Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

[Job 33:6]

"Me related to a fish!? How dare you! Nevah!"- said every YEC ever.

 

[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.

I don't see any of these verses suggesting that our bodies in heaven are anything like they are here on earth. For example,

For we know that if our earthly house, the tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made by hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 Corinthians 5:1 LEB

From your reference to Corinthians, Paul says that our bodies in heaven will not be made by hands and that the earthly body is destroyed. He's implying a metaphysical or spiritual construct. So that settles all the Corinthians verses.

You quotes the verse where Jesus appears to the disciples, but I would just repeat what I said above. Jesus appeared to the disciples in human form so that they would understand and believe. But in the afterlife, we are transformed and our capacity to receive Christ will be transformed. God took human form so that the broken could understand and receive Him on earth.

God took on human form in order to accomplish salvation. In heaven, God would have already accomplished salvation and wouldn't have a need to take on human form.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't see any of these verses suggesting that our bodies in heaven are anything like they are here on earth. For example,

For we know that if our earthly house, the tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made by hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 Corinthians 5:1 LEB

From your reference to Corinthians, Paul says that our bodies in heaven will not be made by hands and that the earthly body is destroyed. He's implying a metaphysical or spiritual construct. So that settles all the Corinthians verses.

You quotes the verse where Jesus appears to the disciples, but I would just repeat what I said above. Jesus appeared to the disciples in human form so that they would understand and believe. But in the afterlife, we are transformed and our capacity to receive Christ will be transformed. God took human form so that the broken could understand and receive Him on earth.

God took on human form in order to accomplish salvation. In heaven, God would have already accomplished salvation and wouldn't have a need to take on human form.

Going back to the original point though, I just don't think that it's reasonable to say that because our bodies in heaven are perfect, that this must be an accurate depiction of what earth was like before the fall. Adam was a physical creation, fully human and below heaven. Made of dust or made of a earthly constituents. Where as in 2nd Corinthians Paul says that our earthly tents or our earthly bodies will be destroyed. So while there may be a physical aspect of our body in heaven, I just don't think it's reasonable to suggest that if would be as it is here on earth.

And a prophecy involving a lion and a lamb in heaven I just don't think is reasonable to equate with the idea of a literal animal lion with a literal animal lamb side by side on earth and before the fall.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Derf

View attachment 307800

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.

One of the most important parts of this chart is to notice the colored lines above the lineages extending straight up through the geological column to present day. Suggesting that the fossil succession continues and life continues for these animals through millions of years to the present time.

People always respond saying things like "well maybe mammals could run faster" or "maybe birds just float better", but the thing is, fish fossils are found in the Cenozoic above mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. So it all falls back to understanding the timing of the first appearance of a family or order of life. Then once you see that order, then you can understand why fish DNA is more similar to amphibians than to birds. Or why a whale's DNA is more similar to other mammals than to fish.

It's because, much like my DNA is more similar to my brother than to some random Indian guy from the other side of earth, it's because I'm closer related to my brother than to the Indian guy, yet we are all still sons of Adam and in reality are just distant cousins.

Whites used to think that blacks were lesser humans. Nazis used to think that they were a superior race over Jews. But in the end, we found that we were all related. And the same applies to all animals of the animal kingdom. Apes like gorillas look way different than us, but they are our cousins, removed by about 10-15 million years. Elephants look way way different and are separated from us by around 60 million years. Reptiles look even more different and are separated from us by about 300 million years. Amphibians like salamanders and frogs look even more different and are separated from us by closer to 350 million years. Fish, again even more different still, they're more around 450 or so.

So the further you go back in time, the earlier our cousins split from us, and the more and more different they look. The more and more different their DNA is. The deeper and deeper their fossils where the split occurred goes deeper under ground into the depths of time.

And this is a really hard pill to swallow for Christians who have constructed a worldview around a literal reading of Genesis. Because to understand it and to accept it would require a deconstruction of a worldview that many of built over decades of time going to Sunday school and to conservative churches.

I think that I was fortunate to dodge this bullet because I came to faith (like really studied and learned the faith) after having learned the science. So I never had that pain staking experience of deconstructing. Yes, I had to deconstruct a little bit based on some church experiences growing up, but I never made the faith my own until after I learned this. So I think it was an easier pill for me to swallow. Then once that door opens and you begin letting that information in, you just can't unsee what is seen. God's creation speaks loud. And is way more incredible than anything I could have imagined in my early Sunday school days.

 

[Derek1111]

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

Disagreeing. To be honest, having read this thread, I initially thought you had a genuinely open mind on the issues. I now understand you differently. I suppose we all have our biases, but I think Isaiah has argued very persuasively throughout

 

[Derf]

Disagreeing. To be honest, having read this thread, I initially thought you had a genuinely open mind on the issues. I now understand you differently. I suppose we all have our biases, but I think Isaiah has argued very persuasively throughout

You don’t seem to have an open mind about whether I have an open mind on it.

Are you in agreement with Isaiah’s preference of science to interpret scripture, too, or just about the wolf/lamb/lion/ox typology?

this was your introductory email:

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

I don’t have a problem with the typology, but “simple” is hardly applicable, as it requires human interpretation to get to it, rather than a wooden, literal approach. The latter is the more obvious, but the former is the one Craig said wasn’t in the Bible. But there it is for all to see that don’t close their minds to it.

 

[Job 33:6]

You don’t seem to have an open mind about whether I have an open mind on it.

Are you in agreement with Isaiah’s preference of science to interpret scripture, too, or just about the wolf/lamb/lion/ox typology?

this was your introductory email:

I don’t have a problem with the typology, but “simple” is hardly applicable, as it requires human interpretation to get to it, rather than a wooden, literal approach. The latter is the more obvious, but the former is the one Craig said wasn’t in the Bible. But there it is for all to see that don’t close their minds to it.

For the record I am not a biblical scholar haha. If there is anything it's fair to disagree on, it's definitely my ideas on the topic of revelations and the afterlife haha! Good times. Thanks for engaging.

But I am a geologist and published in paleontology. So I may be a bit more rigid there, but I'm working my best to be flexible with both to try to find that harmony.

I'd enjoy a study just on those passages involving the lion and the lamb. Always love these dives.

 

[Job 33:6]

I do like the reference to the lions crying out for food, much like God feeds the birds of the sky as well (book of Mathew?). Why can't it be very good to have a beautiful ecosystem of diversification even if it involves death?

It does seem to play into the question of the problem of evil or suffering. And yet, God even now, allows sin, because it's ultimately for His greater glory and in accordance with His plan. Even despite the existence of pain, would any of us dare say that God's creation isn't good? Surely creation is good, even despite what we, in our broken limited minds, might reject or be upset by.

I get upset by things all the time, I get upset when politicians are elected that I don't want to be elected. And yet Romans chapter 14 (or is it 13?) tells us explicitly that it's all in accordance with God's plan And that God is the one who ultimately elected them. I might not like the pains of this world but I wouldn't dare call creation anything but very good despite my own personal limited minded concerns.

And I think the same applies to the animal kingdom and the existence of species dying.

This is just how I view the whole topic.

Paul tells us that the pains of life are nothing in comparison to the gifts of salvation. Some of us might think, how could God allow animals to die and call this very good? But what if it were all just for this vastly greater plan where the end goal were exceedingly more beautiful than any of the pains we observe or experience?

So theologically I just don't see a problem with animal death in the garden, and of course scientifically I'm convinced that there's been animal death for far longer than people have been on earth as well. And scripture just really isn't that explicit, but even if scripture works explicit, I go back to the poetic nature of Genesis. Did the authors of Genesis think that the earth was flat? I think so, I just don't think that truth has to be in literal scientific form.

The windows of the dome open to let water through, were there literally windows and some sort of a solid structure in space that let water in? No, I don't think so. But there are so many other valuable concepts that are just jam-packed and Genesis that make it such an incredible inspiration as it has been for thousands of years. And that's just the nature of how God has presented His word.

 

[Derf]

For the record I am not a biblical scholar haha. If there is anything it's fair to disagree on, it's definitely my ideas on the topic of revelations and the afterlife haha! Good times. Thanks for engaging.

I've enjoyed it! It's good to discuss things when there's disagreement. I hope we both are open to learning more.

But I am a geologist and published in paleontology. So I may be a bit more rigid there, but I'm working my best to be flexible with both to try to find that harmony.

We are often more rigid on the things we've studied more. But most of the scientific process involves allowing ourselves to put aside older explanations in favor of newer ones. And sometimes "science" may go backward (you already brought up the flat earth ideas, which were debunked in ancient times, but have arisen more recently, and the Egyptian pyramids construction techniques that were forgotten, for instance). I doubt anyone in those times of regress thought they were pushing regressive ideas. Most parts of the world exhibit evidence of advanced civilization and technology that has been lost, sometimes to be regained later, but sometimes not. Consider the indigenous tribes in South and Central America that are descended from the Incas, Aztecs, and Mayans. Sometimes we are more rigid in the things we think we know more about, or perhaps the ones which are being challenged at a particular time.

I'd enjoy a study just on those passages involving the lion and the lamb. Always love these dives.

Good thing to do sometime.

I do like the reference to the lions crying out for food, much like God feeds the birds of the sky as well (book of Mathew?). Why can't it be very good to have a beautiful ecosystem of diversification even if it involves death?

FIrst, because God actually describes what was "very good" that He had made, and it had no mention of death.
Second, because when God gave the first prohibition to Adam, the penalty was "death", which indicated that it would be a bad thing, at least for humans. We can extrapolate that to animals, but evolutionists don't have to, because humans are just animals to them--therefore, if death is bad for humans, it must be bad for animals, too. If you've watched an animal die, unless you are sadistic, you probably understand what I'm saying.
Third, the bible both starts and ends with the evil nature of death, as it is the first enemy to be introduced and the last enemy to be defeated.
[Gen 2:17 KJV] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
[1Co 15:26 KJV] The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.
[Rev 20:14 KJV] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

It does seem to play into the question of the problem of evil or suffering. And yet, God even now, allows sin, because it's ultimately for His greater glory and in accordance with His plan. Even despite the existence of pain, would any of us dare say that God's creation isn't good? Surely creation is good, even despite what we, in our broken limited minds, might reject or be upset by.

Leaving our own ideas aside, God tells us that something was wrong with violence (which involved death and suffering) in Gen 6:
[Gen 6:13 KJV]
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Whatever you believe that story to be about, surely it has to include the negativity of the way man related one to another in a violent way, similar to how some animals relate to others.

I get upset by things all the time, I get upset when politicians are elected that I don't want to be elected. And yet Romans chapter 14 (or is it 13?) tells us explicitly that it's all in accordance with God's plan And that God is the one who ultimately elected them. I might not like the pains of this world but I wouldn't dare call creation anything but very good despite my own personal limited minded concerns.

God seems to give us the rulers we deserve, just like Adam and Eve chose Satan to be their lawgiver instead of God--and God allowed it, because He gave us the ability to choose good or evil, like in Joshua's time:
[Jos 24:15 KJV]
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

So theologically I just don't see a problem with animal death in the garden, and of course scientifically I'm convinced that there's been animal death for far longer than people have been on earth as well. And scripture just really isn't that explicit, but even if scripture works explicit, I go back to the poetic nature of Genesis. Did the authors of Genesis think that the earth was flat? I think so, I just don't think that truth has to be in literal scientific form.

You have to read into the text to think Moses believed the earth was flat. That's not to say that he knew how the planets orbit the sun, or even if he knew the earth was round--the text doesn't say in Moses' writings. But there was an understanding of the lunar cycles, as they used those to determine when to have their feasts. And he did have some kind of insight into how God created--the order and the timeframes involved, which were explicit. You can keep bringing up the flat earth theories all you want, but they are definitely a strawman of your own construction.

The question is, when the truth is in literal scientific form, are you willing to believe it? Or would you still hold the interpretation of rocks as a higher source of truth than God's revealed word? For instance, when God says "let there be light", and He tells us "and there was light", do you take that literally? If not, why not? Literal scientific form, if that's supposed to be the standard for delivering truth, allows for statements of fact, right?

The windows of the dome open to let water through, were there literally windows and some sort of a solid structure in space that let water in? No, I don't think so. But there are so many other valuable concepts that are just jam-packed and Genesis that make it such an incredible inspiration as it has been for thousands of years. And that's just the nature of how God has presented His word.

Again, you insert your strawman "dome" as if it were taken from the text, but the solid "dome" idea is fairly new. "Firmament" gives the idea of structure, but we use those terms today, like here:
https://www.albany.edu/faculty/rgk/atm101/structur.htm

 

[Job 33:6]

I've enjoyed it! It's good to discuss things when there's disagreement. I hope we both are open to learning more.

We are often more rigid on the things we've studied more. But most of the scientific process involves allowing ourselves to put aside older explanations in favor of newer ones. And sometimes "science" may go backward (you already brought up the flat earth ideas, which were debunked in ancient times, but have arisen more recently, and the Egyptian pyramids construction techniques that were forgotten, for instance). I doubt anyone in those times of regress thought they were pushing regressive ideas. Most parts of the world exhibit evidence of advanced civilization and technology that has been lost, sometimes to be regained later, but sometimes not. Consider the indigenous tribes in South and Central America that are descended from the Incas, Aztecs, and Mayans. Sometimes we are more rigid in the things we think we know more about, or perhaps the ones which are being challenged at a particular time.

Good thing to do sometime.
FIrst, because God actually describes what was "very good" that He had made, and it had no mention of death.
Second, because when God gave the first prohibition to Adam, the penalty was "death", which indicated that it would be a bad thing, at least for humans. We can extrapolate that to animals, but evolutionists don't have to, because humans are just animals to them--therefore, if death is bad for humans, it must be bad for animals, too. If you've watched an animal die, unless you are sadistic, you probably understand what I'm saying.
Third, the bible both starts and ends with the evil nature of death, as it is the first enemy to be introduced and the last enemy to be defeated.
[Gen 2:17 KJV] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
[1Co 15:26 KJV] The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.
[Rev 20:14 KJV] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.


Leaving our own ideas aside, God tells us that something was wrong with violence (which involved death and suffering) in Gen 6:
[Gen 6:13 KJV]
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Whatever you believe that story to be about, surely it has to include the negativity of the way man related one to another in a violent way, similar to how some animals relate to others.
God seems to give us the rulers we deserve, just like Adam and Eve chose Satan to be their lawgiver instead of God--and God allowed it, because He gave us the ability to choose good or evil, like in Joshua's time:
[Jos 24:15 KJV]
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.



You have to read into the text to think Moses believed the earth was flat. That's not to say that he knew how the planets orbit the sun, or even if he knew the earth was round--the text doesn't say in Moses' writings. But there was an understanding of the lunar cycles, as they used those to determine when to have their feasts. And he did have some kind of insight into how God created--the order and the timeframes involved, which were explicit. You can keep bringing up the flat earth theories all you want, but they are definitely a strawman of your own construction.

The question is, when the truth is in literal scientific form, are you willing to believe it? Or would you still hold the interpretation of rocks as a higher source of truth than God's revealed word? For instance, when God says "let there be light", and He tells us "and there was light", do you take that literally? If not, why not? Literal scientific form, if that's supposed to be the standard for delivering truth, allows for statements of fact, right?
Again, you insert your strawman "dome" as if it were taken from the text, but the solid "dome" idea is fairly new. "Firmament" gives the idea of structure, but we use those terms today, like here:
https://www.albany.edu/faculty/rgk/atm101/structur.htm

My post here:
Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

Is all an explanation of a biblical interpretation of scripture that is commonly held amongst Christian scholars. I disagree with your suggestion of this position as a "strawman".

And one day perhaps God will explain to us His solution to the problem of evil. I'll be curiously awaiting that day.

 

[coffee4u]

I've enjoyed it! It's good to discuss things when there's disagreement. I hope we both are open to learning more.

We are often more rigid on the things we've studied more. But most of the scientific process involves allowing ourselves to put aside older explanations in favor of newer ones. And sometimes "science" may go backward (you already brought up the flat earth ideas, which were debunked in ancient times, but have arisen more recently, and the Egyptian pyramids construction techniques that were forgotten, for instance). I doubt anyone in those times of regress thought they were pushing regressive ideas. Most parts of the world exhibit evidence of advanced civilization and technology that has been lost, sometimes to be regained later, but sometimes not. Consider the indigenous tribes in South and Central America that are descended from the Incas, Aztecs, and Mayans. Sometimes we are more rigid in the things we think we know more about, or perhaps the ones which are being challenged at a particular time.

Good thing to do sometime.
FIrst, because God actually describes what was "very good" that He had made, and it had no mention of death.
Second, because when God gave the first prohibition to Adam, the penalty was "death", which indicated that it would be a bad thing, at least for humans. We can extrapolate that to animals, but evolutionists don't have to, because humans are just animals to them--therefore, if death is bad for humans, it must be bad for animals, too. If you've watched an animal die, unless you are sadistic, you probably understand what I'm saying.
Third, the bible both starts and ends with the evil nature of death, as it is the first enemy to be introduced and the last enemy to be defeated.
[Gen 2:17 KJV] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
[1Co 15:26 KJV] The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.
[Rev 20:14 KJV] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.


Leaving our own ideas aside, God tells us that something was wrong with violence (which involved death and suffering) in Gen 6:
[Gen 6:13 KJV]
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Whatever you believe that story to be about, surely it has to include the negativity of the way man related one to another in a violent way, similar to how some animals relate to others.
God seems to give us the rulers we deserve, just like Adam and Eve chose Satan to be their lawgiver instead of God--and God allowed it, because He gave us the ability to choose good or evil, like in Joshua's time:
[Jos 24:15 KJV]
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.



You have to read into the text to think Moses believed the earth was flat. That's not to say that he knew how the planets orbit the sun, or even if he knew the earth was round--the text doesn't say in Moses' writings. But there was an understanding of the lunar cycles, as they used those to determine when to have their feasts. And he did have some kind of insight into how God created--the order and the timeframes involved, which were explicit. You can keep bringing up the flat earth theories all you want, but they are definitely a strawman of your own construction.

The question is, when the truth is in literal scientific form, are you willing to believe it? Or would you still hold the interpretation of rocks as a higher source of truth than God's revealed word? For instance, when God says "let there be light", and He tells us "and there was light", do you take that literally? If not, why not? Literal scientific form, if that's supposed to be the standard for delivering truth, allows for statements of fact, right?
Again, you insert your strawman "dome" as if it were taken from the text, but the solid "dome" idea is fairly new. "Firmament" gives the idea of structure, but we use those terms today, like here:
https://www.albany.edu/faculty/rgk/atm101/structur.htm

How people can think tearing flesh, broken bones, death and rotting flesh are somehow 'very good' beats me.

 

[Derf]

My post here:
Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

Is all an explanation of a biblical interpretation of scripture that is commonly held amongst Christian scholars. I disagree with your suggestion of this position as a "strawman".

And one day perhaps God will explain to us His solution to the problem of evil. I'll be curiously awaiting that day.

Your post was an interpretation of a biblical scripture, not a biblical interpretation of scripture. Please note that distinction, as it is important. Just any interpretation is not necessarily a biblical one, as Peter tells us.
2 Peter 1:20-21 (KJV) 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

God has already explained his solution to the problem of evil: Jesus Christ and his death for our sins, followed by his resurrection, which gives us hope for our own resurrection.

But your acknowledgment that evil is a problem is poignant. What do you consider to be evil, and why?

 

[Job 33:6]

Your post was an interpretation of a biblical scripture, not a biblical interpretation of scripture. Please note that distinction, as it is important. Just any interpretation is not necessarily a biblical one, as Peter tells us.
2 Peter 1:20-21 (KJV) 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

God has already explained his solution to the problem of evil: Jesus Christ and his death for our sins, followed by his resurrection, which gives us hope for our own resurrection.

But your acknowledgment that evil is a problem is poignant. What do you consider to be evil, and why?

I disagree. I would say that my post is a biblical interpretation of scripture.

I think it most accurately represents scripture as noted here: Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

I didn't make up the word "dome", rather I pulled it straight from the Bible. If you have a problem with that, then you have to take it up with God.

 

[Dale]

If you read my earlier post the Bible defines things that die as having the breath of life, a soul and life blood. We know that insects do not have life blood which is why this brings up a question mark if they have a soul or the breath of life, because if they don't then they don't die in the Biblical sense of death.

There is no way for any human being to know if an insect has a soul.

You're ignoring the evidence I presented.

You're trying to figure out if insects have souls? I don't know any reason to think any animal has a soul.

 

[Dale]

In Wisdom 1 and Wisdom 2.

From Wisdom 1: "Seek not death in the error of your life: and pull not upon yourselves destruction with the works of your hands. For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth: (for righteousness is immortal) but ungodly men with their works and words called it to them: for when they thought to have it their friend, they consumed to nought, and made a covenant with it, because they are worthy to take part with it."

Wisdom 2: "For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that are of his side do find it."

On the second bolded part, it is related to what St. Augustine says on death which is: "death forces what dies into non-being, to the degree that it dies. If in fact something that dies were to die completely, it would certainly arrive at nonexistence. But it dies only to the extent that it does not participate in the essence. In short, the less it exists, the more it dies."

So that "all things" truly includes "all things," that they might have their being and not be diminished in their being when they were created (for I think it is evident that an animal or a plant diminishes when it's life/soul separates from it). These passages also connect death to the works of rational beings which are not God.

By Wisdom 1 and Wisdom 2, you mean the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach, also known as Ecclesiasticus.

I have read this book. It is not considered canonical by Jews or Protestants. In particular, although it contains sayings similar to Proverbs, there seems to be no reason to believe the author is a prophet who speaks with authority.

 

[Dale]

Ecclesiastes and Hebrews (I believe that is another place where it says "it is appointed to man once to die and after that the judgment") are both written after the Fall, so I would not consider them as teaching what was always to happen, but Ecclesiastes especially wisdom for this world and in his time (the limitation on his perspective on death being obvious, as he knows no Resurrection either as the later books, and knows of no knowledge the dead have, but all of these things changed in the later books with further revelation, making it impossible to be an eternal truth).

It is surprising that you do such a good job of putting Ecclesiastes into perspective. Does it ever occur to you to put the first chapters of Genesis into perspective? Does it ever occur to you to put the creation story (or stories) into perspective?

 

[coffee4u]

You're ignoring the evidence I presented.

You're trying to figure out if insects have souls? I don't know any reason to think any animal has a soul.

Animals do have a soul, life blood and the breath of life.

This is why an animals could be used as a sacrifice by the Jewish nation in atonement for sins. I don't explain this because its common knowledge?

Only creature with life blood can be used for sacrifice.
After that they must also be clean.

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

Insects don't have blood, any article on insects will tell you that.

“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
“a living soul” is nephesh hayyah. Hayyah means “living” and nephesh means “soul.”
Genesis 1:30 also describes animals as having nephesh hayyah

 

[coffee4u]

It is surprising that you do such a good job of putting Ecclesiastes into perspective. Does it ever occur to you to put the first chapters of Genesis into perspective? Does it ever occur to you to put the creation story (or stories) into perspective?

As I will say again.

It isn't because of Genesis 1-3 but the many many verses outside of it, pointing back to it. Verses that make no sense unless it is literal.

I tossed about 4-5 such verses into one of these thread. No one ever answers-because no one has an answer. All I got was one person who did some hand waving with a suggestion that my intelligence is lacking.
People with nothing take pot shots. People who genuinely study the Bible should want proper answers to each and every verse. Proper scriptural answers. If your world view is correct, scripture should reaffirm it many times and verses should come together in a framework that support each other.

 

[Derf]

I disagree. I would say that my post is a biblical interpretation of scripture.

I think it most accurately represents scripture as noted here: Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

I didn't make up the word "dome", rather I pulled it straight from the Bible. If you have a problem with that, then you have to take it up with God.

You pulled it from a particular translation that doesn’t match any other translation I know of, and the translators themselves offer an alternate translation of “expanse” ever time it’s given as “vaulted dome”. Thus they acknowledge the vaulted dome usage is unlikely to be understood correctly. However, the concept of a vaulted dome is entire in keeping with the current scientific understanding: the atmosphere is dome-shaped over any single point on earth.

My main complaint is that you attribute later drawings, at least the ideas they conveyed, to people in Moses time and place, though without warrant, and then you accuse them of false understanding. That’s the straw man I’m talking about. And those pictures aren’t a biblical interpretation. The Bible says this about how the earth is positioned:
Job 26:7 (KJV)
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.

 

[Job 33:6]

You pulled it from a particular translation that doesn’t match any other translation I know of,

What, so now it's a strawman if I don't use a translation that you personally agree with? You don't agree with a translation so it just becomes an issue?

NASB also uses the word "dome". Several translations also use "vault" as well. Or vaulted dome.