There must have been death in Paradise even before mans fall...

[gluadys]

Entropy only applies to closed systems.

It applies to all systems in which there is a transfer of heat from one place to another. But in an open system, you need to take into account the transfer into and out of the system as well as within the system.

The scriptures say death came by Adam. I guess you are reading into things.

A statement made in the context of human death due to sin. Note that the passage states specifically that death passed to all men because of Adam's sin. It says nothing about death passing to plant and animal life through Adam.

He rose from the dead.

He was raised from the dead by the power of God. Did you think he did it on his own?

Christ was not immune. But he was not susceptible to death like us. The scriptures say Christ chose to lay down his life, that nothing could take it from him. To suggest otherwise destroys the efficacy of the atonement.

If he was not susceptible to death like us, he was not incarnate. He chose to let himself be put to death. If he had not, do you think he would have lived forever or died of old age? If he was truly incarnate, he would have died sooner or later even if he was not crucified. To suggests otherwise destroys the efficacy of the atonement. It even puts into question whether he really died on the cross or merely seemed to die.

 

[jckstraw72]

He was raised from the dead by the power of God. Did you think he did it on his own?

Jesus IS God, in Him dwelt the Godhead bodily, so yes, He raised Himself from the dead.

 

[gluadys]

Jesus IS God, in Him dwelt the Godhead bodily, so yes, He raised Himself from the dead.

So you agree then that Jesus of Nazareth, as a human being, did not raise himself from the dead. It was the divine power that raised him. In his humanity, he was just as much subject to death as any of us.

Jesus was the first fruits of the resurrection. All of us who have accepted Christ have his eternal life here and now. All of us will be raised just as he was, so that he will be the first among many brothers and sisters.

Does that mean we are not subject to death or that we raise ourselves from the dead, or is it by the power of God that we live eternally, now and in the resurrection?

 

[withreason]

I'm not sure what you are saying. Could you clarify? Do you mean that seeds are still viable after many years of storage, like when a seed is put in a ground? What do you mean by seeds don't decay to entropy? Seeds decay depending if fungus or bacteria get into the seed shell to break it down. I'm not sure I understand what having an open or closed system has to do with this.

Also, what do you mean by loss of genetic information. What is genetic information, because according to information theory, you should have a metric to measure information. So how do you measure the information in a seed?

I think you're confusing decay and breakdown from bacteria/fungus/etc with the Creationist version of the 2nd Law where everything turns into something simpler,

EDIT: Also seeds last longer if they kept in cold storage (depending on the species). This isn't because of it stops the 2nd Law. It's because it prevents any bacteria from breaking down the shell as well as prevents the seed's metabolic activity, keeping dormant.

I posted as just an example of a seed being an open system, that does not undergo decay when subject to an open source of energy, if that seed is tossed on the ground it will not rot away if there is an open source of usable energy...and that was my point, a seed can be dormant for years, yet when subject to a usable source of energy it comes to life...the 2000 year old seed, is only an example of how entropy did not appear to effect the genetic information inside the 2000 year old seed.
indicating there does appear to be a built in resistance to entropy within genetic design, I think the Shannon standard proves measurable differences that indicate resistance to entropy within the genome.
this is not my argument and I shouldn't have butted in I guess.....

 

[withreason]

random_guy
I am not trying to argue against you, I am a creationist, but I do see some validating issues, I completely agree that entropy will dominate any resistance given enough time, but, I also believe that God had to create entropy resistance within fragile components of his creation, or there could be no substantial development of creation.

 

[withreason]

Jesus was the first fruits of the resurrection.

can I barge in?....I was wondering if you mean this figuratively, or literally?
I personally feel that there is a huge blunder of interpretation to make Christ, the firstfruits.

 

[gluadys]

can I barge in?....I was wondering if you mean this figuratively, or literally?
I personally feel that there is a huge blunder of interpretation to make Christ, the firstfruits.

The image is from Paul. 1 Corinthians 15: 20, 23

 

[withreason]

The image is from Paul. 1 Corinthians 15: 20, 23

yes, thats what I thought.

I do believe there is both interpretation error and translation error in that verse. the word "become" being translated from the (textus receptis)"Ginomai" would be more accurately
translated ..fulfilled.. performed..made..wrought.

the firstfruits are clearly identified by God in Lev 23:17-20.
the common acceptance of the current view has removed the identifiable role of the firstfruit wave offering in Lev 23:17-20. with the relationship to the two separate firstfruit harvest offerings, the first being Mat 27:52-53, the second is yet to occur, this is what paul clarifies by the order, (Christ the firstfruits, then those who belong to christ at his coming).
there should have been a coma after "Christ," the NIV adds the coma, but I do not use the NIV...the literal translation would be "the anointed the firstfruits"...

 

[gluadys]

yes, thats what I thought.

I do believe there is both interpretation error and translation error in that verse. the word "become" being translated from the (textus receptis)"Ginomai" would be more accurately
translated ..fulfilled.. performed..made..wrought.

the firstfruits are clearly identified by God in Lev 23:17-20.
the common acceptance of the current view has removed the identifiable role of the firstfruit wave offering in Lev 23:17-20. with the relationship to the two separate firstfruit harvest offerings, the first being Mat 27:52-53, the second is yet to occur, this is what paul clarifies by the order, (Christ the firstfruits, then those who belong to christ at his coming).
there should have been a coma after "Christ," the NIV adds the coma, but I do not use the NIV...the literal translation would be "the anointed the firstfruits"...

I don't know Greek so I can't comment on an alleged translation error. The placement of a comma is a translator's choice since such punctuation did not exist yet when Paul wrote.

But if I understand you correctly, you see a list of three (1. Christ, 2. first fruits, 3. those who belong to Christ at his coming) where most translations imply (by the absence of a comma) a list of two (1. Christ who is the first fruits and 2. those who are belong to Christ at his coming.)

If I have got that right, I would be interested in who you identify as the first fruits.

I also wonder what you think Paul meant in verse 20 when he simply identifies Christ as the first fruits. I find it difficult to accept that within the same paragraph Paul would change the application of the metaphor.

Finally I am puzzled by your reference to two first fruit harvest festivals. I have gone over the laws pertaining to the festivals in Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy as well as Leviticus, and while they mention two harvest festivals, only one is a first-fruits festival. The other is the festival of ingathering that marks the end of the harvest--when the threshing floor is cleared and all the wine has been pressed.

 

[withreason]

If I have got that right, I would be interested in who you identify as the first fruits.

I also wonder what you think Paul meant in verse 20 when he simply identifies Christ as the first fruits. I find it difficult to accept that within the same paragraph Paul would change the application of the metaphor.

Well, “simply indicating Christ as the first fruits” is my point. That inconspicuous little error should be scrutinized very closely, much valuable insight to the resurrection can be understood through the correct interpretation and understanding of the first fruits.
First, I did not reference two festivals; I will try to explain…The feast of first fruits has for the most part been translated into a spiritual metaphor, the day of Pentecost has been the accepted theological interpretation, this has overshadowed and virtually hidden the most important part of the festival service.
We know what Christ (the resurrection) stated in Mat 5:17 -
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
With that in mind, after the counting of the Homer,( 7 Sabbaths from the day after the sheaf of the wave offering ) there were two loaves of bread baked with leaven, made from the first gleanings of the wheat, these two loaves of bread are absolutely identified by God, “they are the firstfruits unto the LORD.” Lev 23:17. Also..keep in mind, this is the only time when yeast is ever used!

Additionally, two lambs of the first year(unblemished) would be sacrificed, the high priest would then take one loaf of the bread in one hand, and with the other he would take the meat of the first lamb and would combine the meat & bread together, and with his arms in front of him and above his head, he would begin to wave in the motion of an arch, all of the meat from the first lamb with the first loaf, he would then repeat the process with the second loaf and lamb until all was waved before the curtain to the most holy place. This was the commencement of the first fruit festival.

Now, there are two places in the bible where God undeniably identifies the first fruits, Lev 23:7 the two wave loaves, and Rev 14:4. The 144.000.
Ok, we have two loaves of bread made with sin, they are called the first fruits by God! We have two lambs of the first year sacrificed and offered with these two sin filled loaves of bread, what’s the meaning?? Two first fruit offerings, one from each covenant! This explains Mat 27:52. And Rev 14:4

With Paul being the learned Pharisee that he was, it gave him more understanding of levitical Law than the other apostles, and the Pharisee belief was in a resurrection, and they did have some resurrection expectations from the harvest feast's, yet, they expected that to be fulfilled through the Law of Moses.

Paul is not identifying Christ as becoming these two wave loaves of sin! He is saying that Christ fulfilled the first fruit offering of those that slept! Mat 27:52. Then he goes on to clarify the order of the resurrection, (which is according to Law) Christ, the first fruits, then the rest of Christ’s children.

So..one loaf from the old covenant has been offered to God, there remains one more…144.000
It doesn’t get much easier than that! It’s all in the bible, it’s just been over looked…! Cheers..

 

[gluadys]

It doesn’t get much easier than that! It’s all in the bible, it’s just been over looked…! Cheers..

Sorry, I don't find this style of interpretation either easy or attractive. It involves too much jiggery-pokery ad hoc relating of disparate scriptures with all the connections depending on sheer imagination.

It reminds me of the tortuous machinations of Jewish mystical Gematria.

I don't understand why you relate the passage in Leviticus to either the passage in Matthew or the passage in Revelation, neither of which mention first fruits. I don't understand why you make the analogies you do between the loaves of the first fruit offerings and the resurrected of either passage.

I find it strange that people who claim to follow the "plain meaning" of scripture tie it into knots like this. I really think scriptural analogies are much easier to understand than this and I prefer to take Paul's analogy more at face value.

 

[withreason]

Sorry, I don't find this style of interpretation either easy or attractive. It involves too much jiggery-pokery ad hoc relating of disparate scriptures with all the connections depending on sheer imagination.

It reminds me of the tortuous machinations of Jewish mystical Gematria.

I don't understand why you relate the passage in Leviticus to either the passage in Matthew or the passage in Revelation, neither of which mention first fruits. I don't understand why you make the analogies you do between the loaves of the first fruit offerings and the resurrected of either passage.

I find it strange that people who claim to follow the "plain meaning" of scripture tie it into knots like this. I really think scriptural analogies are much easier to understand than this and I prefer to take Paul's analogy more at face value.

I see that a clear definement of identity to the firstfruits by God, does not stimulate your awareness ..?? or, your interest..?? the only knots that are in the scripture are for those that cant untie them, the interpretation errors are found by those who invest decades of study to find out why there are inconsistencies in the "plain meaning of scripture".
and here...I un-tied a knot for you, yet...you are too amused within the knot to see what it is...it seems the analytical aptitude is quite limited..and I thought otherwise..

 

[gluadys]

I see that a clear definement of identity to the firstfruits by God, does not stimulate your awareness

By God? Looks more to me like your interpretation and a rather involved one that has no defined rationale behind it. It is definitely not clear to me, for the reasons already given.

 

[withreason]

no defined rationale behind it. It is definitely not clear to me, for the reasons already given.

is the rational truly that obscure to you..?? to understand the God intended meaning of the firstfruit, the meaning that Paul was expounding upon to the corinthians, that became of slight error in translation..
of which the order of the resurrection has been twisted into elaborate tales of rapture... please.
if the identity to the firstfruit is understood, then the order of the resurrection is understood.
The Law clearly defines the identity of the first fruit.
The Law clearly identifies two separate groups of first fruits.
The Law clearly identifies these two groups being offered to God with the blood & body of the sacrificed lamb.
The gospel clearly teaches a resurrection event of many saints has occurred.
Paul clearly expounded upon this, unfortunately..the word "became" has created a problem..."Christ became the firstfruits of them that slept" ...not Moses!!
paul was defining the resurrection not the firstfruits.
and the firstfruit resurrection of mat 27:53, is of Christ, not Moses!
then paul goes on to define the order of the resurrection of Christ....Christ, the firstfruit, then those who belong to Christ at his coming.
there is no pre-trib rapture for the general assembly, only the completion of the firstfruit offering, then those at his coming...

"no defined rational behind it"...really..??

 

[gluadys]

is the rational truly that obscure to you..?? to understand the God intended meaning of the firstfruit, the meaning that Paul was expounding upon to the corinthians, that became of slight error in translation..
of which the order of the resurrection has been twisted into elaborate tales of rapture... please.
if the identity to the firstfruit is understood, then the order of the resurrection is understood.
The Law clearly defines the identity of the first fruit.
The Law clearly identifies two separate groups of first fruits.
The Law clearly identifies these two groups being offered to God with the blood & body of the sacrificed lamb.
The gospel clearly teaches a resurrection event of many saints has occurred.
Paul clearly expounded upon this, unfortunately..the word "became" has created a problem..."Christ became the firstfruits of them that slept" ...not Moses!!
paul was defining the resurrection not the firstfruits.
and the firstfruit resurrection of mat 27:53, is of Christ, not Moses!
then paul goes on to define the order of the resurrection of Christ....Christ, the firstfruit, then those who belong to Christ at his coming.
there is no pre-trib rapture for the general assembly, only the completion of the firstfruit offering, then those at his coming...

"no defined rational behind it"...really..??

I don't buy into elaborate tales of the rapture either. But yes the rationale is obscure to me. What is the reasoning that connects Leviticus 23:17 to Matthew 27:53 for example? Matthew doesn't refer to the resurrected saints as first fruits, but Paul does refer to Christ as first fruits. And Matthew is the only person to mention the saints resurrected at the time of the crucifixion, so we get no help from any other scripture.

You say: the Law clearly defines two separate groups of first fruits. But what I see in Leviticus is that the single first fruit offering consists of two loaves of bread. I see no reason to make any more of Leviticus than that. Nothing in Leviticus suggests any additional interpretation to me.

I cannot fathom this plucking of isolated verses from very different texts and stringing them together in such an imaginative fashion. I need to see more substantive reasons for connecting them.

 

[Robert_Barnes]

I think you mean enthalpy.

Ack!

And these laws of thermodynamics are the fundemental bases used by many against evoltuion.

Just because they use 'em doesn't mean they use 'em right.

You are insisting that the laws of thermodynamics of the fallen world are true of Eden.

Technically, I'm insisting that Genesis insists that at some point during the creation week, these came into being, and were part of the process God used in creation.

Will they still hold fast in the world to come,

I have no data with which to answer such a question.

or better yet, did they reign over the Christ?

Well, He came back from the dead, so apparently not.

 

[withreason]

I don't buy into elaborate tales of the rapture either. But yes the rationale is obscure to me. What is the reasoning that connects Leviticus 23:17 to Matthew 27:53 for example? Matthew doesn't refer to the resurrected saints as first fruits, but Paul does refer to Christ as first fruits. And Matthew is the only person to mention the saints resurrected at the time of the crucifixion, so we get no help from any other scripture.

You say: the Law clearly defines two separate groups of first fruits. But what I see in Leviticus is that the single first fruit offering consists of two loaves of bread. I see no reason to make any more of Leviticus than that. Nothing in Leviticus suggests any additional interpretation to me.

I cannot fathom this plucking of isolated verses from very different texts and stringing them together in such an imaginative fashion. I need to see more substantive reasons for connecting them.

My connection to the first covenant resurrection saints of Mat 27:53, is to use basic eschotogical study practice, the verse below Mat 5:17-20, Christ, “the resurrection” came to fulfill the law, if what Christ said is true?...then he is fulfilling what is already recorded within the law, or, there would be no fulfilling of the law! …Having said that, the event of Mat 27:53, should be found within the law!

Mat 5:17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

As to a direct link to the wave loaves and the saints of mat 27:53, I believe my best answer to that would be, discernment!
Paul links the two together in 1 Cor 15:20 & 15:23, yet the translation ;with the 1500 year gap, creates the impression of Christ literally becoming the first fruit, which leads the reader into missing the separation of Christ, the first fruits in verse 23, resulting in missing the entire order of the resurrection and the connection.

With all of this (according to Christ) being found within the law.

If you study the word superficially, you will only gain the understanding of the obvious, the wisdom of god requires more than the obvious for us to understand. He gave us the pattern and directed us to it! The rest is up to us….. and it’s all there…just like he said!

Mathew did not connect Christ to the first fruit iether!

paul is connecting Christ as the reason why many saints came out of the graves, Christ did not become those saints! he fulfilled the law of the firstfruit offering of those saints.

 

[gluadys]

My connection to the first covenant resurrection saints of Mat 27:53, is to use basic eschotogical study practice, the verse below Mat 5:17-20, ....

Well, now you are just compounding the problem, throwing another passage into the mix without showing any reason to do so.

As to a direct link to the wave loaves and the saints of mat 27:53, I believe my best answer to that would be, discernment!

Which basically comes down to opinion and interpretation. I still don't fathom the basic ground rules you are using for interpreting scripture in this way.

Paul links the two together in 1 Cor 15:20 & 15:23,

No, he doesn't. He doesn't refer to either Leviticus or Matthew, and assuming that he interpreted Leviticus in the same way you suggest is just that: an assumption.

with the 1500 year gap, creates the impression of Christ literally becoming the first fruit, which leads the reader into missing the separation of Christ, the first fruits in verse 23, resulting in missing the entire order of the resurrection and the connection.

Well, the separation of "Christ" from "first fruits" in 1 Cor. 15:23 is solely a matter of interpretation. Remember, the original writing had no punctuation to guide the reader to one possibility rather than another. Furthermore, even if a comma is inserted after "Christ" so that it reads "Christ, the first fruits, ..." that still doesn't mean they are separated, as a comma can designate a description in apposition to the name as well as a separate item in a list.

For example, say someone was describing a picture in these terms. "There is Mary with Jack, her father, and Michael." Are there two or three men in the picture with Mary? That depends. The words "Jack, her father..." could be referring to someone named Jack and another person, who is her father, or they could mean that Jack is her father.

If you study the word superficially, you will only gain the understanding of the obvious, the wisdom of god requires more than the obvious for us to understand. He gave us the pattern and directed us to it! The rest is up to us….. and it’s all there…just like he said!

So are you departing from the position of other YECists that there is a plain, clear meaning to the text, and we should look no further?

I have nothing against deep study and going beyond a superficial meaning, but I want to see some rhyme and reason in the methodology.

All I see is a kind of plucking of proof texts from anywhere and everywhere to prop up a just-so story, with no regard to authorship or dating, the purpose for which it was written, the integrity of each text, the historical and theological context of each text on its own, and no substantiating that they are supposed to be considered together at all, much less in the way you are proposing.

Mathew did not connect Christ to the first fruit iether!

Exactly, so why are you connecting what Matthew says to first fruits at all?

paul is connecting Christ as the reason why many saints came out of the graves,

No, Paul is speaking of Christ. He makes no reference to Matthew's gospel. Probably because Matthew hadn't written it yet, so there was nothing to refer to.

 

[david_x]

no death
but no reproduction either

 

[jckstraw72]

no death
but no reproduction either

well, no sexual reproduction at least. that was a concession to our fallen nature to bring us back together.