|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why read the Bible literally: take two | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The one I would emphasize at the moment is that Jesus' work of redemption makes no sense without a literal Fall. His death in our place makes no sense except in the context of the literal entrance of death into the world as the consequence of sin, to restore us to the previous sinless condition. ===== This is where I start to lose understanding. Why must the Fall be literal? So that the redemption would be literal, so that there is a real human condition from which we are to be literally really redeemed. Otherwise "redemption" loses its meaning.
Why couldn't the Fall have only ushered in the death of the soul rather than physical death? Maybe physical death has been around all along. I say this because Adam didn't physically die the day he ate the fruit. POint is he wouldn't have died at all if he hadn't eaten the fruit and death is the reason for Jesus' sacrifice so that way it all hangs together. Of course if you want to deny any part of Christian theology then it doesn't hang together, it just falls into a heap of meaningless nothing. But that's my very point. A literal reading supports the consistency of Christian theology. With a literal reading the Bible is an amazing interwoven tapestry of meaning.
Gen 2:17 (God is speaking) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. (emphasis mine) So what died that day? Or was God mistaken? This has been discussed to death elsewhere. The spirit died that day and actually so did the body begin to die but the death of the entire body did not occur for another 900 years or so. Death is a process, it started with the spirit and it includes diseases and weakenings and everything that takes a toll up to complete death of the whole organism. It happens to us a lot faster than it did to them.
Moreover, why couldn't the story of the Fall merely be a metaphor for the fact that all humans are created with the capacity to sin based on the combination of free will and selfishness? In fact, couldn't the extension of the consequences of Adam's sin to us be an explanation of our inheritance of these traits that cause us all to sin and need Christ's redeaming power? Why metaphorize what is better understood as literal? It simply reduces the impact. It has a lot less meaning if He died for a mere metaphor of a Fall, and to be the second Adam based on a mere metaphor of a first Adam as opposed to a reality.
Where does Christ ever say it was literal or historical fact? Many things are not said but are logical inferences from other parts of the Bible or in context.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I really do not see how you get that it is figurative. Seems to me that if you have a metaphor or a figure it has to be a metaphor or a figure OF something. The second coming is a metaphor for the establishment of the church. ????? The second coming is going to be a real second coming. The church was really truly established by the power of God. I'm not following you.
What about the logical problems of Genesis such as who Cain married? The Bible speaks as though there were all these other poeple around.Says Cain to God: "Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face I shall be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagbond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that findeth me shall slay me." Gen 4:14 Who is this "everyone"? It can only be his parents. Why? The timing of the events is not given. Adam and Eve lived hundreds of years and kept having children. Their children also lived hundreds of years and had many children. In those days before sin had taken its toll to the extent it did over time, the genetic consequences of marrying a sibling were much less, but in a very short time the population grew quite large.
C. Cain and his descendants 1. (16-17) Cain moves away and marries a. Where did Cain get his wife? Genesis 5:4 says that Adam had several sons and daughters; Cain obviously married his sister b. Isn't marrying a sister sin according to Leviticus 18:9, 11; 20:17, and Deuteronomy 27:22 (which even prohibit the marrying of a half-sister)? c. Here, necessity demanded that Adam's sons marry his daughters. And at this point, the "gene pool" of humanity was pure enough to allow close marriage without harm of inbreeding. But as a stream can get more polluted the further it gets from the source, there came a time when God decreed that there no longer be marriage between close relatives because of the danger of inbreeding i. Even Abraham married his half-sister Sarah (Genesis 20:12); this was not prohibited by God even at this time. Marrying a brother or sister was not forbidden until God forbade it Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible "And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." What is the necessity of this mark? It's not like there are a lot of strangers out there. When people live to be hundreds of years old and keep propagating there are a lot of strangers in the world very fast.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
if He literally died in order to bring in the New? Who died? or better what died? An egg, which Christians assert was never fertilized by a sperm, or at least a sperm from another human begins dividing and developing into an organism which continues developement to adulthood when it ceases functioning as a consequence of the trauma of crucifixion. God formed Jesus in Mary's womb just as He formed Adam out of the dust.
It is asserted that that organism was non functioning for three days although it is (at least prior to modern medical monitoring) possible for life signs to be undetectable for that period of time with a subsequent full recovery and then began functioning again with its heart beating, its cells metabolising and it began walking around but then in some fashion that physical body disappears from the face of the earth. That disappearance rather than showing a physical body isn't immortal is taken as proof that people will live forever somewhere else in a place called heaven. Huh? I guess if you want to rewrite the Bible, go ahead, but don't impose your reading of it on Christian theology. This scenario has zip to do with what the Bible actually says happened.
What is death? The irreversible dissolution of the intergrity of the molecules and chemical processes of the cells that constitute the neccesary functioning of an organism? lfen Not if God intervenes to reverse the process, which is what Jesus' death made possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Let's say Adam and Eve had 20 kids, 10 daughters and 10 sons. That gives us 22 people. Let's say the 10 daughters marry the 10 sons, and each couple has 20 kids. That's 200. So we have a grand total of 222 people. Not exactly a metropolis. I would think they would not have too hard of a time being acquainted with each other With hundreds of years to go on having children I'm sure they had a lot more than 20. However, in the very next generation the 200 (divided by two to get couples = 100 couples) x 20 children each is 2000 already plus the parents, and their own oldest children would be having children when they themselves were still having children. And 20, again, is a very small number when you have hundreds of years of married life between people who were incredibly strong and healthy compared to us, and the rule to go forth and multiply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You seem to be saying pretty much what I'm saying. Except I'd say 10-50 is VERY VERY conservative for the age in which people were living hundreds of years with a lot more vigor than later generations had. To my mind Adam and Eve alone could have had 200-300 children or even more, and also their own offspring, gradually diminishing as the life span diminished.
Cats and dogs do mate with siblings but it's not good for them either any more, as the whole creation has been gradually deteriorating over time. I know a little cat with an extra tiny little paw on each foot, probably the offspring of siblings. My grandparents had thirteen on one side, two dying in infancy, and ten on the other, also losing two, one in infancy, one in childhood. Adam and Eve and their descendants for the first few generations must have been able to multiply such numbers enormously. Already in my own family my grandchildren do not know their third and fourth cousins, and could conceivably meet and marry among them. {Edit: The point being it only takes a few generations to get "strangers" from two people even now, if they spread out geographically certainly, so how much more so back in Cain's day. This message has been edited by Faith, 07-01-2005 01:43 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What I find strange is that this incredible story about people lving 900 years and mating with their brothers and sisters becuase they had pure blood or something would be more believable to anyone than the scientific account. It's only believable to those who have learned who God is and what it all means and why it happened that way etc. The scientific account simply extrapolates back from what is observed to be the normal situation now, and makes the unsupportable assumption that things were always the same. The Bible gives a different view, claiming to be a record in fact, and if you understand that view it makes sense. If science doesn't recognize it, eventually science will run into more and more inexplicables, particularly as they trace back genomes, as the facts just are not going to fit their evolutionist presuppositions. They don't fit now as it is, but since it's all a matter of interpretation and not testable, falsifiable etc., they can go for quite some time before the inexplicables force recognition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't claim the evidence is "in the making" I claim it's already there to be recognized only a strong delusional preconception prevents its recognition. This is because evolution is an interpretation about past events and is therefore unfalsifiable. It's quite possible that the delusion will persist for quite a long time however.
No you couldn't "have sex with" parents and children, that NEVER happened, but you could MARRY a sister, not "have sex with" -- that's never been permitted, and where fornication prevails sin increases and the life span decreases so not a good idea for the health of the genome. If you went back there in a time machine, the way you talk the race would deteriorate pretty fast with your attitudes. This message has been edited by Faith, 07-01-2005 03:14 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No doublespeak at all, just a problem sorting out sin from the permissible.
Right so if I'm perfect I can marry my sister and have sex with her? Yes, but you ain't anywhere near perfect so forget it. If you have living great great greats who live 900 or so years and the longevity is persisting in the family, then we can talk perfect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Whereas those in the know have all this evidence that people way back in the day used to live 900 years. Yes, the best possible evidence. And yes yes yes yes yes and yup yup yup to most of the rest too, although looking for the 900 year old fossils doesn't make much sense as most of those were long gone even before the Flood. How would a fossil of a 900-year-old appear different from say an 80-year-old one by today's standards anyway? This message has been edited by Faith, 07-01-2005 03:36 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 07-01-2005 03:44 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
When you get serious I'll be happy to answer your questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Genetic perfection and the perfection of life in heaven are not the same thing, and as usual you are refusing to consider the difference between sinful and lawful sex.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Mar 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. quote: Perhaps you speak from ignorance, but it often sounds like something else, and I never know if I should just ignore you or take you as meaning what you say. This message has been edited by Faith, 07-01-2005 04:16 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Whereas scientific method in other fields--well, that's different. They are not such clowns in other areas. It's only in this field of biology that you find the clowns, for some reason. I don't see clowns, I see people laboring under a theory that can't be proved or disproved, and doing good science that gets swallowed up in the theory. This message has been edited by Faith, 07-01-2005 04:21 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I see people laboring under a theory that can't be proved or disproved, and doing good science that gets swallowed up in the theory.
And who is to blame for this state of affairs? Is TOE really a political movement, an anti-religious movement? I think that it simply took hold for whatever reason and now can't be challenged.
Because science thrives on competition between competing theories. That's how it works. The truth will come out in the competition. If the ToE were testable and falsifiable that could be counted on, but it isn't. One can endlessly interpret data into it because there's nothing that can falsify the interpretation. Creationists have alternative interpretations but they can't be proved either, so they just don't get taken seriously.
Scientists are as biased as everybody else, but the method is not biased. But you are suggesting that there is a bias here--otherwise, TOE would have been thrown out long ago. The ToE is not subject to scientific method. Most of the actual science that goes on around it is, but the ToE isn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Don't introduce it yet. There's a project I'd like to work on a bit first.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024