A question for Young-earthers

[Breetai]

Adam and Eve did not “die” right away when they sinned, and it’s more plausible that a “spiritual” death is what’s being referred to.

So Adam and Eve are in hell?

 

[keyarch]

So Adam and Eve are in hell?

We are all dead in our sin. We all need Salvation. I don't know if Adam and Eve are in hell or not, do you? Does the Bible say whether or not they were saved?

 

[Breetai]

We are all dead in our sin. We all need Salvation. I don't know if Adam and Eve are in hell or not, do you? Does the Bible say whether or not they were saved?

Alright then. I don't see where it ways that Adam and Eve had to die on the same day they ate the fruit. In Hebrew, we see the word die appear twice. From my understanding, this means something more like "scheduled to die". So, when the fruit was eaten, Adam and Eve were scheduled to die from the day they ate the fruit.

Some arguments go back to the one day is a thousand years theory (6000 years of man, followed by a 1000 year millennium). That's a possible explaination, but this isn't firmly laid down in the Bible well enough to be dogmatic about it.

In 1 Corinthians 15:21, we read the for "since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." As Christians, we naturally have to believe that this resurrection of the dead is completely literal. Therefore, the death that we are resurrected from , that came by man (Adam, when the fruit was eaten) is literal as well.

The point is that there it is definitely possible to say that genesis 2:17 could be referring to a physical death without having any contradictions. In fact, to say that it doesn't, makes scriptures such as 1 Cor. 15:21 look silly.

 

[keyarch]

From my understanding, this means something more like "scheduled to die". So, when the fruit was eaten,

Adam and Eve were scheduled to die from the day they ate the fruit.

So do you think that if they had never eaten the fruit from the forbidden tree that they would have lived forever physically without having to eat from the ‘Tree of Life’? I think everything was designed to have a ‘physical’ life span. Otherwise if every living thing multiplied to fill the earth and then kept multiplying, there would not be enough resources at some point. That’s one of the reasons that I think we have to consider the ‘soul’ and resurrected body as the part that will live forever and not our current earthly body.

Some arguments go back to the one day is a thousand years theory (6000 years of man, followed by a 1000 year millennium). That's a possible explaination, but this isn't firmly laid down in the Bible well enough to be dogmatic about it.

I don’t go there myself, and I think it’s a bad argument for long ages. During the Creation week, a day was a literal 24 hour day, period.

In 1 Corinthians 15:21, we read the for "since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." As Christians, we naturally have to believe that this resurrection of the dead is completely literal. Therefore, the death that we are resurrected from, that came by man -

Adam, when the fruit was eaten is literal as well.

I agree.

The point is that there it is definitely possible to say that genesis

2:17 could be referring to a physical death without having any contradictions. In fact, to say that it doesn't, makes scriptures such as 1 Cor. 15:21 look silly.

You are not resurrected into your old body though. So that first body still dies and perishes.
1 Cor 15:40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, …ESV

 

[Breetai]

So do you think that if they had never eaten the fruit from the forbidden tree that they would have lived forever physically without having to eat from the ‘Tree of Life’?

Ummmm... yes.

I think everything was designed to have a ‘physical’ life span. Otherwise if every living thing multiplied to fill the earth and then kept multiplying, there would not be enough resources at some point.[/QUOTE]Is it not within God's power to resolve such an issue? This is not a problem at all.

You are not resurrected into your old body though. So that first body still dies and perishes.
1 Cor 15:40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, …ESV

Look up every example of people being resurrected in the Bible. The evidence contradicts what you've just said. Every example that we are given of the resurrection teaches that our dead bodies will be resurrected.

You've also posted that verse out of context.

 

[keyarch]

Look up every example of people being resurrected in the Bible. The evidence contradicts what you've just said. Every example that we are given of the resurrection teaches that our dead bodies will be resurrected.

You've also posted that verse out of context.

Every example of people being resurrected? I guess I'm confused, because I didn't think bringing someone back from the dead (such as Lazarus) was called a resurrection. I thought that Jesus was the first to be resurrected, and then the Saints from the tombs, but that's it. I also thought that when we are resurrected that we will be in a "glorified" body, which is not the same exact one that we currently possess.

I have also heard Christians say there will be no death when there is a new heavens and earth, but it appears to me that there will be animal sacrifices to remind us of what Jesus did for us. (Ezekiel). I don’t think God has a problem with animal death.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I have also heard Christians say there will be no death when there is a new heavens and earth, but it appears to me that there will be animal sacrifices to remind us of what Jesus did for us. (Ezekiel). I don’t think God has a problem with animal death.

What?!?! Animal sacrafices in Heaven? I never heard of such a thing. Where in Ezekiel did you get this bizzare idea?

 

[Breetai]

Every example of people being resurrected? I guess I'm confused, because I didn't think bringing someone back from the dead (such as Lazarus) was called a resurrection. I thought that Jesus was the first to be resurrected, and then the Saints from the tombs, but that's it. I also thought that when we are resurrected that we will be in a "glorified" body, which is not the same exact one that we currently possess.

Haha, my bad.

 

[keyarch]

What?!?! Animal sacrafices in Heaven? I never heard of such a thing. Where in Ezekiel did you get this bizzare idea?

From reading the following from "The Bible Knowlege Commentary" regarding Ezekiel 40:38-43.
---

Many have objected to the thought of animal sacrifices being reinstituted during the Millennium. Since these sacrifices, it is argued, revert back to the Levitical sacrificial system, they would seem to be out of place in the Millennium. This has caused some to take the passage symbolically rather than literally. However, no difficulty exists if one understands the proper function of these sacrifices. First, animal sacrifices never took away human sin; only the sacrifice of Christ can do that (Heb 10:1-4,10). In Old Testament times Israelites were saved by grace through faith, and the sacrifices helped restore a believer's fellowship with God. Second, even after the church began, Jewish believers did not hesitate to take part in the temple worship (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:42) and even to offer sacrifices (Acts 21:26). They could do this because they viewed the sacrifices as memorials of Christ's death.
Levitical sacrifices were connected with Israel's worship of God. When the church supplanted Israel in God's program (cf. Rom 11:11-24) a new economy or dispensation began. The Levitical sacrificial system, which looked forward to Christ, was replaced by the Lord's Supper, which looked back to His death and forward to His second coming (1 Cor 11:24,26).
At Christ's second coming Israel will again assume her place of prominence in God's kingdom program (cf. Rom 11:25-27). The Lord's Supper will be eliminated, because Christ will have returned. It will be replaced by animal sacrifices, which will be memorials or object lessons of the supreme sacrifice made by the Lamb of God. The slaughtering of these animals will be vivid reminders of the Messiah's suffering and death.
The millennial sacrifices will differ from the Levitical sacrifices though there are some similarities (see comments 'on Ezek 45:18-25). Other passages also refer to a sacrificial system in the Millennium (Isa 56:7; 66:20-23; Jer 33:18; Zech 14:16-21; Mal 3:3-4)

 

[Breetai]

From reading the following from "The Bible Knowlege Commentary" regarding Ezekiel 40:38-43.
---

Wow. What a complete load of crap. That whole idea completely undermines Christ. I hope you didn't pay for that book!

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

From reading the following from "The Bible Knowlege Commentary" regarding Ezekiel 40:38-43.
---

I believe that commentary is reading way to much into those passages. Of course I think that is a common fallacy when it comes to end times theology.

 

[keyarch]

Wow. What a complete load of crap. That whole idea completely undermines Christ. I hope you didn't pay for that book!

Since you guys are acting like I’m trying to undermine your faith or Christ Himself (relating to the original post), let me assure you I’m not trying to do any such thing. I didn’t take issue with the interpretation of the Ezekiel prophesy because it made sense to me and I passed it along.

I can see that from the time of Adam there have been “offerings” to God. Now Christ’s death on the cross has paid for our redemption, but I don’t think it was ordained to stop all offerings of all kinds. Here are some of the categories that I found in “The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology”:

Categories of Offerings - Offerings can be classified as (1) propitiatory (expiatory atonement): sin offering, guilt offering; (2) dedicatory (consecratory): burnt offering, cereal offering, drink offering; (3) communal (fellowship): peace offering, wave offering, thanksgiving offering, vow, freewill offering.

Since we will be communing with God for eternity, and it’s obvious that offerings have always been a part of how we commune with him; I see no conflict in the concept of some kind of expression of that which may involve animals. If God doesn’t see this as a bad thing, should we?

That’s about as far as I go with it, because I have to admit that I haven’t really studied the millennium issue. So, I’ll humbly just crawl back into my hole now thank you.

 

[Breetai]

Since you guys are acting like I’m trying to undermine your faith or Christ Himself (relating to the original post), let me assure you I’m not trying to do any such thing.

I never assumed you were. I'm looking at the theology that you've shown from your book.

I didn’t take issue with the interpretation of the Ezekiel prophesy because it made sense to me and I passed it along.

I can see that from the time of Adam there have been “offerings” to God. Now Christ’s death on the cross has paid for our redemption,

Exactly.

but I don’t think it was ordained to stop all offerings of all kinds.

That's the problem. There is no Biblical justification for saying this. I am, of course, interpreting "offering" as "sacrificial offering" at this point.

Here are some of the categories that I found in “The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology”:

Categories of Offerings - Offerings can be classified as (1) propitiatory (expiatory atonement): sin offering, guilt offering; (2) dedicatory (consecratory): burnt offering, cereal offering, drink offering; (3) communal (fellowship): peace offering, wave offering, thanksgiving offering, vow, freewill offering.

Numbers 2 and 3 falls outside of "sacrificial offering." As well, they aren't intended for atonement. I don't have a problem with these.

Since we will be communing with God for eternity, and it’s obvious that offerings have always been a part of how we commune with him; I see no conflict in the concept of some kind of expression of that which may involve animals. If God doesn’t see this as a bad thing, should we?

Revelation 21:4

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; 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.

What you've said conflicts this, and other passages. Animals will not be sacrificed. This hasn't been needed for about 2000 years.
[/FONT]

That’s about as far as I go with it, because I have to admit that I haven’t really studied the millennium issue. So, I’ll humbly just crawl back into my hole now thank you.

How can we learn if we crawl into holes? Everytime I'm questioned, I get to read God's Word. Thank you!

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Since you guys are acting like I’m trying to undermine your faith or Christ Himself (relating to the original post), let me assure you I’m not trying to do any such thing. I didn’t take issue with the interpretation of the Ezekiel prophesy because it made sense to me and I passed it along.

That's ok. I don't think your trying to undermine anyone's faith. I just never heard someone say that before so it took me by surprise and I wanted to know what verses you were using. I may disagree with you on this issue but I still consider you a brother in Christ.

 

[keyarch]

Revelation 21:4
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; 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.

What you've said conflicts this, and other passages. Animals will not be sacrificed. This hasn't been needed for about 2000 years.
[/FONT]

Ok, I know I’m out of my league here, but I’m going to take a stab at understanding this.
If one is a ‘Futurist’, then you most likely believe the Ezekiel prophesy to relate to the millennium (after Christ returns, but before the earth is destroyed). And, animals are clearly used in remembrance of what Christ did on the cross. However, I don’t think this is the way it will be after that period for eternity; which I take Rev. 21:4 to be talking about. So that could be why there is this apparent discrepancy.

I found an interesting article on this subject at the following website (for info only - not an endorsement).

http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Books_V/Jackels_book.htm

16. WILL THERE BE ANIMAL SACRIFICES IN THE MILLENIUM?
Futurists accept animal sacrifices in the millenium along with the rest of Ezekiel's prophecy pertaining to the temple. Our opponents reject this with abhorrence. They make merry at this point, regarding this as the coup de grace to the whole millenial scheme. They profess to find here a contradiction of the grace principle, a reversion to carnal ordinances and a return to what Hebrews describes as "the weak and beggarly elements of the world." Now, all this looks bad indeed for the Futurists, but when the dust and commotion has settled, and the loud trumpetings of our friends have died away, we might give sober regard to what the whole body of Scripture has to say.
The question once again is one of literal versus allegorical, interpretation. If we accept the former principle, then most assuredly we will agree that the resumption of the sacrifice system is part of the millenial economy. If we admit the latter system of interpretation, we are duty bound to find some satisfying substitute. This, we maintain, is wholly impossible without making a farce of Scripture. If we dismiss Ezekiel 40-48 as a vision impossible of accomplishment, we are still very far from a solution to the problem, for Ezekiel does not stand alone in this testimony.
(The article continues).

 

[Courtney17]

Personnally I Believe it takes more faith to believe somethine like we evolved from goo ( even when theres soo much proving that theory wrong ) that to believe someone put us here for a reason. Our Design Is NO coincidence (spelling?) !!!!!!!!!!!

--Courtney

 

[Courtney17]

I guess i didn't originally answer the main question in the forum..
If evolution was Ever Proved true ( which it won't be ) it wouldn't change my opinion. The Bible don't lie.. And if God Created the Earth then God Created the Earth!..

--Courtney

 

[mark kennedy]

I guess i didn't originally answer the main question in the forum..
If evolution was Ever Proved true ( which it won't be ) it wouldn't change my opinion. The Bible don't lie.. And if God Created the Earth then God Created the Earth!..

--Courtney

Evolution as science has been proven true, its evolution as history that is an elaborate mythology.

 

[Buho]

> Evolution as science has been proven true

You're talking about "microevolution", aren't you? Your sentence is kind of confusing.

 

[mark kennedy]

> Evolution as science has been proven true

You're talking about "microevolution", aren't you? Your sentence is kind of confusing.

I'm talking about the scientific defintion of evolution, the change of alleles in populations over time. When a population adapts to an environment the alleles (actually how genes recombine) the genetic code changes. This is an established fact that no creation scientist denys. And yes, we are talking about microevolution.

Then they take these patterns, observations and demonstrations and project them over millions or billions of years. That is the problem, they see things change on a genetic level for a couple of generations and measure the results. Then they go into elaborate scenerios of how apes can transpose into people.

It's like when a dispatcher calls a truck driver and says he needs to go out of his way to pick up another load. The driver says that it is too far to go, the dispatcher says its only a couple of inches on the map. Those couple of inches can be a lot more miles then the dispatcher realizes.

Science is about what can be observed, not what is thought to be the case a million years ago. We know that things evolve in the scientific sense but science cannot see that far back. We can, God told us what actually happened, that's better then any microscope ever invented.

There is a difference between natural science and natural history. Creationists do well to emphasis that point.

Grace and peace,
Mark