Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

[Job 33:6]

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Death did not exist, before sin, and animals weren’t carnivores, until the curse on creation due to sin - and in fact on the new earth which is restored to edenic conditions, the lion becomes an herbivore again, and a child can safely play with every kind of formerly dangerous carnivore.

Isa 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Isa 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain:

sa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

 

[Derf]

Dr. Craig did exactly what he said others are doing--he said "There's going to have to be animal predation for the ecosystem to survive." Yet scripture does give an example of an ecosystem where predation is no longer happening, at least at some level, as previously posted by others (wolf with lamb, lion with ox, etc.). So Dr Craig is inconsistent with himself, and that seriously hampers his believability.

The question isn't whether there is scriptural evidence of such, but whether the scriptures are being understood correctly--or perhaps whether the scriptures are lying to us (which possibility I hope we all would reject).

 

[Derek1111]

Dr. Craig did exactly what he said others are doing--he said "There's going to have to be animal predation for the ecosystem to survive." Yet scripture does give an example of an ecosystem where predation is no longer happening, at least at some level, as previously posted by others (wolf with lamb, lion with ox, etc.). So Dr Craig is inconsistent with himself, and that seriously hampers his believability.

The question isn't whether there is scriptural evidence of such, but whether the scriptures are being understood correctly--or perhaps whether the scriptures are lying to us (which possibility I hope we all would reject).

So you don't see that as simple typology, referring to the Christ's sacrifice and conquest? Riiiiight

 

[Job 33:6]

Dr. Craig did exactly what he said others are doing--he said "There's going to have to be animal predation for the ecosystem to survive." Yet scripture does give an example of an ecosystem where predation is no longer happening, at least at some level, as previously posted by others (wolf with lamb, lion with ox, etc.). So Dr Craig is inconsistent with himself, and that seriously hampers his believability.

The question isn't whether there is scriptural evidence of such, but whether the scriptures are being understood correctly--or perhaps whether the scriptures are lying to us (which possibility I hope we all would reject).

Yea, I think this is interesting, comparing prophetic visions of the future with ideas of the past.

Personally, I just don't get the impression that heaven is a place where people still have physical bodies and walk around on ground living as we do here on earth. The idea of a lion laying down with a lamb, I view this more as figurative message of prophecy rather than a literal description of what will be.

Isaiah 11:6: An Interpretation - The Wolf Dwells with the Lamb | Biblical Foundations for Freedom

Really, even physical bodies, in many ways, come up short of the Glory of God. A physical body can trip and stumble on a branch of the ground. Would we not feel pain if we fell to the ground while in heaven?

I think it's easier to view heaven as a non physical place. Meaning that, there wouldn't be a physical lion sitting next to a physical lamb.

Whereas creation, it's separated from God in this physical existence where brokenness is essentially mandatory.

And all of this goes back to what WLC said. I agree with WLC when he said that people read between the lines quite often in scripture. If scripture isn't a literal scientific textbook, then I don't have any person reason to defy what I see with my eyeballs (death in the Cambrian) based on things that scripture doesn't plainly say.

So, I do agree that it's important to understand what the original authors meant when they spoke. But I am also firmly aware that the original authors didn't speak in literal scientific language. They spoke poetically. Particularly in Genesis. And this position is very strongly supported by many biblical scholars. I have no reason to disagree.

 

[Derf]

Yea, I think this is interesting, comparing prophetic visions of the future with ideas of the past.

Personally, I just don't get the impression that heaven is a place where people still have physical bodies and walk around on ground living as we do here on earth. The idea of a lion laying down with a lamb, I view this more as figurative message of prophecy rather than a literal description of what will be.

Isaiah 11:6: An Interpretation - The Wolf Dwells with the Lamb | Biblical Foundations for Freedom

Perhaps Craig does too, but that surely doesn’t mean scripture says no such thing—it means you/he interpret it differently. Craig also seems to assert that God couldn’t have changed the ecosystem in the past, nor will in the future. But we know this isn’t true, since there will be plenty of changes.

Regarding the lack of physical bodies, your view has Christ pretty lonely for eternity, as the only one there with one.

 

[Derf]

So you don't see that as simple typology, referring to the Christ's sacrifice and conquest? Riiiiight

I’m not that good at reading your sarcasm. Are agreeing with me or disagreeing?

 

[Job 33:6]

Perhaps Craig does too, but that surely doesn’t mean scripture says no such thing—it means you/he interpret it differently. Craig also seems to assert that God couldn’t have changed the ecosystem in the past, nor will in the future. But we know this isn’t true, since there will be plenty of changes.

Regarding the lack of physical bodies, your view has Christ pretty lonely for eternity, as the only one there with one.

Why can't we be present with spiritual bodies? My bones and skeleton, it all decays and gets eaten by worms.

Maybe my body will be physical in some other way. But not as we know our bodies to be physical here on earth.

My physical body feels pain. It's limited. Like I said above, if my eyes close, I might trip on a stick and get hurt. What kind of heaven would there be where I could trip on a stick and fall and get hurt?

It makes more sense to me that the physical bodies we have will be no more in heaven. Maybe we will take on some other physical form, but I personally don't think it will be as it is in this broken world. Same with the lion and the lamb. A lion has sharp teeth and a digestive system created for eating meat. So God wouldnt punish a lion in heaven by giving it the same body as here on earth.

And that's why heaven is not earth. I just don't think they should be compared in such a way.

 

[Derf]

Well remember, fish are very common in cenozoic strata. And fish are of course alive today as well. So it isn't really an issue to find ceolacanth (also a fish) living just the same, no more is it an issue that any other fish lives today. And ceolacanths species today are morphologically different than ceolacanth species of the carboniferous and morphologically different still than ceolacanth species of the Devonian. So keep that in mind as well. Most people don't know that. They think ceolacanth species today are the same species of the past, but that's actually incorrect. And if you would like more info on that, feel free to ask.

It's not about where any fossils are present but rather it's a question of when their physical traits appear. So it doesn't have anything to do with elevations they live at. Plus whales are also found above most mammals. So that would just turn that idea on its head anyway.

Also, further still, if you think about how fossils are collected, we aren't typically digging deep quarries to get to them. They're exposed at the surface by tilted strata that extends deep into the earth. The structure of the earth is not what it once was. Think big picture. What elevations things lived at is irrelevant, because eons of time, mountains, seas, deserts, frozen tundra etc are all flattened together into these layers we are discussing. "Cenozoic" or "cretaceous" encompasses all elevations, deep sea and highest peaks. It's temporal not geographic.

Ultimately I'm just doing this all for fun, for entertainment purposes. If fish appear lower in strata, it's interesting to see that their DNA is more basal than a reptile or horse as well. And whale DNA is nothing like a fishes, though they appear physically the same (until you look at their skeletons).

I digress.



But of course ceolacanth dates back to the Devonian.

Think about it like this. If reptiles hypothetically evolved from fish, such as from ceolacanth (which is a fish), then it must be true that reptiles cannot be found before the first appearance of fish (with respect to first appearance). However, it absolutely can be true that fish still live on and fish are still alive today. Ceolacanth, just as any other fish existing today simply tells us that they lived on. So it's not an issue that fish live today. But the reverse is true that if reptiles lived back then, then you would disprove the theory.

It's not illogical for me to live along side my father at the same time in this current day. But it is illogical for me to pre-date the existence of my father. Keep this in mind.

Other examples:
If you found a bird or mammal in Paleozoic strata. And I mean literally any bird or any mammal in the Paleozoic. It would disprove the theory. Because how could a mammal or bird exist if reptiles had not yet come to be?

I'm sure you've heard scientists say that birds evolved from dinosaurs. So imagine if you found a bird in rocks older than dinosaurs, you would twist the whole succession apart. But, there is nothing unreasonable about reptiles and birds living side by side today.

If we found any tetrapod in the Ordovician, Cambrian or earlier, it would disprove the theory. Etc.



Same deal as above.
Grass:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaceae
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poales
The Poales are a large order of flowering plants in the monocotyledons, and includes families of plants such as the grasses, bromeliads, and sedges.

"The earliest fossils attributed to the Poales date to the late Cretaceous period about 66 million years ago, though some studies (e.g., Bremer, 2002) suggest the origin of the group may extend to nearly 115 million years ago, likely in South America. The earliest known fossils include pollen and fruits."



There's nothing unreasonable about discovering grass to be older than it was previously thought, or finding a fish to be younger than was previously thought.

The key is to pay attention to the phylogenies.

Grass is a flowering plant. Flowering plants date back some 150 million years ago, descended from seeded plants which extend back 350 million years ago. So moving grass from 50 to 100, or 100 to 50, doesn't really change the succession of non vascular>vascular>seeded>flowering. You would have to find grasses back over 300 million years for it to become a logical problem. So finding grass at 65 million years or 70, that's just an update to good science, but it isn't a logical conflict with common descent.

If my father is 70 years old, it might be shocking to you if you thought I was 30 years old then later found out that I was 40. Surprising? Sure. But illogical? Not at all. But if I were 75 years old, then it would become illogical.

You seem to treat the lineages as if they are linear, but the descent of any two kinds of animal, like a mammal vs a reptile, or a cat vs a dog, always comes through a nebulous “common” ancestor, rather than one to another. At least that’s what the literature I’ve seen always says. And your pictures previously posted affirmed it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Why can't we be present with spiritual bodies? My bones and skeleton, it all decays and gets eaten by worms.

Maybe my body will be physical in some other way. But not as we know our bodies to be physical here on earth.

My physical body feels pain. It's limited. Like I said above, if my eyes close, I might trip on a stick and get hurt. What kind of heaven would there be where I could trip on a stick and fall and get hurt?

It makes more sense to me that the physical bodies we have will be no more in heaven. Maybe we will take on some other physical form, but I personally don't think it will be as it is in this broken world. Same with the lion and the lamb. A lion has sharp teeth and a digestive system created for eating meat. So God wouldnt punish a lion in heaven by giving it the same body as here on earth.

And that's why heaven is not earth. I just don't think they should be compared in such a way.

And I do understand the importance of putting scripture in a context and understanding what the original authors meant, and then further figuring out how that might apply to myself. But as noted in another post, I tend to fall in line with the biblical position that the authors of the Old Testament believed in things like a flat earth and a dome over it.

Things can be wholly true, while also not necessarily being scientific literal text. And I think that holds true not just in Genesis, but also when we talk about the lion laying next to the lamb.

And several biblical scholars have plenty of commentary on Genesis that go into detail on this.

William Lane Craig's position is actually in line with the collective positions of many biblical scholars. And I completely agree with this scholarly position. I find it very biblically convincing and in line with historical records and of course in line with science.

 

[Derf]

Why can't we be present with spiritual bodies? My bones and skeleton, it all decays and gets eaten by worms.

Maybe my body will be physical in some other way. But not as we know our bodies to be physical here on earth.

My physical body feels pain. It's limited. Like I said above, if my eyes close, I might trip on a stick and get hurt. What kind of heaven would there be where I could trip on a stick and fall and get hurt?

It makes more sense to me that the physical bodies we have will be no more in heaven. Maybe we will take on some other physical form, but I personally don't think it will be as it is in this broken world. Same with the lion and the lamb. A lion has sharp teeth and a digestive system created for eating meat. So God wouldnt punish a lion in heaven by giving it the same body as here on earth.

And that's why heaven is not earth. I just don't think they should be compared in such a way.

I’m just saying that Christ, the first born from the dead, had a physical body the disciples were able to touch. It was changed in some way, perhaps, but we aren’t told how or even that it was changed. That body ascended into heaven. That body was Christ’s new “clothing” to use Paul’s analogy.

 

[Derf]

I tend to fall in line with the biblical position that the authors of the Old Testament believed in things like a flat earth and a dome over it.

Why would you believe that they believed that? Seems like you’ve bought into the caricature.

William Lane Craig's position is actually in line with the collective positions of many biblical scholars. And I completely agree with this scholarly position.

If it’s scholars that decide for you, then you have to balance the other scholars that disagree. That puts the onus back on you to read the scripture for what it says rather than just trust the one group of scholars over the other.

 

[Job 33:6]

I’m just saying that Christ, the first born from the dead, had a physical body the disciples were able to touch. It was changed in some way, perhaps, but we aren’t told how or even that it was changed. That body ascended into heaven. That body was Christ’s new “clothing” to use Paul’s analogy.

Jesus has always clothed himself In a way that people can interpret and understand and process. I think it's in the book of Timothy where centurions approach Jesus and he simply says "I AM", And the romans are taken back and stumbled when they experienced Christ. Christ comes as a human so that we can receive Him. But once we lose our physical human bodies, and we are reunited with Him, He may not need to be in human form for us to receive Him.

When Thomas stuck his finger in Christ's abdomen, Thomas was still a flawed human being that needed God to present himself in an understandable way to Thomas. Otherwise Thomas would have never understood what was going on.

But in the afterlife, where we become one in Christ and leave the broken world behind, I don't think we would necessarily need God to be in human form for us to receive Him.

But regardless I think that no matter what way we look at it, whatever this afterlife experience is or will be, I think that it's just a different game than what worldly creation was. I don't think it's a fair comparison to compare a lion and a lamb of Genesis with a lion and a lamb of heavenly prophecy.

 

[Job 33:6]

Why would you believe that they believed that? Seems like you’ve bought into the caricature.

If it’s scholars that decide for you, then you have to balance the other scholars that disagree. That puts the onus back on you to read the scripture for what it says rather than just trust the one group of scholars over the other.

I've come to the conclusion personally that the scholars as described above are the correct scholars (Or are at least more correct than the alternative YEC scholars) . And I'd be happy to go into detail. But first I'm going to grab some lunch.

 

[Job 33:6]

I've come to the conclusion personally that the scholars as described above are the correct scholars. And I'd be happy to go into detail. But first I'm going to grab some lunch.

I've been gradually gathering verses from Genesis and different sources to make the case, and I think it's relatively easy to make personally.

The case of why the authors of Genesis believed that the earth was flat. Which is not to be confused with the idea that the authors of Genesis were telling us anything that wasn't true. But rather they were receiving and expressing God's truth through their worldview of the time that they lived in.


So people of antiquity, not just the authors of Genesis but worldwide, believe that the Earth was flat. There's nothing surprising about this because they didn't have satellites nor had they traveled the world to know that it was a big sphere. And the earth is so big that it simply looks flat to the naked eye.

And to the naked eye, the sky looks like a dome. It ends at the horizons of the land.

And the stars of the sky, they look equidistant. The sun and moon also look equidistant. The stars float in space, but if we didn't travel space or invent telescopes, They might actually appear to be stuck in the dome of the sky.

And the sky is blue similar to the ocean. If we didn't know any better, we might think that there was water in the sky which made it blue. Especially since water also comes down in the form of rain.

This was the historical view of people's of prehistory.

So now we can start looking at scripture and see what it says to see if it suggests that authors of Genesis believed the same.


Genesis 1:6 LEB
Genesis 1:6 And God said, “Let there be a vaulted dome in the midst of the waters, and let it cause a separation between the waters.” | Lexham English Bible (LEB)

So we have water below and water above the "dome" in the sky. So the dome is probably something relatively thin. Maybe something similar to a spread sheet of metal, or an "expanded" sheet of metal, hence the translation "expanse" as we might expand metal by stretching it much like a blacksmith might stretch or expand a sword with a hammer. yet it is a divine solid construct. It is "firm" as in "firmament", solid. The ancient root word for aluminum also holds association with raqia, the Hebrew word for this dome.

Praise him, highest heavens, and waters above the heavens.
Psalms 148:4 LEB

Describing water above the dome which flooded the earth in Genesis.

Genesis 1:14 LEB
Genesis 1:14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vaulted dome of heaven to separate day from night, and let them be as signs and for appointed times, and for days and years | Lexham English Bible (LEB)

Lights, meaning stars, moon and sun (lesser and greater lights), in, stuck in, or pinned into the dome, meaning equidistant along a flat structure immediately above the observer. The stars move together at the same pace as the dome shifts because the stars are stuck "in" it.


Genesis 1:20 LEB
Genesis 1:20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly over the earth across the face of the vaulted dome of heaven. | Lexham English Bible (LEB)

"Across the face" or "in front of" the face (face being flat). So the dome was flat and birds flew in front of it and across the flat face of it.

Much like the ark sailed in front of or above the waters here:
And the waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth. And the ark went upon the surface of the waters.
Genesis 7:18 LEB

The same Hebrew language is used. Birds are not flying in the firmament. They're flying in front of it.




Genesis 7:11 LEB
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month—on that day all the springs of the great deep were split open, and the windows of heaven were op

"Windows of heaven" or sometimes translated as flood gates. They opened, then when the flood ended, the gates closed.

This suggests that there were flood gates or windows that were holding back water. The dome with it's windows was holding back water. The blue dome, blue because of water which it held back. Again suggesting that it was thin and solid and firm as in firmament. The water above the dome being heavenly waters separated from waters as described in Gen 1:6.

1 Samuel 2:8
"For the pillars of earth belong to Yahweh." LEB

Pillars that hold up the flat land.


Job 9:6 LEB
Job 9:6 He is the one who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble. | Lexham English Bible (LEB)

Again, pillars.


Job 37:18 LEB
Job 37:18 with him can you spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror? | Lexham English Bible (LEB)

Molten mirror, he's referring to the spreading of a metal, or expanding or stretching out of a metal. This is in line with the understanding that the dome was spread out, like an expanse but was also firm as in firmament. And again, it a dome doesn't have to be metal to be solid. It's unclear what the authors believed the dome was made of, but they clearly believed it to be a solid structure that held back flood waters and held up the stars (stars pinned "in" them like thumbtacks to a cork board) so they wouldn't fall down to the ground.

And there are many other verses too, there are verses in Ezekiel about people looking up and seeing a throne with a human being above the firmament. How could people see a human being above the firmament if it were 10 billion light years away. The stars are in the firmament after all, so to see above the firmament, you would have to be able to see great distances.


And from above the expanse that was above their heads there was the likeness of a throne, looking like a sapphire, and above the likeness of the throne was a likeness similar to the appearance of a human on it, but above it.
Ezekiel 1:26 LEB

So there's a human above the firmament that people can see above their heads. Remember, the stars are in the firmament. Are we to believe that the authors of Ezekiel are describing seeing a human beyond the stars? Modern telescopes can't even do that.

Ezekiel 1:25 LEB
Ezekiel 1:25 And there was a sound from above the expanse that was above their heads, and when they stood they lowered their wings. | Lexham English Bible (LEB)

And before the throne was something like a sea of glass, like crystal, and in the midst of the throne and around the throne were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back.
Revelation 4:6 LEB

And I saw something like a sea of glass mixed with fire, and those who had conquered the beast and his image and the number of his name were standing by the glassy sea, holding harps from God.
Revelation 15:2 LEB

Exodus 24:10
And they saw the God of Israel, and what was under his feet was like sapphire tile work and like the very heavens for clearness. [Like glass]
Exodus 24:10 LEB

Time and time again, descriptions of a solid structure. Glass, crystal, tile work etc.

Again, the throne is above the firmament. Here it is described like a sea of glass, like crystal.


Men hearing God's voice from above the firmament. Again, suggesting that the dome of the sky and the stars pinned in the dome were not very far away and that man could hear sound from beyond the dome. And not only that but people could see God's throne on the other side of the firmament, also suggesting that it was relatively close and nearby, in line with beliefs of all other societies at that time.

There is a verse in Isaiah of the dome being spread out like a tent. Or a cover over the land. And another verse in Isaiah about the firmament "rolling up like a scroll". So much like when we go camping, we spread a tent over us atop flat land. The tent holds back water, it's thin and spread out etc.

Isaiah 40:22 LEB
Isaiah 40:22 He is the one who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; the one who stretches out the heavens like a veil and spreads them out like a tent to live in | Lex

And the verses go on and on. In all these dozen plus versus, They all continually indicate that the authors of Genesis viewed creation as every other culture of that time did. The authors of Genesis weren't alone, native Americans, Australian aboriginals, southeast Asians, Chinese, Japanese, African tribes, south American tribes etc. societies worldwide held this very same view that the land was flat with a dome over it. They all had stories just like this (you can read about views of other nations in my linked source below).

And so when we read Genesis, we have to understand that God gives His truth to people in ways that they understand at their place and time in history. And this tells us that Genesis isn't a scientific literal text book.

And this position is supported by many biblical scholars and can be widely read about in Biblical commentary's. Here are a couple links for sources:

https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...s/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf
The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40

The Firmament of Genesis 1 is Solid but That’s Not the Point - Articles

When was it discovered that the stars are not all lying on the same plane?

This case is purely made scripturally. But it's affirmed by historical accounts (all other societies at this time in history also believed in a flat earth with a solid dome over it, ie native Americans, aboriginals, early Asian societies etc.) and as a scientist, it resolved all of my questions and concerns over the whole biblical flood as well. And I believe this to be the case even before I realized that there were many scholars who already backed it.

One of the gifts of living in today's age is that we tend to record information pretty good. And if you have an inkling about an idea, there's a good chance that someone's already had those thoughts and recorded ideas ahead of you. So, thankfully I didn't have to reinvent the wheel, and the wheel was right there before me in Claus Westerman's commentary on Genesis 1 and 2. And it's widely circulated amongst Christian biblical scholars and scientists, among others.




Jews speculated as to what material the firmament was made of: clay or copper or iron (3 Apoc. Bar. 3.7). They differentiated between the firmament
and the empty space or air between it and the earth (Gen. Rab. 4.3.a; 2 Apoc.Bar. 21.4). They tried to figure out how thick it was by employing biblical
interpretation (Gen. Rab. 4.5.2). Most tellingly they even tried to calculate scientifically the thickness of the firmament (Pesab. 49a).Christians speculated as to whether it was made of earth, air, fire, or
water (the basic elements of Greek science). Origen called the firmament"without doubt firm and solid" (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose,
commenting on Gen 1:6, said, "the specific solidity of this exterior firma-ment is meant" (Hexameron, FC 42.60). Augustine said the word firmament
was used "to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the
waters below" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).Greeks from Anaximenes to Aristotle set forth as scientific fact that the firmament was made of a crystalline substance to which "the stars are fixed like nails."44 This idea was passed on for centuries via Ptolemy's Almagest.
The barbarians meanwhile worried about the sky falling on them if they did not keep their promises!45
The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40

 

[Job 33:6]

You seem to treat the lineages as if they are linear, but the descent of any two kinds of animal, like a mammal vs a reptile, or a cat vs a dog, always comes through a nebulous “common” ancestor, rather than one to another. At least that’s what the literature I’ve seen always says. And your pictures previously posted affirmed it.

Well mammals did come from reptiles, which is linear. The common ancestors of course being reptile-like mammals and mammal-like reptiles. Which are very well known in the fossil record. They're called "synapsids".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid

Back when mammals laid eggs and morphologically they were indistinguishable from reptiles. People argue back and forth "it's a reptile!" "No it's a mammal!". All the while they are species that are both in one.

But it all depends on the species in question. A lion and a tiger for example wouldn't be in a straight line lineage because they both exist side by side. So they came from a common cat ancestor for example. A cat and a dog would have an ancestor further back in the Eocene.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacis
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustafsonia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paroodectes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapocyon

That's why it's called a "tree" or "bush" of life. Because there is a trunk but there are also branches. One lineage to us with endless branches going of at all times in all directions forming countless extinct cousins and co-lineages of species living side by side. Just as I live side by side with my cousin, but we still have a common ancestor of a grandfather.

 

[Derf]

Jesus has always clothed himself In a way that people can interpret and understand and process. I think it's in the book of Timothy where centurions approach Jesus and he simply says "I AM", And the romans are taken back and stumbled when they experienced Christ. Christ comes as a human so that we can receive Him. But once we lose our physical human bodies, and we are reunited with Him, He may not need to be in human form for us to receive Him.

When Thomas stuck his finger in Christ's abdomen, Thomas was still a flawed human being that needed God to present himself in an understandable way to Thomas. Otherwise Thomas would have never understood what was going on.

But in the afterlife, where we become one in Christ and leave the broken world behind, I don't think He would necessarily need God to be in human form for us to receive Him.

But regardless I think that no matter what way we look at it, whatever this afterlife experience is or will be, I think that it's just a different game than what worldly creation was. I don't think it's a fair comparison to compare a lion and a lamb of Genesis with a lion and a lamb of heavenly prophecy.

But Jesus, before His incarnation, never said "touch me and see that it's really me". In fact, He didn't say that before His resurrection, either--He didn't need to, since they were constantly touching Him in the normal course of life. He was born in the flesh, lived in the flesh, died in the flesh, and was resurrected in the flesh.
[Luk 24:39 KJV]
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

John used the same test to convince his readers, through personal testimony, about Jesus' physical presence on earth.
[1Jo 1:1 KJV]
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

The afterlife seems to start with the resurrection of the bodies, according to Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, and according to Revelation. And Paul tells us that we don't long to be "unclothed", but "clothed"--which is equated to "life", vs "mortality".
[2Co 5:4 KJV]For we that are in [this] tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

And if there is no resurrection of the body, then we have no hope--our faith is in vain and we are still in our sins!
[1Co 15:13 KJV]But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

[1Co 15:16 KJV]For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

[1Co 15:17 KJV]And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins.

 

[Job 33:6]

But Jesus, before His incarnation, never said "touch me and see that it's really me". In fact, He didn't say that before His resurrection, either--He didn't need to, since they were constantly touching Him in the normal course of life. He was born in the flesh, lived in the flesh, died in the flesh, and was resurrected in the flesh.
[Luk 24:39 KJV]
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

John used the same test to convince his readers, through personal testimony, about Jesus' physical presence on earth.
[1Jo 1:1 KJV]
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

The afterlife seems to start with the resurrection of the bodies, according to Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, and according to Revelation. And Paul tells us that we don't long to be "unclothed", but "clothed"--which is equated to "life", vs "mortality".
[2Co 5:4 KJV]For we that are in [this] tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

And if there is no resurrection of the body, then we have no hope--our faith is in vain and we are still in our sins!
[1Co 15:13 KJV]But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

[1Co 15:16 KJV]For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

[1Co 15:17 KJV]And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Its an interesting topic. I'll spend some time in the word and will think about your case. Though I don't agree with the lengths that you're linking ideas, I appreciate your use of scripture and will sincerely consider what you're expressing.

 

[Derf]

Well mammals did come from reptiles, which is linear. The common ancestors of course being reptile-like mammals and mammal-like reptiles. Which are very well known in the fossil record. They're called "synapsids".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid

Your own source refutes you and confirms exactly what I said:
Synapsids evolved from basal amniotes and are one of the two major groups of amniotes, the other being the sauropsids, the group that includes reptiles and birds.

But it all depends on the species in question. A lion and a tiger for example wouldn't be in a straight line lineage because they both exist side by side. So they came from a common cat ancestor for example. A cat and a dog would have an ancestor further back in the Eocene.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacis
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustafsonia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paroodectes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapocyon

And this also confirms exactly what I said. And if you say that side-by-side existence means they aren't in a straight line lineage, it also refutes what you said about mammals descending from reptiles, as the both exist side by side.

 

[Job 33:6]

Your own source refutes you and confirms exactly what I said:
Synapsids evolved from basal amniotes and are one of the two major groups of amniotes, the other being the sauropsids, the group that includes reptiles and birds.

And this also confirms exactly what I said. And if you say that side-by-side existence means they aren't in a straight line lineage, it also refutes what you said about mammals descending from reptiles, as the both exist side by side.

How did my source refute me? Not sure what you mean. When in doubt just go back in time another 20 million years and look again. I can assure you that you will find reptiles in our lineage predating mammals. Sometime around the carboniferous. And if you go back I to the Devonian you will find amphibians. And if you go back further into the Silurian you will find fish.

I'll try to explain what I mean.

I can live alongside my cousin. My cousin and I share some attributes. But I and my cousin still share a common ancestor, my grandfather.

Mammals such as elephants and rhinos are basically cousins. They share attributes. But they both still have descended from a common ungulate ancestor.

Mammals and birds are similar, both descending from reptiles.

Think about it like a tree or bush.

And just because mammals descend from one population of reptiles, doesn't mean that other populations of reptiles automatically go extinct.

Just as if I descend from my father, that doesn't mean that my aunt's and uncles don't automatically die. The aunt's and uncles keep living on and keep having children of their own as well.

I'll find a diagram to help explain.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Derf

Heres a nice one.


So, just because amphibians branch off from fish, doesn't mean that fish stop living. And on and on.

Just as if I have 4 kids and one of my kids has red hair, if my red haired child eventually has more red haired children, that doesn't make my brown haired children simply disappear. They all live on side by side.

The further along in time we go, the more and more different our family members look. Until eventually we stop recognizing them. And perhaps it might even offend some people if you tell them that they are our family.