the text no matter how much you want them there, and also pointing out that honest Hebrew scholars found “deep time” and a "big bang’ in the text long before anyone even coined those terms, before Darwin and before Galileo.
Human death – any more is adding to the text.
Sorry, but it’s a global flood that is imaginary. First, the world the Genesis writer knew was a flat disk with a solid dome over it, not a globe; second, the Hebrew word in context means “the known world”. So what you are trying to do is change the meanings of the words! and regardless of how much tradition may be behind your preference, that tradition is contrary to the text.
Of course it’s local, or at least regional: “everywhere under the heavens” means at the most everything under that solid dome over the flat earth disk. But since the Hebrew word means the known world – and there is evidence of such a flood! – and that would mean Mesopotamia, it doesn’t necessarily even mean the entire earth-disk.
I know you don’t like what the Hebrew actually says, but that is not my problem except in that I am trying to teach you the truth about the scriptures.
Already answered. “70 to 100 years” is an interpretation of the text that cannot be supported from the text.
He didn’t – the Hebrew says “every animal in the land”, which would include only those found in Mesopotamia. Nor does the text say that God brought animals, it only says that God told Noah to bring the animals.
Yes it is – and you reject the worldview of the writers through whom God gave Genesis and replace it with a modern scientific worldview.
The only worldview that insist that some writing has to be 100% scientifically and historically accurate in order to be true is scientific materialism – the scriptures do not follow that worldview, which wasn’t in existence until the twentieth century. You are forcing the scriptures to fit a philosophy that can’t be found in its pages.
But believing man’s opinions is what you are doing!
What the text actually means has been explained to you, and what the science says has been explained to you. Both of these are contrary to what you claim, and thus it is not the scriptures that you are believing!
Are you aware that calculating from the genealogies has led to anywhere between 9,600 years and 5,800 years? You’ve chosen one particular calculation, and given that the numbers can be calculated differently then your choice is not what the scripture says, it’s a human interpretation.
Honest Hebrew scholars have found deep time in Genesis 1. This means that you have selected one interpretation that you are happy with and ignore what the scriptures actually have to say. Scholars have also, as I’ve noted before, found the Big Bang in Genesis 1, they just didn’t call it that.
These scholars weren’t "steeped into the ‘deep time’ belief, they found it in the scriptures centuries before scientists caught up with them.
So now you are judging God! The above statement cannot be supported from the scriptures.
Why do you continue to insist that the Bible teaches science? You should only do that if the scripture says to, but there is no such idea found in the scriptures.
Good point. It’s a case of P being a complete subset of Q but not being all of Q.
This view from YECists is one that has been common since the radical reformation set humanistic values above the scriptures, and thus came to impose humanistic definitions on things instead of asking how the scriptures define those things.
If we follow Paul’s argument while insisting that the above verse includes animals, then it must be concluded that Christ died for animal sins, despite the fact that nowehre is it indicated that animals can sin.
Actually “because all sinned” is given as evidence that death spread to all humans. Paul’s argument is that the kind of death indicated in the Garden stories is one that leads to sin while it also comes from sin, that what we inherited was not sin (sorry, Augustine) but death.
This is a bit more clear in the Greek than in English; now I’m wondering how Jerome rendered it in the Vulgate, given how much English translations even today still carry baggage from the Latin!
Yes! We are “children of the promise” just as Isaac was; he was born despite the fact that his human parents could not produce children, so in a sense his true ‘parent’ was the promise. So when we trust as Isaac did, as Abraham did, we have the same parent, we are born of the promise (i.e. “born again” or “born from above” – or as I put it and one professor agreed, “born again from above”).
Good point, and one easy to miss. We are “children of rebellion” who can become “children of the promise”. Reading genetics into the matter leads to silliness like the notion that Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be, but then Mary’s mother also had to be sinless, and that has to continue all the way back to the Ark and beyond to the Garden.
Hallelujah to that!
As @St.Roymond alluded to, you need to choose which text family to use for the genealogy (since different texts have different ages) and cross-reference with a few known historical dates to come up with an actual age. Getting an age takes assumptions and calculations that go well beyond the Bible.
If I said my birthday was June 6, that wouldn’t tell you if I’m a boomer, millennial or Xer, but it would let you know when to send me a card. That’s not a mistake – I would be giving a date to place on a calendar, not a timeline.
The dates in the creation week are even more incomplete than a birthday. Light is on Sunday, plants on Tuesday, birds on Thursday, rest on Saturday. This isn’t enough to put these events on a timeline or a calendar. But it does work to establish a weekly template. And that, coincidentally, is the only use the Bible ever makes of the days of the creation week. Two times in Exodus they are connected to a weekly cycle: six days of work followed by rest at week-end.
Perhaps it’s no accident that the days are perfect for what they’re used for, but insufficient to date the earth.
No one who’s read ancient Hebrew in its context of ancient near eastern literature would believe such a thing: genetics was not the point of genealogies back then. Once there was land possession involved, genealogies served a legal function but still didn’t have to be totally complete, only enough to indicate who was the rightful owner of a piece of land. This meant including the prior two or three generations but earlier than that only enough to distinguish the lineage.
Six followed by one shows up in a few other places, too, that aren’t necessarily related to the Sabbath. As for the ‘days’ themselves, even Jewish scholars who treated the account as literal didn’t always hold to 24-hour days; they regarded them as “divine days” of unknowable length – which is just as valid a reading of the text as any other scheme, and actually more likely than the YEC version because it ascribes divine attributes to divine actions rather than dragging it all down to human-scale.
Since neither of the two literary genres of the opening Creation account are meant to be taken literally in their details apart from the account itself, they’re definitely “insufficient to date the earth”.
Hi Marshall,
I disagree with a fair amount of what you contest in my posts but I am completely over the relentless tit for tat dialogue, that occurs on this website.
However, this one stood out as a major clanger and exposes what appears to be a core belief of Theistic evolution, and needed a response. We are most definitely all genetically related to Adam and Eve.
Haven’t you read the scriptures, that for all of our sins to be annulled through the payment of the just penalty of death, a kinsman redeemer is required. The most important example of a kinsman redeemer is Jesus.
That is precisely why Jesus became incarnate as a human man into the family of man that goes right back to Adam who we are ALL related to, so that we all can be saved. He came as the Lamb of God to be slaughtered, to take the penalty of death from us all, who deserve that penalty because of our sinful nature.
How can we not be ALL related to Adam?
There were no other people except those that were born from Adam the father and Eve the mother of ALL the living as Scripture reliably informs us, so there can be no mistake about this important fact.
God Bless,
jon
Hi Marshall, thanks for your thoughts.
But plants grow in rivers and in the oceans abundantly from algae, to kelp forests.
It is instructive to take a step back and look at what the Scriptures tell us about precisely who died from the Global flood.
All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.
Obviously fish were not obliterated from existence by the Global flood, but as God said that He provided every green plant for food, I see no logical reason that marine and aquatic plants should be excluded.
After all He made all the fish and marine plants too!
But I don’t see why you think that!
It is certainly speaking about human death that, “came to all people, because all sinned,” But that in no way precludes the clear fact that “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin,” it is death itself that entered the world. There was no death in the world prior to when it entered the world.
It is well known that a range of sentience exists in the diversity of life on Earth.
Plants appear to have no sentience whatsoever, they’re designed to use the amazing process of photosynthesis to produce energy and grow and reproduce from sunlight, however they do not appear to have self knowledge or consciousness as we understand it.
Plants are biological factories for transforming the sun’s radiant energy into food. That food is precisely what God tells us in the Bible plants with seed and fruits are for, but when we or any other creature eats a plant there is not a death in the Biblical sense of death of ‘nephesh chayyah’ life that translates as ‘living soul’.
From a Biblical perspective, Insects are not nephesh chayyah" either so death would not apply to them in the Biblical sense.
However, death of land animals:
All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.
Prior to the fall of man, those animals ate plants as God decreed.
Post fall, those animals ate plants and other animals, some of whom in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life.
The creation had undergone a massive change after the flood.
God Bless,
jon
The Hebrew word adam simply means humanity, so the connection is closer than a relative. I think the Bible starts with a character named Humanity to show us who we are. It tells the beginning of the story of humankind collectively and each of us personally. As Paul says much later, we are in Adam, not merely distant relations.
So yes, I agree with you about the unity of humanity and that Jesus became human. I just don’t want to reduce that to genes and Mendelian inheritance. We each have personally added evil to this world that puts us in need of a saviour – it’s not just about curing an inherited blemish!
It’s a biblical argument, not some complex logical reasoning. The only plants mentioned in the creation week grow from dry ground, and fish are not among the creatures given plants to eat.
Given your idea that fish could have eaten other types of vegetation that Genesis 1 doesn’t mention, it appears we agree that creatures were allowed to eat more than what is mentioned there.
Edit: I’m curious what your thoughts are about humans eating fish. Given that one of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances included providing and participating in a meal of fish, it would be pretty hard to argue that biblically this is something “not good.”
Given what you’ve written, you appear to have categories for plants, for insects, for sea creatures and lastly for nephesh chayyah: land animals including humans. Again, you lump humans with animals while those of us here who accept evolution tend to see human death as categorically different. Isn’t that interesting!
Hi Nicholas, thanks for your thoughts on these matters.
You claim, "* I’ve already given you the quotes from the Gospels that demonstrate - God doesn’t always act instantly. Creating or recreating through a prolonged process is also a way of divine action."
The only Bible references that you have posted regarding this mater are:
26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is clear that this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.
12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I also have been fully known.
18 So He was saying, “What is the kingdom of God like, and to what shall I compare it? 19 It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and threw into his own garden; and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the sky nested in its branches.”
20 And again He said, “To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? 21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three sata of flour until it was all leavened.”
31 He presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a person took and sowed in his field; 32 and this is smaller than all the other seeds, but when it is fully grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the sky come and nest in its branches.”
The four excerpts of text from the Bible are wonderful, and I enjoy reading them, but I don’t see where any or all of these parts of Scripture support your assertion that these passages of Scripture support the claim you have in the statement, (quoting you),
“I’ve already given you the quotes from the Gospels that demonstrate - God doesn’t always act instantly. Creating or recreating through a prolonged process is also a way of divine action.”
I must admit that after carefully considering each of these wonderful excerpts of Scripture, that I am having some difficulty in understanding why you believe these four passages of Scripture support your view that God doesn’t always create instantly.
I don’t know either way, whether God always creates instantly or not.
But I do know that the miracles of Jesus, (Who is the Creator), were performed at His command and happened instantly. Gods Word of command is made and it is so.
Therefore the whole idea of an imagined process that took billions of years of misery, pain, and death to be accomplished, while God watched on, appears to me to be antithetical to the way the miracles of Jesus were performed just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
Firstly, let me state that you are misrepresenting me here, I have never stated that the Biblical genealogies can be used to estimate the age of the universe.
But I have stated that they can be used to estimate the age of the Earth.
A small distinction sure, but an important one, that could be expressed another way, if you wish, the Biblical genealogies can be used to estimate the age of the Creation as measured in Earth years and the Creation would of course include the universe.
But it is important to note that we are talking Earth years as measured here on Earth.
Some observations made over the past decade or so suggest that our galaxy may be near the centre of the universe, of course that concept is contrary to the atheist belief that there is no centre, but that belief, it is important to note, is purely a position of faith by those atheists or secular cosmologists or Theistic evolutionists, there is no evidence whatsoever to support that belief.
Time dilation effects would dramatically affect the age of distant galaxies in the universe that may well be many millions of years old, whilst here on Earth, only about 6,000 years has elapsed as I do believe it is possible the Milky Way Galaxy is sitting within a gravity well that massively dilates time.
Secondly, I see no reason to believe that God is incapable of providing an accurate genealogical list from start to finish to provide us with knowledge about the Creation and when it occurred.
After all, He was there all along and knows exactly who begat who and when.
Thus, as I see it, the onus of proof is on you to prove that God was sloppy in providing an accurate list of the genealogies from Adam forward!
God Bless,
jon
But sin that is inherited from our family line back to Adam is not a mere ‘blemish’, it is dire with eternal consequences.
God views sin as very serious, indeed so serious that He put the curse upon the whole of creation that was tainted with sin.
Sin is promoted by evil:
“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
God gave us amazing brains that we should use, thus using logic is reasonable and correct.
Regarding eating fish, I do not see any problem, whatsoever, as the Scriptures reliably tell us that Jesus asked for some fish to eat after He resurrected from the dead on the third day.
Furthermore, as Paul reliably tells us the principles of conscience that is all the more heightened in an individual by the Holy Spirit, Paul explains:
1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not to have quarrels over opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but the one who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person values one day over another, another values every day the same. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and the one who eats, does so with regard to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and the one who does not eat, it is for the Lord that he does not eat, and he gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. Romans 14:1-9
In other words it is alright to eat whatever you wish as long as you do what you believe to be right in your own conscience.
You can interpret all you wish, what I have written but in truth, I do not have any categories other than what we are reliably given by the Holy Scriptures.
We have Man and we have animals that have the breath of life in their nostrils. They are the ones who were utterly wiped out from the face of the Earth under Heaven, except for those who were on the ark.
Then there are other creatures that do not have the breath of life in their nostrils, e.g. insects, fish, plants.
Man is the only animal that God created in His own image.
God gave man dominion over the Creation. Man has been created with an intrinsic part of him made to commune with God in the spiritual realm, whereas as far as I know, animals do not have that capacity.
God Bless,
jon
I don’t understand why it’s not “through one angel” ???
sin enter the world through one angel who seduce Eve. No ?
So, if refer to a human, then, what the angel do is not a sin ?? 
I thought the same after I read the Noah’s flood story.
8Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark
YEC pov at bold text: water over all the surface of the WHOLE earth.
I ask ChatGpt how many hours for a dove to fly across the globe only to find out that the starting point (the ark) is the only place it can perch. ChatGpt give a simplified version about how long will it take for a dove to fly around the Equator line to find out that water over all the surface around the Equator line (so NOT the surface of the whole earth).
Equator Line = 24,900 miles
Dove flying speed : 50 miles/hour
Time needed = 24,900 miles / 50 miles per hour = 498 hours (approx 20 days).
So, after 20 days passed:
the bird returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark.
But when I ask ChatGpt if a dove can fly non-stop for 20 days without landing, the answer is no. So to me, “Noah’s flood = global flood is just an imagination”.
Anyway, I wonder if YEC has an evidence that a dove can fly non-stop for 20 days.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.