Question: Dear Greg,

I read your answer on Genesis and find it very lacking in one specific area. Genesis 3 clearly states that death was a punishment for sin, but if there were millions of years prior to Adam and Eve (as Hugh Ross purports and you are pushing his book) then death would be good because God declared everything as being very good at the end of the sixth day after he created Adam and Eve.

Then if death existed prior to Adam and Eve, and was pronounced good, then how could it be the punishment for sin? Then why did God require a blood sacrifice for the remission of sin all through the Old Testament? And then why did Jesus have to die on the cross and shed his blood for the remission of our sins? You see, there could not have been death, disease and suffering before the Fall or it would nullify the entire message of the Gospel.

Please respond.

Junior

Answer: Dear Junior,

I appreciate your opinion, and am not here to try to change it. However, this function and the time I can give to it does not allow me to become involved in a running dialogue. Having said that, here is a brief response – it appears to me that you are assuming that anyone who suggests that there was some form of life (not human, as we have in the Creation account) long before Adam and Eve would be suggesting that humans or human forms/humanoids were in existence (for the terms death, disease, and suffering seem to be used in this context – forgive me if I misunderstand).

This is not my view, nor, as I understand it, that of Hugh Ross (we advertise his book – we do not necessarily or usually "push" what we advertise, but reserve the right to differ from the goals and objectives of those who purchase advertising – and we do). The problem/fact remains that science has absolutely proven that the earth is older than 6,000 years, and that life forms – most notably the age of the dinosaurs – existed long ago. This proof is irrefutable. As Christians we can either deny it, which is not the logical interaction with the world that the God I worship would have us do) – or we can try to understand it in the light of God’s written revelation to us, Holy Scripture.

Some assume that anyone who accepts scientific evidence means that they are in agreement with evolution, and have discounted the Bible. I cannot assume that you have this perspective, but I must say that those who do judge their brothers and sisters in the faith, and that their judgement is wrong (evidentially and spiritually) for the Bible no where allows us to superimpose the dispensational idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Upholding such a view is not only denying the overwhelming scientific evidence, but upholding traditions and rules taught by men (the dispensational ideas) not the Bible (Mark 7:7).

Accepting the absolutely definitive proof and evidence of science does not mean that a Christian who does so is not a Christian, that such a person believes in evolution, and that such a person does not have a high view of the Bible.

I believe in an "old earth" and I believe that life forms predated Adam and Eve by a long time (and therefore there was "death" of life forms/animals) – the earth itself may be two billion years old – but that does not mean that I believe that sin entered before the Garden. The Bible is clear on that – that humans were made in his image, and that the fall happened in the Garden - just as the Creation account tells us in Genesis 1-3. Paul clarifies and teaches us this in Romans 4:12 cf.

This is the gospel as you say – but to superimpose the idea that anyone who believes in an "old earth" is wrong because "death, disease and suffering" must have been present is adding something to the Bible that I do not see made clear.

As you requested, I have responded. May this answer bless you and give you further insight into God’s sovereign nature. To God goes the glory.

In Christ,

Greg Albrecht