CLAIM: The facts of nature are like a 67th book of the Bible (Part 3 of 3)

CAT makes the charge that since OEC (specifically Dr. Ross) hold to an earth that is older than YEC, the thought of a “true original paradise” is foreign to OEC theologies. This has been addressed in previous blog entries such as Restoration of Paradise by TODDL. One ramification this YEC tenet, Eden was a "perfect paradise", is given Eden was a specific geographical region and did not span the entire earth- even if Eden was “perfect”- that would lead to reason that the rest of the world being less than “perfect” but YEC tend to hold to the idea that all of creation was a "perfect paradise".

OEC do not Believe in a "Very Good" Creation
This charge, the thought of a “true original paradise” is foreign to OEC theologies, is inaccurate. Yes, Dr. Hugh Ross and other OEC (myself included) do not see evidence from scriptures that Eden was “perfect”, but that does not mean that a “perfect” paradise is “foreign to [our] theology”. We would submit that the Bible does indeed speak of a literal, “true original paradise” but history has not yet seen it. The Bible does not describe such a place until Revelation 21-22 as the New Heavens, New Earth, and New Jerusalem. It is also interesting to note that these passages do not use Eden as a basis for describing this New Creation. Nor does the Bible describe it was a restoration or reestablishment of the conditions of the Eden of Genesis. In fact, when the Bible uses the term “paradise” it is used in reference to heaven (Luke 23:43, 2 Cor. 12:4, and Rev. 2:7).

Romans 8:19-21
Many OEC would agree with the YEC tenet that creation as has been affected by man’s sin. Differences emerge when YEC cite Romans 8:19-21, as proof that all animal death came about because of the Fall. As translated in the NASB: “For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 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.” A closer look at this passeage revealse another interpretation, which makes more sense in terms of the context of the chapter. This passage is found in the midst of Paul's writting of the role the Holy Spirit has in the life of the believer setting believers free from the law to serve God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the overall context Romans 8 suggests that Paul was not talking about the non-rational creation. A fine, detailed treatment of this can be found in referece [1].

Animals to eat plants only
YEC often cite Genesis 1:29-30 to prove their case that there was no carnivorous activity before the fall of man. It should be noted that nowhere in scriptures does it say when God “allowed” or “re-designed” animals to be carnivores (later he permits people to eat meat in Genesis 9:3 but that is different as this commandment is to people, not animals). In fact, there is Psalm 104:21, part of the "Creation Psalm", that attributes God as the source of carnivorous activity and not Adam and Eve: “The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their food from God.” But to look at Genesis 1:29-30 more closely it reads:

“Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.” [NIV – italics mine]

In the above citation, the black, italics denotes every work in the English, not found the Hebrew. It is interesting to note that the phrase “I give” is not in the original Hebrew.

Also, while the text does say that God created specific plants (those with seed and fruit) and gave it to the animals for food, it does not say that all animals were vegetarians. Without reading into the passage, the only thing we can certainly come away with is plants were given as food. Ultimately, all animals rely upon plants for food - even carnivores- from a food chain perspective, but I would suggest that Genesis 1:29-30 applies only to a specific class of animals.


The YEC case that carnivorous activity came about because of the fall of man is only inference and has no direct biblical foundation. In fact, most OEC would submit that it is in direct contrast to scripture because such a drastic change in animal behavior would have required God to continue the creation process. The Bible is very clear that He stopped creating after the sixth day. If the YEC position is right, then God must have changed some of the animals to become carnivorous thereby creating carnivores or this radical change in behaviour and physiology happened very quickly via a natural process.

Often YEC resort to emotional appeals as “proof” for their interpretations of Scripture. Forgive me as I resort to one by posing the following question, “Why would God judge the innocent animals for the sin of mankind and condemn them to the 'evil' laws of survival of the fittest?” The reality is that God judges only those who commit sin. In the case of Eden, there were three parties:

1. Satan- the serpent- would crawl on his belly and be bruised on the head by the seed of the woman.
2. Eve was judged by having more pain in childbirth
3. Adam was judged by having to work harder for his food.

No other judgments made by God, since all the guilty parties were punished. God does not pass judgment upon the innocent. The young earth idea that God would punish the innocent along with the guilty actually denigrates the character of God.

With the fall came physical death
YEC often attribute all physical and spiritual death to be a result of the fall. OEC would agree that spiritual death came about from the fall and that this death applies only to humans. Both camps mostly agree that physical death of humans could attribute to the fall too. The difference occurs when considering the issue of animal death. This was addressed back in a previous blog entries with the label “(death)animals”.

Pain and Suffering came about because of the Fall
The authors of CAT claim that “clearly the world that we a familiar with is very different from the one which God created and pronounced as “very good. It was a world without sin and suffering, without thorns and thistles…” This statement is an exaggeration and mischaracterization from what (little) Scriptures provides in details.

To say that there was no sin before for the fall, fails to account for one important variable-The Fallen One, Satan. God permitted Satan to prowl and growl in the Garden before the fall of man. Since Satan is the original sin of the universe, I fail to see who we can unequivocally say that there was no sin prior to the temptations of Adam and Eve.

Also, to say that Eden was “without suffering” fails to recognize one subtlety in the consequence of Eve’s part in the fall of man. God promised her an “increase in her pain” when giving labor. That qualifier “increase” speaks volumes that at some level there is pain in the “perfect” creation, with pain come last least some suffering. The underlying question here was address in the blog entry: How Can Suffering Be In God's Good Plan?

Is Special Revelation just as good as General Revelation?
Finally, for last of this section, the bottom line argument of their book, the authors of CAT make this appeal: That Dr. Ross is wrong for claiming two claims or comments:

1. The record of nature is like the 67th book of the Bible
2. General revelation is on par with special revelation

As an OEC, I would also disagree with these two notions at face value. First, I would submit that the idea that the record of nature is likened to the 67th book of the Bible is a bit bold. I feel that I understand the message that Dr. Ross is trying to convey- the power to special revelation- but I do not like the sweeping generalization that such a statement leaves behind when taken at face value. At some point in history this was a somewhat true statement in that before Moses there was no written Word of God, only the record of nature to convey His glory. For Job, nature was all there was without direct intervention of the Triune God in some form. But from the time of Moses to today, I would agree that the Dr. Ross might be overstating the power of general revelation.

Secondly, Dr. Ross would do seem to imply that he thinks that general revelation is on par with special revelation. There is some truth to this comment in that they are both “written” by God. They are both sufficient to condemn, They both “point to the author of life”. But they are not on par in that today- only special revelation has the power to save an individual.

FOOTNOTES

[1] http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/romans8.html accessed 8.03.2007