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.
Not sure you can distinguish 'from the foundation of the world' and 'before the foundation of the world' they seem too idiomatic, too much the stylistic preference of the writer, to attempt to read a distinction between them. To be chosen before the foundation of the world is to be chosen out of. It was choosing who would be saved by the death of Christ out of all of the sinful human race. Now I am not a Calvinist and I believe from Romans 8 that this choice is based on the foreknowledge of God of who would put their faith in Christ, but Calvinist or Arminian choosing people in Christ before the foundation of the world is choosing who will be in Christ through the cross.
For Paul the cross was God's hidden wisdom decreed before the ages. 1Cor 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. 6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
2Tim 1:9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, 10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
Why shouldn't God bring to completion a new creation greater that the first? 1Cor 2:9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him" Surely Adam would have been able to image what God planned if it was exactly the same as Eden? Would Adam have been cut off from God if he had died before he sinned? If the sting of death is sin, wouldn't Adam's death have been without any sting or power?
Lantern wrote:
That's no reason to give Mary's genealogy - by 10 BC, all Jews were descended from David. I'm descended from David. Practically everyone in the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe is descended from David. That's like saying that we would have needed to do an autopsy on Jesus to show that he had a liver, or other organs that practically everyone has.
We can get back to the specific point in a minute (they all are about ignoring the text again, anyway), but first, it struck me that it might be illustrative to compare your interpretation of Gen 1 &2 with that of Luke's genealogy in chap 3.
In the case of Genesis, the text contains many poetic elements and is recognized by most Bible scholars to be likely symbolic for that reason. The majority of clergy do not insist on a literal reading, and there are many other reasons to avoid a literal interpretation.
In the case of Luke, there are no poetic or symbolic elements that are not in Jesus' own words (such as the parables). Bible scholars do not point out much that suggests a non-literal reading.
Now, comparing these two, it seems reasonable to take a non literal reading of Gen 1&2 in places, and a literal reading in Luke 3. However, you are reversing that, insisting on a literal reading of Gen 1 & 2, and insisting on a non-literal reading of Luke 3. It seems ironic.
Sure it does, because if literal, it means that Mt lied. I'd rather not claim that our Holy Gospel is a lie. The fact that it includes Adam reinforces the idea that Adam's literal life was much longer ago than a literal reading would suggest.
And if you cut out Jesus, then again, you've lost the whole point of the Gospel.
Please read Luke again. You will see that Jesus never says that the Good Samaritan story is a parable. That's not to say that it isn't - but it is to say that just because something isn't explicitly labelled as symbolic speech doesn't mean that it is not. Jesus told us about the Good Samaritan, just as he told about Genesis - without saying first that it was symbolic speech.
Plus, Genesis is indeed "by Jesus"- because our Scripture is the Word of God.
Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree here. It's already clear beyond any reasonable doubt that a global flood didn't happen, that life evolved, and it seems more and more clear every day that much of the old testament (like the Exodus) is myth, which never literally happened. If you require those things to be literally historical for you to be Christian, than fine, you can't be Christian without denying reality. For me, I will still find richness and comfort with God, drawing from His word, and finding more to rejoice in with every new discovery from God's creation.
Did you read the article? It mentioned that these Jewish congregations were still quite active, drawing spiritual strength from their growing knowledge of God. They, like myself and millions of others, show that simply realizing a verse is symbolic and not literal is something that can strengthen, and not destroy, faith in God.
Actually I have thought about this a little, and my reasoning is that experiment, if it is to prove anything, must prove that there is no way to tell if things about God are true, by natural observation.
You might say "well that defeats the point" but remember "we are to live by faith and not by sight". If we could prove that Creationism was true we would not be proving God and the two are supposed to go hand in hand.
That said, you can always find historical evidence that the record Genesis represents is accurate. But you did not ask for historical evidence, you asked for experimentation and I think you will find that unless you get a specific burden from the Lord for this, you will make no progress.
Originally Posted by Papias
That's no reason to give Mary's genealogy - by 10 BC, all Jews were descended from David. I'm descended from David. Practically everyone in the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe is descended from David.
I don't know if I understand this bit. My understanding is that all the people in Israel at this time descended from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.
lantern wrote:
They descended from them as well. If you watch the descendants of any one person, they grow exponentially over time (unless the line goes extinct within the first few generations). Another key concept is that we all have many, many ancestors (thousands, if you back just 500 years or so, and millions, if you go back a millenia or so).
For instance, my great grandparents had four kids. Those kids had, respectively, 5, 3, 0, and 4 kids. Those kids (one of which was my mom), had a total of 41 kids (averaging less than 4 kids/person), one of which is me. If you continue that basic math, then within a few centuries, that starting couple will have thousands of descendants.
Looking historically, that's what we see, too. Charles Darwin has around 100 descendants today.
Thomas Jefferson has around a thousand. This is true even if every couple only has 2 kids (zero population growth). In just a couple thousand years, everyone on earth will be your descendant if you have a kid or two who survive.
Now, look at David. He lived a thousand years before Jesus, and even by the 2nd generation after David, had hundreds of descendants. So by long before Jesus' day, all Jews (and a lot of people in other nearby areas too) were descended from him.
Try it yourself. Make two columns, with year on one and # desc. on the other. Count down in column 1 by 25 or so years, from -950, and start the other at, say, 400 (Solomon's kids), and double it every line. Overlap means that the numbers can't get bigger than the few million Jews, and you'll see you reach that long before Jesus.
-1000 -
-975 400 (read about Solomon's wives and concubines)
-925 800
-900 1,600
-875 3000
-850 6000
-825 12000
-800 24000
etc.
Papias
P.S. more later. Gotta go now.
The mention of Joseph is an additional statement, meaning it can be taken out and not affect the overall statement.
I'm starting to believe the missing names may have been lost through the copying phase of the Gospels. Because as I said before, if you add in those names, you get the 14 generations Matthew mentions perfectly. ....So the 14 generations add up perfectly)
(Of course since the 14 generations add up to Jesus birth, Jesus wouldn't be included in the names
Genesis could be a parable/myth/or what have you, but if it is, you learn nothing about our relationship with God from it. Nothing historical.
You still have the billions of years of chaos to deal with, and that stares me in the face more than a philosophical story about our relationship with God.
It tells me the reality of our relationsihp with God is He doesn't care that we suffer diseases, that He created such a world from the beginning. In the least it tells me He sees those things as good, so there's no telling what else He will do to us if that is true.
Do you believe in miracles? If yes, what reason do you suspect God would want to heal us, if He created the world to operate around death and decay?
We are literally offering the same amount of evidence to people, as other religions do. Is that really all that our God can offer people? Simple words? If Genesis is myth and the Exodus is myth, words is all that we are really offering people.
Yet I remember Paul talking about showing the power and demonstration of God. He called it fully preaching the Gospel. So if that is talking about the miracles, then he didn't offer just words. If the miracles are true, why can't Genesis be literally true as well?
An experiment would show how things historically came about, if the world came about as presented in Genesis. Yes, we walk by faith, and faith simply means trust. That verse doesn't say to throw away reason. If we did that, we would be walking by blind faith.
Try making something mo ut of nothing.
.....God did it just as He says in Genesis. It is not a hypothis. What he evolutionists say is a hypothis that cannot be verified.
No, the only additional part (if any) was that it was supposed, not that the next person was Joseph. The text clearly says that Joseph was the son of Heli. There is a word for son in law, and that word is not used - it uses the word "son". It's clear that the geneology is stated to be that of Joseph. The only reason anyone would even be questioning that is because it contradicts other scripture, if the genealogies are thought to be literally intended.
While I agree that there have been many copying changes to the Gospels, putting those names back in doesn't work, because if you do a little addition, you can see that doing so would put all the added generations between David and the Babylonian captivity. So it would be someing like 14 from Adam to David, 17 from David to the Bab. Cap., then 14/13 from there to Jesus.
Even if you don't count the ends, and add the three to make up for that, then it doesn't work because they are all in the same place. (try it and see for yourself.....)
As shown above, doing so wouldn't help. Plus, that wasn't done before (for instance, David is counted in his section, as is Jeconiah in his, so keeping to the pattern means counting Jesus).
Why is the history most important? Do we complain that if the Good Samaritan didn't actually happen, then you don't learn anything historical about the Good Samaritan? Of course we don't. Because we recognize that the message is much more than just a dry retelling of history, but rather speaks to our deeper relationship with God.
No, it tells us that God even has taken control of death, using it to his own ends. That's much more reassuring than thinking that something is out of God's control. It shows us that our God is a logical God. Specifically- Death is shown time and again to have a logical, necessary and yes, good, role. Take the example of children. Unless death removes people, you don't have room for children, so you can either have no death, and no children, or death and children. Jesus said "let the little children come to me". Looking at God's creation, you see this theme time and again. The heartwood holding up a tree is made up of dead cells, which were programmed to die after being grown by the inner bark. Coral reefs are built on the skeletons of previous coral. Without the genocide of the holy land, the Isrealites would have had no place to settle (note that this is true even if the story is a legend). Just a simple logical consideration of the mantisplosion shows how illogical the idea of a deathless world is (read about it here
Plus, in Is 45:7, God explicitly says that he is the one who brings death. Because our God is a logical God, he created death from the start, as a logical and helpful part of a working real world.
Not to me, because we are not creatures being used, millions of years ago, to get to humans. If you don't trust God, then that's a separate issue. If you do, then your thoughts above are not a concern.
I do (well, some of them - I don't credulously swallow every "Jesus on a tortilla" story"). And I believe God wants to heal us, because he sent his only son. THe world doesn't "operate around" death and decay, but rather death and decay are natural parts of the real world.
I disagree. I think we are offering a relationship with the true and living God. That's much more than words. In fact, that's much more than any history lesson - even if Genesis and Exodus were real history.
So you are saying that you expect us modern day Christians to perform miracles at will like the early apostles? Sounds like a pretty high bar.
As pointed out before, many, many experiments have been done, and they all show that a literal reading of Genesis and Exodus simply doesn't match the results of those experiments. There are literally tens of millions of scientists doing these experiments, in many fields. Most of them are Christians. If each one has done more than 100 experiments (and over a lifetime, most certainly have), then you have over a billion experiments that have already answered what you asked in your OP.
As I've mentioned before, that's more than you could even learn about, if you studied for your entire lifetime. Here is an overview, grouped into 29 areas, each of which includes at least millions of experiments and confirmed predictions:
You're right about that. I got 14/16/13
David is counted in his section, but he is only counted once. ..... If you do the second way, then Jesus wouldn't be counted because His life just begun.
The point is that God is the ultimate creator of everything, just as referred to in John 1.Originally Posted by Papias
Why is the history most important? Do we complain that if the Good Samaritan didn't actually happen, then you don't learn anything ..?
Well it's clear that Jesus used that story (Good Samaritan) to illustrate a point concerning the love of God. ... So it has real meaning for us. What real meaning are we learning in Genesis?
I'll tell the main point of Genesis. ......The whole point was to tell us where we came from, an accurate telling or else, you eliminate the whole point.
The name itself means "beginnings" I believe. Why tell us a fake beginning, or give us a false origin?
You're saying that God is in control, by using death. Yet this would mean death is a simple result that came about.
Why can't God create the world as He wants, without having results come about that He has to control and use later? Why can't He create a world exactly how He wants? This tells me He is not in absolute control.
There's plenty of room for children to be born. God did make more planets, most scientists even say there are earth like planets out there, many statistically. If we ran out of room here, we can start on another planet.
(If we want to get pratical with this, man has already shown an ability to go into space. .... very pratical stuff)
The death of cells by the way is a different thing if you ask me. Also plants aren't alive as we are. The scientific definition for life is different from the Biblical definition.
The genocide of the Canaanite tribes were a part of God's judgment on those tribes. ....If it were not for the wickedness of the people in those lands, things would have been different to say the least. Again, death is not needed.
Finally, the reference to Isaiah. The things being spoken of there is God judging the people for their wickedness. ...... What is meant here is God's judgment on the people. Think Sodom and Gomorrah, the flood, etc. So it's not saying anything about death here.
Let me ask you a question. If God decided after everything is said and done, and we are with Him in the end, that He wants to fill us with excruciating pain for no reason, would you be okay with that?
.... Are you cool with that as well?
If we are learning something good here on this earth, experiencing death and so on, shouldn't it also be expected in the next age, a deeper level of it?
Originally Posted by Papias
THe world doesn't "operate around" death and decay, but rather death and decay are natural parts of the real world.
Contrary to popular belief, science also rules out Jesus did any miracle whatsoever. Science rules out the miracles, just as much as it rules out Genesis. Yet you accept what science says in one, but not completely in the other. Why is that so?
There are literally millions of gods and religions out there, what seperates our God from the others? I know there definitely unique qualities about Christianity, but other religions and beliefs have unique things as well. There are a lot of common things also.
Originally Posted by Papias
Somebody should.So you are saying that you expect us modern day Christians to perform miracles at will like the early apostles? Sounds like a pretty high bar....Does it make sense for God to completely take the power He gave away from us? It is more needed in this day, than it ever was in the past.
......
Yet we are being questioned in this day and age, up and down the board, and being put to shame in most cases. Our answers seems like tap dancing, and we repeat mantras without reason. The only thing that would confirm what we are saying would be the miracles. Yet they are now gone? ....
Again, Jesus silenced all those who tried to trip Him up, even His naysayers were afraid to dispute with Him.
Originally Posted by Papias
And all those things are based on sight, observations of the world today.
There are things that once were observable, but are no longer. This is true no matter what viewpoint you're coming from. I believe that lost observation is the key to finding our true origins. I also believe the lost observation, is written in Genesis. That is why I'm going to combine science with the lost observation, and see where that experimentation leads me.
Well, that's why the parenthetical statement it is in there at all - to clarify that Jesus is not the actual son of Joseph, who is then used for the geneology. I've read your points over again, and I think you are wriggling around to avoid the clear meaning of the text and have no basis for your points - in addition to repeating points that seemed to me to be refuted earlier. However, I suspect you may think similarly of my points, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
The point is that God is the ultimate creator of everything, just as referred to in John 1.
After all, an explanation of the details of the actual creation method, describing DNA, mutations, natural selection, and geologic time, would have been boring, long, incomprehensible to the listener, and useless in conveying the overall message that God is the creator of everything. Just as in the Good Samaritan, details are not mentioned, the details of how the creation was done are not mentioned. They would distract from the overall message, and are unimportant compared to it.
The fact that God is the ultimate creator is much more important than whether He did so mainly through Larmarckian evolution, natural selection, poofing things into existance, genetic drift, or however many other ways could have been used.
I disagree, because it fails to do that, even if God made things by poofing them into existance. For instance, we know that making a clay dummy and blowing into it doesn't do anything.
So what kind of process, then, did God actually use? Where there other quantum aspects to the magical process of blowing? The text doesn't say. Was heat needed to supply energy? What about the fact that clay has far fewer carbon atoms than flesh? Did God's blowing split silicon atoms into carbon atoms? If so, that would require ginormous amounts of energy, and so Adam's temperature would have been near absolute zero - an adamsicle. And so on. We could go on and on for any given verse like that, because if Genesis is expected to lay out "an accurate telling", then it fails terribly.
No, it woud mean that death is a logical way to make a functioning world that need not be constantly tinkered with to keep working.
God can create any world he wants, of course. Being a logical God, he'll create one where logic applies. If logic applies, then consistent natural laws are a result, allowing God to create a world that can be understood by humans. I think that an incomprehensible world, where whole people popped into and out of existence, where God had to continually tinker and intervene, breaking his own natural laws, to allow it to continue working, would reflect a poorer, not a grander, creator.
You and I may differ on that. You may see the tinkering, intervening, naturally lawless God a a greater god. Being that the world isn't like that, I think that's evidence that regardless of what you and I may think, God has made the naturally lawful, logical, comprehensible world, showing that he's that kind of God.
Oh great - so God's plan is that we just exterminate the native inhabitants, steal their planet, and then go on to be a cosmic invasive species to planet after planet? I would think that God sees us as better than that.
Pardon my frankness, but I think you are clueless about space travel. Please compare the distances and problems involved - I'll not list them here and now because it's off topic.
Having read several of the Bibles, I'm not aware of any verse that gives a "Biblical definition of life", or even says that there is a different, "biblical" definition. Please cite the verse if you know of one.
So if they were not wicked, you are saying that God would have made land available somewhere else, or caused new land to appear?
If he could have done that, then why not do that anyway - since of course every single Caananite couldn't have been wicked (so this plan had to have killed countless innocent Caananites, babies,etc, plus the thousands of Israelites who died fighting them). If God was averse to death, then that seems like a simple and easy solution.
And there wasn't any death in the instances of Sodom, Gomorrah, the flood, etc?
No, I'm not. I agree that I would have serious questions as to whether or not God was good. In fact, those same questions can be raised as to the eternal torture of the unsaved in Hell (would a good and just God torture someone eternally for the comparatively minor and finite sins on earth?).
That's a big question, however, and it is often discussed. Maybe you'd like to start a thread in the General Theology section? I'm sure it's been discussed there before, and that there are people desiring to discuss it again.
I have a hard time imagining what an afterlife would be like, so I don't know either way.
Well, first of all, I'll point out that your response here (about science and miracles) is unrelated to my point (that death and decay are natural parts of God's creation). As such, I guess you don't have a response about the death, and want to talk about this instead. I can give my answer, but since you want to talk about that, maybe start a separate thread on it too?
Science does not rule out Jesus's miracles because there isn't any evidence from that time to compare. I accept that the findings seen by studying God's creation can help inform our interpretation of scripture - which is something practically all Christians accept - you as well. This can be seen by the fact that few Christians today reject heliocentrism.
Well, I have to admit I don't have a good answer for you on this one. I agree that miracles would settle a lot of questions, and they sure would come in handy in refuting atheists and those of other religions. I certainly agree that there were a lot of miracles in both the old and new testaments used to prove Christianity/Judaism. The fire sacrifice contest in 1 Kings 18 comes to mind, much of the book of Acts, etc.
I don't know God's plan. Maybe He has a reason to deny us miracles today? As with some other points above, this could be the good topic of the whole thread, perhaps in the evangelism section.
On a side note, recognize also that even if the Gospels are free of any scribal changes over the years (which they aren't), they still only record some of the history. It seems quite possible that there were times when naysayers were not afraid to dispute him, and it would be unsurprising if these incidents were not chosen to be recorded in the Gospels, which were, after all, written to gain followers (they even say that's why they were written, see John 20:31 ).
Well, sure - but so is all the information you have anyway, including Genesis itself. After all, you read Genesis by sight, today. You can only use the tools of logic and deduction to conclude that Genesis itself wasn't made up wholecloth a few years ago, or 1,500 years ago, or whenever. Or that you are a human, not a space alien, that your parents raised you, that water boils at 100 degrees - literally everything you know.
Unless God is personally sending you visions in your mind today, all your information is based on observations of the world.
And if you are claiming new revelation, then that's a whole other topic.
Do you seriously think that you are the first Christian to look at the origins question in light of all current evidence available today - including measurements, predictions, and the various bibles and scriptures in the various religions?
As pointed out above, this is well trodden ground. Maybe you'd be interested in the many Christians who have investigated this, reading from many different view points? THere is a lot out there, including "evolutionary creationism" by Lamaroux, "Darwin's Cathedral" by miller, and many more.
In Jesus' name-
Papias
Now, are there punctuation marks in the oldest copy of the Gospel of Luke?
If it changes the meaning, then it's not an additional statement. Yet we can tell it's meant to be one.
As to specifics concerning how God created, that's not something I'm arguing for.
In fact I wouldn't expect God to go through all the details like that. The people wouldn't have understood it. (When it comes to specifics, that's for us today.)
What I'm arguing for is more toward the history of Adam and Eve being literal, and so forth. That Adam was the first human on earth,
his disobedience brought in death (specifically the death of creatures, ...),
and all the history given in Genesis. If all those things didn't happen, then everything else afterward is not true. The Bible is nothing more than stories, with a little mix of Israelite history and so forth. That this is nothing more than another set of made up religious beliefs.
If the point of Genesis was to say God is the creator of everything, I would imagine that was something the people already knew. You don't need a story for that. This was the natural assumption.
On the other hand, Genesis was meant to describe why things are the way they are. Why do we die? Why is the world the way it is? So on and so forth. This is the purpose of Genesis. If all the history of Genesis is false, that goes against it's point of answering those things.
But without death, it can't function. Please answer yes or no as to whether or not you bothered to read my link about the mantisplosion. If you aren't going to listen, then there is no point in our discussion. Also, are you unaware of how material is recycled in the biosphere? That, like so many other aspects of life, requires death.
Now, you speak of death as a logical functioning part of the world, and God doesn't need to interfere with it. Yet if you look at what scientists state concerning the world and universe, even though there is order (making science possible), this world could be destroyed by number of things.
And again I never argued that God was constantly tinkering with creation to make it work, concerning Genesis being literal history. The original, perfect creation describe in Genesis, also ran on scientific laws and logic.
Originally Posted by Papias
Oh great - so God's plan is that we just exterminate the native inhabitants, steal their planet, and then go on to be a cosmic invasive species to planet after planet? I would think that God sees us as better than that.
Who says there are inhabitants on other planets? That's an assumption we make, and it can only be made if abiogenesis is true.
Originally Posted by Papias
Pardon my frankness, but I think you are clueless about space travel. Please compare the distances and problems involved - I'll not list them here and now because it's off topic.
Are you telling me then that scientists aren't considering even attempting to think of things like space colonies and such?
Or, maybe take responsible care of our God-given home in the first place?If they aren't, we are pretty much assuring our destruction as a race.
So the idea of space colonies and traveling to earth like planets is practical stuff. We may not be able to go now, but it's only a matter of time with things like this. One invention can turn all these things into reality.
Of course I'm just showing the idea of it all. I don't think these things will happen because I believe this age is about up. That Jesus will return before stuff like that happened. If God isn't real, and we lived long enough as a race, I believe that stuff would happen.
There's a couple of scriptures stating the life of a creature is in the blood.
.....Originally Posted by Papias
So if they were not wicked, you are saying that God would have made land available somewhere else, or caused new land to appear?If they were not wicked, all things could have been different.
If he could have done that, then why not do that anyway - since of course every single Caananite couldn't have been wicked (so this plan had to have killed countless innocent Caananites, babies,etc, plus the thousands of Israelites who died fighting them). If God was averse to death, then that seems like a simple and easy solution.
The death of the Canaanite children were apart of God's judgment on the Canaanite people. The whole people were to be wiped out and driven out.
It seems like the opposite - that the things we see in science show us that God loves us, by showing that examples of God being intentionally cruel and deadly often didn't happen. Look at the conquest example above, where God's plan kills children and innocent Israelite soldiers. The evidence shows that God didn't actually do that. Or the flood. Or Sodom and Gomorrah. Or the idea that God would make an unworkable world, where children are impossible - science shows that God didn't do any of that. If anything, science shows time and time again that God loves us, countering a literal reading that would otherwise show that God is hateful and illogical towards us.Originally Posted by Papias
The reason why I ask those questions is because the Bible illustrates God loves us very much. Yet if what scientists tells us is true, and our suffering in this world is natural based on how God created the world, that is very contradictory in the Bible's statements of God's love for us.
The thing is if death and decay are natural results, so is extinction. Would you tell me God wouldn't care if the human race went extinct?
Current day science is utterly opposed to what the Bible says concerning God.
But you seem to have missed my point. My point was that by saying you don't trust "current day observations" means that you have to also not trust Genesis itself. All of your reading of Genesis is a "current day observation". You are treating some current day observations (your observation of our current version of Genesis) as if they weren't current day observations.What I'm saying concerning current day science, everything is based on current day observations.
That the processes we see, we assume were happening for the longest.
Why do you think that is true? Because of current day observations?Yet there are things that were once observable, that played a key role in our existence, and are no longer observable.
I believe observations are missing right now, and Genesis holds the observation that we don't see today.
You have a lot less information than the millions of Christians who are looking at this, researching it, and writing about it. Maybe start with a basic degree in a relevant field, so you at least have some of the information available today?Originally Posted by Papias
Do you seriously think that you are the first Christian to look at the origins question in light of all current evidence available today - including measurements, predictions, and the various bibles and scriptures in the various religions?
As pointed out above, this is well trodden ground. Maybe you'd be interested in the many Christians who have investigated this, reading from many different view points? THere is a lot out there, including "evolutionary creationism" by Lamaroux, "Darwin's Cathedral" by miller, and many more.
I believe there's more information for me to use today, compared to Christians in the past. From what we know today, I believe we can finally see the truth of Genesis. I may disprove Genesis like all the others came to that conclusion when I'm done, but I'm confident about this either way.
Lantern wrote:
Well, you had said there was a punctuation mark in an old copy, so maybe go back to what you had to support that original claim? Here, I'll give you a hand.
All of our oldest copies of the new testament are scraps, so for much of the new testament, one has to wait all the way to codex sinaiticus and vaticanus in the 4th century for the oldest witness to the text. However, in the case of Luke 3:23, we are lucky enough to have a copy from around 200 AD - still many decades after the original, but better than most examples. That's manuscript P4. So, I'll leave it from there to you to find any support for your punctuation idea.
I still don't think your argument holds water. With or without punctuation, the text says that the geneology is that of Joseph.
Here, again, is the text. It's quite clear, and lacks the obvious and widely recognized poetic elements of Genesis.
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki.....
Sure it is. You are saying that Gen 1 & 2 give the details of how God created, ruling out that he created by using evolution.
Right. That's why God gave us a poetic allegory, instead of telling us how he did the creating. That's why he left the details for us today, when he would give us the details through modern science.
Did you not read my post describing how Adam is a literal first human? Here, read it again, I just copied it to answer the same question here, in post #5:
Except that scholar after scholar, theologian after theologian, and people posting on these fora too, have all pointed out repeatedly that the text itself (both in Genesis and Paul in Romans, and elsewhere) point out that this is spiritual death, not physical death. Did Adam drop dead when the fall happened? No. If it were physical death, he would have.
Just like all of Jesus ministry is false if the Good Samaritan story isn't didn't actually happen?
You've repeated your statement above several times, and the Good Samaritan and other allegory in the bibles show it doesn't hold up. I think we may have to agree to disagree here too.
Are you completely unware of the context back then? There were stories of competing Gods and Goddesses at every turn. Baal, Tiamat, Marduk, Osiris, Dionysus, Jupiter, Horus, Zeus, and on and on. Claiming that Yahweh (and no one else) was the creator was indeed needed, and was certainly not someting "everyone knew".
Why would an allegorical reading not answer those? All those answers are still given if one sees these stories as descriptive, not as scientific textbooks (which would not have been understood at the time).
But without death, it can't function. Please answer yes or no as to whether or not you bothered to read my link about the mantisplosion. If you aren't going to listen, then there is no point in our discussion. Also, are you unaware of how material is recycled in the biosphere? That, like so many other aspects of life, requires death.
Non sequitur. The fact that some events could wipe out all life is irrelevant and doesn't change the fact that death is a natural and necessary part of a functioning system.
Please describe how children (of all species) can exist on a finite earth without death.
Papias
lantern wrote:
By removing death, that's what you are arguing, because the creation cannot work without it. You even recognized this to the point of sugguesting that we'd have to invade other planets to compensate. Again, what about the mantisplosion?
Are you unaware of what makes a planet inhabitable? It's not an assumption that a habitable planet will already have life, it's a logical conclusion from your statement that these are inhabitable planets. Earth's chemistry and environment are made by life. Without abiogenesis, we'd have no oxygen to breathe, have a toxic atmosphere similar to Saturn's moon Titan, have no available fixated nitrogen for our DNA, have no glucose production from the sun for food, and have not protective ozone to protect us from UV radiation from space, among many other things. Earth's habitable environment is a direct result of life. Please read up on biology.
Plus, if God intended us to inhabit other planets, why would he put the nearest possibly habitable planets literally millions of years of travel away?
They are considering space colonies supplied from earth, local to the earth. Interstellar colonization is science fiction.
That's not a definition, just a statement of fact. Different forms of multicellular life have different kinds of blood. Sounds like you don't have a definiton, which is OK.
As I pointed out, God could have easily avoided death there (including the deaths of Israelites and children), and did not. Your pointing out that this was a judgement for some of the Canaanites doesn't change that.
So God didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? God didn't make the flood?
It seems like the opposite - that the things we see in science show us that God loves us, by showing that examples of God being intentionally cruel and deadly often didn't happen. Look at the conquest example above, where God's plan kills children and innocent Israelite soldiers. The evidence shows that God didn't actually do that. Or the flood. Or Sodom and Gomorrah. Or the idea that God would make an unworkable world, where children are impossible - science shows that God didn't do any of that. If anything, science shows time and time again that God loves us, countering a literal reading that would otherwise show that God is hateful and illogical towards us.
So is extinction for most, but not all, species. God has never caused all species to go extinct. He always preserves a remnant, just as the scripture says. We are that chosen remnant - he would not cause us to go extinct.
But you seem to have missed my point. My point was that by saying you don't trust "current day observations" means that you have to also not trust Genesis itself. All of your reading of Genesis is a "current day observation". You are treating some current day observations (your observation of our current version of Genesis) as if they weren't current day observations.
Such as the recording of Genesis? Such as the copying of Genesis? Such as your instructions from other humans that you should read Genesis literally? All those are current day observations by humans - by you, a human.
Why do you think that is true? Because of current day observations?
OK, but your idea that Genesis holds past observation is itself based on your current day observations. If you think current day observations can't be trusted, then your very idea of using Genesis goes out the window.
You have a lot less information than the millions of Christians who are looking at this, researching it, and writing about it. Maybe start with a basic degree in a relevant field, so you at least have some of the information available today?
In Christ-
Papias
I might have said there was no punctuation marks in the earliest copies we have........That's not the best translation of the text. The oldest copy of the text only says son once, then the rest of the way it says of [name of the person].
I never argued that Genesis gave the excruciating detail on how God created, or that it goes into true scientific breakdown.
I argue the people wouldn't have understood the breakdown into the laws and details of God's creation, but that doesn't mean they didn't understand what history is or that they didn't care about their origins.
Genesis is not a science book, but it should be a history book or else the whole thing is not true.
For the sake of the argument concerning how the people viewed Scripture, let's say we took a time machine and traveled to 500 BC/BCE Israel. We then told the people that the Exodus and everything written about Moses, didn't literally happen. We told the people that Solomon wasn't as wealthy as it's written. Finally we tell them, that Israel's true origins were just a gathering of Canaanite tribes. What do you think their response would be? If they agree with us, then I would submit to your thoughts concerning Scripture.
I'm sorry if I have, I do respond to just about all of what you state in your posts.
Now, you've asked me concerning the details of Genesis and how God created, so I'll present that same questioning to you. How did God put a soul into this newly evolving ape/human? What are the mechanisms here?
Yet as for my response to this thought, overall it isn't a solid answer. ....By the way, evolution doesn't work like this. .....Evolution works as the whole species evolve, a group comes about, not a single creature. So you would have to say Adam actually represents a whole group of newly evolved humans. The problem with that is Jesus relates to Adam (concerning Christian theology) as a single person. So if Jesus was a single person, Adam had to be a single person as well.
Originally Posted by Papias
Well, this really opens up another topic worth discussion. Yet it's clear from Scripture, that God sees death as an enemy. Here's 1 Corinthians 15: 20-28...
You keep mentioning this story, but the biggest difference is the Samaritan story wasn't the beginning of the Gospel. Genesis is the beginning of the whole Biblical set up.
.....An allegory wouldn't answer questions of origins, unless it's a true allegory.
I mean how can you prove that it's inspired by God at all? You don't have a problem with any of that?
Originally Posted by Papias
Well, who are we trying to convince? If we are talking about the people of Israel, then they certainly knew God was the creator.Are you completely unware of the context back then? There were stories of competing Gods and Goddesses at every turn. Baal, Tiamat, Marduk, Osiris, Dionysus, Jupiter, Horus, Zeus, and on and on. Claiming that Yahweh (and no one else) was the creator was indeed needed, and was certainly not someting "everyone knew".
But without death, it can't function. Please answer yes or no as to whether or not you bothered to read my link about the mantisplosion. ... Also, are you unaware of how material is recycled in the biosphere? That, like so many other aspects of life, requires death.
No, I don't think I read your link concerning mantisplosion.
My thing is, and I know you will never agree with me whatsoever on this point, the earth operated differently before the fall.
Well, if something threaten to wipe out the human race, don't you think God need to intervene? If He does, this system isn't functioning like He wanted it to it seems.
Oh, and now I know what you mean concerning mantisplosion.I have a response concerning that, it concerns the same thing concerning current day observation.
Originally Posted by Papias
Are you unaware of what makes a planet inhabitable? It's not an assumption that a habitable planet will already have life, it's a logical conclusion from your statement that these are inhabitable planets. Earth's chemistry and environment are made by life. Without abiogenesis, we'd have no oxygen to breathe, have a toxic atmosphere similar to Saturn's moon Titan, have no available fixated nitrogen for our DNA, have no glucose production from the sun for food, and have not protective ozone to protect us from UV radiation from space, among many other things. Earth's habitable environment is a direct result of life. Please read up on biology.
Things like abiogenesis is in itself an assumption. Yes, if it did happen, we can logically conclude it happen elsewhere. All the stuff that you mention concerning the chemistry of inhabitable planets, would be true.
Again, the Biblical definition of life is creatures with blood. ....inhabitable planet, and assume things like bacteria and other single cell organisms were on that planet as a result, that wouldn't mean there is "life" on that planet. Scientific life, yes, but not Biblical life.Plus, if God intended us to inhabit other planets, why would he put the nearest possibly habitable planets literally millions of years of travel away?
Different kinds of blood is not blood, or at least not the blood that is referred to in the Bible.
Granted, it's not a specific scientific defintion, but it's clear enough. God equates the blood being the representative of the life of a creature, so every creature that has this type of blood, is what life is in the Biblical sense.
Again, think about Jesus blood, how important it is to the theology conerning His sacrifice. How it connects to the sayings concerning blood in the OT. So there's an evident definition here, concerning true life.
First, we can't speak on the death of Israelites. We could just as easily say God protected all the Israelite soldiers as they fought, and suffer no loss. It's not farfetched at all to say that.
Secondly, death is the judgment for going against God.
It's a natural result, but the wrath of God on the people dealt with putting them to death and wiping out their name from the face of the earth. God doesn't enjoy it, but it was a legal judgment. It had to be done in other words.
Originally Posted by Papias
So God didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? God didn't make the flood?
He did do those things, but what does that have to do with God creating death? Those things came as a result of the wickedness of the people. They felt the wrath of God. Yet God didn't originally create death and suffering as a natural part of the world.
So the ebola virus demonstrated God's love for us? The Black Plague that nearly wiped out Europe? If those things represent God's love, I don't know what to tell you.
A literal reading shows us that man is the one that brought suffering into the world, that God actually created a paradise and intended for us to live forever with Him.
I can see you accept pretty much all of what science has told you about the natural world. Yet you don't truly consider what it says about God, if He created this place to operate as we see it today. I think if we were honest, while science doesn't rule out God or a god's existence, it for sure rules out God as describe in the Bible hands down. I don't see how you reconcile the God of the Bible as creating the world we see today. It's not possible.
So He would have to intervene for us not to go extinct. So there's a problem with the world, if God has to intervene at any point.
Because you are reading it today. Because, based on observations today, you think it was written earlier than today. By saying that today's observations can't be trusted, you are going back on your statement that you would avoid last thursdayism.Originally Posted by Papias
I don't think I follow this line of reasoning. How can written information be a current day observation?But you seem to have missed my point. My point was that by saying you don't trust "current day observations" means that you have to also not trust Genesis itself. All of your reading of Genesis is a "current day observation". You are treating some current day observations (your observation of our current version of Genesis) as if they weren't current day observations.
the information there is ultimately from Him. So even if I'm looking at it today, the information is about the beginning.
No, you didn't. You showed that you still don't get it - you still are only applying your "current observation" objection in an selective way, as if you had blinders on.Originally Posted by Papias
OK, but your idea that Genesis holds past observation is itself based on your current day observations. If you think current day observations can't be trusted, then your very idea of using Genesis goes out the window.
So I hope I answered your line of reasoning here. Also, I don't say observations can't be trusted, but that there is missing observation, and we can't come to a full conclusion concerning our origins just based on what we see today.
I don't need a degree specifically. There's books composed of all the information they had, and I have new scientific discoveries to work with. All the information I need is available to anyone.
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?