Quick question

[JohnR7]

many creationists have chosen instead to drive people away from Christianity

Yes, I agree with you that we are to gather and not to scatter. It would seem that God is working the same thing in your heart, that He is working in my heart. I try to take this into consideration with every post I write.

 

[gluadys]

The perfect climate was for all in that biodiverse system. The Garden of Eden was to expand and fill the whole earth. God's plan was for all of the earth to be a paradise. Adam and Eve caused a little bit of a delay in the plan, but God will still restore this earth back to His origional plan and purpose.

It is up to each individual to decide if they want to be a part of God's plan or not.

Same question. What makes one bio-diverse eco-system perfect and not others? Why would God's original plan and purpose not include a diversity of eco-systems for different creatures and different human preferences?

I mean some people like mountains and some people like South Pacific coral islands. Some people like prairies and some people like jungles.

Why would perfection be limited to a single ecosystem or climate?

 

[Beastt]

I guess you could say my views are not the "traditional" views. But I think we need to overlook some of the tranlsation problems to see what the Bible is really saying in light of what we now know from Science.

And this is exactly what believers in the Bible have been doing for the past several hundred years. The Bible makes clear references to the generally flat shape of the Earth. And for a time, the churches and believers held this to be true. But science, even early science offered many reasons to disbelieve the flat-Earth claims in the Bible, so now people claim that the Bible doesn't say what people a few centuries ago attempted to defend as fact. A few people still discard the evidence of space travel, satellite photographs and all of the other data in order to maintain a belief in the actual wording of the Bible rather than reading around what the Bible actually says.

Then people used science to challenge geocentrism. The church hushed them up with executions, imprisonment, etc., for a time, but eventually too many people became aware of the scientific evidence. So people decided they had to change the way they read the Bible to try to keep it in line with what science was already demonstrating.

Then we started seeing all kinds of evidence that the global flood never occurred. For a while the church managed to combat the evidence which showed there was never a global flood, but people are very slow to let go of long-held, religious beliefs. So we still find a few who insist that a global flood actually occurred. They ignore the geologic column, the fact that a wooden vessel that size would sink rather rapidly, the insufficient quanity of water on the Earth, the problem of where the water went after the flood, the fish and aquatic mammals, the climatic and atmospheric changes and all the rest and simply believe because they desire to believe. But most have decided to read around the Bible in an attempt to have it comply with science.

The same thing is being done in the creationism/evolution argument. For dozens of centuries it was accepted that God simply breathed life into dust and created a fully-formed, adult male human, then extracted a rib and from that, created a fully-formed, adult female human. But evolution has demonstrated that humans did not arise as fully-formed homosapiens. So after decades of fighting, attempting to prosecute teachers who would dare to teach what science can demonstrate rather than what the Bible mistakenly says, finally a large percentage are starting to give in and once again read around certain parts of the Bible to allow it to not conflict so strongly with what science can demonstrate.

The pattern is repeating yet again regarding the formation of the universe and the age of the Earth and universe. Science keeps demonstrating that the Bible is incorrect and after a period of intense arguing, most believers seem happy to simply read around those parts of the Bible, allowing them ways to continue to believe in the Bible without making themselves willfully ignorant of scientific discovery.

Perhaps with a few more centuries of scientific discovery and a dozen or more re-writes of the Bible, there will finally be a Bible which, despite being very far removed from the original, actually doesn't fly in the face of what science can demonstrate to be true.

But as far as this particular topic goes, the Bible is still being promoted as "God's word" and the Bible clearly presents the flood as being global. So while many people make the argument that the authors might have thought of their small region of the world as the whole world, the Bible isn't supposed to be written from the perspective of the authors. It's claimed to be written as influenced by God. And one might expect a God who created the whole of the universe and the Earth to know the difference between one small area on the planet and the whole planet.

As far as the allegory suggestion goes, one might wonder at the value of a nice, Christian, moral lesson wherein God gets a bit miffed because he can't seem to get his creatures to behave as he had wished and expected so he just decides to drown every man, woman, child, infant, animal, fish, plant and reptile, (saving only enough that he wouldn't have to recreate them all from scratch, though why he wouldn't just start over we don't know) Then proclaims his love for us by saying he won't do it again. Not a very good lesson about patience, controlling one's temper, demonstrating love or the value of life.

 

[JohnR7]

Why would perfection be limited to a single ecosystem or climate?

Actually, it is the other way around. We are told that everything God created was good. It was through Adam that corruption spread out to all of creation.

God created something new in Eden and it was to spread out and cover the world. Through Adam corruption crept in and so corruption spread out to all of the earth.

God is going to restore the whole earth to perfection. It will be as the Garden in Eden was intended to be. Of course what the Bible means by "perfection" and your idea of what perfection is, may not be the same thing.

Rev. 21:4
And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."

 

[JohnR7]

But evolution has demonstrated that humans did not arise as fully-formed homosapiens.

There are theistic evolutionists that believe that Adam and Eve had parents and that Adam had a belly button. I do not see any conflict between this and the Bible, it could have happened this way. Only it is clear that Adam was the first man to have the breath of life. So now we need to determine what was different about Adam and just what does it mean to have the "breath of life" in you. Because this is what made Adam different from any other man who may have been on the earth at the time of Adam about 6,000 years ago.

Perhaps with a few more centuries of scientific discovery and a dozen or more re-writes of the Bible,

The only thing that is getting rewritten are the translations & interpretations. The origional text continues to stand the test of time and continues to be steadfast and true.

 

[Alchemist]

Of course for those who believe dinosaurs were extinct millions of years before man can ingore the questions

Oh . You're no fun...

 

[Alchemist]

There are theistic evolutionists that believe that Adam and Eve had parents and that Adam had a belly button. I do not see any conflict between this and the Bible, it could have happened this way. Only it is clear that Adam was the first man to have the breath of life. So now we need to determine what was different about Adam and just what does it mean to have the "breath of life" in you. Because this is what made Adam different from any other man who may have been on the earth at the time of Adam about 6,000 years ago.

Hi John,

As a Christian evolutionist, I believe Adam and Eve were the first humans to have a "spirit"; i.e. the first humans able to have a relationship with God. This is how I define the difference between the ancestors of Adam (who had physical and mental life) and Adam's decendants (who has physical, mental, and spiritual life).

Peace,
Nick

 

[JohnR7]

I wont deny that there could have been a local flood, yet when I tell Christians this argument they almost all seem to throw it out the window and say "no the whole world was flooded!"

They are looking at the Bible from their prespective, they are not looking at it from Noah's perspective or from the perspective it was written. The first rule is you have to look at the story from the perspective of who it was written to in the first place. Then you can look at it from the perspective of what the storys message is for us today.

 

[JohnR7]

Hi John,

As a Christian evolutionist, I believe Adam and Eve were the first humans to have a "spirit"; i.e. the first humans able to have a relationship with God. This is how I define the difference between the ancestors of Adam (who had physical and mental life) and Adam's decendants (who has physical, mental, and spiritual life).

Yes, that is the usual understanding. I could agree with that. The "Breath" of life is translated "Spirit" in some passages of the Bible.

 

[JohnR7]

I mean some people like mountains and some people like South Pacific coral islands.

My wife is from the South Pacific Islands and it is to hot there for me, I prefer it a little bit further north like in Hong Kong. But she says there are mountains on the Islands and it is cooler up in the mountains.

 

[Beastt]

There are theistic evolutionists that believe that Adam and Eve had parents and that Adam had a belly button.

Of course that's not what it says in the Bible. But people are able to read around what it says in the Bible, produce arguments about poetic license, allegory and interpretation, and thereby read other than the words held in the Bible. Then again, a good lawyer can do the same thing with his client's confession. But it's still not what's written, it's a distortion of what's written.

I do not see any conflict between this and the Bible, it could have happened this way.

I'm not surprised that you don't see a conflict. If you did, you'd either be in the YEC camp, or you'd perhaps be seeing the Bible as only an account of cultural beliefs and ancient tales.

Only it is clear that Adam was the first man to have the breath of life.

How is this clear? It may be claimed in the Bible. But then many things are claimed in the Bible which aren't true. That's the reason so many find so much need to read around these things and distort them to other than what is said.

So now we need to determine what was different about Adam and just what does it mean to have the "breath of life" in you. Because this is what made Adam different from any other man who may have been on the earth at the time of Adam about 6,000 years ago.

Again, this may be how you wish to read the book, but this isn't what the book says. This simply makes it easier to accept what science can demonstrate, and still attempt to hold the book as something more than ancient tales and cultural beliefs.

The only thing that is getting rewritten are the translations & interpretations.

What more must be re-written in order to distort what is said? It's only text in a book. If you change the text to say something other than what it originally said, then you've distorted the original. And this kind of thing happens with every new version. One of the more recent English translations has even relieved God of the responsibility for creating Evil. They've now decided that he only created "disasters", though that now leaves a problem with the idea that disasters were created by the fall.

The origional text continues to stand the test of time and continues to be steadfast and true.

If that were true, then there would be no need to continually change things in the new translations. The fact that this isn't true is the reason that not everyone who believes in the Bible is arguing for a flat Earth, stationary at the center of the universe, which is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old, created as a paradise for man who was started when God breathed on a lump of dust, devoid of the evolutionary process and which at one time was completely flooded due to God's rage.

Biblical followers used to believe these things, used to defend these things and now proclaim that's not what the Bible says because science has demonstrated all of that to be wrong. How do you figure that equates to "standing the test of time"?

 

[TexasSky]

Dino's were usually born in "eggs". He probably took "eggs."

 

[TexasSky]

(Actually, I've often wondered if that isn't really what he did in many cases. Taking "babies" of various creatures, as opposed to "full grown". That would allow much more room, be easier to deal with in terms of temprament, comply with God's instructions, be easier to feed......)

 

[TexasSky]

But then many things are claimed in the Bible which aren't true.

You are wrong.

 

[LittleNipper]

How many dinosaurs did moses take on the ark?

NONE! (quick answer)

 

[Beastt]

You are wrong.

Turn to Leviticus 14:1-9 and then give me a site where I can find proper medical documentation for even one person who was cured of leprosy through such a ritual.

Note that not only is that in the Bible, but it's declared by Moses that he got it straight from God. And as you read through the Bible, you'll find many claims, attributed to Moses, which aren't possible. Planets don't form covered in liquid water but without atmospheres. Plants don't grow without warmth and light. The sun and the moon aren't in Earth's atmosphere, they are well beyond it. That's just a fraction.

You seem willing to stand up and suggest that people are lying or mistaken, but you don't seem prepared to attempt to support your accusations.

 

[Beastt]

Dino's were usually born in "eggs". He probably took "eggs."

Why weren't the 8-people and all the animals drowned when the ark sank?

 

[Soul Searcher]

Genesis 6:17
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

The key here is the Breath of Life. What made Adam and Eve different from any other man upon the earth was they had the breath of life in them. So really, what the Bible is saying here is that everything on the earth that has the breath of life will be desroyed, except for Noah and his family of course.

fyi all creatures that breath to live have the breath of life. dogs cats cattle deer........ and of course all humans not just some humans, Those without the breath are called corpses.

 

[Soul Searcher]

If there were 14 brontos on the ark, then they would still be here today. Perhaps the brontos were destroyed in the flood.

I think if there were 14 brontos on the ark there would not have been room for many other creatures, brontos are huge.

If the local flood was in the mideast then how did it kill the brontos in the americas?

Does not seem to be logical does it?

I do believe there was a local flood that inspired the myth of Noah, I also believe that the dinos where long gone well before this.

 

[JohnR7]

Turn to Leviticus 14:1-9 and then give me a site where I can find proper medical documentation for even one person who was cured of leprosy through such a ritual.

The "ritual" was not designed to cure someone of leprosy. The "ritual" was instructions on what to do WHEN someone was cured of leprosy.

If it were found that the leprosy was healed, the priest must declare it with the particular solemnities here described. The two birds, one killed, and the other dipped in the blood of the bird that was killed, and then let loose, may signify Christ shedding his blood for sinners, and rising and ascending into heaven. The priest having pronounced the leper clean from the disease, he must make himself clean from all remains of it. Thus those who have comfort of the remission of their sins, must with care and caution cleanse themselves from sins; for every one that has this hope in him, will be concerned to purify himself. (matthew henry)