Re: Old Earth

Bill Hamilton (hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com)
Thu, 21 Mar 1996 09:02:46 -0500

At 8:16 PM 3/20/96 -0800, Norman L Smith wrote:
>I have to agree that the resurrection is the central belief. However, it
>seems to
>me that ones view of origins is highly important. To me it seems that a God
>who
>would tolerate tooth and claw, violence, death, pain and agony for at least a
>good
>part of a billion years and think of it as business as usual would not be the
>kind
>of God that I would hope for, if that makes any difference. It would be
>easier to
>live with the thought of a God who would tolerate these things for a few
>thousand
>years as a "temporary" situation necessatated by His careful response to a
>rebelion
>made possible by His granting of a high degree of freedom to His creatures. I
>am
>not pretending to argue in favor of the latter notion here. I am just saying
>that
>it is a question that does make a great deal of difference to me.

This issue was, initially quite a problem for me. I don't claim to have a
preferred solution fo it, but there are some possibilities:

1. There have actually been two falls: The fall of Satan and the fall of
man. As a result of his fall, Satan was banished to earth. We don't know
when Satan's fall occurred. If it was billions of years ago, then Satan
could be responsible for billions of years of suffering and death. In this
scenario Eden was the first piece of territory God took back from Satan,
and Adam and Eve were to be the first of His army for taking the remainder
of earth back.

2. A second possibility is that in passages like Gen 2:17 and Romans 5:12
_spiritual_ death -- by which I mean being put out of fellowship with God,
which of course ultimately results in physical death -- is meant. That
would make the phrase "for _in the day you eat of it_ you shall surely die"
in Gen 2:17 a more meaningful warning. Punishment is always most effective
when administered immediately.

3. A third possibility is that human death is meant by the above passages.
I'm not trying to say that God doesn't care about animals. I'm sure He
loves them. But just as He intended them to meet the needs of men --
including as food [Gen 9:3] -- He may also have intended them to serve the
needs of the rest of creation: food for other animals, fertilizer, etc. If
you don't accept that, then you have to presume a radically different
ecology prior to the fall. I'm not saying it couldn't be, but the most
reasonable approach IMO is to be willing to admit that just as we do not
totally understand nature, we don't totally understand from Scripture the
conditions that existed prior to the fall.

Finally, I think we have to remember that time and quantities don't look
the same to God as they do to us. If animal death is something God wished
not to occur on earth, then I suspect one animal death would grieve Him as
much as billions over billions of years.

Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)