But I disagree with your assessment that natural disasters are built into creation. If that is the case, then they should also be built into re-creation (that is, heaven). Do you think there will be tsunamis in heaven, and if so, will they kill people (again)? If there are no natural disasters in heaven, then you have a category for a creation that is good and pleasing to God that lacks these characteristics, a creation that we creationists argue was there at the beginning prior to the Fall.

“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now” — Romans 8:20-22.

Could it be that recent events are examples of a creation groaning, longing for the day when the Second Adam will consummate his kingdom, occupying the empty throne that the First Adam left when he abdicated? If so, then they are not groans that were there from the beginning, but are the result of human failure. And since they were not there at the beginning, we have a certain hope they will not be there in the end.

I absolutely don’t take any statement in the Bible as a fact of science, per se. It may be a statement of reality, but I don’t think the Bible speaks the language of science in Gen 1,2,4 or Romans 8.

I believe the model of the creation of the earth put forward by science is reasonable: Big bang, solar system forming, earth cooling, etc.

You have really isolated one thing- the tsunami- and not dealt with the full implications of everything at work here. Is gravity evil? Is it a result of sin? Did the human body breath water before sin? You know my answers.

I actually think it is entirely probably that a new earth, without sin, is not the same as a new earth without physical boundaries, laws of physics, etc. If we are going to EAT in the new earth, then there are physical boundaries and death somewhere.

But I will also tell you that eschatological language doesn’t help me at all in thinking about future states. In fact, when we start talking about heaven, etc. I want to be a Buddhist! Nothing inspires more doubt about Christianity with me than eschatological descriptions of the afterlife.

peace

MS

How would a person have died, though?

Accident? Do you think Adam would even have stubbed his toe walking across Eden to pee in the pitch black middle of the night? I don’t think there would be accidents in an unfallen state. I believe accidents are a product of sinfulness.

Purposefully? Whose purposes?

Another human’s? Why? There would be no reason to kill other men. Pleanty of food for all. No bent wills. Peace.

God’s? Possibly, but I rather see an Enoch/Elijah-like reunion with God without the mediate step of dying.

His own? I think the absurdity of this is pretty obvious.

Though human death may have been possible before the fall, I don’t think it’s worth talking about.

I take this view of creationism by faith, not by evidence. In a many ways, it is a moot point and entirely unknowable, so I won’t argue, but it does make for good discussion. But I didn’t want to take BHT that direction because you seemed to want to avoid that if possible.

So I see the dynamic operation of nature and the physical limits of humans not as manifestations of sin, but as the limtis and nature of the physical world.

What we physically can see and touch is always subject to change. If nothing is lost or destroyed within the divine, then its creations must be seen as changing in form, not substance.

We should be focusing on the inner realities of those affected by the tsunami. In the midst of that which we cannot stop or control, God has left us the power to reach out and support one another. Rather than look at a natural disaster as God’s punishment, we should revel in his gift of giving us compassion.

Jumping off of a mountain and a naturally-occurring tsunami are two very different things. I have heard the old argument that the Bible is not a science book for years now, and you know what? I agree. Let’s get that out of the way. Nobody is arguing that the Bible is a science book.

But that is a very different thing from saying that the Bible and science can speak to some of the same issues. For me, God interprets all of reality by his Word. If that means that some times I bump up against the claims of modern science, so be it.

I think the failure of your argument lies in the intersection of these two propositions:

1. The universe has physical limitations.
2. There is death and bad stuff in the universe.

I believe the first proposition can exist without the second, and that it did exist prior to the Fall without the second, and that it will exist again without the second. (When I use the word “death,” I am not talking about the pure scientific definition that would encompass things like individual cells or plant life. You said it yourself: the Bible is not a science book. Physical death in the Bible refers to the shedding of blood and/or the cessation of breathing).