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.
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.
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.
So you don't see that as simple typology, referring to the Christ's sacrifice and conquest? RiiiiightDr. 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).
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).
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.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
I’m not that good at reading your sarcasm. Are agreeing with me or disagreeing?So you don't see that as simple typology, referring to the Christ's sacrifice and conquest? Riiiiight
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.
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 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.
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.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.
Why would you believe that they believed that? Seems like you’ve bought into the caricature.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.
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.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’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.
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. And I'd be happy to go into detail. But first I'm going to grab some lunch.
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.
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.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.
Your own source refutes you and confirms exactly what I said: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
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.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
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.
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?