Theology questions Adam wants ECs to answer

I am trying to decide whether you are being funny or not. I find it interesting that you would go and bring this up…

Can you explain how it is that the bible specifically tells us (and this is numerous time btw) that suffering came into this world only as a result of sin?

I will back up the following by further adding Revelation 21

4‘He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,’c

and there will be no more death

or mourning or crying or pain,

for the former things have passed away.”

The bible ends where it begins…not once have i seen a biblically supported answer that denies this very obvious Christian doctrine. See its easy to pretend to “cover over” genesis, but its a lot harder to explain the Physical death of Christ on the cross as atonement for pain and suffering and death, and then to ignore that in the context of Revelation 21!

As phil says in his post above…“he explains it away”. (note i am not explaining anything in rev 21, its self explanatory)

I meant it and was disappointed when you didn’t engage with my comment. I don’t recall exactly what I said but I think it had something to do with understanding death before the fall of man.

Would you mind telling me first what passages you are referring to?

Nope – the first sacrifice was before the foundation of the world.

Because the Lord of the Sabbath is greater than the Sabbath.

You call Jesus’ own words “rubbish”?!?!?

Yeah, that’s how we got YEC: people reading into the Bible a worldview that isn’t there and is in fact opposed to the biblical one.

Only if you ignore the fact that we have a Savior Who has come.
Your Christology is abominable: you make Jesus less than the Sabbath, less than the Temple, less than the sacrifices. You argue as though the whole point of the scriptures is to talk about sacrifices, when the Savior Himself said that the scriptures all speak of HIM.

Not according to the Bible.
Sola scriptura” when taken as you state above is not scriptural. It is not the answer to “Where can we learn about God?”, it was meant as the answer to “What is the ultimate measure?”
Taken the first way, sola scriptura cannot be supported either by the scriptures or the church Fathers; taken the second way, it is what the scriptures and the Fathers maintained, i.e. that the final standard of measurement of truth about God is the scriptures.

Interestingly, YEC on the one hand takes sola scriptura the wrong way while on the other hand it ignores that definition!

A point you thoroughly ignore is that YEC is contrary to the scriptures themselves because it relies on demanding that God forced the inspired writers to communicate not with a worldview they and their audience(s) understood but with a modern one that didn’t arise until after Newton.

And that contains the error: YEC in practice has set up science as a canon, a measure by which scripture must be judged, to which it has to conform.
Scripture does not set up science as a standard or measure or canon; it has its own worldviews and criteria.

That’s a nice personal opinion, but nowhere does scripture ascribe such knowledge to Satan – nor does it ascribe such power; the lesson that Job makes plain is that Satan isn’t allowed to even talk to God’s people without explicit permission from Yahweh!
So your claim boils down to Satan asking God if he can alter Creation in order to lie to humans – and God acquiescing. That’s the deity of the Quran who is described therein as a deceiver; it is not the God of all.

Because the narrative of Job makes it plain that Satan isn’t allowed to do the least little thing without God’s explicit permission! If we take Job as the measure, then Satan is only allowed to do anything at all if he specifies who he wants to target and God grants permission – and nowhere in there does it indicate that he can get permission to lie about God.

1 Like

Ehrman makes that claim because that’s what his YEC upbringing taught him, though Ehrman’s real claim boils down to the YEC point that if there are any scientific/historical errors in the Bible then the whole thing is false. In short, Ehrman is the logical result of YEC thinking.

I like how John Lennox describes the difference, using the illustration of leaving twenty dollars in a motel room drawer, then returning to find that there’s only five dollars in the drawer: one should not, he points out, conclude that the laws of mathematics have been broken, but rather the laws of the country!

But the YEC approach is to measure the scriptures by science because they insist that science is the final measure of truth every time they insist the scriptures have to be scientifically accurate!
Forget about science except to answer this question: where in the scriptures is the idea even hinted at that the scriptures must conform to science? Because if the scriptures don’t tell us that, then the entire YEC enterprise is idolatry because it insists that truth has to be scientific!

The thing is, Adam, that you’re the only one saying that, and you continue to do so even after having been shown that no one is making that claim.

So? Ancient commentators said that the Lord measured by divine days while we measure by human days.
And just BTW, “rested” for God doesn’t mean to recover from work and regain energy. To “rest” means to enjoy the proper working of what has been accomplished – and it doesn’t exclude work, since as Jesus told us the Father has continued working.

This is conflating two different things. The Sabbath and Christ’s rest are not the same thing: the Sabbath points us towards Christ’s rest, not the other way around.

This has been addressed at least three times that I can recall – yet you keep throwing it out as though no one had answered you at all.
The frightening thing to me is that having questions answered multiple times yet never remembering that answers were given is a core element of conspiracy theory thinking; it allows adhering to a belief without having to actually defend it by ignoring not just challenges but contradictions! By believing that others have refused to answer, ideas can be held as though they are unchallenged.

This is why I keep trying to point you back to the scriptures and stop using science as a measure of things. When you open Genesis, forget science and any other measure of truth invented since Newton and instead ask what the scriptures’ definitions of truth are – a question that can’t be answered unless you first recognize that all the scriptures are ancient literature, written in ancient languages using ancient worldviews. Reading that ancient literature as though it was written in the twentieth century as reports of things observed throws out a huge portion of the messages the writers were trying to convey – in fact reading any of it as though it is addressed to you is a massive mistake because in reality when we open the pages of the Bible we are, and must remember that we are, reading other people’s mail.

1 Like

But they illustrate the concept here: these are items that have in fact been answered, and/or aren’t accurate to begin with, and thus serve as examples of how conspiracy thinking works, specifically by ignoring what doesn’t fit – as you go on to note:

Ironically, the repeated posting of answered questions is a superb example of turning a blind eye and ignoring things!

1 Like

I suspect you are not reading your text correctly…but i will indulge…what sacrifice was this?

Pain, Suffering, and death.

The death can be explained away as it can be claimed it was a spiritual death (howevrr to make this workable,christ dying physically on the cross must be ignored and left out)…
But pain and suffering are biblical consequences of sin specifically. The bible ends in Revelation with the removal of these things back to the world God made with out them.

He is restoring everything back to its sinless state. Thats also the point of salvation…sin affected the world too…not just mankind.

It doesn’t do any such thing.

It only says (and quite correctly) that suffering came into the world as a result of sin… not that all suffering is a result of sin.

And I wipe away the tears from my children too. Doesn’t mean there will be no more tears, let alone that there were no tears before the fall of Adam and Eve.

It isn’t death when it is a second birth into heaven with God.

Taken absolutely and literally this sounds horrible… like a world filled leprosy and psychopathy.

No it does not. Not even close.

1 Like

Actually he is taking the world to a state better than it was before the fall of man. Are you familiar with Tremper Longman? He writes about this better than anyone else I have seen.

I would like to see those passages when you have a chance

1 Like

For someone who tries to portray himself as knowing the Bible thoroughly, you belie yourself. It may not be a translation you use, but you should have at least recognized it, as sharp as you might be.

…the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Revelation 13:8

I’m fuzzy on this, but I think Rev. 13:8 refers to the covenant of redemption, and the sacrifice of the Lamb which occurred with the crucifixion of Jesus, was the ‘fulfillment’ of that.

Look at Rev. 13:8 in the ESV. The translation fully changes the meaning.

Understood, but the point is that he should have recognized the KJV or similar, especially since he’s ‘getting on in years’.

In looking at a variety of English translations there appears to be 3 ways this verse can be translated.

  1. The names were written before creation
  2. The names were written starting at creation
  3. The Lamb was slain before creation

Translations available here.

Not sure the translation choices many any difference. God’s plan of redemption was in place before the first sin in any case. Jesus wasn’t Plan B.


That is something that YECs (and others) don’t get, those who believe the first creation to be ‘perfect’.

I’m astounded you don’t recognize the reference!

I refer to the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world.

1 Like

That’s a totally baseless assertion. You may as well way that because Christ rose again with a spiritual body then it had no physical existence. The reasoning doesn’t come from scriptural thinking but from early Gnosticism – the idea that the spiritual rules out the physical is one of the earliest heresies ever.

Only in the sense that a freeway ramp spiraling upwards through a complete 360° goes “back to” its start. Jesus isn’t just a sort of spiritual reset button taking us back to “GO”!
This is a point made centuries ago by St. John Chrysostom: Christ takes us not to where Adam and Eve derailed things, but to where things would have gone if they hadn’t derailed.

Kind of. The crucifixion is a sort of eternal reality that the world was going to end up at. It ties in with the concept of “the fullness of time”, which doesn’t just mean that all the pieces were in the right places for the Crucifixion to happen, it includes the idea that the universe itself had a destiny, a “shape” it was supposed to take, and the Crucifixion – or more broadly, the Incarnation – is the defining moment of that destiny and shape.

[I wish I had my seminar notes handy; these ideas were presented so much more clearly than I just managed to convey.]


I can see what the ESV translators did, essentially inserting some punctuation, but I can’t see any justification for it in the Greek – indeed it strikes me as a bit of Calvinistic eisegesis.

The Greek allows another possibility, especially given the literary genre of Revelation: that the names written in the Book of Life are integrally tied to the Crucifixion that both are true. This would make sense in that the essence of “Lambness” involves being slain, so the Lamb being slain is the only reason there is a Book of names in the first place.

I know that in the West theology tends to go binary and linear, but those are imposed values, not intrinsic to the text in either ancient language.

Exactly – that’s inherent actually in the concept of “the fullness of time”; the entire shape of history bends towards redemption and can even be called redemptive.

1 Like

The translations look pretty evenly split with the NASB, HCSB, Amplified, NRSV, etc taking the ‘Calvinistic’ reading

1 Like

That mistake comes from a misunderstanding of the term “perfect”. I think it was one of the Gregories who expounded on this once to the effect that “perfect” isn’t a matter of meeting a standard but of being aimed at a goal – indeed one of the earliest uses of a term that can be translated “inerrant” was the march of God’s plan through history, that it was aimed and would not miss. One of the mystics somewhere compared the Cross to an arrow, referring to it as God’s arrow striking precisely at the heart of sin . . . fatally.

We in the West commonly take the admonition to be perfect as meaning to meet a set of moral standards, but given that God is referenced as perfect that can’t be the case: God can’t possibly fail moral standards, so the meaning has to be something else, something that can be ascribed to God, and that something is bringing everything together to serve a plan.

And in getting that word’s meaning wrong, YEC misses a major part of the point of the Creation story! John Walton brings back some focus with his emphasis that something being assessed as “good” meant it was working properly; I think he goes a bit too far but he is entirely right on the point that “good” isn’t a measure of a static condition but of suitability for reaching a goal,. i.e. functioning properly.