Ring species

[Vene]

God doesn't take His Word lightly; and He wouldn't start It out with a fable.

Jesus would not die on a Cross for something that was just an allegory.

We are born with a Sin Nature, and the only way we know that is because we take the first chapters of Genesis literally.

What is wrong with symbolism? It's a commonly used literary technique to give better understanding. Perhaps that's what your god was trying to do instead of presenting information about genetics that would have baffled the men of the time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then help us out.
The biggest problem most people have with Genesis 1 (and the rest of the Bible for that matter) is the fact that there is no reason to take it as anything more than fiction.

Everyone in the Bible --- including Jesus Himself --- took Genesis literally.

The "Scarlet Thread" that I have been mentioning started with what I believe is called the protevangelium in Genesis 3:15 - (the first mention of the Messiah).

Many passages in the New Testament would not make sense if Genesis was just an allegory.

 

[AV1611VET]

by higher standard you mean agreement with the bible not a higher standard of evidence. the bible is of often wrong when taken literally which is why i dont take it literally. i use the bible as my moral guide and science as my guide to reality. i think so many biblical tales are useless as historical or scientific accounts but highly useful as morality tales. the flood is a good example: literally it is completely and in all ways impossible however the messages of death and rebirth, obedience, and punishment and forgiveness are all good moral themes.

Well, then I guess I can understand why you take offense; but what I don't understand is why you "took offense" when I said atheists do it.

Surely you didn't think I was including you in there, did you?

Or was that a faux pas?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Everyone in the Bible --- including Jesus Himself --- took Genesis literally.

The "Scarlet Thread" that I have been mentioning started with what I believe is called the protevangelium in Genesis 3:15 - (the first mention of the Messiah).

Many passages in the New Testament would not make sense if Genesis was just an allegory.

many aspects of reality dont make sense if genesis is literally true. if genesis is true then many aspects of physics were completely different during the time of genesis. if the laws of physics were different in the past then this has massive implications for all historical sciences. Furthermore people living at the time of the bible had no way of evaluating the reality of genesis the way we do now.

 

[AV1611VET]

does that mean that you cannot investigate the past using evidence available in the present?

You can --- but that is called uniformitarianism --- and it leads to the wrong conclusions.

We Christians believe in what is called catastrophism.

The main difference is this:

• Evolution = continual natural processes
• Creation = completed supernatural processes

Does that mean that any science not revealed in the bible isnt valid? I personally think the universe that actually exists is far more beautiful and more poetic than that which is portayed by any religious text. It is a much greater testament to the work of God than any collection of words regardless of source.

What the universe clearly cries out --- clearly --- is "death!"

What you see as a magnificent grand canyon, we see as a horrible crack in God's perfectly-created earth. A crack brought on by the horrible consequences of sin.

What you see as a beautiful nebula, we see as a dead star; blown to bits because the angel that once inhabited it left it to come here and cohabit with the women on earth.

What does Paul say about the universe in general?

[bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

many aspects of reality dont make sense if genesis is literally true.

And this is one of the reasons God documented it --- not to cloud the issue --- but to clarify it. To tell us what really happened.

if genesis is true then many aspects of physics were completely different during the time of genesis.

That is correct. And no death before the Fall should tell you that the laws of physics were not just different --- but way different.

As I told Lucaspa and others, nature is currently hostile to God, but obedient.

Death, for instance, is an outright enemy of God.

[bible]1 Corinthians 15:26[/bible]

if the laws of physics were different in the past then this has massive implications for all historical sciences.

Why?

Just because Eve could understand a talking animal* back then, we should be able to do the same thing now?

*Most people think the serpent spoke in Eve's language. I believe the opposite. Eve understood the Serpent's language --- an Acts 2 phenomenon.

Do you think, Jack, that in Eternity Future, on the New Heaven and the New Earth, the same laws of science are going to apply?

 

[Vene]

AV, a question:
Was the second law of thermodynamics in effect before the fall?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

You can --- but that is called uniformitarianism --- and it leads to the wrong conclusions.

We Christians believe in what is called catastrophism.

The main difference is this:

• Evolution = continual natural processes
• Creation = completed supernatural processes

What the universe clearly cries out --- clearly --- is "death!"

What you see as a magnificent grand canyon, we see as a horrible crack in God's perfectly-created earth. A crack brought on by the horrible consequences of sin.

What you see as a beautiful nebula, we see as a dead star; blown to bits because the angel that once inhabited it left it to come here and cohabit with the women on earth.

What does Paul say about the universe in general?

[bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

do you see any beauty in the universe? i see much beauty in God's work. Top predators are a fascinating example of something built to efficiency. plate tectonics reveal the constant flux of the planet we live on. it is sad that you cannot appreciate the beauty of nebulae and canyons. the universe we live in is full of so many different things that we have the ultimate gift of being able to wonder about. astronomy is full of numbers that are incomprehensible. that alone is fascinating. we are not only not alone on this planet, we know only a tiny percentage of the marvelous life that's here which you consider to be fallen and under our dominion.

 

[NailsII]

Everyone in the Bible --- including Jesus Himself --- took Genesis literally.

The "Scarlet Thread" that I have been mentioning started with what I believe is called the protevangelium in Genesis 3:15 - (the first mention of the Messiah).

Many passages in the New Testament would not make sense if Genesis was just an allegory.

Does that not tell you something about the bible?
It sure sends out alarm bells in my mind......
Yet chrsitians have no problems with abandoning parts of the OT because it is violent and unloving, yet cling onto others (like genesis) despite overwhelming evidence that it is basically a stone-age myth repeated may times before by many other - mainly polytheistic - religions.

What the universe clearly cries out --- clearly --- is "death!"

What you see as a magnificent grand canyon, we see as a horrible crack in God's perfectly-created earth. A crack brought on by the horrible consequences of sin.

What you see as a beautiful nebula, we see as a dead star; blown to bits because the angel that once inhabited it left it to come here and cohabit with the women on earth.

The logical consequence of life is death, be it biological life (which ends by rotting in the ground) or stellar life which typically ends with the scattering of new, heavier elements throughout the universe.
Entropy is the key, nothing to do with angels living in stars I'm afraid.
The universe is built on chaotic foundations, so nothing with any order can boast of any permanance.

And I am sorry that you cannot see the grand canyon for its simplistic beauty, or the see the imperfections in the earth for what they really are - a consequence of natural events that shaped everything we see whenever we open our eyes.

And as for sin, sexual urges are a consequence of our evolutionary struggle. We are no greater than any other animal when it comes to the desire to reproduce, because otherwise we wouldn't be here to have this conversation.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

That is correct. And no death before the Fall should tell you that the laws of physics were not just different --- but way different.

AV, a question:
Was the second law of thermodynamics in effect before the fall?

if there was no death then there was no second law and that's why physics was way different because the second law is about as fundimental to physics as it gets.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, a question:
Was the second law of thermodynamics in effect before the fall?

I don't think so --- at least not the way it operates today.

As I pointed out, death is an enemy of God, and entropy is even called "heat death."

 

[AV1611VET]

do you see any beauty in the universe?

I see beauty begging to be restored.

 

[Vene]

if there was no death then there was no second law and that's why physics was way different because the second law is about as fundimental to physics as it gets.

I'm well aware of that. I was going to say before I realized he went offline that without it working then heat couldn't be transfered from one system to another and Adam would have been a human Popsicle. Unless the states of matter didn't exist and by that point we're just getting goofy.

Edit: And he returns, I'm still curious as to what he thinks

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Everyone in the Bible --- including Jesus Himself --- took Genesis literally.

No, they didn't. Simply referencing Genesis does not constitute a literalist stance.

The "Scarlet Thread" that I have been mentioning started with what I believe is called the protevangelium in Genesis 3:15 - (the first mention of the Messiah).

Genesis 3:15
and enmity I put between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he doth bruise thee -- the head, and thou dost bruise him -- the heel.'

Nope, no mention of the Messiah. Though I'm curious about the use of the singular pronoun.

Many passages in the New Testament would not make sense if Genesis was just an allegory.

Show me one, please.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't think so --- at least not the way it operates today.

As I pointed out, death is an enemy of God, and entropy is even called "heat death."

The second law is the result of statistical analysis of large numbers of point particles in a closed system. If it did not apply to the pre-Fall universe, then something fundamental must have changed (i.e., the mathematics behind it, the nature of particle physics, etc). What, exactly, do you suppose happened?

 

[Vene]

I don't think so --- at least not the way it operates today.

As I pointed out, death is an enemy of God, and entropy is even called "heat death."

OK, I missed this post.

If the second law wasn't in effect then how could heat transfer from one system to the other. Without heat Adam's proteins would have been denatured and he would fall apart. And ignoring that, as I said in my previous post, he would have been a human popsicle. What mechanism did God use to keep him alive? Shouldn't the Bible answer that question?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, they didn't. Simply referencing Genesis does not constitute a literalist stance.

From Things to Come, by J. Dwight Pentecost, p. 17:

• The prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly the literal method of interpretation. Horne presents it thus: The allegorical interpretation of the sacred Scriptures cannot be historically proved to have prevailed among the Jews from the time of the captivity, or to have been common with the Jews of Palestine at the time of Christ and His apostles. Although the Sanhedrin and the hearers of Jesus often appealed to the Old Testament, yet they give no indication of the allegorical interpretation; even Josephus has nothing of it. The Platonic Jews of Egypt began in the first century, in imitation of the heathen Greeks, to interpret the Old Testament allegorically.

Show me one, please.

[bible]Matthew 1:1-17[/bible]
[bible]Romans 5:12[/bible]
[bible]2 Peter 2:4-6[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

The second law is the result of statistical analysis of large numbers of point particles in a closed system. If it did not apply to the pre-Fall universe, then something fundamental must have changed (i.e., the mathematics behind it, the nature of particle physics, etc). What, exactly, do you suppose happened?

I don't know.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, I missed this post.

If the second law wasn't in effect then how could heat transfer from one system to the other. Without heat Adam's proteins would have been denatured and he would fall apart. And ignoring that, as I said in my previous post, he would have been a human popsicle. What mechanism did God use to keep him alive?

I don't know --- I suppose the same thing that kept Shadrach, Meshach, and Abnego alive in the burning, fiery furnace, which was heated to seven times its capacity.

Shouldn't the Bible answer that question?

Not necessarily ---

[bible]Deuteronomy 29:29[/bible]

 

[Vene]

I don't know --- I suppose the same thing that kept Shadrach, Meshach, and Abnego alive in the burning, fiery furnace, which was heated to seven times its capacity.

Wouldn't it have been the opposite?

Not necessarily ---

[bible]Deuteronomy 29:29[/bible]

Then why would God give us evidence to the contrary? I'm just trying to understand how such a great, loving, and just being would deceive us and leave us just a book to go on; especially when there are texts like the Bhagavad Gita that are in direct opposition to the Bible.