Posts by aChristian

251

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

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

aChristian

Alan,

You wrote: 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.

Some people feel that the existence of evil, for any length of time, is impossible to harmonize with the existence of a loving God. They say that the instant any evil appeared in a good God's universe He would have to immediately put an end to it. However, I believe God allows evil to exist, and actually designed our world with evil as a very important part of it, so that we may come to know both good and evil. I believe this first hand knowledge of both good and evil will serve all people well for all eternity, long after all evil has been removed from the universe. By God having designed a world where all people are certain to gain a first hand knowledge of evil, and more importantly the harmful effects of evil, all who choose to serve God will gain an understanding of why God's ways are the best ways, an understanding that will serve them well for all eternity.

Possibly you see some sense in this. Some of those who do say that, even if God desired his children to be temporarily exposed to evil as a learning experience, a good God could never allow so much evil to exist. They say a good God would certainly severely limit the pain and suffering that He allowed His children to endure as a result of the evil He allowed to temporarily exist. They look at the great suffering many people throughout history have endured and ask, "Wouldn't a loving God, if He existed, have stepped in and limited the amount of evil, pain and suffering these people had to endure? I believe questions such as this actually get to the heart of the problem of God permitting evil.

Let me ask you this. If a good God does exist, would you really believe He exists if you saw less evil in the world, if you saw people suffering less? I doubt it. For you know as well as I do that an all loving God, once He decided to stop evil, would have to stop all evil. If He were to stop only part of the evil, then wouldn't you still be asking the question, "If an all loving God exists, why is there evil in the world?" Would you really be any more likely to accept the existence of the God of the Bible if He stopped all pain caused by "natural causes," diseases, earthquakes and the like, but allowed people to continue hurting each other? I doubt it. For a perfectly righteous God, once He decided to bring about an end to evil, would have to bring about an end to all evil. He could not end all "natural" forms of evil but allow people to continue to murder each other. He could not prevent all murder but continue to permit beatings and rapes. He could not stop all beatings and rapes but continue to allow all robberies, cheating and adultery.

I think you get my point. Some maintain that any amount of pain or unrighteousness in the universe proves there is no God. However, I maintain that it has actually been by God's purpose that pain, death and evil have long existed in order for all of us to learn valuable lessons while being exposed to them. And because God is all loving, all knowing and all powerful, He cannot stop only some evil. The Bible tells us that God will one day bring an end to evil. And it tells us that when He does so, because He is all loving, all knowing and all powerful, He will then bring an end to all evil.

You wrote: 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".

Yes, I do.

You wrote: The process seems to me to be unnecessarily long and complicated.

To us, at this tiny moment in eternity, yes it does.

You wrote: 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?

I believe there are many events which God arranged to take place in the past, including many events which are recorded in the scriptures, for the purpose of teaching mankind great lessons, many of which we will probably not understand for a long, long time.

You wrote: I hope you refrained from answering many of my questions because of lack of time.

I hope to find time to answer all of your questions as best I can. As I'm sure you know, this has been a very busy week for most of us.

You wrote: 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"?

Is it OK to steal someone's car if you know that his insurance company is going to pay him for his loss? No, it is not. It is wrong to force someone else to fix our mistakes, even if we know that they will.

You wrote: 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?

I don't understand why my beliefs about early humans poses a problem. As I have said before, I believe that at some point during the physical evolution of our species God intervened and gave highly evolved primates the ability to comprehend "spiritual" concepts, such as eternity, morality, justice and God. I believe He also then began giving them eternal spirits. I believe these were the creative acts spoken of in Gen. 1:27. I believe that from that time on the spirits of all humans who died went "in cold storage until the resurrection," as you say.

You wrote: Just answer the question. If God ordered you to kill your family and neighbors, would you do it? ... Inherent in my question is the supposition that you know for certain that God is doing the ordering.

Though I have tried my best to do so, I guess you are not going to let me avoid answering this question. I have said that I am absolutely sure that my God would never ask me to do such a thing. I have said that I am so sure of it, that I would not believe any such order was really coming from God. However, as you correctly pointed out, Abraham had good reason to feel the same way when God ordered him to kill his son. But somehow Abraham became convinced that it was, in fact, God giving him the order. So, if Abraham could become convinced, then I guess so could I. And the Bible tells us what happened when Abraham became convinced that God was giving him that order. "By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, 'It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.' " (Heb. 11:17, 18)

So then, with Abraham as my example, I will finally answer your question. If God ordered me to kill my family and neighbors, and I knew for certain that it was God doing the ordering, I would try my best to do so. And I would do so for the same reason that Abraham did so. "Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead." (Heb. 11:19)

The sentiment I just expressed reflected what is, of course, the technically correct response to your question for a servant of God who recognizes Abraham as an outstanding example of a true man of faith. However, the vast majority of Christians including myself do not possess the kind of faith that Abraham did. Because we do not, the vast majority of Christians, including myself, would not be able to do what Abraham did. I believe God understands this fact. And just as He forgave Peter for denying Christ three times, I believe He would forgive the vast majority of Christians, including myself, if we lacked the faith necessary to obey such a command.

251

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

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

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.

251

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

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

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.

251

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

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

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. : )

251

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

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

aChristian

Larc,

The reason I pointed out that I believe the flood was local is that such an understanding immediately eliminates many of the problems which a global flood presents. For such an understanding maintains that Noah would have then brought only representative samples of animals from his land, not "hundreds of thousands of species requiring large amounts food." So far as how, Noah and his three sons could have built such a large ark, I suspect that with what may have been 120 years given to them to do so (Gen. 6:3), they would have been able to accomplish the task, especially with their ability to hire some help.

251

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

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

aChristian

Alan,

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.

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.

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. There we read, "Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." Most so-called "fundamentalist" Christians claim that this verse teaches us that death did not exist anywhere on earth, even among animals, until after Adam sinned. Then, they tell us, as a direct result of Adam's sin, death and the diseases which bring about death came to all creatures on earth, animals and humans, for the first time.

But is that really what this verse says? No, it is not. 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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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."

251

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

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

aChristian

Lark,

You wrote: Perhaps this has been discussed and I missed ...

Yes, such things have been discussed already in this thread. You might try reading my second post on page 2. In it you will find that I believe that the Bible describes a flood that was confined to the land of Noah, which was located in what is now southern Iraq. Just about every aspect of this subject matter has been discussed in these six pages of posts already. Some of it has been quite interesting. You may want to read them. Thanks for your interest. Have a nice Christmas.

251

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

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

aChristian

Six,

You wrote: You are not an innocent child buying into this garbage ...You are the adult who perpetuates this filth.

So, you believe that the story of Noah's flood as told in the Bible is "garbage" and "filth." As you are well aware, Jesus Christ told the same story to his followers. So then, you are calling my beliefs, the beliefs of billions of Christians throughout the world and the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself "garbage" and "filth."

You wrote: A 5 year old will focus on the story of another cold shivering frightened 5 year old seeing his entire family drowned. ... Why don't you? Perhaps for the same reason Nazi soldiers didn't focus on what they were doing.

Your comparing me to Nazis was to be expected, I guess. I found your reference to the Bible's story of a "cold shivering frightened 5 year old seeing his entire family drowned" to be quite telling. Since the Bible's flood account contains no such references. The only place I have read such imaginative embellishments is in the writings of people who, for their own reasons, obviously possess a hatred for the Bible, for the God of the Bible, for Jesus Christ and for Christians. I have found that there is no point in discussing the scriptures with such people. For it is impossible to reason with someone whose mind and heart are blinded by hatred.

I would never call any of your religious beliefs, or nonbelief, "garbage" and "filth." I always make it a point to show respect for the religious beliefs, or nonbelief, of others. Since you obviously do not conduct yourself in the same way, I have no interest in discussing this matter or other matters with you. And I will not do so again.

As you may have guessed, I did not bother to read your essay.

251

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

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

aChristian

Alan,

You wrote: In any civilized society, when a criminal can be isolated it is he and he alone who is punished. ... Who in his right mind would say that killing the entire innocent family of a murderer along with the killer is right? I'm sure you don't. Yet you excuse exactly this kind of conduct on the part of God.

When people kill people they have no ability to restore the lives of the ones they kill. God does and, according to the scriptures, He will. So, God has never ended anyone's life. He has only interrupted some lives. We should also consider the fact that when God interrupted the lives of many innocent children when He flooded the land of Noah He may well have been showing those children great mercy. For if God had ended the lives of their parents and spared the lives of all their children He would have created a lot of very sad orphans. By taking the lives of the parents and children together in Noah's flood, God was, in effect, transporting them both into the future to a time when, I believe, most all of them will live forever together in paradise.

I base this belief on the fact that Jesus said, "A time is coming when ALL who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out." (John 5:28) "All" means all. Including those who have died in God's judgments such as the flood. We know this because Jesus said that the people who died when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorra will be resurrected. And I believe he indicated that most of them will be judged with mercy at that time. (Matt. 10:15; 11:23,24) It follows then that the same can be said of the many people, including children, who died in the flood.

You wrote: Tell me, aChristian, if God directly told you to kill your family, would you do it? ... How about if he told you to kill a thousand of your neighbors and gave you the weapons to do it? Would you think it right for God to do so?

Your questions sort of remind me of some others. Like the infamous one, "Are you still beating your wife?" Answering such questions with either a "Yes" or "No" is sure to get a person in trouble. Fortunately, I believe that the proper Christian answer to the questions you asked is neither "Yes or "No."

My answer is this: I am convinced beyond all doubt that God would never tell me to do such things. So, if anyone told me to do such things I would know the person speaking was not God. Yes, I am aware of the fact that God once commanded Abraham to kill his son, Isaac. And I am aware of the fact that God once instructed the Israelites to entirely wipe out large communities of people in the land of Canaan. However, I believe God had a purpose in ordering such actions. And I believe that purpose was completely fulfilled thousands of years ago. And because it was, I do not believe God would ever order anyone to do anything like that again. 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.

Alan, I'll address your concerns in your most recent post late tomorrow. I've gotta get some sleep. And I've got a pretty full day tomorrow. Wasn't life easier when we didn't do holidays? Nah. At least now we don't have to knock on doors.

251

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

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

aChristian

Rem,

It's past 1:00 AM here. I've been busy today. Church early this morning, Christmas shopping this afternoon, helping my daughter move into a new apartment this afternoon and my wife's side of the family Christmas party tonight. Just got back and read the new posts in this thread. I kind of wish I hadn't. Because I'm beat. But I feel a responsibility to keep an eye on things here since I opened this can of worms. I'll respond to you first, then Alan. Because you are a little easier. Though I may have to catch Alan tomorrow. zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Not that Alan is all that tough. : )

You wrote: I don’t believe that Peter had any reason not to believe the flood was global at that point in history.

As I have shown you, Philo who was a very widely read and highly respected contemporary of Peter's, believed the flood was less than global. Philo's opinion was most likely formed as a result of the influence of others, and his widely published views no doubt had an even wider influence on others than others had previously had on him. It seems unlikely to me then that Peter was totally unaware of the thinking of Philo on this matter, of the thinking of those who had influenced Philo, and of the thinking of those whom Philo himself had influenced.

You wrote: I believe he (Peter) took the words of Genesis at face value. The most probable interpretation of his words point to this view being accurate. ..... I believe the language used in Genesis is clear – the author meant literal 24 hour periods. ... but most probably the original author of the myth didn’t have any knowledge of how old the universe really is and believed that god did it all in a one week period. ... I believe you are not true to the original intent of the writers.

As I have said, I have studied this passage of 2 Peter thoroughly and believe it does not prove that Peter believed that the flood of Noah's day was global. And neither you nor I can say with any certainty what Peter's "original intent" was. As I have also previously indicated, I am convinced that Moses did not believe God created the world in six 24-hour "days." For he also wrote of "the day (singular) that God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 2:4) Thus, since his use of the word "day" in Gen. 2:4 had a broader meaning than one 24-hour day, it is likely that his use of the same word in Genesis chapter one did also.

You wrote: It seems to me that you have a different standard of evidence when it comes to extraordinary accounts from biblical and extra-biblical sources.

Yes, I do. I believe the Bible to be the truthful inspired word of God. Thus if an event is clearly related in the Bible as being an actual historical event then I believe it was an actual historical event. As you seem to acknowledge, Peter's words clearly indicate that he believed the flood of Noah's day as described in Genesis really happened. (1 Pet. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:5) But also to be considered is the fact that the writer of Hebrews clearly felt the same way about the story of Noah. (Heb. 11:7) And I believe Jesus Christ's own words clearly indicate that He believed Noah's flood really happened. (Matt. 24:37,38; Luke 17:26,27) On top of all of this, Noah is listed by Luke as one of Jesus Christ's ancestors. Mythical characters cannot be anyone's ancestor. (Luke 3:36)