Merely linking to Bnonn's analysis gives me the benefit of plausible deniability. If people agree, I share the credit; if people disagree, I shift the blame. It's a win/win scenario.
The appeal to the golden age oracles of Isaiah raise an interesting question for creation science. As I recall, creationists like Sarfati think that even though predators were originally herbivorous, they had latent genes which were switched on after the fall or the flood, triggering the changes in body plans and body parts necessary to become predators.
So, by parity of argument, creationists would have to say lions, leopards, venomous snakes, &c. will revert to their previous form. They will deevolve (as it were).
But in that event they cease to be leopards, lions, cobras. Yet that generates a bit of a dilemma for the Isaian prooftexts. In that case it's no longer a lion that's eating straw. The snake the child plays with is no longer a cobra.
If so, the young-earth creationist isn't interpreting Isaiah any more literally than the old-earth creationist.
Don't worry; I just haven't got there yet. As it says at the bottom, "To be continued..."
I'm trying to restrict posts to single issues so they're not as daunting to read and don't get out of hand. Isaiah 11 and 65 will probably be part 4, after I assess the curse.
Food for thought...I'm not sure about your views on "kinds" and subsequent speciation within kinds since the creation, or more specifically since the flood, but something to bear in mind is that many creationists have made compelling cases that the animals we see today may very well express post-diluvian adaptations that weren't expressed in the ante-diluvian world.
Hence when considering predation there's no specific reason to assume the cat-kind of Genesis is represented by a modern tiger, for example.
Interesting thoughts by Bnonn, as usual, but it would have been nice if he'd dealt with not only the creation, but also the restoration, cf Isa. 11:6.
ReplyDeleteThere's a definite element of a return to paradise evident in such passages, and the image is one of animal harmony.
Merely linking to Bnonn's analysis gives me the benefit of plausible deniability. If people agree, I share the credit; if people disagree, I shift the blame. It's a win/win scenario.
DeleteClever. Notably the lack of commentary accompanying the bare links serves your dark purposes well...
DeleteThe appeal to the golden age oracles of Isaiah raise an interesting question for creation science. As I recall, creationists like Sarfati think that even though predators were originally herbivorous, they had latent genes which were switched on after the fall or the flood, triggering the changes in body plans and body parts necessary to become predators.
DeleteSo, by parity of argument, creationists would have to say lions, leopards, venomous snakes, &c. will revert to their previous form. They will deevolve (as it were).
But in that event they cease to be leopards, lions, cobras. Yet that generates a bit of a dilemma for the Isaian prooftexts. In that case it's no longer a lion that's eating straw. The snake the child plays with is no longer a cobra.
If so, the young-earth creationist isn't interpreting Isaiah any more literally than the old-earth creationist.
Don't worry; I just haven't got there yet. As it says at the bottom, "To be continued..."
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to restrict posts to single issues so they're not as daunting to read and don't get out of hand. Isaiah 11 and 65 will probably be part 4, after I assess the curse.
I look forward to reading more. :0)
DeleteFood for thought...I'm not sure about your views on "kinds" and subsequent speciation within kinds since the creation, or more specifically since the flood, but something to bear in mind is that many creationists have made compelling cases that the animals we see today may very well express post-diluvian adaptations that weren't expressed in the ante-diluvian world.
Hence when considering predation there's no specific reason to assume the cat-kind of Genesis is represented by a modern tiger, for example.
Cheers!