I am not twisting anything at all, I am merely taking things to their logical conclusion and showing how those conclusions don't harmonize with the Bible but go completely contrary to it. Agreeing with you would require that I accept that God has no control over what comes into existence.
OK, since you are "taking things to their logical conclusion" (saying that "darkness" in Genesis is merely absence of light). What do you do with these verses. They all are the same Hebrew word "darkness".
(Strong's 2822)
(indicative of Sheol):
1 Samuel 2:9, Job 10:21, Job 17:13, Job 18:18, Proverbs 20:20
(terror of judgement):
Amos 5:18 & 20, Zephaniah 1:15, Nahum 1:8, Ezekiel 32:8
(equated with sin):
Isaiah 5:20, Proverbs 2:13
So to say this word only means the physical absence of light, would not be accurate either.
Interpreting Darkness one way only?
I never claimed that the word darkness should only be interpreted in one way. What I said was that the context in Genesis does not warrant that kind of interpretation since it is obviously a literal description of the process of creation. To go beyond that is to attempt to infuse meaning where there is no such meaning. If indeed that were the meaning, then we would definitely find it explained or mentioned in other parts of the Bible.
But as pointed out, there are scriptures which mitigate against that kind of interpretation. You didn't read them? Ignoring scriptues isn't a refutation of those scriptures, it is merely ignoring scriptures as if they were totally irrelevant when they are in fact essential to proper understanding of the text involved.
And what makes you assume this theory would mean God had no control over this? If you believe He's omniscient, knew this was going to happen, and made a plan to ultimately deal with it; than how is that "having no control"?
You described the arising of evil from the mere act of creation as inevitable. Nowhere in the Bible is there a basis to reach such a conclusion.
Radrook said: ↑
Since he DOES have control, and since he can prevent such a thing from occurring, the only logical conclusion would be that he created it. But that is completely out of kilter with how the Bible describes both the original creation and God himself as the verses I quoted demonstrated.
The same argument could be said for evil coming about as a result of a created entities free will. God could have prevented them from sinning by not giving them a free will. So, "the only logical conclusion would be that he created it" (evil).
Radrook said: ↑
Even more compelling, is that such an idea of things emerging into existence and not being created by him, goes contrary to the following scriptures:
John 1:3 - Again, He made free will so it's His fault?
Robotic Humans?
No, not exactly. God did not and does not want robotic obedience. There is no value in doing God's will if you don't really have a choice. An android can be programmed to go through the motions of loving a human, but those motions really are meaningless since it HAS to do what it is programmed to do. So it was not an EVIL for God to grant certain creatures that he made in his own image, free will. Making them robotic would have been an evil.
Next question: the conceiving of the idea in the mind of the creature to transgress - how did that "emerge into existence" if it was within that creature whom God created?
Now John - "With God all things are possible." It's very obvious from this world we live in that evil exists. The problem you have with saying evil originated from the action or intent of a creature would mean God created something inherently fatally flawed; seeing how the only outcome of disobedience is destruction.
Yet if evil comes out as a reaction to God's action; you eliminate God "creating" it and you also eliminate God creating a fatally flawed creature who generates evil. We know evil is real. Yet any theory that endeavors to answer how it happened, doesn't necessarily answer why it happened. Why did Satan and Adam decide to take the course of action that they did? If you're not created to transgress, how do you even formulate the concept of doing so? Yet if you are already existing in a tainted environment, the impetus that "got the ball rolling" did not originate because you were created inherently flawed.
Humans created Flawed?
The Bible doesn't teach that humans were created inherently fatally flawed. Had they been created inherently flawed, then God would not have said that they were made in his image and that his creation was good. Neither would the inspired scriptures describe mankind as being originally blameless and God 's works or creations as being perfect. So that view , as I pointed out before but which you choose to continue to ignore, cannot be held because it is incompatible with the rest of the Bible. We don't want to contradict the rest of the Bible-right?
Also, you continue to describe that evil as coming into existence at the moment of God creating the material universe while saying that God did not create it when I provided the scripture that tells us that all things in existence are created by God. Since you ignore scriptures, are you saying that the rest of the Bible is irrelevant to your idea? Because if it is, then we are wasting our time since we have no common frame of reference to determine what is or is not acceptable.
Now if I'm correct that evil originated with the reaction to an action. Why did that happen, I have no clue. We know it did happen, we know God knew it was going to happen because He planned for it. Now if you're correct and evil originated with the choice of a created entity; then how is it the entire creation comes under a curse because of one person's choice. Wouldn't it be that each individual's awareness of "doing evil" would not be influenced by any other creature's choice? Yet we know that it is; the evidence there of being that all carbon based life dies. Even life that has not the capacity to make choices (like plant life) dies.
The only created entities Scripture tells us that don't die are angels. That is why I make the distinction between carbon based life and non carbon based created entities. Yet we know angels are corruptible. We know there are at least a couple of them who've fallen. We also know angels are not redeemable. They are outside of the redemption plan. We also know there are angels that haven't sinned. So obviously we know there is something fundamentally different about how they were created as opposed to us. Their fall is apparently based on individual choice. They aren't like Adam, were their individual sin corrupts all of their kind. Yet unlike carbon based life; angels don't reproduce.
Why is an entire universe affected by mankind's disobedience?
That can only be understood within the context of what happened in Eden and the issues of universal sovereignty that arose. Once mankind decided to reject God's guidance and accept Satan's, then God granted the the opportunity to prove their point . However, that meant that he would withdraw his supervision of the material realm in which mankind existed the and let mankind face it on their own as they had requested. A temporary situation that lasts until the issues arising in Eden are satisfactorily resolved.
Angels Can't Reproduce?
Well, disobedient angels sure did pass on their evil nature to their offspring the Nephilim, thats for sure. Angels in heaven don't reproduce and neither do angels that keep their proper dwelling place in the spirit real. But angels who materialize human bodies can reproduce and did reproduce during Noah's day. So I guess we don't agree on that point. We also disagree that only a couple rebelled.
Revelation tells us that the Dragon, the Devil, caused a rebellion of a third of God's angels. Now, God is described as being surrounded by myriads of faithful angels. So at third of the fallen cannot have been just two, Also, the way the the Earth is described as being affected during Noah's day doesn't seem to indicate just two angels were at work marrying and impregnating women until the Earth was filled with violence. The book of Juode also tells us that the angels who rebelled are restricted to a place or a condition called Tartarus. If there were only two them that means that all of them are restricted and that doesn't make any sense since we know that they were roaming around during Jesus day bothering people.
Angels Not Called Immortal
The only created ones referred to as immortal are those who are ressurected to heaven and receive the crown of life.
1 Corinthians 15:53
For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.
Myriads of Angels
Rev 5: 11
New International Version
Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders.
So a third of the fallen angels cannot have been just two.
Also, the way the the Earth is described as being affected during Noah's day doesn't seem to indicate just two angels were at work marrying and impregnating women until the Earth was filled with violence. The book of Jude also tells us that the angels who rebelled are restricted to a place or a condition called Tartarus. If there were only two them that means that all of them are restricted and that doesn't make any sense since we know that they were roaming around during Jesus day bothering people.
Angels Never Called Immortal
The only created ones referred to as immortal are those who are ressurected to heaven and recieve the crown of life.
1 Corinthians 15:53
For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.
----------------------------------------------------------------
So here is another proof that evil did not originate with the choice of a created entity.
Radrook said: ↑
You also seem to indicate a belief in the theory of evolution since you mention water as a means to bringing about carbon-based life. All of which are typical terms used by those who prefer to view the Genesis account as merely metaphorical and not a literal account of what actually happened. So it is understandable that you tend to understand things to mean other things instead of how they are literally described.
LOL - you know what they say when you assume things right!
What do they say?
I do believe in a literal 6 day creation - because "theistic evolution" requires death. Death did not exist until there was sin. And besides, there is no reason to doubt that an omnipotent God could not make this entire universe in 6 days.
Deathless plants and animals?
The Bible doesn't say that animals and plants were deathless before Adam sinned. In fact, the fossil record clearly shows that prior to mankind being created, animals and plans were dying. So that concept shouldn't even be an issue. In fact, such claims are what causes scientifically educated persons to ridicule religion as being silly because the silliness of the idea is so easily refuted by simple scientific fact that should be obvious.
Biblical Perspective
From a biblical standpoint, death is only described as being abnormal in relation to those made in God's image, Adam Eve and angels. The possibility of losing out on eternal life is only mentioned in reference to Adam and Eve in Genesis. It is mentioned also only in relation to being righteous and serving God faithfully.
But even more indicative that animals and plants are not involved is the fact that Jesus gave his life specifically for mankind. No mention of animals or plants is made.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned.
Fossil Evidence
The fossil evidence clearly shows that animals were dying prior to mankind appearing on Earth. Not a good idea to contradict clear fossil evidence. It leads to giving religion a bad reputation.
Literal 24-hour creative days?
Neither is there no reason to doubt that he took what from our standpoint seems like billions of years. Also recall that a thousand years are as one day for him. To him, Adam died before his 1000 year day was up. It is common knowledge that the term used for day in the Hebrew scriptures can also refer to periods far exceeding 24 hours.
Read the article please.
Genesis Clearly Teaches that the days were not 24 hours
Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were NOT 24 Hours
'
Define "evolution". There is obvious evidence that life adapts to the environment; but that is not Darwinian "evolution". There is also evidence that certain traits come about as a result of genetic mutation. Now I don't think a genetic mutation that has proven to be positive to a species has ever been validated. I believe genetic mutations are part of the corruption of the created order. Second law of thermo dynamics. That also is not Darwinian "evolution". The fossil record clearly shows fully formed organisms and the only way we could have gotten all these fossils is because of a catastrophic global flood.
Animals Can't Adapt?
No, I am not saying that animals lack the capacity to adapt as a species to changing environments. White foxes will tend to predominate in arctic regions because of the advantage which such a fir coloration gives them. This same princple can apply to beaks, necks length, size etc. It is only the degree of adaptation which the evolutiosts claim that I find ridiculous. For example, they have humans going all the way back to repiles and finally to fish. More like a story out of fairy-tale book.
Radrook said: ↑
So it is understandable that you tend to understand things to mean other things instead of how they are literally described.
So are you saying that you only understand things literally? There is no metaphorical or symbolic language in the Scripture? What about "I am the vine, you are the branches". "Behold the lamb of God." "I am the door." "This bread is my body." etc.
Everything Literal?
Not at all. I am familiar with the figurative language used in the Bible as well as all other literature. However, in certain cases giving something a figurative meaning is not justified by the context and constitutes an unjustifiable imposition of the reader's imagination on the intended meaning. If indeed we can impose meaning on everything and anything by disregarding context, then there is absolutely no limit to how far we can go and the Bible or any other book submited to that policy will contradict itself.
Biblical text must not only take the immediate surrounding context into considertion, it must take tyhe entire Bible as a context in order to avoid the introduction of concepts that are enirely opposed to fundamental truths in other parts of the Bible. And that is exactly what your theory is doing as I pointed out by providing the relevant texts which you choose to ignore.
It isn't related to the evil that you claim God brought into existence when he created the universe. The Bible doesn't support tat concept.
BTW
Ignoring scriptures and arguments isn't considered a rebuttal nor is it considered debating. It is considered fallacious reasoning.
