I may give evolution a shot.

[armed2010]

You could say, that is your view.

Well, you dont believe in creationism do you? So anything supporting it would seem false to you right? Thats what you are doing.

No its not. If there was actual evidence for creationism, then wed believe the evidence. Seeing how there isnt, well, here we are.

And us creationists have felt like this before, when people ignore facts, or believe facts that have been falsified.


Hypocrisy alert!!!!

Sorry Lucaspa, about the 6th grade thing...

Its true. But I do feel sorry, that I might have hurt you(I hate hurting people, hopefuly, it did not effect you)

Also it would not matter if you dont remember that Dr. Fox theory was flasified when you where in high school. Or any other grade. Cause things change.


Examples? Evidence? Oh wait, you dont give examples or evidence my bad.

Later

 

[LorentzHA]

One more thing. So, either everyone fore the last 6,000+ years(more than 10,000,000,000+ people) , or his class is wrong with a silly theory, that there is lack of evidence for...

Where are you getting the 10 Billion + people from-WOW, whomever told you this is seriously confused. Lonnie, I hate to tell you there is not this many people on the planet. You said above 10 Billion + people???? There are only 6 Billion people on Earth and only about 1.4 Billion or so of those are Christian so around 23% and of that 23% a very small minority are Creationists.

 

[Arikay]

Nope.

I dont accept creationism as a valid theory because of the evidence falsifying it.

Your right, it does bug me when people ignore facts or believe facts that have been falsified. They do it all the time at ICR, AIG, DrDino, etc.

Just to point out, you never made a thread about current evolutionists using lies to support evolution, I would very much like to see it.

You could say, that is your view.

Well, you dont believe in creationism do you? So anything supporting it would seem false to you right? Thats what you are doing. And us creationists have felt like this before, when people ignore facts, or believe facts that have been falsified.

Sorry Lucaspa, about the 6th grade thing...

Its true. But I do feel sorry, that I might have hurt you(I hate hurting people, hopefuly, it did not effect you)

Also it would not matter if you dont remember that Dr. Fox theory was flasified when you where in high school. Or any other grade. Cause things change.

Later

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Lucaspa, you getting up set? Looks like it. Are you getting up set cause he is right? Perhaps...
People get upset normaly if they start to feel over whelmed, or wrong.

Sorry, but your arrogance on this forum is completely unwarranted. Given your admitted (and apparent) lack of education on the topic at hand and refusal to look at the information given or give a relevant response, there is simply no room for you to pretend to have superior knowledge or any justification to start criticizing lucaspa when you ignore the vast majority of information he patiently gives you.

Until you start putting up evidence in place of your bald assertions, there simply is no justification for your attitude, so I recommend abandoning it because it is quite off-putting.

So anything supporting it would seem false to you right?

No, it's not about whether something "seems" false or not. It is false, and we have given numerous reasons why (despite really only needing to present one reason). This isn't about personal beliefs, so it's not about what "seems" false but rather what is false.

And us creationists have felt like this before, when people ignore facts, or believe facts that have been falsified.

The difference here of course is that we can demonstrate that creationists such as yourself do indeed ignore facts and propagate claims that have been proved false, and we have done so in this very thread. However you cannot demonstrate that claim. You might "feel" this way but there certainly is no justification for it, especially given the fact that young earth creationism has been proved false for almost two centuries now.

 

[Cantuar]

Also it would not matter if you dont remember that Dr. Fox theory was flasified when you where in high school. Or any other grade. Cause things change.

Good grief...

 

[ObbiQuiet]

Arrr... throw this one overboard - she's irritating the misses. *motions towards the bird on his shoulder*

 

[Risen Tree]

You know, back to the purpose of this thread...the evidence for evolution is there. I just need to take a day off or something and read through it all. While it may not help that my knowledge of geology is extremely limited for obvious reasons, there are still a chance that I may be able to understand what is going on.

 

[dctalkexp]

So, you disagree with evolution because it created "by violent death and suffering" yet you fully believe your god caused a flood that created "violent death and suffering" for almost all animals and almost all men, women and children.

This is, of course, the same God who saw global genocide (of practically all life on Earth, not just humans) as the solution to the problem of humans not obeying Him... Right

Ah but you are (willingly?) ignoring the fact that it was because of man's sin that God destroyed the earth with a global flood. When dealing with Creation, there would have been no one around to do any evil, thus He would have been creating through violent death and suffering, not because of any sin or punishment, but because that's simply the way He chose to create. Sorry, but our God does not work that way. Death, deformaties, disease, etc. is not "very good," and obviously neither is your ability to understand Scripture.

 

[notto]

You know, back to the purpose of this thread...the evidence for evolution is there. I just need to take a day off or something and read through it all. While it may not help that my knowledge of geology is extremely limited for obvious reasons, there are still a chance that I may be able to understand what is going on.

If you do have a day off, I think the best way to spend your time would be at http://www.talkorigins.org. It gives the best overview available in a condensed form. Be sure to look at the 'Must Read' files if you haven't already.

One thing that becomes quickly apparent is that most creationist explainations are ad-hoc ones. They use whatever means necessary to 'prove' a particular point, even if they contradict a point they are trying to make elsewhere (A good example is mutations. They use them when they need them, but deny their reality when they are trying to shoot holes in evolution). Science needs to explain and look at all the evidence in a cohesive model. Nothing does that better than mainstream geology and evolutionary theory.

The site also gives a good overview of definitions useful for the discussion and some of the scientific and theological history of creationism and evolution.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Ah but you are (willingly?) ignoring the fact that it was because of man's sin that God destroyed the earth with a global flood.

It was a consequence of sin. And Noah and his family lived a little longer and then they died too. I suppose his reward for being a humble servant of the Lord was to live a little while longer and then die a lingering death as an old man. Yes, so now we can see that physical death and suffering is the only punishment for sin and that every character in the Bible (save Jesus), good or bad, fell to God's wrath in the end.

Is that your theology dctalkexp? Let me ask you this: Was the only consequence for the flood victims in the Noah account that they lived shorter lives than Noah? Can we then measure the consequences of sin by the quality and longevity of a man's life on this earth? Do cancer victims suffer and die because they are corrupt? And If I live to a hundred, is it because I am a more faithful servant to God than someone who dies at 50?

How about this: When Jesus talks about being the 'bread of life' does he mean physical life?

When dealing with Creation, there would have been no one around to do any evil, thus He would have been creating through violent death and suffering, not because of any sin or punishment, but because that's simply the way He chose to create.

What if Adam's physical existence was temporary, but his spiritual existence was eternal? What if physical death is therefore meaningless to Adam? IOW, what if the 'death and suffering' that we experience here is simply part of the way that a physical being can experience true love, and that experience carries through into real life: the spiritual life. The real consequence of the fall is that it put that eternal existance at risk (and that is far more serious). The rest of the scriptures tells us how to get it back. Not the physical life, but the eternal spiritual life (real life according to scriptures).

Sorry dctalkexp, but the theology makes no sense if the death mentioned in the OT is simply a physical one.

Sorry, but our God does not work that way. Death, deformaties, disease, etc. is not "very good," and obviously neither is your ability to understand Scripture.

LOL. I suppose you are going to tell us that in order to understand the scriptures, we must interpret the theology only on a superficial level. If we are to believe your interpretation, then God is reduced to an unjust and contradictory creator at best. Does that sound right to you?

Thankfully, God obviously does not work according to your understanding of Him. I find it quite ironic that you would criticize others about their understanding of scripture, however.

 

[Winston]

Ah but you are (willingly?) ignoring the fact that it was because of man's sin that God destroyed the earth with a global flood. When dealing with Creation, there would have been no one around to do any evil, thus He would have been creating through violent death and suffering, not because of any sin or punishment, but because that's simply the way He chose to create. Sorry, but our God does not work that way. Death, deformaties, disease, etc. is not "very good," and obviously neither is your ability to understand Scripture.

How exactly does sin do anything?

 

[Arikay]

Nice excuss, doesn't work though. Why you say? because,

1)
Evolution: Supposably contains violence and death mostly of animals that cant sin.

Flood: Supposably contains violence and death mostly of animals that cant sin.

The fact that god was targeting humans in the flood, doesn't change the fact he hit animals as well. Of course, if you say that their deaths dont matter because they are animals, then it kinda defeats the entire argument.

2) Doesn't matter how you cut it, you just threw out modern creationism, congrats, say bye to the baby as you watch the bath water fall.

Ah but you are (willingly?) ignoring the fact that it was because of man's sin that God destroyed the earth with a global flood. When dealing with Creation, there would have been no one around to do any evil, thus He would have been creating through violent death and suffering, not because of any sin or punishment, but because that's simply the way He chose to create. Sorry, but our God does not work that way. Death, deformaties, disease, etc. is not "very good," and obviously neither is your ability to understand Scripture.

 

[dctalkexp]

It was a consequence of sin. And Noah and his family lived a little longer and then they died too. I suppose his reward for being a humble servant of the Lord was to live a little while longer and then die a lingering death as an old man. Yes, so now we can see that physical death and suffering is the only punishment for sin and that every character in the Bible (save Jesus), good or bad, fell to God's wrath in the end.

Is that your theology dctalkexp? Let me ask you this: Was the only consequence for the flood victims in the Noah account that they lived shorter lives than Noah? Can we then measure the consequences of sin by the quality and longevity of a man's life on this earth? Do cancer victims suffer and die because they are corrupt? And If I live to a hundred, is it because I am a more faithful servant to God than someone who dies at 50?

No, that's your misrepresentation of Scripture. The flood was necessary because the world, every part of it, was permeated with sin. The Bible says that every thought of man was wicked.

"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5).

The point of the flood was not merely punishment for those who were evil, or to reward Noah because he was a good man, but to "start over" and give humanity a second chance. The Bible says, "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." (Genesis 6:8) He was the only man that was willing to follow God fervently, so God chose him and his family to repopulate the earth. It wasn't necessarily simply a "reward" for him, but it shows God's gracious love in that He wanted humanity, which was created in His image, to continue on, and we should thank Him for His Mercy.

How about this: When Jesus talks about being the 'bread of life' does he mean physical life?

In John 6:35, I believe Jesus was saying that, when we accept Him and follow Him, we will have eternal life with God Almighty, where neither moth or rust will corrupt, and thieves do not steal. (Matthew 6:19). Without Christ, the living bread, we will be dead in our sin. If we come to Him, we will be "fed" and we will live, eternally with God.

What if Adam's physical existence was temporary, but his spiritual existence was eternal? What if physical death is therefore meaningless to Adam? IOW, what if the 'death and suffering' that we experience here is simply part of the way that a physical being can experience true love, and that experience carries through into real life: the spiritual life. The real consequence of the fall is that it put that eternal existance at risk (and that is far more serious). The rest of the scriptures tells us how to get it back. Not the physical life, but the eternal spiritual life (real life according to scriptures).

Sorry dctalkexp, but the theology makes no sense if the death mentioned in the OT is simply a physical one.

What was the penalty for Adam's sin? Let's see what God Almighty has to say about it, in Genesis 3:19:

"In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return."

The penalty for sin was clearly physical death, and it is further clarified that He is talking about physical death by saying "to dust you shall return." He may have been damaged spiritually as well, but no doubts are left as to the physical penalty of death as well.

The Bible calls death an enemy: "The last enemy that will be destroyed is death." (1 Corinthians 15:26)

An enemy is what? Something that opposes that which is good. So by your "theology" God has created His own enemy by creating His creation to die in pain and suffering. God does no such thing, and sound theology and Scripture clearly tells us why there is death and suffering. Romans 8:22 makes it clear that the whole of creation groans because of Adam's sin.

Christ redeemed us with physical death, because of Adam and Eve's fall into sin, which brought about physical death. God through Christ conquered death, yes, even physical death. The way God chose to redeem us is telling. By making Himself a man, and sacrificing His perfect flesh for our sake, He showed us that death was conquered

LOL. I suppose you are going to tell us that in order to understand the scriptures, we must interpret the theology only on a superficial level. If we are to believe your interpretation, then God is reduced to an unjust and contradictory creator at best. Does that sound right to you?

In order to understand Scripture, one must read it and compare Scripture by other Scripture, and believe what it says. That's the bulk of it.

Thankfully, God obviously does not work according to your understanding of Him. I find it quite ironic that you would criticize others about their understanding of scripture, however.

Thankfully, our God does not create an enemy, death, and call it "Very good" as you would seemingly like us to believe. I criticize others, not because they don't understand Scripture, but because a lot of them don't even try.

God bless.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Thankfully, our God does not create an enemy, death, and call it "Very good" as you would seemingly like us to believe.

And yet this is the same God who sees wiping out almost all life on Earth as a solution to the problem of a few meddlesome humans not obeying Him. Right.

 

[LorentzHA]

The flood was necessary because the world, every part of it, was permeated with sin.

What flood?

 

[Mike Flynn]

No, that's your misrepresentation of Scripture. The flood was necessary because the world, every part of it, was permeated with sin. The Bible says that every thought of man was wicked.

Aside: And the animals too? The Lord certainly saved precious few of them.

Besides, you didn't answer my question: was the only consequence for the flood victims an early physical death and the fact that their offspring died too? After that did their souls get saved?

The point of the flood was not merely punishment for those who were evil, or to reward Noah because he was a good man, but to "start over" and give humanity a second chance.

I am familiar with this theology. You are not answering my question.

The Bible says, "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." (Genesis 6:8) He was the only man that was willing to follow God fervently, so God chose him and his family to repopulate the earth. It wasn't necessarily simply a "reward" for him, but it shows God's gracious love in that He wanted humanity, which was created in His image, to continue on, and we should thank Him for His Mercy.

That makes for a nice sermon, but you are completly sidestepping my question. Why did Noah die an old man? Did he still have God's favour? Was he saved or not? The meaning of death is the critical point here..you are dodging it.

In John 6:35, I believe Jesus was saying that, when we accept Him and follow Him, we will have eternal life with God Almighty, where neither moth or rust will corrupt, and thieves do not steal. (Matthew 6:19). Without Christ, the living bread, we will be dead in our sin. If we come to Him, we will be "fed" and we will live, eternally with God.

And is that eternal life a physical existence or not? Did it apply to Paul and the disciples or not? Did it apply to Noah and Abraham or not? Are these good and humble servants who earned eternal life or not?

The penalty for sin was clearly physical death, and it is further clarified that He is talking about physical death by saying "to dust you shall return." He may have been damaged spiritually as well, but no doubts are left as to the physical penalty of death as well.

So Adam has an eternal soul? It 'may have been damaged'? Are you saying that despite the fall Adam had eternal life after all? Sheesh, when you look at the moral decay that resulted, how can you say Adam's spirit 'may' have been damaged?

The physical death is only 'clear' if you ignore the context of life and death in the rest of the scriptures, and assume that every part of Gensis is meant to be interpreted literally. Where are the scriptures that tell you to do that? Could you be wrong about that? I believe you are wrong about this assumption.

Was it also clearly a real 'tree' that bears the fruit of knowledge? Is there no doubt about that as well? Or is there room for interpretation? IOW, we all understand that Genesis is referring to physical death in the literal reading of the account. But what is made perfectly clear in the NT is that real death is not physical death, and real life is not physical life. Thus, the NT is telling us how to interpret Adam's 'death'. Adam returning to the dust is a metaphor for becoming 'nothing'...to cease to exist, in any form..spiritual or otherwise...those are the serious consequences of sin, correct?

The Bible calls death an enemy: "The last enemy that will be destroyed is death." (1 Corinthians 15:26)

John 8:51
"Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death."

Did you catch that? He said *never* see death. Now the pharisees were taken aback at this statement. Abraham, Noah...they all died! And they were God's good and humble servants. Jesus explains:

John 8:56
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."

Did Abraham die or not? Think about it dctalkexp, Jesus is saying that real death has nothing to do with physical death. We all know that Abraham physically died, but Jesus says he didn't really die... because he lived to see the day of Jesus. There are several other scriptures I could quote that tells you exactly the same thing.

Christ has already beaten the last enemy dctalkexp. That is the victory that Christians celebrate. Not just for Himself but for all who accept Him and become a humble servant to the Lord.

In light of what Jesus said, how do you explain that good and humble servants still die? Jesus said that they would never see death. What about Paul and the others? We know they died physically. Was Christ lying to them? Or have you got it wrong? Since Christ speaks with the authority of God, I submit you have got it wrong. What do you think?

In order to understand Scripture, one must read it and compare Scripture by other Scripture, and believe what it says. That's the bulk of it.

Thats good advice, you should take it. You seem to ignore Jesus teachings on life and death when you read the Creation and flood account, for example.

Thankfully, our God does not create an enemy, death, and call it "Very good" as you would seemingly like us to believe.

Again...you are confusing the issue by ignoring what Jesus says about life and death.

When my sister was diagnosed with metastatic cancer, she suffered through 12 years of pain before she died. She 'thanked God' for her Chemo days (which were her hardest days). She humbled the rest of us with her faith and love for the Lord. Throughout those years, she offered her life in the service of God and helped others who were also sick. In short, the whole experience brought her close to the Lord and strengthened her faith. Now, had she not come down with cancer, she would have died eventually from something else. But God blessed her through her suffering. IOW, that process was a very good thing not only for her faith, but also her eternal life. Thats all that matters, correct?

According to you, this whole experience is simply the 'wages of sin'...so her suffering and death occured because she was sinful. Even though she became a good and humble servant, she died. Or did she? Jesus says that someone like her will never see death. Now, she did see physical death. I leave it to you to spot the obvious contradiction in your assertions dctalkexp.

I criticize others, not because they don't understand Scripture, but because a lot of them don't even try.

By the standard that you judge, so you too will be judged dctalkexp.

Somehow, you don't believe that Christ has already won victory over death. We are supposed to 'die' to this existance so we can be 'born again' into eternal life. And we can do that right now, thanks to the living God. (But we will still physically die). Understanding that is one of the most critical theologies in the whole of the Bible. And you are criticizing my understanding of the scriptures? LOL.

The bottom line is this: we are all fallible dctalkexp. You and I both. Probably neither of us are getting it 100% right. But I will not thrown down stumbling blocks in front of people because of some theory regarding how God has formed the man. I would not do it because I am fallible. And if you really understand the scriptures then you wouldn't post your judgements either:

Romans 14:1
Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.

What more needs to be said?

 

[dctalkexp]

Hi Mike,

Aside: And the animals too? The Lord certainly saved precious few of them.

God created Man in His image and His likeness, and man is the special, essential part of creation, wouldn't you agree? God gave man dominion over the world, including animals, fish, creeping thing, etc.

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Genesis 1:26)

God was grieved at His creation because not one thought or intention of man (essential creation) was good, they were all wicked, we've established that already.

Let's read a little more about God's sorrow over the wickedness of man:

"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" (Genesis 6:5-8)

God was sorry that He Created the living creatures as He did, because man had messed it all up. Sin pollutes the world. Since man has authority over beast, creeping thing, etc. they too would be destroyed, because without the essential part of Creation, what good is the rest? Starting over means just that, starting over with two of each creature. It is simple deduction from Scripture, really. Nonetheless, God destroyed them, just as He said.

Besides, you didn't answer my question: was the only consequence for the flood victims an early physical death and the fact that their offspring died too? After that did their souls get saved?

They were cut off because they were wicked, and because the whole world was wicked. We've established that. And God didn't like it. That's why they were all destroyed. But as I said before, He had mercy with Noah, and desired to save man because He loved us, as we are made in His image.I do not know what happened to the flood victims after death. Only God does.

I am familiar with this theology. You are not answering my question.

I am sorry if I did not answer your question, that was not my intention.

That makes for a nice sermon, but you are completly sidestepping my question. Why did Noah die an old man? Did he still have God's favour? Was he saved or not? The meaning of death is the critical point here..you are dodging it.

No I am not dodging at all.

Why did Noah eventually die?

Because death was part of the curse on creation.

Did he still have God's favor?

I would assume so, yes.

Was he saved?

I would assume so, yes.

The meaning of death is the critical point here

The meaning of death is simple, he died physically just as all men did after the curse. As I have said before, I don't think punishment was necessarily the point of the flood, but getting rid of man because they grieved God by their godlessness. "Every thought and intention was evil continually."

And is that eternal life a physical existence or not? Did it apply to Paul and the disciples or not? Did it apply to Noah and Abraham or not? Are these good and humble servants who earned eternal life or not?

First of all, salvation is not obtained by works, so it is not earned. (Ephesians 2:8-9) Secondly, I think it safe to assume that Paul, Noah et al. were all saved and have eternal life. They have eternal life because of what Christ did on the cross. However, they are all under the same cursed world and therefore will die physically just like everyone else.

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22)

So Adam has an eternal soul? It 'may have been damaged'? Are you saying that despite the fall Adam had eternal life after all? Sheesh, when you look at the moral decay that resulted, how can you say Adam's spirit 'may' have been damaged?

Sorry, you're correct, I shouldn't have said "may." I should have said it was damaged.

The physical death is only 'clear' if you ignore the context of life and death in the rest of the scriptures, and assume that every part of Gensis is meant to be interpreted literally. Where are the scriptures that tell you to do that? Could you be wrong about that? I believe you are wrong about this assumption.

Clearly Genesis is a literal book, which talks about historical events. If you want to allegorize it to benefit your own assumptions, that's on you. But when you do so, you have things like the following image happening:

And you also have God creating by using death, bloodshed, and disease, then calling it "very good," as the followng illustration displays:

Let's stick with what the Bible says, and not change it and allegorize it because we don't like it or agree with it.

Was it also clearly a real 'tree' that bears the fruit of knowledge? Is there no doubt about that as well? Or is there room for interpretation? IOW, we all understand that Genesis is referring to physical death in the literal reading of the account. But what is made perfectly clear in the NT is that real death is not physical death, and real life is not physical life. Thus, the NT is telling us how to interpret Adam's 'death'. Adam returning to the dust is a metaphor for becoming 'nothing'...to cease to exist, in any form..spiritual or otherwise...those are the serious consequences of sin, correct?

Yes, the tree of knowledge, and the tree of life were real, literal trees. That's not to say that they didn't have symbolic meaning as well. Take the bread and wine Jesus and His desciples had. It was real, physical food and drink, but at the same time it took on a spiritual, symbolic meaning, which was Christ's death and resurrection. Not taking Genesis literally is compromising God's Word.

John 8:51
"Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death."

Did you catch that? He said *never* see death. Now the pharisees were taken aback at this statement. Abraham, Noah...they all died! And they were God's good and humble servants. Jesus explains:

John 8:56
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."

Did Abraham die or not? Think about it dctalkexp, Jesus is saying that real death has nothing to do with physical death. We all know that Abraham physically died, but Jesus says he didn't really die... because he lived to see the day of Jesus. There are several other scriptures I could quote that tells you exactly the same thing.

His flesh really did turn back into dirt though, didn't it? Just as God said it would when He cursed creation and man-kind. Every person's physical body is subject to death because of man's sin. That's clear. You are right to say that though there is physical death, God has made a way for us to be redeemed and live eternally. That's not the issue. The issue is whether sin incurred physcial death; in Genesis, God says it did. But we can still live forever, thanks to Christ. Even before Christ's birth, God's people were redeemed by trusting in God's grace, and the coming savior that God had forecasted.
The difference you and I have is clear. I take Genesis literally, and you take only some parts literally, and the ones that don't agree with your theology, you allegorize.

Christ has already beaten the last enemy dctalkexp. That is the victory that Christians celebrate. Not just for Himself but for all who accept Him and become a humble servant to the Lord.

Christ has indeed beaten death with regards to His people who accept Him, for they will enjoy eternal life. But those opposed to God will see death on an eternal level by way of hell. But 1 Corinthians 15:26 is talking about a corporeal death.

John Gill has this to say about the issue of 1 Corinth. 15.26:

"Not eternal death; for though that is abolished by Christ with respect to his own people, who shall never be hurt by it, and over whom it shall have no power; yet the wicked will always be subject to it, and under the dominion of it: but a corporeal one is here meant; which is an enemy, the fruit, effect, and wages of sin; the penalty and curse of the law; is contrary to human nature, and destructive of the work of God's hands: it is, indeed, through the blood, righteousness, and sacrifice of Christ, become the friend of his people; it is disarmed of its sting, and ceases to be a penal evil; it is the saints' passage to glory, what frees them from the troubles of this world, and is their way to the joys of another; but yet in itself is formidable to nature, and disagreeable to it: and it is the last enemy; it is so both in its rise and duration; it appeared as an enemy last; Satan was the first enemy of mankind, who attacked, tempted, and ruined the first parents of human nature, and all their posterity in them; and by this means, sin, the next enemy, came into the world of men; and, last of all, death, with its numerous train of calamities, either going before, attending, or following of it: and as it was the last enemy that came into the world, it is the last that will go out of it; for when the saints are rid of Satan, and clear of sin, they will remain in the grave under the power of a corporeal death till the resurrection, and then that will be "destroyed": for the saints will be raised to an immortal life, never to die more, and to an enjoyment of everlasting life, in the utmost glory and happiness; and though the wicked when they rise, they will rise to damnation, to shame and contempt, yet their worm will never die, nor their fire be quenched; they will always live, though in torment, there will be no more corporeal death, neither among the righteous nor the wicked; it will be utterly abolished: and thus the apostle, though he seems to digress from his subject awhile, by relating the several things which will either immediately or quickly follow the second coming of Christ; yet at the same time has it in view, and proves the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, which must needs be, or death cannot be said to be destroyed, and by degrees returns to his subject again."

In light of what Jesus said, how do you explain that good and humble servants still die? Jesus said that they would never see death. What about Paul and the others? We know they died physically. Was Christ lying to them? Or have you got it wrong? Since Christ speaks with the authority of God, I submit you have got it wrong. What do you think?

You have it wrong, as demonstrated above.

Thats good advice, you should take it. You seem to ignore Jesus teachings on life and death when you read the Creation and flood account, for example.

If you were to read the Scripture and believe it, you would understand why physical death is here, why it is an enemy, and will be abolished.

Again...you are confusing the issue by ignoring what Jesus says about life and death.

Not at all. It is you who are ignoring what Genesis says.

When my sister was diagnosed with metastatic cancer, she suffered through 12 years of pain before she died. She 'thanked God' for her Chemo days (which were her hardest days). She humbled the rest of us with her faith and love for the Lord. Throughout those years, she offered her life in the service of God and helped others who were also sick. In short, the whole experience brought her close to the Lord and strengthened her faith. Now, had she not come down with cancer, she would have died eventually from something else. But God blessed her through her suffering. IOW, that process was a very good thing not only for her faith, but also her eternal life. Thats all that matters, correct?

Firstly, I am sorry about your loss. Secondly, you are right that pain and suffering can sometimes benefit us. Romans 2-5 says:
"...but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience; and experience, hope: And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us."

But because God uses that pain doesn't mean He is the initiator of it! It just goes to show that even in the midst of pain and suffering "all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28)

According to you, this whole experience is simply the 'wages of sin'...so her suffering and death occured because she was sinful. Even though she became a good and humble servant, she died. Or did she? Jesus says that someone like her will never see death. Now, she did see physical death. I leave it to you to spot the obvious contradiction in your assertions dctalkexp.

Everyone's suffering is because of sin. The world suffers because of sin, the earth is a big infested ball of sin that is "groaning." But that doesn't mean that God doesn't use it, as He did in your sister's case. We have to believe the Bible when it talks about the creation being cursed and "groaning." If someone is stricken with a disease, it is not God's fault. Of course not! It is a result of this world that is embedded in sin.

By the standard that you judge, so you too will be judged dctalkexp.

I agree, and the same to you. I would hope that if someone doesn't even try to understand Scripture, you too would be critical.

<see next post>

 

[dctalkexp]

Somehow, you don't believe that Christ has already won victory over death. We are supposed to 'die' to this existance so we can be 'born again' into eternal life. And we can do that right now, thanks to the living God. (But we will still physically die). Understanding that is one of the most critical theologies in the whole of the Bible. And you are criticizing my understanding of the scriptures? LOL.

I said that I criticize people who don't even try to understand the Bible. You try, that is evident, and I applaud you for that. But at the same time, we have to look at Genesis, 1 Corinthians 15:26 et al. and realize that death is an enemy right now, today, and it will be done away with. It is the last enemy which came into the world, and the last one that will be defeated

The bottom line is this: we are all fallible dctalkexp. You and I both. Probably neither of us are getting it 100% right. But I will not thrown down stumbling blocks in front of people because of some theory regarding how God has formed the man. I would not do it because I am fallible. And if you really understand the scriptures then you wouldn't post your judgements either:

Nonsense. While I agree that everyone is fallible and doesn't always get it 100% right, there will be no compromising on the issue that says God created everythng through death, mistakes, bloodshed, disease and deformaties, and then calling it all "very good." There are a plethora of Biblical facts that clearly contradict the ridiculous idea of evolutionary 'theory,' and your answer to that is to change God's Word to make it fit man's ideas, and to allegorize parts that disagree with it.

Romans 14:1
Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.

What more needs to be said?

A lot more. This verse does not mean that we shouldn't reject ideas that are clearly contrary to the Word of God. All that does is systematically open up doors for more and more compromise. Clearly, things that are not of a sound doctrine, we must rebuke and test; for Titus 1:13 says, "This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." and 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says, "Critically examine everything. Hold on to the good." Amen.

God bless.

 

[Arikay]

Im curious if you understand that you are throwing the baby out with the bath water? Your current complaints against evolution, shoot modern creationism in the foot, so I would be carefull as pretty soon it might not have a leg to stand on.

 

[Mike Flynn]

But as I said before, He had mercy with Noah, and desired to save man because He loved us, as we are made in His image.I do not know what happened to the flood victims after death. Only God does.

But we do know. We know exactly what the spiritual consequences of sin are in the scriptures. Its what happens to those who do not submit themselves to humble servants of God's will and poisin their lives with sin. Thats the whole point of the OT destruction accounts that you don't get from the literal reading.

I would assume so, yes.

And this is part of my point. The Noah account tells us something about salvation...the same kind of salvation Jesus talks about.

First of all, salvation is not obtained by works, so it is not earned. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

I am aware of that. Offering your live in the humble service of the Lord is the key. The Lord does good works in us and through us. Why is this relevant here?

Secondly, I think it safe to assume that Paul, Noah et al. were all saved and have eternal life. They have eternal life because of what Christ did on the cross. However, they are all under the same cursed world and therefore will die physically just like everyone else.

Then you can understand my point. Noah and the others did not die in a very real sense. The literal reading of the flood account misses this theology. When you look at it through the Biblical theology as a whole, then you see the what happened to the flood victims after death. Only God does.[/QUOTE]This is my whole point, the rest of the Biblical theology on death tells us what whole point of the Noah account. It is the same point that Jesus makes regarding salvation.

Clearly Genesis is a literal book, which talks about historical events. If you want to allegorize it to benefit your own assumptions, that's on you.

But you are assuming that every detail of the account was intended by God to read as literal history. Why are your assumptions any more valid than mine? If you say it is 'clear'...all that proves is that you believe your assumptions are right...you are not proving that they are valid. We do not know the author's intentions in this particular case, correct? You are assuming its literal history because it 'reads like history'? So does a great deal of historical fiction. It is simply a fallible assumption that you have no authority to make. What is your basis for making it in the first place?

When we look at creation, the data there clearly indicates that creation is incredibly complex, and God has worked His wonders in incredibly complex ways. Given this truth, do you really believe that God could have given a literal account in the scriptures. IOW, if science is right, do you really believe that God would have given a pre-science society a complete literal account? They would have been utterly lost if He had. IOW, given what we have learned, allegory would have been a likely choice for God. How could a culture connect with the fall theology amidst all the literal details as outlined by science today. We would all miss the point.

And you also have God creating by using death, bloodshed, and disease, then calling it "very good," as the followng illustration displays:

By repeating the same argument several times does it suddenly become valid? I have addressed this point several times and you have yet to even acknowledge my argument.

1. physical death is not real death as Jesus tells us.
2. many people come to christ through pain, suffering, and death...showing us that they are not bad things...its what we do with them that makes them good or bad.

Good health and wealth are bad things when you become obsessed with them. Sorry, dctalkexp, you have not demonstrated your argument about 'very good' at all. Those cartoons are products of narrow-mindedness and a misrepresentation of true biblical theology.

In fact Jesus reverses your ideology. What many call 'good things' here on earth (riches, good health, wanting for nothing, etc), actually distract us from real eternal life.

Let's stick with what the Bible says, and not change it and allegorize it because we don't like it or agree with it.

If God intended details of those accounts as allegory in the first place, then it is you who are changing it with your interpretation. Is this your rule of thumb: treat every word in the Bible as literal except those that are impossible to defend as such? That position is wrought with fallible assumptions...and I find it quite hypocritical. What's worse, you don't think you are making any assumptions at all...and claiming to have God's mind on the subject.

Yes, the tree of knowledge, and the tree of life were real, literal trees.

And thats not an assumption? LOL.

Not taking Genesis literally is compromising God's Word.

On what authority do you claim to know that God intended the deatail in Genesis to read as literal history? Man's or God's?

If God did not intend this (as His creation clearly tells us), then you have already compromised God's Word. And you are trying to persuade everyone else to do the same.

His flesh really did turn back into dirt though, didn't it? Just as God said it would when He cursed creation and man-kind. Every person's physical body is subject to death because of man's sin. That's clear.

Yes, clear if you ignore Jesus teachings on life and death. Its also clear that your interpretations are incorrect when you take them into account. I will do the latter.

The issue is whether sin incurred physcial death; in Genesis, God says it did. But we can still live forever, thanks to Christ. Even before Christ's birth, God's people were redeemed by trusting in God's grace, and the coming savior that God had forecasted.

The issue is Jesus said that when you are saved then you never will know death. Abraham did not know death. But he died physically. Obviously, real death has nothing to do with the body. How can you explain Jesus words otherwise?

The difference you and I have is clear. I take Genesis literally, and you take only some parts literally, and the ones that don't agree with your theology, you allegorize.

Not at all. The difference between you and I is that I interpret Genesis through Jesus theology on life and death, you don't. You assume all of the Bible is literal, except the parts where you assume they are not. That is hypocritical dctalkexp. Which one of us is more guilty of imposing our own fallible opinions on the Bible? Neither...your attempt to demonstrate that I do it more than you is pure nonsense.

You have it wrong, as demonstrated above.

Sorry, but John Gill is just as fallible as you or I. Jesus says salvation means we would never know death. Are you going to address this point or not?

If you were to read the Scripture and believe it, you would understand why physical death is here, why it is an enemy, and will be abolished.

It has been abolished. If you understood the scriptures, then you would understant Christ's victory over it.

But because God uses that pain doesn't mean He is the initiator of it! It just goes to show that even in the midst of pain and suffering "all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28)

I'm not saying He initiated it. I am saying that it is not a 'bad thing' just because you say it is.

If someone is stricken with a disease, it is not God's fault. Of course not! It is a result of this world that is embedded in sin.

Physical pain, suffering, and death, are physical images of the damage that is being done to our eternal soul through sin. I know these things are not God's fault. Physical pain can be used as a tool to redeem the spiritual existence. Thats why the physical existence, and everything that happens in it, is neither good nor evil alone...we can use each experience to serve God, or we can use it to serve ourselves....that is the domain of good and evil.

You are simply mistaking the physical existence for the real thing. Once you understand that the destruction accounts in Genesis are talking about the spiritual existence (and using the physical existence as an image of it), then you can understand Jesus theology of life and death...and how Genesis confirms it instead of contradicting it.