Want Some Answers ???


Hi Dale

>>Frankly Mark I don't think you are reading what I send you. I have already sent you "Eds" item about death before Adam. I stand where he stands on that issue.<<

I read Ed's article, is it your view? How does anyone know your view unless you say? Ed's explanation about death before Adam says, "Who are we to judge God?". He does not answer the points I made (have a look). He says, "If the evidence leads to the conclusion that living creatures have been struggling for survival for eons and if the position of Scripture is in agreement, so let it be..." What a scenario, that life involved by process of elimination, death by fang and claw - cold and unmerciful to the weak. Could even a sadist think of a more cruel and ugly way to produce the animals over which Adam was to rule? What a HORRIBLE thing to accuse Jesus Christ of going.

The only thing Ed says about my objection is - "
It is actually is a modern phenomenon, propagated by young-earth creationists, that belief in an old earth is a threat to the gospel. It is not!". That's ALL he said and NOTHING else!

So you allow "millions of years" for the fossil layers and freely admit death, bloodshed, disease, thorns and suffering before Adams sin. But the Bible says death is an intrusion into this world -"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". And the animals? "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." (Rom.5:12 8:22). So Adam's sin brought death and suffering into the world.

God requires the shedding of blood for the remission of sins. In the Garden when God killed the animal for skins (Gen.3:21) that pointed to Christ. "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb.9:22). For this reason Christ came (Jn.1:29). The "millions of years" (you argue for) indicate shedding of blood before sin. If the Garden were sitting on a fossil record of dead bones from the millions of years, then there was death and blood before sin. This destroys the foundation of the atonement and the message of the cross. Just add 'millions of years' of shedding of blood and the gospel of God’s love through Christ shedding His blood and His death for our salvation becomes unimportant. Hugh Ross rejects the theological link between sin, physical death and Christ's atonement.

Yet, thorns came into existence after the Curse Gen.3:18. Because there is thorns in the fossil record they had to be formed after Adam and Eve sinned. The judgment on mans sin indicated death, bloodshed, disease, thorns and suffering are all a consequence of sin. In Gen.1:29-30 God gave Adam and Eve and the animals plants to eat (that's reading Genesis as literal history, as Jesus did -Mt.19:3-6).

>>What you state the Bible states I simply don't believe! It's not a question of not believing the Bible. I'm no modernist whatever your Hamites say - (Rossites so Hamites - fair enough?) - I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Every "literist" I know is only "literist" when it suits them. Christian regards, Dale.<<

One can believe "the verbal inspiration of the Bible" but allegorize Scripture. But Christian doctrine indicates why Genesis must be taken literally. Genesis tells us why we believe in marriage -promote wearing clothes -why there's rules of right and wrong - why we're sinners and what that means - why there's death and suffering today -why there will be a new heaven and earth. Take one example, marriage :-

When Jesus was asked concerning divorce in Mt 19:1-10, He referred to the origin and the foundation of marriage. He said, "Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female? And said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"He quoted Genesis! In fact Gen.1:27 2:24. He was saying: "Don’t you understand there is a historical basis for marriage?" If we did not have this historical basis, we would not have marriage. The only basis is in the Scriptures. Otherwise how can you say man cannot marry another man? Or, extramarital relationships are unacceptable? You would have no justification.

In Genesis we read God took dust and made a man. From the man’s side, He made a woman. Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." They were one flesh. When a man and a woman marry, they become one. This is the historical basis. Also, we are to cleave to one another as if we had no parents—just like Adam and Eve who had no parents. It's a heterosexual relationship because, God made Adam and Eve (a man and a woman). This 'literal' interpretation is the basis for marriage, and why homosexual behavior and desire is wrong.

And "
literalist"? Yes I accept the common sense meaning of the Bible. The literal method of interpretation (historical grammatical) is known for simplicity and clarity. The grammatical way we read the Bible is the same way as we read any other book. This doesn't rule out the use of type, figures of speech, allegory and symbols, but denies them the basis for interpretation. If the nature of a sentence demands a secondary sense, it allows that. It does not depend on intellectual training or abilities but the understanding of what is written in its generally accepted sense. It is the only basis which an individual can understand or interpret the Scriptures for himself. Would anyone become a Christian without using this method of interpreting the Bible? ‘If scripture makes sense seek no other sense’.

You will say the word "day" in Genesis is symbolical and not literal. But the fact is, a word can never be symbolic the first time it is used! A word can only be used symbolically when it has first had a literal meaning. Jesus said He is the "door." We know what this means because we know the word "door" means an entrance. Because we understand its literal meaning, it is able to be applied in a symbolic sense to Jesus Christ, so we understand that "He" is literally a door. The word "door" could not be used in this manner unless it first had the literal meaning we understand it to have. So the word "day" cannot be used symbolically the first time it's used in Genesis, as this is where God not only introduced the word day, but also defined it as He invented it. This is why the author of Genesis has gone to great lengths to carefully define the word "day" the first time it appears. In Gen.1:5 we read, "God called the light ‘day,’ and the darkness He called ‘night.’" In other words, the terms were carefully defined. The first time "day" is used it is defined as "the light" distinguished from "darkness" called "night." Gen.1:5 then finishes with: "And the evening and the morning were the first day." This is the same phrase used for each of the other five days and shows there was a clearly established cycle of days and nights (i.e., periods of light and periods of darkness).

You asking me to believe that thanks to the aid of modern science we have finally discovered the correct interpretation of Genesis. But one needs to study evolution first. So much for your "
inspiration of the Bible" profession.