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.
Clearly free will is a good thing as in mankind created in the image of God. It is more a question for YECs who claim there was no death before the fall, and as someone who believes in an old earth while calling yourself YEC, this may not include you, but for other YECs a built in kill switch does not seem consistent with a world free from death.I like to talk about this theological question more than the flood.
Would it be a "very good" creation if the creature is able to rebel against the creator? Obviously God calls it :"very good". What is it good about?
Clearly free will is a good thing as in mankind created in the image of God. It is more a question for YECs who claim there was no death before the fall, and as someone who believes in an old earth while calling yourself YEC, this may not include you, but for other YECs a built in kill switch does not seem consistent with a world free from death.
Not much point in YEC having an explanation if does not fit the evidence, clearly they have an explanation, just not one that bears any resemblance to reality. Much better an explanation that does fit the facts, even if we do not have all the details. As for the origin of the meteorite, their composition is made of heavier elements such as carbon silicon oxygen iron nickel, aren't those elements formed in exploding stars? The original planet would have coalesced from this material.I do not understand the meaning of death among animals. But since we have a theory of the Fall, then there should be no death for human before that. I suspect the death of animal and the death of human are of two different natures. But I am not sure how to describe them in detail. Why does God allow us to kill animals? Veggies are good enough to support a healthy human life.
I like YEC because I spent my whole life in studying OEC, but I fee it is not enough at the end. To a certain degree, OEC is almost deceptive. OEC describes the processes, but it says nothing about the origin. YEC has hard time to explain some processes, but it hits right on the head of the origin problem.
For example, this question came to me recently: What is the origin of the stony meteorite? If it came from an exploded planet, then what is the origin of that planet? All OEC theories can do nothing to even suggest an answer.
Not much point in YEC having an explanation if does not fit the evidence, clearly they have an explanation, just not one that bears any resemblance to reality. Much better an explanation that does fit the facts, even if we do not have all the details. As for the origin of the meteorite, their composition is made of heavier elements such as carbon silicon oxygen iron nickel, aren't those elements formed in exploding stars? The original planet would have coalesced from this material.
What would be the ramifications of a literal, global flood on all the dating methods employed by science?
Number 2 would be the interesting topic to cover, but in general what would be the effects of that much water and pressure on dating schemes. General question, nothing too overly complicated or specific.
Here is an example on the consequence of TE. If you believe in evolution, then you MUST treat the death of animal exactly the same as the death of human.
What I fail to understand is how such a massive/significant event is taken to be symbolic or generally non-historical, despite the fact that the account is extremely clear in its details --> that every creature on land and in air died, that every hill/mountain found under the heavens were covered. No, it clearly isn't symbolic nor is it a local flood.
Fiction books are very detailed, maybe more so than the Flood story. Other symbolic storys are also very detail but it isn't make it true.
I didn't think I'd have to mention this, but I see there are those who value their world views to much to actually read scripture honestly and correctly.
This sort of thing makes reads want to disagree with you and it would be very easy to turn this sentance around so it is aimed at you.
Regardless, my question is simply this: if we are to take the flood as literal and global, what does that make of the old earth view?
The two arn't really compatible, but what has science ever done for us
EDIT: Specifically, if anyone can provide insight in regards to the following question: What would be the ramifications of a literal, global flood on the various dating methods employed by science?
I assume it would make them wrong.
I have a different relationship with my own species. Other species are not created in the image of God and don't have an eternal destiny. So no the death of animal is not quite the same.Here is an example on the consequence of TE. If you believe in evolution, then you MUST treat the death of animal exactly the same as the death of human.
I think it is bizarre when creationist claim plants aren't alive. Anyway, Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement.I am not exactly sure, but I think Christianity treats the death of animal very differently. In other words, the death of animal may not count as the "real" death (just like the life of plant is not a "real" life).
***Holds up mirrorI see there are those who value their world views to much to actually read scripture honestly and correctly.
I have a different relationship with my own species. Other species are not created in the image of God and don't have an eternal destiny. So no the death of animal is not quite the same.
I think it is bizarre when creationist claim plants aren't alive. Anyway, Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement.
Juvi wrote:
That's silly. Why would that be the case? Humans are rational and animals are not. Animals cannot understand "human" rights, and humans can.
That's as silly as saying that because creationists say that there are different "kinds" of flesh, that any killing of human flesh is murder, so amputated limbs must be given full funerals.
Papias
Question for OECs, really would like it answered.
I've been meaning to open up a thread on this for quite a bit, the topic is Noah's flood.
What I fail to understand is how such a massive/significant event is taken to be symbolic or generally non-historical, despite the fact that the account is extremely clear in its details --> that every creature on land and in air died, that every hill/mountain found under the heavens were covered. No, it clearly isn't symbolic nor is it a local flood. I didn't think I'd have to mention this, but I see there are those who value their world views to much to actually read scripture honestly and correctly.
Regardless, my question is simply this: if we are to take the flood as literal and global, what does that make of the old earth view?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EDIT: Specifically, if anyone can provide insight in regards to the following question: What would be the ramifications of a literal, global flood on the various dating methods employed by science?
Sorry, common Creationist argument, but it doesn't follow. It says the life of flesh is in the blood, but it doesn't say anything about the life of plants or where it might reside. "unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies". Seriously Juv, have you any concept how bonkers this claim makes Christianity sound? Plants aren't alive??? How is a non believer with an ounce of God given sense in his head supposed to respond to the Gospel if Christians keep convincing him the bible is full of delusional nonsense?Exactly. Plants have no blood.
As a TE, I think you can turn around and punch your own face for that statement.
Sorry, common Creationist argument, but it doesn't follow. It says the life of flesh is in the blood, but it doesn't say anything about the life of plants or where it might reside. "unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies". Seriously Juv, have you any concept how bonkers this claim makes Christianity sound? Plants aren't alive??? How is a non believer with an ounce of God given sense in his head supposed to respond to the Gospel if Christians keep convincing him the bible is full of delusional nonsense?
Matt 18:7 Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
Christians often wash their hand of responsibility for other people believing the gospel, if they reject God it is their decision, or it is up to the Holy spirit to convict people's hearts. But God holds us responsible for the stumbling blocks we make too. Rom 2:24 For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." That was OT prophets talking about the Israelites of their time, but we really need to make sure it doesn't apply to us too.
Juvi wrote:
**turns around and punches own face.**
Ow!
You are right. I should clarify:
Non-human animals are not rational.
Papias
My reaction was that it's sad rather than crazy.I don't care about the problem you said. One does not have to think about this question (say: crazy creationist !).
And some fertilised human eggs are viable and will implant and grow. Others won't and you can't tell them apart. But what has that got to do with anything?But if one does, he needs to understand.
I asked several residential biologists one question and none of them wanted to offer me a positive answer (it is still possible I did not find the right person):
Given a grain of seed, how can you tell (before planting it) whether would it germinate or not? In fact, this is a very practical question. The older the seeds (a few years old), the fewer of them will come up. Sometimes, none of them will.
I suspect the seeds are simply dormant, just that not all of them revive. Of course they deteriorate in storage some to a point when they cannot revive. Personally I think the idea of seeds dying works best as a metaphor for Christ's death burial and resurrection, and our death and new life in him. But don't forget the picture in the OT about life being in animal's blood and ransoming our lives is really about Christ too. It is only if Creationists want to take 'life in the blood' literally and try to construct a list of what they consider alive, to be consistent they need to include seeds dying. If there are problems with that, then they need to reconsider the whole project.Could I say that they all "died" before they even "live"?
If the seed really was dead, it would take a miraculous resurrection each time a new plant grows from a seed.So, given a grain of seed, is the seed alive? or potentially alive? How do you tell? Is "alive" or "dead" a good description to the seed?
Or God waited until after he made Adam to create plants because they needed a gardener.God does not create plants as early as Day 3 for no reason.
My reaction was that it's sad rather than crazy.
And some fertilised human eggs are viable and will implant and grow. Others won't and you can't tell them apart. But what has that got to do with anything?
I suspect the seeds are simply dormant, just that not all of them revive. Of course they deteriorate in storage some to a point when they cannot revive. Personally I think the idea of seeds dying works best as a metaphor for Christ's death burial and resurrection, and our death and new life in him. But don't forget the picture in the OT about life being in animal's blood and ransoming our lives is really about Christ too. It is only if Creationists want to take 'life in the blood' literally and try to construct a list of what they consider alive, to be consistent they need to include seeds dying. If there are problems with that, then they need to reconsider the whole project.
If the seed really was dead, it would take a miraculous resurrection each time a new plant grows from a seed.
Or God waited until after he made Adam to create plants because they needed a gardener.
I think I follow what you are saying, did you mean 'than' instead of 'then'? My big problem here, apart from the fact Jesus showed us God speaks in metaphor, is what you consider 'reasonable'. Is plants aren't alive and animals may not really be alive either, a reasonable understanding?On this regard, I wish i could be you, so my thoughts could be less tangled. On the other hand I don't really wish to be you. Because being a literalist, I am able to enjoy a lot more reasonable understandings then only on what you accepted. (did I get it backward?)
No. First you would have to show heaven is simply a reconstruction of Eden, then you would have to ignore all the livestock, the birds of the heavens, and beasts of the field wandering around before God made Eve to keep things a bit tidier.In the Garden of Eden, there is only gardener, but no shepherd. Right? So would it be right to suggest that there are plants in the Heaven, but no animals?
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?