space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

by aChristian 251 Replies latest jw friends

aChristian

Gambler,
I couldn't help but laugh when I read your post. The fun you poked at me was, well ... quite funny. Thanks for the humor. You made my Christmas Day a bit merrier.
In your light hearted way you wrote: I am very confused as to what you belive from your insane babalings.Let me get this straight, You belive adam and eve came from homo erectis and that all that junk about eve coming from a rib must be a metaphor about evaloution.
The above spelling, of course, was your own. : ) I'm not picking on you. I enjoyed it. It actually made your post even more humorous. Anyway, it sounds as if you may actually be interested in knowing what I believe about the story of Adam and Eve, since I have already said that I believe God used evolution to create all life on earth including the human race. And it sounds like you may be wondering how I manage to decide which parts of the Bible are to be understood as actual historical accounts and which parts should be understood as simply fictional stories meant to be understood metaphorically or allegorically.
My position is simple. I do not believe the Bible contains any fictional stories. I believe all of the Bible's stories, including its stories of Adam and Eve and Noah's flood, actually happened just as the Bible tells us they did. However, I believe God often staged various historical events to serve as lessons for us all.
The apostle Paul understood this to be the case. For concerning the Bible's story of Abraham, whom the Jewish people certainly believed was an actual historical figure, Paul wrote, "For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother." (Gal. 4:24-26)
I believe that the Bible tells us of God's creation of the human race in Gen.1:26-30. I believe that the Bible tells us of God's later creation of Adam and Eve in Gen. 2:4-3:24.
I believe that God "created" the human race when He began giving highly evolved primates the ability to comprehend various "spiritual" concepts and, more importantly, when He began giving them eternal spirits. I believe these were the creative acts spoken of in Gen. 1:27.
I believe Adam and Eve were individually created by God, just as Genesis tells us they were, many thousands of years after God created the human race to serve as representatives of their race for the purpose of illustrating some important lessons. The first lesson I believe God used Adam and Eve to teach us was that all human beings are less righteous than God. And because we all are less righteous than God, none of us is deserving of eternal life.
The story of Adam and Eve also illustrated the fact that because we are always less righteous than God we are always in need of His forgiveness even when we have not recently committed any "sinful" act. I believe this lesson was illustrated by Adam and Eve being totally unaware of their nakedness before God until after they had committed a blatant act of disobedience. (Nakedness is a condition always portrayed as shameful in the scriptures.) Then, suddenly, after they had "sinned" they became aware of their nakedness and felt the need to "hide from God." Just as we often only become aware of our shameful condition before God after committing some "sinful act." And just as we then often feel ashamed of ourselves and try to hide from God by withdrawing from Him by not praying or by not attending Church, etc., until we finally get over our guilt. However, the fact is, we are no more worthy to stand in the presence of a perfect God before committing a "sinful act" than we are after doing so. Just as Adam and Eve were, in reality, just as naked before they disobeyed God as they were after doing so. They just didn't realize it.
This understanding, that the Bible does not portray Adam as the first man in an absolute chronological sense, also answers the often asked questions, "Where did Cain get his wife?" and "Who were the people living in the land 'east of Eden' whom Cain was afraid might kill him?" (Gen. 4:14-17)
By the way, the only place in Scripture Adam is referred to as the "first" man is in 1 Cor.15:45-47. There Adam is called "the first man." But there we also find that Jesus is called "the second man." The context shows that the writer of those words was referring to Adam as the "first" man only in his relative chronological position to Christ. In other words, since Adam came "first" and Christ came "second," Adam came before Christ.
Some may object to this understanding, pointing out that Genesis 3:20 tells us "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all living." However, a careful reading of Genesis 3's context shows us that Adam did so only after God prophesied that He would raise up a Savior and that He would count that Savior as Eve's descendent. (Genesis 3:15) Since everyone given eternal life by God will call that Savior their "Eternal Father" ( Isaiah 9:6 ), Adam could truly say that Eve "would become the mother of all living." For she was the one God said would be counted as the original human ancestor of that promised Savior and "Eternal Father."
Some may also point out that their Bible tells them that God "made from one man every nation of men." (Acts 17:26) However, the words "one man" do not appear in Acts 17:26 in any ancient Bible manuscript. Most ancient manuscripts simply say that God "made from one every nation of Men." Other ancient Greek manuscripts, from which this portion of the Bible is translated, tell us that God "made from one blood every nation of men." For this reason The Amplified Bible here reads God "made from one [common origin, one source, one blood] all nations of men." The New English Bible translates this verse to tell us that God created every race of men from "one stock." So, Acts 17:26 can only be used to confirm that all people on earth are descended from ancestors who came from the same gene pool, and that all people on earth have the same original source of origin, a teaching which fully agrees with the findings of modern science. This verse does not say, in any Greek manuscript, that mankind's common origin was one man.
Most other objections to this understanding of Scripture come from those who adhere to the doctrine of "The Fall" of mankind. This doctrine is based on what I believe is are misunderstandings of the apostle Paul's words in Romans 5:12-20 and 1 Corinthians 15:21,22.
That should be enough to thoroughly confuse you for now. : )
D wiltshire

Achristian,
You have done a good job, I enjoy reading your posts.
But you raise some questons in your explaination of Adam & Eve.
I believe that the Bible tells us of God's creation of the human race in Gen.1:26-30. I believe that the Bible tells us of God's later creation of Adam and Eve in Gen. 2:4-3:24.
I believe that God "created" the human race when He began giving highly evolved primates the ability to comprehend various "spiritual" concepts and, more importantly, when He began giving them eternal spirits. I believe these were the creative acts spoken of in Gen. 1:27.
I believe Adam and Eve were individually created by God, just as Genesis tells us they were, many thousands of years after God created the human race to serve as representatives of their race for the purpose of illustrating some important lessons. The first lesson I believe God used Adam and Eve to teach us was that all human beings are less righteous than God. And because we all are less righteous than God, none of us is deserving of eternal life.
I can see your reasoning as something I need seriously concider.
But one question if I may?
If this is true and sin didn't come from one man Adam but was already with the human race, then why did Christ have do die as a ransom?
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
clash_city_rockers

TEST TEST
ACHRISTIAN
MY COMPUTERIS DOWN
BUT IN MY NEXT POST I HAVE
A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION
aChristian

Alan,
You wrote: How can you argue that it's fine for God to do exactly the same thing he condemns humans for doing?
God is the Father of the human race. Much like any parent, God is allowed to make rules for his children which he himself does not have to follow. A parent may tell his small children that they are not allowed to cross the street but a parent is not being hypocritical for crossing the street himself. Parents decide what is right and wrong for their children and cannot be accused of behaving unrighteously if they themselves do not always follow all of the rules they give to their children.
Parents can rightly tell their children that they are not allowed to make unauthorized long distance phone calls, even though the parents themselves occasionally make long distance phone calls. Why? Because the parents believe their children do not have the wisdom to decide when such expensive phone calls are necessary, do not have the ability to pay for the calls, and do not have the right to presume that their parents will pay for their unauthorized calls, even though those children have heard their parents say that they always pay their phone bills. God can rightly tell us that we are not allowed to kill people, even though He Himself has done so. Why? Because God knows we do not have the wisdom to decide when such acts are justified, do not have the ability to resurrect the dead, and do not have the right to presume God will resurrect the people we kill, even though we know God has said He will one day resurrect all who have died.
You wrote: The resurrection is a very nice idea that, when you carefully examine its mechanism, creates more problems than it solves. The basic problem is this: for a person to be resurrected, there must be continuity of physical existence from the original person to the resurrected one. ... According to what I clearly understand the Bible to say, when a person dies he is unconscious, perhaps even completely out of existence. ... What scriptures can you find that clearly indicate a continuity of physical existence?
Come on, Alan, that is JW theology. It is not biblical theology. The Bible teaches that everyone has a "spirit" or "soul" within them which survives the death of their body and "returns to God who gave it" at the time of their death. (Ecl. 12:6,7) If this is not the case then Jesus' words recorded in Matthew 10:28 make no sense. There we find that Jesus said, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul." If we are, in effect, nothing but bodies, as JWs teach, and if no part of us survives our deaths, as JWs also teach, then those who kill our bodies do, in fact, kill our souls. But as I said, the scriptures indicate otherwise. For instance, Luke 23:46 tells us that just before breathing his last breath, "Jesus called out with a loud voice, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.' " And Acts 7:59 tells us that "While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' " Do you really think that when Jesus and Stephen spoke the words they did that they thought no part of them was going to survive the death of their bodies?
You may also want to read 1 Samuel 28:7-20 without wearing JW glasses. There we find that after the death of Samuel, Saul consulted a spirit medium in order to seek Samuel's advise. This passage of scripture clearly indicates that Saul's attempt to contact Samuel in this way, following Samuel's death, was successful. Verse 15 tells us what the departed "Samuel said to Saul." Verse 16 also tells us what "Samuel said" at the time. Verse 20 tells us that, following their conversation, Saul was "filled with fear because of Samuel's words." JWs say this must have been a demon impersonating Samuel. But this passage of scripture says nothing of the sort. Rather, it repeatedly tells us that "Samuel" himself was the one who was then speaking to Saul. For reasons which are quite clear to anyone who reads this entire passage and its larger context, God allowed Saul to successfully communicate with Samuel's "soul" or "spirit" following Samuel's death. Saul could not have done so if no part of Samuel had survived his death.
The scriptures indicate that our "souls" or "spirits" normally "sleep" following our deaths, prior to the time we are resurrected. (Acts 7:60; 1 Thes. 4:14,15) Thus we can understand Samuel's comment to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" (1 Sam. 28:15) JWs love to quote a verse which says that "the dead are conscious of nothing at all." (Ecl. 9:5) But there is a big difference between a person being "asleep" or unconscious and a person being nonexistent, as JWs say all who have died are. As I think I have shown, the scriptures indicate that JWs are wrong about this, and that there is, in fact, continuity of physical existence from the original person to the resurrected one.
You wrote: Tell me, aChristian, if God directly told you to kill your family, would you do it?
I answered: I am convinced beyond all doubt that God would never tell me to do such things. ... Thus, if anyone ever ordered me to kill my family or my neighbors there is nothing the person or entity who was giving me such instructions could do to convince me they were God.
You responded: This is much like asking a Jehovah's Witness, "What would you do if the Society told you to start worshiping Jesus rather than God?"
Your analogy is incorrect. The fallacy of it is that no JW could say, "There is nothing anyone could ever do to convince me that such instructions actually came from the Society." For such instructions would only have to be printed in Watchtower Society publications and read from the platform at the Kingdom Hall and all JWs would know the Society had changed their teaching on this matter, in exactly the same way that all JWs have become convinced that the Society has changed their teachings on other matters.
Since your analogy was incorrect, and you cannot show that my response to your question was inaccurate, it remains. "If anyone ever ordered me to kill my family or my neighbors there is nothing the person or entity who was giving me such instructions could do to convince me they were God."
You wrote: Are you certain that those ancient commands will never be repeated?
Yes, I am.
aChristian

DW,
You wrote: If this is true and sin didn't come from one man Adam but was already with the human race, then why did Christ have do die as a ransom?
Advocates of "The Fall" doctrine say that Adam must have literally been the first man. Because if he was not, then we are not all Adam's descendants. And if we are not, then we could not all have inherited Adam's "fallen," "sinful" nature. And if we did not, then they say, we do not all need God's forgiveness through Jesus Christ, as the Bible tells us we all do. (Romans 3:23,24; 1 John 2:2)
However, the Bible also clearly tells us that God will hold each one of us responsible for his or her own unrighteousness, not for Adam's. (Romans 14:10-12, 2 Corinthians 5:10)
And the Scriptures say that we all need the forgiveness God offers us through Jesus Christ, because we have all personally "sinned" and have all personally "fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
I do not believe the Bible teaches that mankind "fell." Rather, I believe it tells us that God originally created the human race as free people. Free to do both right and wrong. In the exact same way we are free to do so today. Unfortunately we often choose to do what is wrong rather than what is right. God, however, cannot do wrong. For God is "Incorruptible." (Romans 1:23) So, because we can and often do behave unrighteously, and because God cannot and never does behave unrighteously, we are less righteous than God. And, because "all unrighteousness is sin" we are all born "sinful". (1 John 5:17, New American Standard Bible; Psalms 51:5)
Being able to do wrong, Adam was, from his very beginning, also less righteous than God. And he later proved his "sinful" condition by his behavior. Because Adam in paradise could not manage to obey one simple command from God, he clearly demonstrated that he and the entire human race, including those who had lived before him and those who would live after him, were far less righteous than God.
So, with these things in mind, Paul accurately referred to Adam when he wrote, "By one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners." (Romans 5:19, Amplified Bible) This is true because Adam's disobedience demonstrated that the entire human race was not only capable of doing wrong but incapable of not doing wrong. So, after Adam failed a simple God given test of his righteousness, God had good reason to retroactively condemn the entire human race as being deserving of the deaths they had been suffering, and undeserving of eternal life, a gift God had not yet given to any human being.
So, if mankind did not "fall," what did happen in Eden? I believe those who adhere to the doctrine of "The Fall" also basically misunderstand the events which transpired in Eden.
The Genesis account clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were created mortal with a dying nature just like us. The story of Adam and Eve told in Genesis makes clear that their being able to live forever was not a part of their original physical nature. Rather, Adam and Eve's ability to live forever depended entirely on their eating from a tree "in the middle of the garden" of Eden, "the tree of life." (Genesis 2:9) Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were going to be allowed to continue to eat from that tree only if they passed a God given test, a test which we are told they failed. After failing that test God expelled Adam and his wife from the Garden of Eden and prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life."
Genesis indicates that had Adam and Eve been allowed to continue eating from "the tree of life" their lives would have been prolonged indefinitely. (Genesis 3:22-24) But when God prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life" they died what were apparently natural deaths. A careful reading of the Genesis account shows us that living forever would have been as unnatural for Adam and Eve as it would now be for us.
Genesis does not indicate that Adam and Eve originally had eternal life programmed into their genetic codes by God and later had their genetic codes reprogrammed by God in order to remove eternal life from those codes. Rather, Genesis indicates that Adam and Eve would have lived forever only if God had graciously given them eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life." I believe that "tree of life" was meant to picture Jesus Christ.
For, as we have seen, God was going to give Adam and Eve eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life," only if they passed a very simple test. And the Bible tells us that we will be given eternal life from an outside source, Jesus Christ, only if we pass a very simple test. That test is to simply believe in our hearts that Christ's death was sufficient payment to buy every human being God's full forgiveness, forgiveness for both our sinful nature and our sinful acts.
Jesus Christ's sacrificial death, "the ransom," did not pay the price for just Adam's sin. It paid the price for "the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2) The Bible tells us that God allowed his only begotten son to pay for the unrighteousness of billions of human beings with his own life. How could God consider only one death, a death which only lasted from Friday afternoon until the following Sunday morning, to have equal or greater value than many billions of human deaths, deaths which would last forever? He could do so because he considered the three days of life which his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, gave up to be more valuable than many billions of eternal human lives. Why? Because God knew that Jesus Christ was far more than a human being. God also knew that Jesus Christ was far more than "a perfect human being," or "Adam's equal" as some cults like to call him in their explanation of "the ransom." God knew that Jesus Christ, as his only begotten son, was also God. And because Jesus Christ was God, his father considered his death, and his three lost days of life which followed his death, to be worth far more than many billions of eternal human lives.
clash_city_rockers

aChristian,
I was looking at your coments and had to ask if you truely believed that there was humans before adam and eve and (normal living activity in the anamal kingdom i.e. lions and tigers eat and sleep and do thier thing untill the die{key word}. Same thing with the plants and trees they grow up tall and leafy then they die, timber......)
Now earlyer you said that the bible was the ultamate authority, right?
If so lets go to scripture for some insite on the begining of man and creation.
Escargot, David W, and other christians pay close attention on the method of questioning and you will see why we should let the BIBLE defend its self.(presupositionalism) And I want you to see the weakness of trying to have science, philosophy, mathamatics, baseball or anything else defend the bible.(evedentialism)
1. If you beleive in this evolutionist/creationist systhisis, i.e. God used evolution as his creative process. There is no way you could of got it from scripture. So if the evolution process has ben going for all this time, since the begining of creation in one degree or another. Then all living things including pre-Adam and Eve humans where subject to death and dying.
2. If you hold on to your view how can you reconsile the Romans 5:12 passage "death came into the world through Adams sin"? When in your view there is death before the fall. Either you are wrong or the bible is wrong but you can't both be wright. Unless you want to submit that both you and the Bible are wrong at that point I will have to ask by what standard do you make such a claim. I would submit that the scriptures are correct thus your theory is falsified by the data in the bible.
3. If all living biological systems where "status quo (going normally along thier every day thing)" before and after the fall as your view dictates. Then, how can you explain Romans 8:19-21 about "creation awaiting(growning for) the consumation of redemtion"? If creation was perfect(i.e. God saw it was good from Gen. 1) before the fall. The fall happened God Curses man starting with capitol punnishment(death being introduced in to planit Earth. Gen.2:17, 3:14-19. this effects all creation because of The fall!
When why would creation grown for its redemtion basically back to the garden then things didn't die.
Do you believe in the Fall? If not then how can you believe in redemption in Jesus Christ? Unless you believe Jesus was just a "moral example" and not "Savior".
Stick to the scriptures to defend the scriptures.
sola scriptura for ever,
jr
clash_city_rockers

aChristian,
You are so absolutly wrong! I will will challenge you verse by verse your anti-christian doctrines.
aChristian said: snip
"I do not believe the Bible teaches that mankind "fell." Rather, I believe it tells us that God originally created the human race as free people. Free to do both right and wrong. In the exact same way we are free to do so today. Unfortunately we often choose to do what is wrong rather than what is right. God, however, cannot do wrong. For God is "Incorruptible." (Romans 1:23) So, because we can and often do behave unrighteously, and because God cannot and never does behave unrighteously, we are less righteous than God. And, because "all unrighteousness is sin" we are all born "sinful". (1 John 5:17, New American Standard Bible; Psalms 51:5)"
The bible does teach the fall. Not only that by God charges us first with adams sin since he was our federal representive then charges with our sin since we are bound to it? How do you explain Romans 5:12-21 read the whole passage (all crhistians on this board, hold this man to the passage)? One man Adam brought sin and death into the world(curse of the fall, which you reject) Romans 5:12-14. One mans trespass lead to the condemation of all is the biblical teaching. If no one is guilty for Adams sin then how can you account for Romans 5:18. The fall does two things render us guilty for adams transgression and distroyes all MORAL ABILITY TO CHOOSE GOD(free will) read Romans 3:11 very carfully and John 1:13 very carfully. John uses "not by the will of the flesh" this refutes aChristians free will error. Men are not Born Again (made alive) by thier free will as John says but by the mercy of God. Eph 4:5 (Eph 1-10). We are under the condemnation of God 1st because of Adams transgression, again to deny this is to reject the Romans 5:12-21 passage in its entierty. 2nd we are guilty of are sins namely the surpression of truth in unrightiousness Romans 1:18-32.
What's more distressing is that if you deny that our guilt came from Adam then by Paul's consitant argument from Romans 5:12-21 namely verse 19, then our saving rightiousness(for those who believe) does not come from ourselves, which by logical implication must come from us. The doctrine of the IMPUTATION of Christ's Perfect Rightiousness is by faith alone. Romans 3:23-26, 4:5. We are given Christ's perfect rightiousness outside of anything we do. (no working for salvation here, this is of course against the free will salvation who by logical implication work for salvation) Just like we are guilty of Adams sin even though we where not physically there. Look God already impunes guilt before we are born. Read the psalm 51:5 passage carfully and not dishonestly misread the passage. "I was born Guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me" Ps51:5 NRSV.
Look, and fallow this closely.
1. We sin, because we are sinners(it's what we do it's who we are)
2. Your view which is false, is we are sinners because we sin(as if man had a choice to do otherwise)
David, Escargot, look this man's error is nothing new it is what we call Palagianism named after Palagius Rejected by Christains through out History like.
1. Agustine
2. Anselm
3. Martin Luther
4. John Calvin
5. John Knox
6. Dutch Calvinist (contenental reformed)
7. Scotch/Irish Calvinist (true presbyterianism)
8. All English Puritians (Congragational, Baptist, Reformed Episcapalian)
9. Jonathan Edwards (hey DW, you ought to read Johnathan edwards he had some cool stuff like "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God" and "Safty in the Rightiousness of Christ Alone on the day of Judgement")
Guys, don't get duped by this man.
Another herectical view by aChristian:
"So, with these things in mind, Paul accurately referred to Adam when he wrote, "By one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners." (Romans 5:19, Amplified Bible) This is true because Adam's disobedience demonstrated that the entire human race was not only capable of doing wrong but incapable of not doing wrong. So, after Adam failed a simple God given test of his righteousness, God had good reason to retroactively condemn the entire human race as being deserving of: the deaths they had been suffering, and undeserving of eternal life, a gift God had not yet given to any human being."
Response: Your exigises is a wrong. Verse 19 of Romans 5 says by one mans sin many where MADE(constituded is a poor word) sinners(due to there nature not just thier acts). Adam and Adam ALONE hade the choice to sin or obedience, no one after Adam had that ability, Again and let the record reflect for everyone to read these passages. Ps 53: 2,3. Who seeks for God acourding to this passage? Answer No One. This passage refutes your claim. John 1:13 can man believe by his own free will? Answer: NO, not by the will of the flesh or the will of man. Romans 3:11 You believe anyone has the ability to seek God. The Bible says "No one seeks for God" Basically when one is born into this world "spititually speaking" he is born "Dead on Arrival" to the things of God. John 6:65 Acourding to you any Tom, Dick or Harry has the ability to come to Christ for forgiveness. But the scriptures refute that claim "No one can Come to Christ, unless granted(enabled) by the father. Thus regeneration(being born again) precedes faith and repentance.
It gets worse, achristian writes:
"The story of Adam and Eve told in Genesis makes clear that their being able to live forever was not a part of their original physical nature. Rather, Adam and Eve's ability to live forever depended entirely on their eating from a tree "in the middle of the garden" of Eden, "the tree of life." (Genesis 2:9) Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were going to be allowed to continue to eat from that tree only if they passed a God given test, a test which we are told they failed. After failing that test God expelled Adam and his wife from the Garden of Eden and prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life."

1. You said " Adam and Eve's ability to live forever depended entirely on their eating from a tree "in the middle of the garden" of Eden, "the tree of life.""
Reponse: Everyone read Gen 2:17 "but of the tree of Good and Evil YOU SHALL NOT eat for in the day you that you eat of it you shall shurely DIE" your error is a Satanic error for the root of the error is questioning God's word like satan did. "hath God said?" Gen 3:1
2. You said "The story of Adam and Eve told in Genesis makes clear that their being able to live forever was not a part of their original physical nature"
Response: With your misinterpratation of the "tree of life" refuted chapter and verse your claim that God intended Adam and Eve to be mortal?
DW, don't use the word ransom in describing Christ Death. Use the word Substitution and or Propitiation(satisfaction of justice) Romans 3:25.
Christ's death was not a ransom to Satan, but a pay off of perfect justice to God the Father(on the behave of the believer).
Soli Deo Gloria,
jr
AlanF

To aChristian:
: As DW said, you make some very valid points. Points that I believe should be, and must be, addressed by Christians today if we hope to reach the hearts of all people, including all educated people, with the message of Christ.
I agree. Otherwise you end up with complete nonsense, much like is taught by the JWs and our friend clash_city_rockers. It's nonsense because it contradicts reality and it's internally inconsistent.
: Let me say to begin with that I accept the clear testimony of the fossil record just as you have presented it. I believe you have painted a picture of the history of life on earth that is both fair and accurate. As you may know, I believe God used evolution to create all life on earth. And I believe that all life forms on earth evolved in exactly the way God desired and directed them to do so.
Ok.
: You wrote: If, as various Christians claim, the Bible indicates that disease only came into the world after Adam's sin, then the Bible is obviously out to lunch.
: As you probably know, the Christians you refer to base their claim largely on their interpretation of one Bible verse, Romans 5:12. ... It says that because of sin, "death came to all MEN." It says absolutely nothing about the deaths of animals. I hope we don't here have to discuss "what various Christians claim" the Bible teaches. I hope we can agree that, at least in this area, it is their interpretation of the Bible that is "obviously out to lunch," and not the Bible itself. I assume we can agree on that point. For I have no desire or intention to defend any of the nutty interpretations of the Bible promoted by "fundamentalist" Christians.
That's fine. I already know that their ideas are nuts, so I want to hear yours.
: After describing very well the "red in tooth and claw" nature of the history of animal life on earth, you asked, "What sort of God would create such a kingdom of life?" I found that to be a very good question. You answered your own question by saying, "Obviously one that didn't care much about pain and suffering on the part of his creation." The answer you gave certainly seems to be a logical one. But just because it seems to be a logical answer does not mean it is the right answer. For, as we all know, things are not always what they seem to be.
In general, your last comment is true. However, some things are so obviously true that they don't need much discussion. If I, as the parent of a small child, don't make sure that my child is safe from dangers that are very clear to me, then it inevitably follows that I don't care whether the child gets hurt, in the sense that if I did care, I would ensure that he is safe. This is simply a tautology. There's an even more obvious tautology in my example of God creating life as he has. Here we have God not simply allowing pain and suffering to happen, but actually designing his world so that it happens. Whether that pain and suffering is temporary in the sense that it began half a billion years ago (likely a lot longer ago, judging from the fact that macroscopic life without hard parts has existed at least twice that long) and might end soon, with "the lion lying down with the lamb", is not germane to the problem that a supposedly loving God -- indeed the very embodiment of love -- would deliberately create a world where violence was the norm.
: The problem I have, as a Christian, in providing you with another answer to your question is that any answer I give to you will amount to little more than my "educated guess." As a Christian, I would like to answer your question by saying, "Well, the Bible says this about that." But, unfortunately, as I am sure you know, the Bible says almost nothing about why God chose to create an animal kingdom which is now filled with much violence and was even more violent in the past.
That's right, and I consider this to be one of the biggest pitfalls for anyone who professes a reasoned belief in the Bible. Surely if God wanted intelligent humans to understand him, he could produce a work that isn't completely open to interpretation.
: As I said earlier, I am a Christian who believes that God used evolution as His means of creating all life on earth. I also believe that the Genesis account of creation not only allows for Christians to understand that God created all life in this way but actually strongly implies that He did so. For instance, in Genesis chapter one, verses 12 and 24, we are not told that God directly created "vegetation" and "living creatures," but that "the land produced" them. However, Genesis says nothing about why God chose to create our world in the way that He did. It only tells us, in a very brief way, what He did. It says very little about how He did things. And nothing at all about why He did things in the way that He did.
I'm with you so far.
: I long ago asked myself, "From what I know about the God of the Bible, why would He have chosen to create all life on earth, including the human race in this way? Why would He have begun life on earth in an extremely simple way and caused earth's life forms to eventually become much more complex? Why would God have desired that the first organisms on earth possessed very little intelligence and then, later on, caused the land to produce creatures with progressively greater intellectual capacity? Why would God have wanted earth's earliest creatures to have been, for the most part, both extremely violent and highly predatory toward their fellow creatures? Why would God have created the human race, with our great capacity for love, kindness, mercy, gentleness and compassion toward our fellow humans and even toward lower life forms, to appear on earth long after He caused life forms lacking such "higher" qualities to appear on earth? And why would he have caused the human race to actually ascend from lower life forms which lacked such higher qualities?
Good questions!
: I believe God may have done so to illustrate some very important lessons. Lessons such as these: Having ascended from lower life forms, human beings should now behave in a way that is far removed from the behavior of animals. The violence and predatory behavior that so filled earth's past, and still largely fills the animal kingdom, should be looked upon as behavior which is now totally inappropriate for our present and our future. By knowing our past and our planet's past, we know where God has brought us from and in what direction He now wants us to go. The Bible indicates that God is now willing to forgive all of our past lives, animalistic as they were, if we will strive to leave them behind. The Bible also tells us that if we will do this, God will bring about in each of us the final step in mankind's evolutionary process. He will do so by miraculously changing us into incorruptible, immortal, sons of God. I think it was probably for reasons such as these that God chose to give the human race an extremely animalistic prehistory.
An interesting bit of speculation. Your idea about mankind still being in an evolutionary process is particularly interesting. I think you've left out a lot, though, because it's not clear to me if you think that the physical universe is just a temporary stepping stone to life on a purely "spiritual plane". The process seems to me to be unnecessarily long and complicated. I read your response to DW about Adam & Eve etc., and I see gigantic holes in your speculations.
: In any case, I do not believe that we are justified in doubting the goodness of God simply because the history of animal life on earth has long been "red in tooth and claw."
Well, that all depends on how you define "goodness". I define "lack of goodness" to include allowing one's children to undergo massive pain and suffering when one is quite capable of accomplishing whatever goal one has for one's children without it. Yet you're speculating that God deliberately designed a world in which pain and suffering was an integral part for more than half a billion years? To what end? For what observers? Surely not for God himself. Surely not for humans, because we've barely scratched the surface of the fossil record so as to see this long record of violence, and in any case, humans have only been around for a small fraction of half a billion years.
Surely you see the massive holes I'm alluding to, and can understand the discomfort I feel when trying to understand your point of view. What you're saying feels to me like making excuses big time, much like what happens when one asks hard questions of the JWs. I suppose that's better than blindly promoting nonsensical fairy tales like poor Clash and his buddies do (their reasoning isn't even as good as Clash's spelling), but either way it always ends up feeling like I'm being snookered. I especially feel like that when I ask a straightforward question and you continue sidestepping it.
AlanF
AlanF

To aChristian:
I hope you refrained from answering many of my questions because of lack of time, and will come back and address them soon. Ignoring them does not help you convince anyone of the validity of your views on Christianity.
: You wrote: How can you argue that it's fine for God to do exactly the same thing he condemns humans for doing?
: God is the Father of the human race. Much like any parent, God is allowed to make rules for his children which he himself does not have to follow. A parent may tell his small children that they are not allowed to cross the street but a parent is not being hypocritical for crossing the street himself. Parents decide what is right and wrong for their children and cannot be accused of behaving unrighteously if they themselves do not always follow all of the rules they give to their children.
: Parents can rightly tell their children that they are not allowed to make unauthorized long distance phone calls, even though the parents themselves occasionally make long distance phone calls. Why? Because the parents believe their children do not have the wisdom to decide when such expensive phone calls are necessary, do not have the ability to pay for the calls, and do not have the right to presume that their parents will pay for their unauthorized calls, even though those children have heard their parents say that they always pay their phone bills. God can rightly tell us that we are not allowed to kill people, even though He Himself has done so.
This makes some sense to me so far, but not what you write next.
: Why? Because God knows we do not have the wisdom to decide when such acts are justified, do not have the ability to resurrect the dead, and do not have the right to presume God will resurrect the people we kill, even though we know God has said He will one day resurrect all who have died.
If God says directly that he will one day resurrect all who have died, then believing this and acting on it is not a presumption. It's taking God at his word. Thus the problem I posed in my earlier post remains: since God will set everything right in the end, what is the point of "morality"?
: You wrote: The resurrection is a very nice idea that, when you carefully examine its mechanism, creates more problems than it solves. The basic problem is this: for a person to be resurrected, there must be continuity of physical existence from the original person to the resurrected one. ... According to what I clearly understand the Bible to say, when a person dies he is unconscious, perhaps even completely out of existence. ... What scriptures can you find that clearly indicate a continuity of physical existence?
: Come on, Alan, that is JW theology. It is not biblical theology. The Bible teaches that everyone has a "spirit" or "soul" within them which survives the death of their body and "returns to God who gave it" at the time of their death. (Ecl. 12:6,7) ...
The scriptures indicate that our "souls" or "spirits" normally "sleep" following our deaths, prior to the time we are resurrected. (Acts 7:60; 1 Thes. 4:14,15) Thus we can understand Samuel's comment to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" (1 Sam. 28:15) JWs love to quote a verse which says that "the dead are conscious of nothing at all." (Ecl. 9:5) But there is a big difference between a person being "asleep" or unconscious and a person being nonexistent, as JWs say all who have died are. As I think I have shown, the scriptures indicate that JWs are wrong about this, and that there is, in fact, continuity of physical existence from the original person to the resurrected one.
You've answered well. However, this notion brings up a host of other problems, only one general one of which I'll comment on at this time. If humans are actually some sort of combination of a physical body plus a "soul" or "spirit", then what is the point of your overall scenario where for perhaps several million years, early humans were born, somehow attached to this "spirit" thingy, then died, and then the "spirit" thingy put in cold storage until resurrection? Perhaps if you give an overall picture of your views on the "evolution of man" from apish forebears to the ultimate form, that would help. Just how do all the individuals who have ever lived fit in?
: You wrote: Tell me, aChristian, if God directly told you to kill your family, would you do it?
: I answered: I am convinced beyond all doubt that God would never tell me to do such things. ... Thus, if anyone ever ordered me to kill my family or my neighbors there is nothing the person or entity who was giving me such instructions could do to convince me they were God.
: ...
: Since your analogy was incorrect, and you cannot show that my response to your question was inaccurate, it remains. "If anyone ever ordered me to kill my family or my neighbors there is nothing the person or entity who was giving me such instructions could do to convince me they were God."
Forget the analogy. Just answer the question. If God ordered you to kill your family and neighbors, would you do it?
I'm not asking about someone else telling you that God said to do that. Inherent in my question is the supposition that you know for certain that God is doing the ordering.
: You wrote: Are you certain that those ancient commands will never be repeated?
: Yes, I am.
Why? According to the Bible, Abraham had plenty of reason to be as certain as you that God wouldn't give such an order -- yet he did. Why do I say this? Look at the story where Abraham argues with God about how many righteous people would need to remain in Sodom and Gomorrah in order that God would spare the cities. Obviously Abraham had a well developed sense of fairness, and therefore of morality. He knew very well that God would consider the unjust killing of a person wrong. So upon hearing the order of some entity who claimed to speak for God to kill his only son, he could easily have reasoned, "This cannot be the same God who gave me my son, because my God would never give such an order. I will not obey." How is this any different from what I'm challenging you with?
AlanF
D wiltshire

Achristian,
Your speculations intrigue me.
If you read some of my posts on other threads, you will see that when I feel a person is full of SugarHoneyIceTea I will tell him.
I respect your thoughts on Scripture, for I see they are well thought out, and offer very plausible speculations, even Alan has respect for you, and that is not a minor matter.
Your ressurrection senerio is more like what I too beleive.
I alway found the WT's:
New but Identical body, with video taped thoughts(sorta) inplanted in the mind ='s a ressurrection of the person stupid.
I alway felt their must be some essents of the person that must continues on after death of the body, that is restored to another body thru ressurection.
I have to admit all your speculations as very plausible, along with illustrations that are related to the things discussed.
Your stlye of trying to be as simple as the stituation will allow has a ring of truth to it. To me when a person makes something more complicated that nessasary and more twist than absolutly needed, be careful the arguement is has too many variable that make it a house of cards.
Tell us more.
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?

space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

Share this