Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes.Do you believe this first souled human had a non-separated relationship with God before his first sinful act?
Don't know. Makes no difference one way or another.Would his mother be able to comprehend this relationship he had with God, being that she was not a human with a soul?
Infants don't have the mental capacity to sin, yet somehow they manage to develop into adults with the mental capacity to sin.My question just shows the irrational implications of believing that mental capacity to sin against God somehow evolved in humans. Either you're capable or you're not, there is no middle ground. There must be a line that was crossed. Did the humans on the non-capable side still need Jesus? Or were they like dogs and geese?
Interestingly, we still cannot do that with children who commit appalling crimes today. The tabloids of course bay for blood, but the prosecution service have a much more difficult job of calmly deciding how much the children really understood. The same with mentally handicapped. Only God really knows. But the fact that we cannot really tell when a child grows from being too young to understand to being responsible for his actions does not mean children do not develop from not understanding right and wrong to understanding and being responsible.It appears the only true difference (in terms of physical and mental make-up) between this soul-less non-culpable mother and her child who has a soul and was culpable for its actions is negligible. Would we have been able to tell the difference just be sight that one was human and one was not?
## Since God gave them a kilt and a shawl before casting them out, this is most unlikely. It is self-evident that they spoke Scots Gaelic.It was obviously Esperanto.
## By examining the literary genres of the texts. And using any evidence there may be from archaeology, anthropology, and other sciences to give greater precision to the preliminary conclusions one has reached.Evolved enough to rebel? So where are all the children they had before the fall? Is their anyone out there who has lived forever?
Adam was clever enough to name all the animals, but couldnt talk properly?
sooo is Noah at metaphor? Is Abraham a metaphor?
Is Moses and the Exodus a Metaphor?
Was Joe really sold into exile, only to become pirime minister of Egypt?
Where do you draw the line from when Gen actually becomes history?
## Not necessarily. Genesis 11 may be a Hebrew version of a Sumerian myth. That does not make Pentecost a fiction.If tongues of confusion at Babel are a metaphor, was speaking in tongues at pentecost a metaphor?
## Evidence that the author of Revelation knew his Bible, and thought the Crucifixion to be of great significance. And was a literary artist & theologian.Interesting how the Tree of Life makes a reappearance in Rev 22 right at the end of the Bible. Coincidence?
## But what were they ?"historical as described in the OT"
Why would the Biblical authors describe Noah, Abraham, and Jacob differently then who they actually were?
##The Resurrection is not an historical event - history is too small a category for something as big as the Resurrection. It's an act of God, not an historical event; just as the Creation is not an historical event. There are no analogies in history for it; only in mythology, which it fulfils.Did the death and resurrection of Jesus happen historically as described? Are you sure it wasn't influenced by legendary or earlier ancient myths?
## That was a rather abbreviated way of saying "Where does the Bible say Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, the Exodus, are historical from the POV of the OT authors as they present them; given that what we call history does not necessarily match what they might have considered to be history (if they had had such a notion ) ? We have to ask, "historical (& what do we mean by that ?) by whose standards ?" What we cannot do is take for granted the validity, for the understanding of the Bible, of our ideas, which are very much later & from a very different set of cultures. The OT is ferociously complex
It seems like you want to down play the supernatural events in the Bible. It seems you don't want to accept miraculous events as historical events. Why?
Miracles are not historical, any more than God is. Whether or not the miraculous is a valid Biblical category, miracles (& what is a miracle ?) can't be treated like historical events - they are different in kind. That does not make such events, if real, unreal.
Nope. Not unless God granted him access to a magical tree that gave everlasting life.If he had not sinned, would he have lived forever?
Nope. Not unless God granted him access to a magical tree that gave everlasting life.
## Respectively:So the a six day creation, global flood, and a worldwide language overhaul could be real, but just not historical?
That's your opinion and assumption based on your interpretation of the collective evidence. I, too, have opinions based on my theological and philosophical beliefs. I believe that God actually and really created in six literal days and that the author of Genesis one is recording true events in exact detail.## Respectively:
- six-day creation = a literary device of the Priestly writer reflecting his interest in chronology. But not a diary of the work of creation
This again is based on how you've interpreted the collective evidence - which is directly influenced by your philosophical and theological perspective. Again I, too, have my own opinion. I believe that the preponderance of early and global flood myths not only came from a real event but that this event was the same global flood mentioned in Genesis. Not some large localized flood in Iraq.
- global flood = Hebrew adaptation of the Akkadian version of the Sumerian flood-myth, which is probably based on real events, such as an exceptionably severe flood in what is now Iraq. The Hebrew story has been made into a vehicle for Israel's faith. The earth is that known to the Israelites, not to us - by our standards, who live in a far larger world than the Israelites & their neighbours, it would not be global, but local
The first three events are not history, but something called primeval history.
So we could die to our sins and be raised up in his resurrection life.Also, from your answer it seems that you believe sin only brought on spiritual death and NOT physical death.
Why did Jesus have to physically die for our sins then?
So we could die to our sins and be raised up in his resurrection life.
Rom 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
7 For one who has died has been set free from sin.
8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.
9 We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.
Well if they weren't going to die, what was the point of the tree of Life?
So God's original design (before sin entered the world) was for humans to live a period of time and then die a physical death?
What was the point of life then?
On a side note: the status quo in academia on who authored Genesis has been changing in the last ten years. Many theologians and Biblical scholars no longer accept the documentary hypothesis as feasible.
Also, from your answer it seems that you believe sin only brought on spiritual death and NOT physical death.
Why did Jesus have to physically die for our sins then?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?