***Answer Me***

[elopez]

God looked at everything that He had made and called it very good. Are you saying that God looked at everything that HE had created with His own "hands" and found fault in it?

Did I say God found fault in His creation? No. I said that very good does not equate to perfection. If the text said "and it was perfect" it would have said that, but it doesn't, it says "very good." We can't just change words to what we want them to read, you know.

 

[Blueforest]

Calamity can be perceived to the recipients as evil but it doesn't necessarily has to be. Take for example the exile of Israel to Babylon. God used Nebuchadnezzar to exact punishment on Israel because of their wickedness. Several prophets including Jeremiah foretold the wrath of God for a few years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Israel continued on its wicked ways and did not repent. The Jews that were doing wicked things probably considered God's punishment to be evil because they wanted to continue in their wicked ways instead of repenting. however, the calamity was punishment by a just God not evil.

Now we're playing word games. If good and evil cease to actually be such, why even use such terms in the first place?


Did God create those?

Depends who you ask. Some people would say yes, others no.

Did God smash the window in your house and destroy everything that you owned? Did God forewarn you that if you didn't stop your wicked ways He was going to cause such calamity?

He might. I wouldn't be surprised if he did, to be honest.


It is obvious that you consider your view of things higher than those of God. Do you actually have free will now? Do you choose to do evil in favor of doing good?

It is obvious you are mistaken and are assuming much.

Heaven will not be a place where sin will be possible. Does that bother you? Why?

Being a robot with no soul / free will bothers me greatly.

 

[Hentenza]

Did I say God found fault in His creation? No. I said that very good does not equate to perfection. If the text said "and it was perfect" it would have said that, but it doesn't, it says "very good." We can't just change words to what we want them to read, you know.

Where are the imperfections? We can't just make statements devoid of proof.

BTW- God's perfection guarantees a perfect initial creation otherwise God would not be perfect because He would lack the ability to create perfectly.

 

[Hentenza]

Now we're playing word games. If good and evil cease to actually be such, why even use such terms in the first place?

The wicked will always consider God to be unjust while the righteous has no problems with God's justice. No one here is playing word games. I know I am not.

Depends who you ask. Some people would say yes, others no.

What do you believe?

He might. I wouldn't be surprised if he did, to be honest.

Why?

It is obvious you are mistaken and are assuming much.

Not at all. Is it rather obvious that you have an issue with God chosen ways to punish the wicked. But then, we will all see His justice first hand one day.


​

Being a robot with no soul / free will bothers me greatly.

That is not what the bible teaches.

 

[elopez]

Where are the imperfections? We can't just make statements devoid of proof.

BTW- God's perfection guarantees a perfect initial creation otherwise God would not be perfect because He would lack the ability to create perfectly.

Where is the perfection in the first place? You wanna talk about making statements devoid of proof when indeed you say something scripture clearly does not. You cannot replace "very good" with "perfect" no matter which way you try to spin it and no matter how hard you try.

Obviously the imperfection was giving into the temptation of sin.

I'm going to respond to the last objection in the same way I did when it was brought up in another thread using the same objection. Creation is what God has made. When you 'make' something it is vastly different from yourself. A spider can make a web and a bird makes a nest, though the web is not actually the spider just because the spider has made the web. Same applies to God and creation.

God made the universe, earth, and man, but these creations are not God Himself. Creation is different from God and only God is perfect. What God creates is not actually God. Thus, what God creates cannot be perfect.

You are essentially confusing what it means for God to create with what it means for God to beget. See what God begets is God, as begetting means to become the father of. I beget my son, the spider begets his baby spiders, and the bird begets his baby birds. What did God beget? The Son Christ, of course, as with the statement Christ is the Son of God "begotten, not created." Christ is perfect because God is perfect because God begot Christ.

 

[Blueforest]

The wicked will always consider God to be unjust while the righteous has no problems with God's justice. No one here is playing word games. I know I am not.

Those are loaded terms. Define justice, the righteous and the wicked.

This could go into a discourse on 1 Samuel 15 and similar passages, which I'd rather avoid to be honest.

What do you believe?

I'm not sure. The bible says one thing, my heart says another.


Why?

I cannot answer for the Almighty. No one can.

Not at all. Is it rather obvious that you have an issue with God chosen ways to punish the wicked. But then, we will all see His justice first hand one day.

I hope that's not a threat...
​

That is not what the bible teaches.

No, but it was what you appeared to be arguing.

 

[Hentenza]

Where is the perfection in the first place? You wanna talk about making statements devoid of proof when indeed you say something scripture clearly does not. You cannot replace "very good" with "perfect" no matter which way you try to spin it and no matter how hard you try.

The perfection lies in that God created everything so that every creature might reach the goal appointed by the creator and accomplish the purpose of its existence. Everything was perfect in its kind.

Obviously the imperfection was giving into the temptation of sin.

That does not relate to creation but to potentiality. All created beings, creatures, things have the potentiality of not existing and the potentiality of not fulfilling its intended purpose. That in no way precludes the perfection of its potential at creation.

I'm going to respond to the last objection in the same way I did when it was brought up in another thread using the same objection. Creation is what God has made. When you 'make' something it is vastly different from yourself. A spider can make a web and a bird makes a nest, though the web is not actually the spider just because the spider has made the web. Same applies to God and creation.


God made the universe, earth, and man, but these creations are not God Himself. Creation is different from God and only God is perfect. What God creates is not actually God. Thus, what God creates cannot be perfect.

God's creation is not God. That is not part of my argument. Never has been.

You are essentially confusing what it means for God to create with what it means for God to beget. See what God begets is God, as begetting means to become the father of. I beget my son, the spider begets his baby spiders, and the bird begets his baby birds. What did God beget? The Son Christ, of course, as with the statement Christ is the Son of God "begotten, not created." Christ is perfect because God is perfect because God begot Christ.

God did not beget its creation. Again, that is not part of my argument.

 

[elopez]

The perfection lies in that God created everything so that every creature might reach the goal appointed by the creator and accomplish the purpose of its existence. Everything was perfect in its kind.

Yeah but you still have the problem that Genesis does not say creation was perfect. Genesis says creation was "very good," and that is far from perfect. You can ignore that all you want, but the text does not indicate creation was perfect.

That does not relate to creation but to potentiality. All created beings, creatures, things have the potentiality of not existing and the potentiality of not fulfilling its intended purpose. That in no way precludes the perfection of its potential at creation.

So potentiality does not relate to creation? That's not what you seem to be saying...

The point is man gave into temptation. If man was perfect he would have resisted temptation and followed God instead. Just like Christ did in the desert.

God's creation is not God. That is not part of my argument. Never has been.

You're confused here. I am not saying that is your argument, I am responding to your argument by saying that God's creation is not God. If God is perfect and God's creation is not God, then His creation is not perfect. Only God is truly perfect.

God did not beget its creation. Again, that is not part of my argument.

You may not have said that directly but by saying God's creation is perfect that's what you implicitly mean. Again, what God begets is God and if God beget Christ and God is perfect then Christ was also perfect. You said creation is perfect but God made creation, not begot. I know you notice the difference.

 

[bumbumbum]

Did God create Clowns?

 

[Hentenza]

Yeah but you still have the problem that Genesis does not say creation was perfect. Genesis says creation was "very good," and that is far from perfect. You can ignore that all you want, but the text does not indicate creation was perfect.

So God did not create everything so that every creature might reach the goal appointed by the creator and accomplish the purpose of its existence? You seem to be missing the definition of perfection and how it relates to creation.

So potentiality does not relate to creation? That's not what you seem to be saying...

The point is man gave into temptation. If man was perfect he would have resisted temptation and followed God instead. Just like Christ did in the desert.

Potentiality refers to that which is possible to happen. Perfection is not related to potentiality. Jesus, for example, had the potentiality to sin but did not. The temptation was real. Adam had the potentiality to sin. He did. However, Adam was created with all that He needed to achieve his God appointed potential and to accomplish his purpose. That makes him perfectly created. That he did not accomplish his appointed potential does not preclude his perfect creation.

Of course, you can't relate to this because you are from the camp that believes that death and misery existed for millions of years prior to the fall.

 

[elopez]

So God did not create everything so that every creature might reach the goal appointed by the creator and accomplish the purpose of its existence? You seem to be missing the definition of perfection and how it relates to creation.

That's actually not what I'm saying at all. Why is it so hard to say what I actually said instead of some tangent I never mentioned? You are the one that is missing the point that perfection does not relate to creation except in that we are to strive for and hopefully achieve perfection. That does not mean man was created perfect. Do you acknowledge that very good does not equate to perfection?

Potentiality refers to that which is possible to happen. Perfection is not related to potentiality. Jesus, for example, had the potentiality to sin but did not. The temptation was real. Adam had the potentiality to sin. He did. However, Adam was created with all that He needed to achieve his God appointed potential and to accomplish his purpose. That makes him perfectly created. That he did not accomplish his appointed potential does not preclude his perfect creation.

I'm sorry but I disagree. Potentiality is very much related to perfection. Jesus was faced with the possibility of sin and resisted, and that's what makes him perfect. Again it was different with Adam because when faced with that possibility of sin he caved in, and that's what made him not perfect as Christ and really not perfect at all. So yes, that he failed to accomplish obeying God does preclude perfection. I agree Adam was created with all the necessary components but that does not necessarily mean he was created perfect.

Of course, you can't relate to this because you are from the camp that believes that death and misery existed for millions of years prior to the fall.

I could say the same thing about your disbelief in death prior to the fall. It is unreasonable and really isn't biblically there.

 

[Hentenza]

That's actually not what I'm saying at all. Why is it so hard to say what I actually said instead of some tangent I never mentioned? You are the one that is missing the point that perfection does not relate to creation except in that we are to strive for and hopefully achieve perfection. That does not mean man was created perfect. Do you acknowledge that very good does not equate to perfection?

You are dancing around the issue. Here is the question again, did God not create everything so that every creature might reach the goal appointed by the creator and accomplish the purpose of its existence? Did He create imperfectly?

<snip> I agree Adam was created with all the necessary components but that does not necessarily mean he was created perfect.

So what components did he lacked at creation?

I could say the same thing about your disbelief in death prior to the fall. It is unreasonable and really isn't biblically there.

Do you have a single verse that teaches that there was death and misery prior to the fall? One? Just one?

I do have one, of several, that teach that there was no death prior to the fall.

Rom. 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&#8212; 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Death entered through sin. Was there sin on Earth before the fall?

 

[Armistead14]

You are dancing around the issue. Here is the question again, did God not create everything so that every creature might reach the goal appointed by the creator and accomplish the purpose of its existence? Did He create imperfectly?



So what components did he lacked at creation?

Do you have a single verse that teaches that there was death and misery prior to the fall? One? Just one?

I do have one, of several, that teach that there was no death prior to the fall.

Rom. 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&#8212; 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Death entered through sin. Was there sin on Earth before the fall?

Eve seemed to have a sin nature before the fall, she certainly knew good and evil and right from wrong. When Satan told her they could be like God.

Did death exist before the fall, depends on how or what parts you take literal. If we trace the Hebrews geneology here it goes back roughly 6000 years, but we have many detailed geneologies of tribes even more detailed that go back 20,000 years with much scientic evidence to back it up. I believe this to be more a poetic rendering of the Hebrews account on the creation of man. Obvious, all the tribes living then had no info of all the others that existed. Still, like Christ gave parables, I think God spoke truth about the general nature of man and sin. Most tribes that lived before and during this time had their own creation stories, some almost identical to the bible.

Also, the tree of life. I must assume that death existed, why else have a tree of life in the garden before the fall? They never ate of that tree before, so how would they not die anyway? Satan being so smart and common sense says eat of the tree of life before the tree of knowledge if you want to be like God an live forever. If Satan really wanted to screw God's plans up, why not tell them to eat of the tree of life first? The bible says Satan is smart. This shows me God had to be in control of the fall and sin process. Again, I don't think the tree of life is literal, I think it's symbolic of our eternal souls and the tree of knowledge is symbolic of our humanity.

History shows this account of the Hebrews took place about the farm age, when man went to gardening more than hunting.

When Satan told them they could be like God, it obvious stirred in Eve desire to be like God. Really no different than the fall of Satan. This showed she already had emotions like greed and jealousy. These emotions don't just happen, someone created humans with the ability to feel these emotions and they existed before the fall.

And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

I think the problem is most take the story literal and that creates many doctrinal issues and poses impossible questions. The story makes much more sense when we accept it as the historical and poetic rendering it is. Why not literal, the concepts of truths remain just as they do in NT parables.

We do know in the bible the worlds Adam and Eve are used two ways. It's mostly used as a general statement meaning mankind. Even a city was named Adam. Only in a few places is it used in the sense of a proper noun. I think it's wrong to believe the fall story contained two individuals, as Adam and Eve weren't used as proper nouns, but a reference to mankind and life. It's highly possible that two people named Adam and Eve existed later in Hebrew history.

To confirm that detail we must read Genesis 5: 1-2 which says: "In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." Notice the verse states God created both Male and Female, but referred to them both as Adam, not Adam and Eve. The bible here itself proves that Adam is a general term in the creation story, not a proper noun.


"The Hebrew word for Eve means &#8220;life,&#8221; while the Hebrew word for Adam simply means &#8220;man.&#8221; The Hebrew word &#8216;adam is used in at least three different ways in the Old Testament. In its most common occurrence, the word &#8216;adam refers to mankind in general. It has this use in Genesis 1:26-27, where it includes both male and female, those who were created in the image of God. It is also used in referring to a specific man where it occurs with the Hebrew definite article (Genesis 2:24; Genesis 4:1). A third use of Adam is in reference to the city beside Zaretan (Joshua 3:16) on the Jordan. The Hebrew word for Eve is used only as reference to Adam's wife."

 

[Hentenza]

Eve seemed to have a sin nature before the fall, she certainly knew good and evil and right from wrong. When Satan told her they could be like God.

Did death exist before the fall, depends on how or what parts you take literal. If we trace the Hebrews geneology here it goes back roughly 6000 years, but we have many detailed geneologies of tribes even more detailed that go back 20,000 years with much scientic evidence to back it up. I believe this to be more a poetic rendering of the Hebrews account on the creation of man. Obvious, all the tribes living then had no info of all the others that existed. Still, like Christ gave parables, I think God spoke truth about the general nature of man and sin. Most tribes that lived before and during this time had their own creation stories, some almost identical to the bible.

Also, the tree of life. I must assume that death existed, why else have a tree of life in the garden before the fall? They never ate of that tree before, so how would they not die anyway? Satan being so smart and common sense says eat of the tree of life before the tree of knowledge if you want to be like God an live forever. If Satan really wanted to screw God's plans up, why not tell them to eat of the tree of life first? The bible says Satan is smart. This shows me God had to be in control of the fall and sin process. Again, I don't think the tree of life is literal, I think it's symbolic of our eternal souls and the tree of knowledge is symbolic of our humanity.

History shows this account of the Hebrews took place about the farm age, when man went to gardening more than hunting.

When Satan told them they could be like God, it obvious stirred in Eve desire to be like God. Really no different than the fall of Satan. This showed she already had emotions like greed and jealousy. These emotions don't just happen, someone created humans with the ability to feel these emotions and they existed before the fall.

And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

There is quite a bit of supposition here. For example, Eve was tempted by satan and ate from the tree. She in turn gave the fruit to Adam which ate from it. The fall consists of all of these events. In Gen. 3 God talked and pronounced judgement on each individual culprit but all steaming from the same series of events.

BTW- Can you link to a detailed genealogy that dates to 20,000 years ago?

I think the problem is most take the story literal and that creates many doctrinal issues and poses impossible questions. The story makes much more sense when we accept it as the historical and poetic rendering it is.
Why not literal, the concepts of truths remain just as they do in NT parables.

The accounts of creation depicted in Gen. 1 and 2 are not poetic but historical narrative. Hebrew poetry characteristic is not rhyme or meter but parallelism. These come in three forms, synonymous, antithetical, and synthetic or constructive. Can you point to any of these in the creation accounts?

 

[Armistead14]

There is quite a bit of supposition here. For example, Eve was tempted by satan and ate from the tree. She in turn gave the fruit to Adam which ate from it. The fall consists of all of these events. In Gen. 3 God talked and pronounced judgement on each individual culprit but all steaming from the same series of events.

BTW- Can you link to a detailed genealogy that dates to 20,000 years ago?



The accounts of creation depicted in Gen. 1 and 2 are not poetic but historical narrative. Hebrew poetry characteristic is not rhyme or meter but parallelism. These come in three forms, synonymous, antithetical, and synthetic or constructive. Can you point to any of these in the creation accounts?

Then why did the bible say this.

"In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."

Notice the verse states God created both Male and Female, but referred to them both as Adam, not Adam and Eve. The bible here itself proves that Adam is a general term "mankind" in the creation story here, not a proper noun.

The parallel is clear God created male and female together as the verse states both male and female were made, but only used Adam, this denotes he made mankind together. If two actual people were made named Adam and Eve, why does the verse reference both male and female to Adam only? Again, the world "adam" here is used as a general term, not a proper noun.

If you believe in history, science, genealogy and archeology we know over 100 different tribes populated the earth as far back as 75,000 years ago. This far exceeds the genealogy of Adam and Eve as actual people.

Andamanese and Bantu are two of the oldest.

To me it's evidence that God created male and female at the same time and called them mankind 1000's of years before the Hebrew fall story. Did he make them, did we evolve from some form,,,another long debate. Myself, why man may have been primitive and obvious has genetically evolved, I believe he was always man, not evolved from a monkey.

Many tribes picked general terms as names. Again, I have no doubt that eventually two Hebrew people existed named Adam and Eve, but mankind long existed before this. The bible makes a clear distinction using Adam as a general term for mankind and Adam as a proper noun, but we choose to use Adam only as a proper noun, a person, not a general term. That's incorrectly dividing the word when it's obvious Adam was used both ways.

When we do so we can connect scientific evidence with the bible smoothly and not look foolish when we claim man has only existed about 6000 years. That flies in the face of all the proven sciences.

Since we know "adam" in Hebrew means mankind and Eve means life. It may be possible that God created two types of species with male and female gentics and referred to it only as adam "mankind" When the word Eve "life" was later used, maybe that denotes man evolved into a greater human form.

Also, Gens was written about 1500 BC, by that time other creation stories existed. Many suggest Moses even used themes from previous creation stories, just worked it to fit Hebrew history. Read the creation story of the Miao that existed before Moses, could it be Moses copied some previous themes.

I certainly respect your views and find it an interesting subject.

 

[RobPhillips79]

Evil existed since creation no? By existing and having organisms, opinion was created. Hence, good and evil in the eyes of man. Good and evil in the eyes of animals on earth. Good and evil in the eyes of an alien (non earth organism). Good and evil in the interest of human preservation. I think you get the point. At least that's how I see things...

 

[elopez]

You are dancing around the issue. Here is the question again, did God not create everything so that every creature might reach the goal appointed by the creator and accomplish the purpose of its existence? Did He create imperfectly?

You say I'm dancing around the issue when it is you who is not even addressing your apparent changing of words in Genesis. That's the issue you're dancing around. I've answered this question. I said that God did not create imperfectly but did not create perfectly. I believe God created man as perfect as He could, but that doesn't mean man was perfect.

So what components did he lacked at creation?

I didn't say man lacked any essential components. I said Adam was created with all the necessary attributes. I also said that doesn't mean Adam was created perfect, and that wouldn't mean he was created imperfect either. It means Adam was created very good, just as the text says.

Do you have a single verse that teaches that there was death and misery prior to the fall? One? Just one?

I do have one, of several, that teach that there was no death prior to the fall.

Rom. 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&#8212; 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Not really but I find the meaning of the names of the animals Adam gave to them interesting. Owl means to treat violently, Hawk means unclean bird of prey, Lion means in the sense of violence. Each name corresponds to how the animal acted and specifically the ones mentioned not even including others indicates that animals killed each other and ate each other. I mean, it's not as if the lion was vegetarian.

Though out of all the passages that I thought you would have used this is the one I expected most. Don't even bother parroting the other scriptures that you think support this no death position as those are not any more reasonable than the one you just gave. Romans 5 is talking about human death through sin, not death to all living things. Surely this verse is not talking about animals because they are incapable of sin. I don't object to human death not being present prior to the fall. That does not mean I cannot object to no death in general prior to the fall.

Death entered through sin. Was there sin on Earth before the fall?

Human death entered through sin, yes. Probably not on earth, but there could have perhaps been sin before the fall.