Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Death before the 'Fall'?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 166 of 230 (286441)
02-14-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Garrett
02-14-2006 9:31 AM


Symbolism and the "roots" of words
Garrett writes:
I think the Tree of Life, although it did physically exist, was mainly symbolic of the fact that while they remained with God, they would be immortal.
Hmmm...seems plausible!
Strongs writes:
TREE--ets OT:6086, "tree; wood; timber; stick; stalk." This word has cognates in Ugaritic, Akkadian, Phoenician, Aramaic ('e'), and Arabic. It occurs about 325 times in biblical Hebrew and in all periods.
In its first biblical appearance `ets is used as a collective noun representing all trees bearing fruit Gen 1:11.
And then I am reminded of this N.T. verse:
NIV writes:
John 15:5-6-- "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
The word vine, although not quite the same as a tree, is symbolic also..
Vines Expository Dictonary writes:
VINE, VINTAGE--ampelos NT:288 is used (a) lit., e. g., Matt 26:29 and parallel passages; James 3:12; (b) figuratively, (1) of Christ, John 15:1,4,5; (2) of His enemies, Rev 14:18,19, "the vine of the earth" (RV, "vintage" in v. 19), probably figurative of the remaining mass of apostate Christendom.
Trees have sap or nourishment that flow to the branches which bear fruit. Vines also are the bearers of fruit.
Websters writes:
2vintage adj 1 : of, relating to, or produced in a particular vintage 2 : of old, recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or quality : classic <~ cars> 3 : of the best and most characteristic ” used with a proper noun
the vintage is akin to the quality of the "flow" of the substance of life. Our language would even say that these words all have the same "root"! Highly symbolic!

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Garrett, posted 02-14-2006 9:31 AM Garrett has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 167 of 230 (286447)
02-14-2006 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Garrett
02-14-2006 9:37 AM


Animals and the Tree of Life
quote:
I think the Tree of Life, although it did physically exist, was mainly symbolic of ”the fact that while they remained with God, they would be immortal. Notice that when ”they were seperated from God, the Tree of Life was taken away and guarding by flaming ”swords. Seems pretty simple.
While I agree that a lesson can be made concerning ”the symbology of the Tree of Life, that symbology doesn’t fit into the plain text reading though.”
IMO, a plain text reading is what the originator is looking at concerning death before the ”fall. In the plain text reading the tree of life symbolizes immortality or everlasting life ””(depending on your religion) which aren’t necessarily the same.”
That aside, in Message 155 I was talking about animals. Were animals to remain with God ”to remain immortal? Are animals promised everlasting life? I don’t see scripture that ”supports that.””
quote:
I understand your problems with how the laws of science operated before death. ”There is a seeming contradiction to how things work now.
Actually you don’t ”understand. I don’t have any problems with the laws of science and the A&E story. I ”have a problem with dogma and tradition. My preference is plain text reading when ”studying the Bible. I don’t have a problem with symbology when teaching moral or ”religious lessons.”
Whether physical death occurred in animals before Adam sinned is not foundational to ”Christianity.
In Message 146””
quote:
To start with, the finished creation was described by God as "very good" (Gen ””1:31). A system that requires animals to kill other animals for survival doesn't seem very ”good....effective maybe, but not very good.
Deeming creation very good doesn’t ”negate death. Death can be good to keep the world in balance. I’m not even talking ”about killing, just natural attrition. Animals dying from old age.””
quote:
Next, Romans tells us that sin and death entered the world as a result of Adam's ”rebellion (Romans 5:12 ff., 8:20-22; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22).
(Romans 5:12) ”Again I’m talking about biological animal death. Not humanity. Paul was dealing with ”humanity, unless you feel that animals were subject to sin.”
”(Romans 8:20-22) Creation suffering because it is subject to man doesn’t show that ”animals weren’t susceptible to death before Adam sinned.”
”(1Corinthians 15:21-22) 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made ”alive.
Again Paul is dealing with humanity, not animals. Will all animals be made alive in Christ?”
”(1Corinthians 15:26) Death as the last enemy is not dealing with biological death.”
”As I understand it thanatos ”deals with the judgement of death, as opposed to, ””teleute ”which deals with biological death.””
quote:
. and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any ”more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Revelation 21:4).
Again thanatos. No ”more judgement of death.”
As far as the vegetarian animals, eating fruit doesn’t negate natural attrition.””
quote:
Because of Adam, a curse of death and suffering was brought into an otherwise perfect ”world.
A judgement of death was brought upon mankind.”
Romans 5:12”
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so ”death spread to all men, because all sinned
A judgement of death was given because of sin and since all men (not animals) sin they ”suffer the judgement of death.”
So really none of your verses clearly support that there was no biological animal death before the fall.”

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Garrett, posted 02-14-2006 9:37 AM Garrett has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 168 of 230 (286498)
02-14-2006 1:43 PM


All the days of your life
Rrhain,
I know. And that is precisely the problem. You refuse to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you might have made an error. How can you claim to have an honest understanding of your analysis if you refuse to consider that you might have made a mistake?
Yes, the possibility of God lying is not worthy of my consideration.
I am opened to the possibilty of God fulfilling His word in a way which may surprise us. I think it may be correct that Adam was expecting to die immedietly. The slain animal/s that were used by God to provide coverings for Adam and Eve, he might have viewed as dying in his place. All the things surrounding God’s promise of a retaliation against the serpent could have been surprising to the couple since all they expected was the punishment of death.
But it is correct that I am quite closed to your accusation of God lying and Satan speaking the truth. You can classify that refusal in any terms you wish.
As to Adam and Eve surely dying, you say:
No, they didn't.
Yes they did - surely die.
Adam lived for nearly a thousand years afterward.
And he died. He had no reason to before.
You're forgetting that god didn't just say they would "surely die." Instead, he said they would "surely die" before the sun set on the very day of which they ate.
I don’t think you can insist on that being the only possible way that God could keep His word that they would surely die in the day that they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
If I tell you that you will die before sunset today and you don't die, was I telling you the truth?
I don’t think that God said that it must and only happen before sunset. Can you point to another passage anywhere in the Bible which says that God lied? That would be a strong argument that He lied.
However, I can point out that the Devil was a liar ”from the beginning”
”You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He . does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks it out of his own possessions; for he is a liar and the father of it.” (John 8:44)
I’m not opened to your slander that God lied. And concerning the Devil I trust the word of Jesus Christ over yours.
Concerning God saying that they would surely die you quote again in Genesis 2:14:
quote:
What do you think "in the day that thou eatest thereof" means? It's not talking about some nebulous, vague, will eventually happen within the next thousand years time period.
I think they started to die the moment that they ate of the tree’s fruit.
In 3:17 God goes on:
”Beause you listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree concerning which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil will you eat of ot all the days of your life . ”
God indicates that there will be days of Adam’s life spent in toil. I see no reason why God would promise Adam that his heart would stop before sunset and then turn around and tell him that he would spend days of his remaining life toiling.
At best I would say that a merciful God postponed the inevitable consequences as long as He pleased to. If you want to come at me from that angle that God became lenient, I might agree. But I won’t entertain your argument that God lied.
Furthermore, even in God declaring that Adam would have days of his life remaining before he turned back into the dust, I don’t think He introduced any possibility that He did NOT already have in mind when He said ” . for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die”
You want to make Satan the teller of truth and God the lying one? You go ahead and believe that if you want to.
It means, given the Hebrew method of measuring days by sunset to sunset, that it would happen before the sun set. And "surely die" is referring to a physical death, not a spiritual one.
The rhythm in Genesis one is ”evening and morning” - one day. But I think you are exploiting a technicality to force the accusation of a lie from God. In 2:4 the word does not mean the interval between one sunset and another. And that is in the same chapter as verse 17. So YOWM could have more than one significance, to which the Hebrew dictionary already informs us.
Hebrew has about 1,000 times less the number of words as English. So much flexibility has to be taken into consideration in interpreting the Hebrew Genesis.
It is a fact that from the time we are born we begin to surely die ourselves.
Incorrect. Instead, we spend most of the time during our formative years doing everything except dying. It's only when the body has passed through its full growth that it starts to deteriorate.
I believe that even in our formative years the process of dying has already begun on a miniscule level. The process picks up more and more as we age. But I will check with a biochemist or two out of curiosity, to see what present day science knows about it.
That Adam embarked on a downhill inescapable process in which he must surely die is enough of the indication of the truthfulness of God’s word.
Incorrect. God told him that he'd be dead by the time the sun set. Instead, he lived for another thousand years.
You insist on that. But I don’t agree. The Bible says of God ”I, Jehovah, speak righteousness, Declaring things that are right” (Isa. 45:19)
You are insisting that God lied and that the serpent spoke the truth. You are beating a dead serpent. You are furthuring the serpentine slander that what God spoke was not to be trusted. Why do you want to perpetuate the slander aimed at God by the seprent?
The Hebrew word for ”day” is the same as is used in Genesis 2:17 - “for in the DAY that you eat of it you shall surely die”.
Indeed. It's referring to a single, 24-hour, literal "day." Remember, Genesis 2 has no connection to Genesis 1.
Why should I remember that? The two sections may look at the matter of creation from different angles with different emphasises. I think the writer of Genesis put them together because they were related. Besides the two usages of yowm that I mentioned are both in Genesis chapter two - (2:4 and 2:17).
They were written by different people recounting different creation myths. The order in which things happen differs and contradicts. For example, the sequence in Gen 1 is plants, animals, male and female humans together. In Gen 2, it's male human, plants, animals, female human. You cannot use Gen 1 to inform Gen 2.
There are indeed many myths about creation. I am presently studying some of them. But there are common elements. They all seem to emphasize the centrality of human beings.
Genesis alone has God creating the heaven and the earth out of nothing. So I think that the many verbal versions of what was passed down and embellished from Adam and Eve was in the case of Moses, supervised by the Spirit of God. In short, I believe that the Genesis version is the one version which we should pay attention to as God’s version.
But I do not argue that many creation myths were circulating. Genesis is the one divinely inspired. The others are merely interesting. Genesis is the word of God. I think God corrected all the distortions in inspiring Moses what to write.
(I don’t think that Moses wrote about his own death in the Penteteuch).
Contrary to your belief, I don’t think that God would be sloppy about His word. He meticulously maintains the design molecule. Why would He be much less careful in His communication of His verbal oracles to man? I think you’re attributing sloppiness to the account is like scientests attributing the inwards of a living cell to be just a mesh of insignificant goo five hundred years ago.
quote:
Preceeding 2:4 we are told that God made the heaven and the earth not in one day but in six days (Gen. 1:5,8,13,19,23,31).
But we were also told that humans were made at the same time, male and female together, after everything else had been created. Therefore, Gen 2 cannot possibly be referring to anything in Gen 1 because we find that a male human shows up before anything else was created.
I think we are told generally that God made man in His image and created them male and female. This is general and overall with time sequence not mentioned other than the fact that it occurred on the sixth day.
”And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness . And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them . ” (See Gen. 1:26,27). This is general.
In the next chapter we see God breathing into the man’s nostrils the breath of life and man becoming a living soul. Then God warns Adam of the tree. And then after Adam names the animals God builds Adam’s rib into a Woman. This is more specific. And I believe that the woman was finished by the end of the sixth day. At the time she was finished God could say that He created them male and female by the end of the sixth day.
There need be no contradiction, only difference in focus and details of emphasis.
Remember, according to Gen 2 there were no plants at all:
2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
That's part of the reason that god created Adam: To make the earth green.
I think that the second account is more local to the garden. Details are elaborated on in the second account concerning the local garden of Eden which are left out of the first account. Apparently there seems to be contradictions. But I don’t think these differences reflect anything but the selection of details to emphasize varying matters.
Could it not be that animals were created first but in Eden? Could it not be that God reserved the making of some animals in Adam’s garden so that Adam could witness how the creatures prior to him had come about? I think it is possible.
My Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary for entry # 3117 - yowm, - is not restricted to this meaning for that Hebrew word, as you would like to have it.
Incorrect.
Quite correct. The Dictionary explains that the word can have different conotations.
The word, just like English, can be used to refer to individual days as well as to large spans of time, but you have to phrase it the right way in order to do that. Context will tell you. You cannot just choose which one meaning you want because it's convenient for you to do so. "On the day you eat" is a reference to a specific, individual moment in time, not an era.
Either God meant that beginning to die was virtually to surely die or starting with that day they entered into the realm of “surely” dying.
God lying is not an option for me.
Incorrect. It cannot be interpreted any other way.
And you believe that the serpent was truthful that they did not surely die?
The Ancient serpent is called the one who deceives the whole inhabited earth.
”And the great dragon,... the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth . ” (Rev. 12:9)
Your insistence that the serpent told the truth and that God lied is a testimony that the Ancient serpent has truly deceived the whole inhabited earth, including you. You are fighting to vindicate the serpent and fighting to slander God. So you must be deceived.
Do you think the couple made the right choice?
Incorrect. I don't say that yowm can only mean a literal day. I say that in this particular context, it can only be interpreted as a literal day. Because the word has multiple meanings, you have to look at the rest of the utterance in order to provide information about what is going on. "On the day you eat" is not a reference to a multi-year time span. It's a reference to a specific moment in time.
I don’t believe that a lie issued from God. I believe that God spoke what was true.
Then what, pray tell, did you mean by "copyist errors."? The copyist's job is to make a duplicate of the text, letter by letter. If they make a mistake, it will be in spelling or punctuation or some such.
Sometimes I think they may have included a note that was in the margin of a previous copyist. This is textural criticism of which I am no expert. But Giesler and Nix’s book “A General Introduction to the Bible” discussed varies kinds of copyists errors. I think I recall that spelling and punctuation were not the only types of errors. I do recall that none of them amount to any significant damage to the central tenets of my faith.
That discussion belongs on the Innerancy Board. Concering the example of Solomon’s horses:
I don't recall mentioning that. Please stick to the argument at hand.
I don’t recall saying that I was quoting you. And it was relevant to my pointing out that I recognize some types of copyist’s errors are in the texts of both the Old and New Testaments.
I think you should consider this passage in the light of how wise it is for you to teach people that God lied and the serpent told the truth.
I have. What makes you think the Bible is a book of god?
Many things. Particulary I don’t think that it is within the possibility of human imagination to concoct such a character as Jesus Christ. I don’t think anyone would invent such a Person even if they could.
It was my initial trust in Jesus Christ that gradually convinced me that the whole Bible must be reliable. I did not start with Genesis. I ended with Genesis.
The Bible taught me many things about where I came from and what my reason for existing is. It has taught me of the love of the Savior and how He deals with the problem of my moral imperfection, the need for forgiveness, and the power to overcome sin. It has also brought me into a family all over the globe of sisters and brothers who share the experience I have with great joy and hospitality. It has given me a practical way to be involved with God’s eternal purpose. It has put me on a team that must win, on the side of One who can only be totally vindicated, and the gift of eternal life. It has also given me a way to participate in bringing in the salvation of the whole earth. I can participate in the redemption of creation. I know why I was born and why I breath. I know where I am going and Whom I have believed in to conquer all that plagues the human race. I know the Lord Jesus and eternal life.
Now if I drop my belief and pick up your philosophy, what do you offer me? Let me compare the two.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-14-2006 01:50 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-14-2006 01:57 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-14-2006 01:57 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-14-2006 02:04 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-14-2006 02:08 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-14-2006 02:20 PM

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 169 of 230 (286561)
02-14-2006 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Garrett
02-14-2006 9:45 AM


Re: Did God Lie?
I have a hard time believing that you can't see more than one interpretation of what that phrase literally means.
because i'm trying to read whats there not impose my views on it, i know there are more than one interpreatation but why would you try to change the meaning? unless you do not want it to mean what it means or you want to change it to fit what you believe..
If there is one interpretation that doesn't falsify the statement, then the statement isn't false...plain and simple.
sorry it doesn't work that way, interpretation shouldn't be a factor, look at the words that are there not the ones that arn't, if the bible is the perfect book that people claim it is why change what it means?
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-14-2006 03:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Garrett, posted 02-14-2006 9:45 AM Garrett has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Silent H, posted 02-15-2006 5:49 AM ReverendDG has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 170 of 230 (286632)
02-14-2006 5:57 PM


The Approvedness of Christ's View of Scripture
Rrhain,
Wouldn't that be the ultimate coup for the forces of evil? To put out a tract that so clearly shows god to be evil and yet have people still come to insist that the "god" described therein is the embodiment of good? And with so many warnings right in the text!
That would be the ultimate sucker play, wouldn't it?
So far it seems that you are the one being suckered very badly.
As for the coup for the forces of evil. God who transcends time has already shown us where the forces of evil are destined to spend eternity. John saw the little lying snake in the lake of fire. From the divine viewpoint it is already accomplished.
And the New Jersusalem of the sons of God is already built, from the transcendent viewpoint of God.
See, the Unitarians came up with a solution: The "trinity" is a bunch of hogwash.
Ah, Unitarians. Those who pray to “To Whom It May Concern”
The only problem is that the Son is called God, The Father is called God, and the Holy Spirit is called God. Yet there is one God. So the Unitarian concept has to ignore Scripture. So their “solution” doesn’t work.
That's one of the reasons that Judaism doesn't treat Jesus in the same way as Christians do. According to Judaism, there is only one god.
I am a disciple of Jesus. And I believe that there is only one God.
There cannot be a "son of" god. The Messiah is not divine. That's one of the huge points behind the story of Moses: Moses did not perform a single miracle. All the miracles were performed by god. Only god is divine.
I believe that if there could not be “son/s of God” then the universe itself would not exist. I think that the only reason that the time and space exist along with the univese, is that God could have sons of God. I believe that that is what the Bible teaches.
quote:
Or perhaps free will and predestination are difficult to reconcile. These matters are difficult to reconcile.
It isn't difficult at all. Free will and predestination are completely incompatible. If you know with absolute certainty, no chance for error, what I am going to do, do I really have any choice in the matter?
I don’t know. If God knows what my choice will be, I don’t know if that means I have no choice.
Anyway, He knows but does not tell you what your choice will be. So you just freely choose. And of course some theologians would argue that God does not know.
It is not a debate that I have ever felt to engage in. I have learned that the greatest blessing lies in just saying “Amen” to whatever the Bible says. I have found that that way has led to the greatest peace and the most intimate communion with God. And aside from the purpose of communing with God in intimate fellowship, the is little use for the Bible to me. If it does not lead me to know God and experience God personally, then it is a vain and useless writing.
Jesus told the religionists ”You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that testify of Me. Yet you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life” (John 5:39)
When I come to search the Scripture, I always want to simultaneously come to Jesus Christ in order to have the life of Christ. I don’t want to search the Scripture while not being willing to come to Jesus. I am not fully arrived at this yet. But I am getting there. The purpose of the Scripture is to convey a Living Person into my heart, into my spirit.
We should come the the Scripture coming to the Living Person of Jesus Christ at the same time. From Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 we should come to the Scripture and come to Jesus Christ together.
Whenever we open the Bible we should have a willingness to be touched and to be changed by the Son of God. If one does not have this willingness she or he should ask God that s/he would be willing to be willing for this.
quote:
Do you think the writer meant the entire planet?
Of course. The Bible directly says so.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Or does "all the high hills" mean something other than ALL?
Possibly it means every high hill on the face of the planet. But if the writer was writing something that he was seeing in a vision or in some kind of communicated divine seeing, he could just be recording what he saw, i.e. he saw in the vision every single hill covered.
The other thing to consider is whether there was a wave of water sweeping around the globe so that all hills were not covered at one time. I really don’t know. And I don’t have heavy scientific arguments about Flood Geology.
I take it that Judged is Judged. This reminds me of the news people who were interviewing a farmer after a hurricane. His entire crop of plants had been flattened, destroyed. They asked him is the wind was going 50 miles per hour or more like 80 miles per hour (paraphrase). He responded that it didn’t make any difference to him, Flat was flat! His whole crop was FLAT, destroyed.
Similarly, the Noah story informs me that judged is judged, period. That’s the point. Of course the point also is that eight humans were saved through the flood in the ark, a sure type of Christ and His salvation.
I think he could have meant where all the human beings were living.
That's not what the Bible says. Everything died:
7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
How does one interpret a statement that ALL flesh died and EVERY living substance was destroyed and that ONLY Noah and the other inhabitants of the ark remained alive to mean that there was some holdout?
I think it communicates that judgement was total.
I would not want to make a case that judgement was not total.
Ahem. Moses didn't write Genesis. The Pentateuch describes the funeral of Moses. How could he possibly have written about his own funeral?
That part must have been written by someone else. It is a minor problem for me. It should be a minor problem.
quote:
indicates that it should not be a problem for God to carry out what He wants to do. He created the heavens and the earth. His power has no limit.
Hey, if you want to resort to magic, you go right ahead, but that isn't what the Bible says happened. The water did not magically appear through god zap-poofing it into existence. Instead, it came down as rain and welled up from underground.
I think we may very well live to see some acts of judgement which scientists will be hard pressed to explain.
There’s a number of Flood Science Bible books which would take you on that it could happen. I don’t have much interest in them anymore. I read one called “The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch.” The writer discibed a comet dumping ice on the polar caps, knocking the earth out of orbit, and a wave of water slushing around the globe, as responsible for the biblical flood.
I don’t know how God did this. My attitude is that the Bible is God’s revelation and science is man’s invention. If there is a descrepancy between the two the error must be on the side of science because God knows all the facts. That is just the way I see it.
A Man rising from the dead is also hard for science to explain. Oh by the way, one other miraculous couplet that I failed to mention. That is the stopping of the sun and moon in Joshua with the moving of the shadow on the sun dial back a few degrees in Isaiah with Hezekiah. Here again it seems that the couplet suggests that the Creator is saying “That’s right. You heard it right. The solar light was altered by supernatural intervention.”
But there isn't enough water on earth to do that. If all the water suspended in the atmosphere were to condense out as rain right now, you'd get an inch of water which would immediately seek the lowest point in the oceans and start evaporating back into the atmosphere. No flood.
You have to decide whether or not you want to believe the account of the flood of Noah. I have made the decision that God was able to do what He says He did. Just what He says happened may be a discussion. You seem to think that there is no discussion about. Maybe you are right. Maybe you are less than right and we have a catastophy thay was virtually universal according to modern standards of geography and physics. At any rate, I think the Bible has the approvedness as a book such that I am not persuaded to doubt the message because modern man says “Wait, now we know this could not have happened because of thus and such. Impossible.”
I think I’ll run with what the Scipture conveys. Jesus seemed to rely on the account of Noah. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.
Over 97% of all the earth's water is in the oceans. That puts it at the lowest point. And yet, there is still dry land. Therefore, to flood the entire earth as the Bible says means we can't use any of that water. We need to put new water on top of it.
Thanks. And the Titanic was also supposed to be unsinkable.
Or was that “unsinka-bubble-bubble-bubble !”
quote:
I came to believe Genesis indirectly through trusting Jesus Christ.
But that makes no sense. Genesis was written by Jews for Jews and can only be understood in a Jewish context. To accept Jesus is to deny Judaism.
Makes no sense ?
The Jews that came out of Egypt thought to accept Moses was to deny Judaism. They wanted to stone him and elect another leader to lead them back to Egypt, which they ironically called not “the iron furnce” but the land of milk and honey.
Saul murdered scores of priests because to not kill young David was also to deny Judiasm.
The Jews remaining in the good land who were not taken away to Babylon wanted to kill Jeremiah. To not do so was to deny Judaism.
At many places in the Old Testament the Jews got it completely wrong thinking that they were serving the interests of Judaism.
Jereboam thought that not making the two calfs for the Northern Kingdom to worship (instead of going down to Jerusalem’s temple) would be an act of denying Judaism.
quote:
I guess some who are insistent that a globe wide flood engulfing the whole planet might want to take up a debate on it. I’m not sure what Moses meant.
(*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you?
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.
What is not to understand?
I do not want to argue that the flood of Noah was not universal. I take it as universal or virtually so (according to modern standards of geography and physics). I think the more important point is what are we to do with this information in light of how Christ used it:
”For just as the days of Noah were, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the dau in which Noah entered into the ark, And they did not know that judgment was coming until the flood came and took all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.” (Matt. 24:38)
These final words of Jesus on the flood of Noah are the most important words to me about the flood in the Bible. As it was in Noah’s day before the flood so it will be at the coming of Christ.
What happened then was something that no one had ever seen before. And with the second coming of Christ also what will happen upon this planet will be things which no one has ever seen before.
quote:
All the people and animals were wiped out except for the 8 souls in the ark.
Physically impossible. And even if we could figure out how it happened, that would make you an even more insistent advocate of evolution than evolutionary biologists. The genetic diversity of such a culling of the animals would require every single individual in the first generation to be a new species. No biologist claims that speciation happens that fast.
That said, we still have a problem: As new species, they would be incapable of breeding with any other individual. All life would die due to inability to reproduce.
I had a Christian friend who was an MIT student. Very smart in science he was. He laughed one day that one of the lecturers said that science proves that the moon does not exist. Or that for certain known scientific reasons the moon, the earth’s nearest satallite should really not exist. But we know it does.
I have no evolution arguments pro or con for you about Noah’s flood on this board. I think that if God communicated his salvation to man in terms that only physicists and geology Phds. could comprehend then He would be very narrow. I think that God did not ask that to be saved we master fluid dynamics or be thoroughly conversant in zoology, biology, biochemistry, etc.
I think God did things in a way that we either believe or do not believe. If His plan of salvation offends your education level, that is something that you have to take to God in prayer to work through.
I just don’t think that packaged His actions in ways that only those with advanced scientific education levels could find credible. What you might want to first react to as naivete, I would caution you to spend at least an equal amount of time contemplating as God’s way of universality. That is doing things in a way that many peoples from many phases of human history can relate to and understand.
Do you insist that God must come up to our 21rst Century standards of scientific credibility to carry out His salvation? Do you insist that His actions must pass muster of our modern knowledge of science? I can only suggest that you spend some time to consider God’s job to reach people from all corners of the globe from all periods of history.
If Christ should tarry for another 800 years and science advance 10 fold in its knowledge, God still has the task to reach as many people as He can in terms which as many as possible can understand. Don’t be so cock sure that God could not do what the Bible says He did.
quote:
I think that is the important point of the record. I don’t know if Moses meant that South America or Australia were under water.
What part of "the waters were on the face of the whole earth" are you having difficulty with?
I only have difficulty with the thought that Jesus Christ, for whom the story of Noah was not a joke, cannot be trusted that the account is to be taken seriously. I think that Jesus has the approvedness, the sterling credentials, the moral perfection, the trustworthiness, the commitment not to His own well being but to the absolute truth of His Father, such that if it was real for Him it needs to be taken seriously by us.
If Jesus casted doubt on the story then I cast doubt on the story. You have to trust someone in this life eventually. I have placed my trust in Jesus Christ.
”For just as the days of Noah were, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.”
I don’t believe that He was talking about a myth. I think He was talking about history. So I believe Genesis because it was believable to Jesus Christ and the apostles.
But that isn't what we have in the story of the flood. "The waters were on the face of the whole earth." What part of that are you having trouble with? Does "whole earth" mean something other than WHOLE earth?
Maybe it was the whole planet. I think you are attempting to make me want to admit that what is said is impossible. I think that I derive the spiritual benefit from the Genesis Noah story without having to prove that the whole planet was or was not under water.
There is no line of the account that I would write differently. What is written and how it is written is what I believe stands.
Now you have grilled me quite a bit on this point. Let me ask you now. Do you believe this:
”And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only eviul continually . And the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had courrouted its way upon the earth . (See Gen. 6:5,11,12)
Do you think that is important? Do you think that is something worth paying attention to along with the matter of fluid mechanics and climatology? When you consider the video games of violence and he corruption in man’s entertainment, do you think that the wickendess of man is insignificant?
Does it surprise you that we may need a salvation from our imagination? Does it concern you that our thoughts might be an abomination to God and a cause of His judgment to come down on us?
I think you should spend at least an equal amount of time contemplating this - ”But Noah found favor in the sight of Jehovah.” I think that this is important too, that we find grace in the eyes of a righteous God Who is about to judge the world for its wickedness.
quote:
The census of Ceasar Augustus was commanded to go out to all the world (Luke 2:1).
See...here's the problem: They thought they knew the whole world. They were very much mistaken. That's part of the reason that we know the Bible can't be universal. It makes claims about the entire world which are handily proven to be false.
The publication and distribution of the Bible argues more for its universality than your observation here. It is still the top best seller of all time. It is probably the most translated into the world’s languages also.
Why should I believe that your opinion exceeds the Bible in universality. Your type of skepticism envariably makes the number of people who can know the truth of life more and more stinted and narrow.
Do you have children? I raised two who are now in their early to mid twenties. I will never regret selectively exposing my children to the wisdom of the Bible. I will never regret reading them the words of Jesus or telling them the stories of the Old Testament.
I trusted that the Holy Spirit would speak to their hearts the crucial things which they should gather from those stories. And I would tell an adult the same things. I can come up with just as many questions as you can if I wanted to. But the economical accounts are there for our salvation. And I believe that we should accept them and believe them while seeing their place in the whole scheme of God’s revelation.
I am into teaching people how to believe the Bible. I don’t want to live a life of teaching people how to disbelieve the Bible. I do not think that that is a worthy pursuit of my brief life here on this earth. I think a profitable pursuit of my life is teaching people how to believe the Bible and touch the God of the Bible.
Therefore, if you refuse to accept the Aztec mythos and its proclamations about what happened to the whole world, why do you expect them to accept your mythos?
I think that the most important thing is not the acceptance of the Genesis account of Noah’s flood. I think that touching and and experiencing the Lord Jesus Christ is more important. I think everything flows from that. And Jesus is believable and attractive. I think He has no rival . I think Christ occupies a class alone. Once you experience Jesus Christ you open to the words of the Bible more and more.
If you notice all my discussions about various Bible Study topics in this Forum have all mentioned Christ again and again. I try to keep Christ as the center and the circumference of whatever I may be discussing because Christ is the main theme of the whole Bible.
I have to go now.
This message has been edited by AdminPD, 02-14-2006 06:48 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-14-2006 07:36 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by AdminPD, posted 02-14-2006 6:46 PM jaywill has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 171 of 230 (286645)
02-14-2006 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by jaywill
02-14-2006 5:57 PM


Off Topic Alert
Jaywill,
Stop Your post Message 170 is off topic, please do not continue this line of discussion.
Stick to the topic: Death before the Fall?
Any comments concerning this Admin action should be addressed in the moderation link below.
Thanks Purple
This message has been edited by AdminPD, 02-14-2006 06:49 PM

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 170 by jaywill, posted 02-14-2006 5:57 PM jaywill has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 172 by jaywill, posted 02-14-2006 7:40 PM AdminPD has not replied

      
    jaywill
    Member (Idle past 1941 days)
    Posts: 4519
    From: VA USA
    Joined: 12-05-2005


    Message 172 of 230 (286668)
    02-14-2006 7:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 171 by AdminPD
    02-14-2006 6:46 PM


    Re: Off Topic Alert
    Admin,
    I think there was death before the fall of Adam and Eve were created.
    I think death entered the world of Adam and Eve through Adam's sin as Romans says.
    In pre-Adamic times I believe there was sin and death pertaining to the creatures, whatever they were, who were under the government of Satan.
    That's the topic. That's my contribution tonight to the topic.
    This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-14-2006 07:41 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 171 by AdminPD, posted 02-14-2006 6:46 PM AdminPD has not replied

      
    jaywill
    Member (Idle past 1941 days)
    Posts: 4519
    From: VA USA
    Joined: 12-05-2005


    Message 173 of 230 (286688)
    02-14-2006 11:08 PM


    Admin,
    Is it the case that whenever I come close to the subjective experiences of Christ that is "Off Topic?"
    Is it the case that what is desired here is "What Does the Bible Really Means" only in an objective way that has nothing to do with God subjectively? It seems that it is a given that "What the Bible Really Means" is only in an objective sense keeping God at arms length as far as subjective experience is concerned.
    Suppose I said that one can never really know what the Bible Really Means apart from a subjective experience of God?
    I ask this because I see quite a few divergences from the topic commited by others that seem to go uncensored. But whenever I approach subjective experiences as an aid to understand the Bible, these are quickly flagged as "Off Topic."

    Replies to this message:
     Message 174 by AdminNosy, posted 02-14-2006 11:19 PM jaywill has not replied

      
    AdminNosy
    Administrator
    Posts: 4754
    From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Joined: 11-11-2003


    Message 174 of 230 (286691)
    02-14-2006 11:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 173 by jaywill
    02-14-2006 11:08 PM


    being off topic
    It seems, Jaywill, that Rrhain may have helped lead the thread off topic. But there is very, very little in Message 170 of yours that is near the topic of "Death before the 'Fall'?"
    You'll have to practice watching where the discussion is going. We all have significant trouble staying on topic.
    You're post 170 was a giant ramble with about 6 or 10 places to spin off into long off topic posting storms.
    You might take anyone of them and PNT them if you want to discuss them.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 173 by jaywill, posted 02-14-2006 11:08 PM jaywill has not replied

      
    Rrhain
    Member
    Posts: 6351
    From: San Diego, CA, USA
    Joined: 05-03-2003


    Message 175 of 230 (286757)
    02-15-2006 3:55 AM
    Reply to: Message 142 by Phat
    02-13-2006 8:23 AM


    Re: Such a rousing topic!
    Phat writes:
    quote:
    allegory \a-le-gor-e\ n, pl -ries : the expression through symbolism of truths or generalizations about human experience allegorical \a-le-gor-i-kel\ adj allegorically \-k(e-)le\ adv
    Hmmmm....Truths or generalizations?
    You misread. The "or" is not coordinating "truths" and "generalizations." Instead, it is coordinating "symbolism of truths" and "generalizations about human experience."
    Even if we are going to interpret the "or" to be coordinating "truths" and "generalizations," you cannot ignore the words around it: The "truths" or "generalizations" are about "human experience" and even so, those "truths" or "generalizations" are symbolized.
    A symbol is something that stands in place of another by association, similarity, or custom. That is, the color red is a symbol for anger not because anger actually is red but because we have agreed to the convention. The flag of a country is not the country, but it symbolizes it. The country is real, but it would be a mistake to think that what happened to the flag was actually happening to the country.

    Rrhain

    Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 142 by Phat, posted 02-13-2006 8:23 AM Phat has not replied

      
    Rrhain
    Member
    Posts: 6351
    From: San Diego, CA, USA
    Joined: 05-03-2003


    Message 176 of 230 (286759)
    02-15-2006 4:00 AM
    Reply to: Message 145 by purpledawn
    02-13-2006 10:43 AM


    Re: Parent's Perrogative
    purpledawn writes:
    quote:
    Maybe that is what the serpent meant. He knew that God wouldn't actually kill them instantly.
    That would impute an entirely different motivation on god that is not justified in the text. After all, not too long after he does go around and kill everything on the planet except for a few creatures in a boat. Given the bloody-mindedness of the god described in the Old Testament, there is no real justification to say that "god didn't really mean it" in Genesis 3. By all indications, he really did.

    Rrhain

    Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 145 by purpledawn, posted 02-13-2006 10:43 AM purpledawn has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 184 by Silent H, posted 02-15-2006 6:09 AM Rrhain has not replied
     Message 186 by purpledawn, posted 02-15-2006 7:30 AM Rrhain has not replied

      
    Rrhain
    Member
    Posts: 6351
    From: San Diego, CA, USA
    Joined: 05-03-2003


    Message 177 of 230 (286761)
    02-15-2006 4:05 AM
    Reply to: Message 146 by Garrett
    02-13-2006 10:49 AM


    Re: Evidence that there was no death before the Fall
    Garrett writes:
    quote:
    That makes it pretty clear that animals were to only eat plants in the initial scheme of things.
    Then why was Abel a shepherd? And why did Abel slaughter a sheep in sacrifice to god? And what did you think was done with the sacrificed meat?
    It wasn't just for the wool and feta cheese.

    Rrhain

    Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 146 by Garrett, posted 02-13-2006 10:49 AM Garrett has not replied

      
    Rrhain
    Member
    Posts: 6351
    From: San Diego, CA, USA
    Joined: 05-03-2003


    Message 178 of 230 (286762)
    02-15-2006 4:10 AM
    Reply to: Message 156 by iano
    02-13-2006 6:56 PM


    Re: Do and die
    iano writes:
    quote:
    One might as easily say to the child in a womb. "On the day you are conceived you will surely die"
    Then what was the point of the tree of life? After all, god panics as soon as he hears that Adam and Eve have eaten from the tree of knowledge and kicks them out lest they eat from the tree of life and become immortal.
    Thus, they must have been mortal before.
    Thus, they were going to die, anyway.
    And since carnivores don't survive on vegetarian diets, this must mean that there was death before the fall or a great many animals would have starved to death.

    Rrhain

    Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 156 by iano, posted 02-13-2006 6:56 PM iano has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 182 by iano, posted 02-15-2006 5:03 AM Rrhain has not replied

      
    Rrhain
    Member
    Posts: 6351
    From: San Diego, CA, USA
    Joined: 05-03-2003


    Message 179 of 230 (286763)
    02-15-2006 4:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 160 by Garrett
    02-14-2006 9:27 AM


    Re: Capable of Dying
    Garrett writes:
    quote:
    I disagree that death is a natural part of existence.
    Biologically, this makes a bit of sense. Prokaryotes have existed longer than eukaryotes. In fact, bacteria outweigh the eukaryotes by two to one.
    Now, when a bacterium splits, did the original one "die"?
    quote:
    The Bible asserts that it wasn't.
    Yes, it does. Why does god tell Adam that he would die if there was no such thing as death? Why is there a tree of life that grants immortality if there was no such thing as death?
    quote:
    As to procreation...the purpose was to multiply and fill the earth
    And then what? A biome can only support so many organisms before it collapses and the population dies.

    Rrhain

    Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 160 by Garrett, posted 02-14-2006 9:27 AM Garrett has not replied

      
    Rrhain
    Member
    Posts: 6351
    From: San Diego, CA, USA
    Joined: 05-03-2003


    Message 180 of 230 (286764)
    02-15-2006 4:19 AM
    Reply to: Message 161 by Garrett
    02-14-2006 9:31 AM


    Re: Capable of Dying
    Garrett writes:
    quote:
    You have to understand that in a literal translation there is still symbolism.
    So the "tree of knowledge" was real while the "tree of life" was just a symbol? That's convenient.

    Rrhain

    Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 161 by Garrett, posted 02-14-2006 9:31 AM Garrett has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024