jgress wrote:I see you have decided to keep a record of my offending post.
Again, I don't wish to cause any more scandal, so I won't say anything more here.
I just read your post, Jonathan, and honoring your intention, I have deleted your quote in full from my previous post.
p.s. I can type rather quickly. 
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.
Dear Jonathan, I am disappointed that you decided that I was going to be offended. 
I did not even have a chance to read it. Whatever the case, I would have considered you a brother and, to be very honest, I enjoyed our discussion very much and looked forward to the wrestling with ideas, even though I think the agnostic religious doctrine of Evolution is a troublesome one. :ohvey: It is good to wrestle with ideas and to grow thereby. 
BTW, if you are willing, I would still be interested to hear your answer to this simple question. A simple yes or now will do. I won't drag on the discussion but respect your desire to bow out at this point, no matter your response, yes or no, I will not take it further.
Question: Do you believe Moses account of the thorns appearing AFTER the fall of Adam and Eve is incorrect because there are fossils of thorny plants that the modern dating techniques say are Millions of years old?
Icxypion wrote:BTW, if you are willing, I would still be interested to hear your answer to this simple question. A simple yes or now will do. I won't drag on the discussion but respect your desire to bow out at this point, no matter your response, yes or no, I will not take it further.
Question: Do you believe Moses account of the thorns appearing AFTER the fall of Adam and Eve is incorrect because there are fossils of thorny plants that the modern dating techniques say are Millions of years old?
Thanks, Symeon. I was worried both about the effect my posting would have on others, but also on myself, because I could tell I was getting exercised over what should not be worrying me (also, I have work to do and this topic was taking up too much time!).
This may be a topic we'll move to a private forum for controversial topics that aren't specifically related to TO jurisdictional issues. The administrators are currently discussing whether we want to go ahead with a private forum. Meanwhile, this will stay in this forum.
To answer your question, yes that is what I believe, but as always, by "incorrect" I mean incorrect in a purely chronological sense. The symbolic value of thorns, as reminders of the fallen state of the world, Moses' description is absolutely correct. If I may, I'll reproduce a quote from St Augustine on this topic (Against the Manichaeans, 1.13.19, quoted in Genesis 1-11 (p. 15) by Andrew Louth):
The Manichaeans are accustomed to say, "If God commanded that the edible plants and the fruit trees come forth from the earth, who commanded that there come forth so many thorny or poisonous plants that are useless for food and so many trees that bear no fruit?" ... We should say then that the earth was cursed by reason of the sin of man so that it bears thorns, not that it should suffer punishment since it is without sensation but that it should always set before the eyes of man the judgment upon human sin. Thus men might be admonished by it to turn away from sins and to turn to God's commandments. Poisonous plants were created as a punishment or as a trial for mortals. All this is the result of sin.
I completely agree with St Augustine that thorns, and poison and harmful things in general, exist in nature as a reminder to us of our sin. So it's actually beside the point even to talk about "punishing" the world because of man. Since non-human creatures have no will or reason, they are not moral agents and so we cannot talk about them being punished or rewarded.
Because I find the paleontological evidence for the existence of thorny plants before man convincing, I simply focus on the symbolic significance of these plants for us. Whether they existed before or after man came into being, their purpose is to remind us of our fallen state.
This might also answer some of your questions:
jgress wrote:The Manichaeans are accustomed to say, "If God commanded that the edible plants and the fruit trees come forth from the earth, who commanded that there come forth so many thorny or poisonous plants that are useless for food and so many trees that bear no fruit?" ... We should say then that the earth was cursed by reason of the sin of man so that it bears thorns, not that it should suffer punishment since it is without sensation but that it should always set before the eyes of man the judgment upon human sin. Thus men might be admonished by it to turn away from sins and to turn to God's commandments. Poisonous plants were created as a punishment or as a trial for mortals. All this is the result of sin.
I completely agree with St Augustine that thorns, and poison and harmful things in general, exist in nature as a reminder to us of our sin. So it's actually beside the point even to talk about "punishing" the world because of man. Since non-human creatures have no will or reason, they are not moral agents and so we cannot talk about them being punished or rewarded.
Because I find the paleontological evidence for the existence of thorny plants before man convincing, I simply focus on the symbolic significance of these plants for us. Whether they existed before or after man came into being, their purpose is to remind us of our fallen state.
[/quote]
Excellent quote, Jonathan. Great research. I of course concur entirely, that these things in the innocent natural order of plants and animals who have no moral ills, is most certainly either a punishement upon us, or for our spiritual and moral education. Which points I did make, but perhaps not clearly enough when I said that the lesson that God wanted to teach us all about the reason why sin should be avoided is because of the harm it brings by chronologically connecting in order the sin followed by the negative consequences. However, though you and I disagree on the importance of before or after chronological order, we are agreed on the value of these features in nature. Thank you for answering the question, my brother. 
jgress wrote:This might also answer some of your questions:
I have read his blog. It was fun to read. I appreciate his logic and desire to blend the Biblical account with the present fashions in Modern Scientific theories. I found that there was a lot of presumption in his assertions, for example, when he asserts confidently that Eve suffered increasingly in childbirth not from physical pain levels going up, but from the pain of a conscience and mother's heart that her offspring were not going to be born into a perfect world. That may be true, that she was now burdened with such worries and griefs. However, it would be in addition to the clear language of Scripture, that her "pains in Childbirth" specifically would be greatly increased. The fact is, his theory that it was really only referring to a grieved conscience and empathy for the welfare of her offspring is something that would be truly a constant grief for her, not limited to childbirth at all. But it would be there from the moment she realised she was pregnant and for years after it was born, and not merely being the "pains of childbirth". No, you see, the attempts to force the traditionally understood meaning of Scriptures on this issue of origins is always grasping at straws and sets one on the endless errand of coming up with ways to patch holes in their theories while trying to prove they are being "true to their faith in the inerrancy of Scripture and the authority and divine revelation of the Christian Faith and Church. I recommend, return like a humble child to the teachings of the Holy Fathers on this matter.
