Posts by a Christian

290

The Global Flood

by coldfish in

i've just read an intersting article on the flood to do with dates and whether is was truly global or a regional flood.. http://www.commentarypress.com/essay-flood.html.

my father used to be an elder for many years and the flood was one of the things that made him walk away not just from the jw but also belief in the bible.

he was hung up on issues like the flood taking place about 3500 bc and how that fit in with the pyramids.. i don't know much about egyptian history or the ages of the big pyramids, but his reasoning was if the flood wiped out every human on earth except noah etc then at 3500 bc there were only 8 people on earth.

a Christian

Sabrina,

Thank you very much for the kind words.

Mike

290

The Global Flood

by coldfish in

i've just read an intersting article on the flood to do with dates and whether is was truly global or a regional flood.. http://www.commentarypress.com/essay-flood.html.

my father used to be an elder for many years and the flood was one of the things that made him walk away not just from the jw but also belief in the bible.

he was hung up on issues like the flood taking place about 3500 bc and how that fit in with the pyramids.. i don't know much about egyptian history or the ages of the big pyramids, but his reasoning was if the flood wiped out every human on earth except noah etc then at 3500 bc there were only 8 people on earth.

a Christian

Gumby, Thanks for the "Merry Christmas". And a "Happy New Year" to you! You wrote: The problem with my above statement is god did not spare the millions who worshipped other gods in Israel's time period. Those who worshipped Baal or any other god were killed because of not worshipping the true god. Do you feel these ones knew more about the true god than third world country people know today of christ? They must have in your opinion, because the Lord will spare the ignorant according to your theory. Why did god kill the ignorant in times past. Did all those in Noah's time REALLY know the true god by the preaching of one man? To begin with, I do not believe that the Bible teaches that God will, at Christ's return, destroy everyone on earth except true Christians. I believe that when Christ returns He will judge only the Christian world. Two-thirds of the earth's population has never even heard the good news of Jesus Christ, including billions of people in lands like China and India. Many believe that God will soon kill all of these people. I think they are wrong. This does not sound like the God of love, justice and mercy I worship.

One thing that leads me to believe this is an incorrect understanding of Scripture is that the Bible tells us that "Judgment begins with the house of God." (1 Peter 4:17) Jesus also said those who will rule as kings with Him will "judge the 12 tribes of Israel." (Luke 22:30) To me this indicates that when Christ returns and draws all true Christians to Himself (Matt. 24:31), they will then determine who among those who have heard the good news of Jesus Christ and not taken it to heart are deserving of death. "The 12 tribes of Israel," spoken of in Luke 22:30, I believe refers to all those who have been closely associated with the Christ's body of believers, which the Bible calls "the Israel of God." (Gal. 6:16) Remember, the literal "12 tribes of Israel" had all heard the Law of Moses, but few had taken it to heart.

Remember too that it was only the Jewish world which had rejected Jesus as their Messiah that was punished by God at the hands of Roman armies in the latter part of the first century, not the entire Roman empire. Also to be considered is a fact known by most serious students of the Bible, history and science, and discussed earlier in this thread. The flood of Noah's day was a local event, not a global one. God brought that judgment only upon a land that had heard the message of "Noah, a preacher of righteousness," and failed to respond to it. (2 Pet. 2:5) God did not take the lives of those in other parts of then widely populated earth who had not heard Noah's preaching.

Interestingly, Revelation chapters 8 and 9 talk quite a bit about "a third of the world" being judged. And by population, the part of the world claiming Christianity as its religion is almost exactly one-third. If my understanding is correct, that Christ is returning to judge only the Christian world, Christians will then have plenty of people to rule over as they serve as kings with Christ for 1,000 years. And they will also then have plenty of people to help come to know the true God as they serve as His "priests." For that is, after all, what priests do. But what about those executed by God in ancient times, you ask? When God destroyed Baal worshippers, the people in Sodom and Gomorrah and the people in the land of Noah, He did not really "destroy" them. In effect, He merely transported them to a future time. For Jesus said that, "A time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out?those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." (John 5:28,29) And, from what Jesus said about the men of Sodom and Gomorrah receiving a more merciful judgment on Judgement Day than many of those He preached to, we know that "all" in this case does indeed mean all.(Matt. 10:15; 11:23) The way I understand the Scriptures, mankind's final Judgment Day will come at the end of Christ's 1,000 year reign. If all of those in Noah's day were not really able to come to know the true God by the preaching of one man, and I doubt they were, then I trust God will take that into account when He renders their final judgment.

290

The Global Flood

by coldfish in

i've just read an intersting article on the flood to do with dates and whether is was truly global or a regional flood.. http://www.commentarypress.com/essay-flood.html.

my father used to be an elder for many years and the flood was one of the things that made him walk away not just from the jw but also belief in the bible.

he was hung up on issues like the flood taking place about 3500 bc and how that fit in with the pyramids.. i don't know much about egyptian history or the ages of the big pyramids, but his reasoning was if the flood wiped out every human on earth except noah etc then at 3500 bc there were only 8 people on earth.

a Christian

Alan, I wrote: It could be that God always provides just enough evidence to convince those who are willing to believe and never enough to convince those who prefer not to believe.

You responded: Prefer? Where do you come off insulting me and others like that? I never applied those words to you or to anyone else here. I'm sure there are some people, who for their own selfish or immoral reasons, refuse to consider the possibility that the story of Scripture may be true. If they allowed themselves to become convinced that it is they would either be forced to change their lives, something they don't want to do, or be forced to live with a guilty conscience, something they also don't want to do. If I thought you were one of those people I would not be wasting my time talking to you.

You wrote, "Should solid information contradicting our present conclusions ever come our way, I think that we'd change our minds immediately."

That is how I thought you and several others here felt and that is why I sometimes discuss the Scriptures with you.

However, many here are not so kind to me and others like me. It is standard procedure here for Christians to be personally attacked and insulted. Just look at what has been said against Christians and their beliefs in this thread.

Gumby tells me that my, "reasoning is pathetic." Norm says that the Bible is filled with, "complete hopeless superstitious drivel." Norm tells us that the beliefs of Christians are, "ludicrous." And that "only extremely superstitious, primitive and legalistic people could come up with" such a "silly idea." He says our beliefs are "incredible nonsense." Gumby says the only reason Christian believe what they do is that they are, "afraid to let go of their little security blanket." He goes on to say that anyone who believes the story of Scripture, "needs to have their fricken head examined."

But the attacks on Christians and the Bible has been mild in this thread compared to many others I have seen here. I have seen entire threads started and devoted to discussing how stupid Christians are. The fact that I have NOT personally attacked or insulted you or anyone else here, or any of your beliefs, by itself leads me to believe I am on the right side of this discussion.

Mike

290

The Global Flood

by coldfish in

i've just read an intersting article on the flood to do with dates and whether is was truly global or a regional flood.. http://www.commentarypress.com/essay-flood.html.

my father used to be an elder for many years and the flood was one of the things that made him walk away not just from the jw but also belief in the bible.

he was hung up on issues like the flood taking place about 3500 bc and how that fit in with the pyramids.. i don't know much about egyptian history or the ages of the big pyramids, but his reasoning was if the flood wiped out every human on earth except noah etc then at 3500 bc there were only 8 people on earth.

a Christian

Gumby, You wrote: For gods sake Mike, Carl, and the rest who swallow this crap concerning the bible god, how can you guys believe what your saying? Do you guys really fricken believe a loving god would have his word written so hidden that he wants people to dig for it. Screw him them! Tell that to third world countries who don't have all the fricken bible tools you need to dissect gods word! According to you freakin einsteins, lower class people are screwed as for finding bible truths unless they happen to stumble onto guys like you who spend countless hours trying to figure shit out. Nope. Some of us on this planet, at this time, are far more fortunate than others. Not only do most people in "third world countries" lack Bible study "tools" most of them lack Bibles. Many have never even heard the good news of Jesus Christ. And, of course, prior to the invention of the printing press and widespread literacy, for many hundreds of years, even in "Christian" countries, very few people ever had the opportunity or the ability to "dig" into God's word. Is God being unfair to treat some of us better than others? I don't think so. For Christ told us, "The one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows." But he added, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:48) Jesus said that even the people of Sodom and Gomorrha will receive a merciful final judgment, due to their not having as good an opportunity to come to know God as others have had. (Matt. 10:15; 11:23) If that is so, then certainly God will have mercy on peoples from times past and people now living in third world countries who are not as blessed as we are with ready access to His word and access to Bible study helps. With the possible exception of Christ's own twelve apostles, I believe we here today are by far among the most blessed people ever in this regard. For we now have an Internet full of Bible study aids to help us in our Bible studies and plenty of fellow believers online to also assist us. When Daniel spoke of 'the time of the end" he spoke of it as a time when "knowledge will increase." Was he referring to our day? Maybe. We today who are living in "the information age" created by the Internet will not be able to plead ignorance on Judgment Day. Norm, I wrote: F ew here are willing to now dig any deeper into the Bible than they did as JWs. You asked: With all due respect, how do you know how much effort any of us has spent "digging deeper" into the Bible? What percentage of the people who participate here do you think have even read the entire Bible? With your answer in mind, do you really think my use of the word "few" was in referring to those here who have deeply studied the Bible was inaccurate? You wrote: One has to educate oneself in evolution, some biology, geology, and even a little archeology. And it is extremely
important that you do study information that is critical to both positions. ... I have no idea what you have done, but judging from what I have read so far, it doesn't appear to be the case. Since, I believe that God used evolution as His means of creating all life on earth, and have strongly defended many times on this forum and others all of the findings of biologists, geologists and archeologists, I believe your judging of the contents of my posts is a bit off the mark. I did much study of the sciences before forming my present opinions. And I continue to do so. Your critisisms of my posts as betraying a lack of such study is totally without merit.

You wrote: It must indeed be a strange God you worship that seems to deliberately muddle his allegedly life and death important information so that people can misunderstand it to their demise, another example of what a strange God you worship. Take your complaint up with Jesus. For he told His disciples, " The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand." (Luke 8:10) You referred to the contents of the Bible as, " complete hopeless superstitious drivel." That is quite typical of the total disrespect Christians constantly receive on this forum. Is it any wonder this place has so few Christians who are willing to spend time here discussing their beliefs with you? Myself, I've taken enough abuse to last me for quite a while. Mike

290

The Global Flood

by coldfish in

i've just read an intersting article on the flood to do with dates and whether is was truly global or a regional flood.. http://www.commentarypress.com/essay-flood.html.

my father used to be an elder for many years and the flood was one of the things that made him walk away not just from the jw but also belief in the bible.

he was hung up on issues like the flood taking place about 3500 bc and how that fit in with the pyramids.. i don't know much about egyptian history or the ages of the big pyramids, but his reasoning was if the flood wiped out every human on earth except noah etc then at 3500 bc there were only 8 people on earth.

a Christian

Nark,

As I said earlier: God can never be "free" in the same sense that we are free, free to do good and evil. For whatever God does, by definition, is always good.

In other words, to do evil is to act contrary to God's desires. We are free to do evil, since we are free to act contrary to God's desires.

But, no one, not even God, can act contrary to their own desires. It is only in that way that God is not as "free" as we are.

On the other hand, we are not free to act contrary to our own desires. God is free to act contrary to our desires. In that way, God is more free than we are.

Since you apparently are unable to understand such very simple statements and unwilling to concede undeniable facts, I'll now end my part of this discussion.

Satanus,

The Bible never says God "lost his temper." It tells us He has at times been angry and expressed His anger. But there is nothing wrong with being angry, or with expressing anger over unrighteousness. Such anger is called "righteous indignation." As you know, Jesus Himself expressed such anger. And, of course, the Bible never says God has "lost his mind." Your saying that it does shows how little repect you have for God and for the Bible. But then, what can I expect when I foolishly choose to discuss spiritual matters with someone calling himself "Satanus."

Enough said, If I again feel the need for Internet chat for now on I'll do so elsewhere.

290

The Global Flood

by coldfish in

i've just read an intersting article on the flood to do with dates and whether is was truly global or a regional flood.. http://www.commentarypress.com/essay-flood.html.

my father used to be an elder for many years and the flood was one of the things that made him walk away not just from the jw but also belief in the bible.

he was hung up on issues like the flood taking place about 3500 bc and how that fit in with the pyramids.. i don't know much about egyptian history or the ages of the big pyramids, but his reasoning was if the flood wiped out every human on earth except noah etc then at 3500 bc there were only 8 people on earth.

a Christian

Alan,

You wrote: .... you've completely misunderstood a good deal of what I wrote ...

I could have said the same.

You wrote: there's no point in continuing ...

That's fine. I'm not a mind reader. I was doing my best to understand and patiently respond to each of your comments. Maybe you failed to communicate your thoughts clearly. Maybe we just don't "speak the same language." This may be just as well anyway. For few here are willing to now dig any deeper into the Bible than they did as JWs, which was not very deep. As JWs were all told exactly how every passage in the Bible was to be understood. In my opinion, most exJWs here are now far too willing to throw the baby (the God of the Bible) out with the dirty bath water (the JW religion).

I think that's a shame. For Prov. 2:4,5 tells us, "If you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God."

As I think Abaddon's post makes plain, regardless of how well anyone here may show that the scriptures may actually speak in harmony with proven scientific realities, it is unlikely that the scriptures or the one defending them will ever be very much respected on this forum.

Why? I admit that the Bible itself is largely to blame. For, if God did inspire the writing of the Bible as I believe He did, He clearly did so in a way that would permit many to fail to recognize its supernatural inspiration. Why is that? It could be that God always provides just enough evidence to convince those who are willing to believe and never enough to convince those who prefer not to believe.

Narkissos,

The Genesis creation account can be and certainly has been understood numerous ways. My main point was that, if we are willing to look at it a bit differently than we have in the past, we may find that there is no need for us to say that it contradicts scientific realities. I believe that we will know someday exactly how God meant for us to understood it. In the mean time, I see no reason for us to say that it cannot possibly be believed.

You wrote: Last but not least, I'm somewhat surprised with your version of the broader "salvation story": if being "free" in the sense of "able to do evil just as good" is necessary to enter into a loving relationship, how can you deny the same freedom to God?

God can never be "free" in the same sense that we are free, free to do good and evil. For whatever God does, by definition, is always good. Might makes right, as they say. That may be a bit simplistic, but it is none the less true.

You wrote: Whereas you insist that "man is less righteous than God", it seems to me that man is actually superior to God in this regard.

The Bible tells us that God is "incorruptible." I don't see how our being fully capable of losing our tempers or our minds tomorrow, and then committing atrocious acts, can make us superior to God.

290

The Global Flood

by coldfish in

i've just read an intersting article on the flood to do with dates and whether is was truly global or a regional flood.. http://www.commentarypress.com/essay-flood.html.

my father used to be an elder for many years and the flood was one of the things that made him walk away not just from the jw but also belief in the bible.

he was hung up on issues like the flood taking place about 3500 bc and how that fit in with the pyramids.. i don't know much about egyptian history or the ages of the big pyramids, but his reasoning was if the flood wiped out every human on earth except noah etc then at 3500 bc there were only 8 people on earth.

a Christian

Alan

You wrote: First, no one in his right mind would think that killing you to atone for the sins of Hitler's Gestapo in WWII would actually do so.

To begin with, God did not kill Jesus Christ to pay for our sins. Jesus said," I lay down my life?only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.? (John 10:17,18) Next, as Psalm 49:7 tells us, ?No man can by any means redeem his brother Or give to God a ransom for him.? So, According to the Bible, my sinful life would not be sufficient payment to redeem even one person, let alone all of Hitler?s Gestapo. But it tells us the life of Jesus Christ was a sufficient payment.

Why did Christ have to die to pay for our sins? And how did His death make that payment?

God's standards are very high. He long ago decreed that only those who are perfectly righteous are worthy of eternal life. This makes sense to me. I don?t want a lot of evil people around me, ruining my eternity. Or for that matter, even decent corruptible people, people who are capable of doing evil, who might eventually become evil and later on begin ruining my eternity.

Of course, this meant that God had in effect also decreed that all who are not perfectly righteous must die. And that meant all humans. For God had deliberately created mankind to be less righteous than Himself. Why? Because He wanted to create people with whom He could have a loving relationship. But since true love can be neither forced nor programmed, God had to create us as free people. Free to choose to love God and His ways or to not love God and His ways. In other words, free to do both right and wrong, free to do both good and evil. Because we can do wrong and often do, and because God can't do wrong and never does, we are less righteous than God. And, because we are, none of us deserves to live forever. That means all human beings have, in effect, from their births been condemned by God to die. Not because of anything Adam did, but because we ourselves all fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

But despite God's extremely high standards, like most loving parents, God has always wanted to give His children more than they deserve. But God had already decreed that only those who are perfectly righteous are deserving of eternal life. Thus He had, in effect, demanded that a very high price be paid for billions of unrighteous human lives. That price was billions of eternal human deaths. On the other hand, God wanted to give every human being the gift of eternal life, even though none of us deserved it, and even though His own high standards prohibited him from giving us that gift. Fortunately for us all, God found a way to offer all of us the gift of eternal life without violating His own high standards pertaining to who is deserving of that gift.

The Bible tells us that God did this by allowing His only begotten Son to pay for the unrighteousness of billions of human beings with His own life. But how could God consider only one lost life, actually less than three days of lost life, to have equal or greater value than many billions of permanently lost human lives? He could do so because He considered the days of life which His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, gave up to be more valuable than many billions of permanently lost 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 man," or "Adam's equal" as JWs like to call Him. God knew that Jesus Christ, as His only begotten Son, was God. Jesus Christ was God?s ?Only Begotten Son.? Humans beget humans. God begets God. And because Jesus Christ was God, His Father considered His death and His lost days of life which followed His death, to be worth more than many billions of permanently lost human lives.

In order to buy us eternal life, Jesus Christ offered His Father His own life in payment for our sins. His Father accepted that payment. But His Father required something else. He decreed that everyone wishing to accept His gift of eternal life must be ?born again.? They must begin living their lives differently. They must begin living their lives as righteously as possible, looking to the One who died for them as their example. They must become disciples of Jesus Christ. Now that sounds like a lot to demand. And I guess in a way it is. However, God promised to send Christ?s followers a ?Helper? to assist them in successfully living their new more righteous lives. That ?Helper? is God?s ?Holy Spirit.?

However, we know that, even with the help of God?s Holy Spirit, no Christian ever manages to live a perfectly righteous life. For, as is often said, ?Christians are not perfect. We are just forgiven.? Now that doesn?t sound too bad now. But later on it could be a problem. For, as I said earlier, I don?t want any bad people around me, ruining my eternity. Or, for that matter, any corruptible people around me, people who might eventually become evil, ruining my eternity. Fortunately for us, God has taken care of that potential problem. For He has promised that to those whom He gives eternal life He will also make ?incorruptible.?

So then all who truly wish to live perfectly righteous lives will be able to do so. (1 Cor. 15:42-54)

Some have said that any God who demanded or even allowed His own Son to die to pay for our sins would have to be a very evil God. I don?t see it that way. I believe it clearly shows God?s perfect justice, His great mercy and His amazing love. For the Bible tells us that God loves us all so much that He was willing to buy us all eternal life, even though to do so He had to pay for it "with His own blood." (Acts 20:28)

You wrote: Second, no supernatural being with access to the "design specifications" of humans would need to be convinced by an actual demonstration that the things designed in by an omnipotent and perfectly competent Designer are really there.

God did not need to be convinced. The ?demonstration? was done for us.

You wrote: the imperfectly designed humans would be in no position to judge, so they wouldn't count.

I disagree. Many ?imperfectly designed humans? now maintain that the only reason we ever do anything wrong is because of our difficult circumstances. The ?demonstration? staged in Eden proves them wrong.

You wrote: Furthermore, the question is raised: What's the point of a Supreme Designer making a group of somewhat intelligent beings who are unable to do what He obviously wants, namely, live "perfectly righteous lives"?

What God wanted was to have children who would love Him of their own free will and who would want to live ?perfectly righteous lives.? To gain such children He had to create a race of people who were incapable of living ?perfectly righteous lives.? Because to give us ?free will? God had to make us ?corruptible.? And ?corruptible? people are not perfectly righteous. For God is perfectly righteous. And God is ?incorruptible.? (1 Tim. 1:17)

You wrote: What's the further point of putting to death a man who was deliberately created to be an obvious exception to the rule to "atone" for the design flaws that the Supreme Designer put there in the first place?

God did not put Adam to death. He allowed him to die a natural death. A death he was designed to experience.

You wrote: All that the Designer has to do is change his design. ? if this Supreme Designer really wanted mankind to live forever, why didn't he just make them with what they needed in the first place? Why the long, tortuous and torturous road?

God did not want us all to live forever. He only wanted the ones of us who loved Him and who wanted to live righteous lives to live forever. He also allows many of us the opportunity to experience difficult circumstances to demonstrate how deeply we love for God and righteousness. It?s easy to do right when things are going well. But what happens when the going gets tough? Surely you remember the Bible?s story of Job. Tough times also build character. Character that will serve us well for all eternity.

I wrote: 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.

You replied: All of which, to me, loudly shouts "Ancient Mythology!"

I believe "the tree of life", which Adam and Eve had to eat from to gain eternal life, was meant to represent Jesus Christ. (Rev. 2:7) I guess someone could say that any and all Biblical symbolisms remind them of ancient mythology.

You wrote: Good Lord, man! The account even credits God for inventing the first weapon of war -- the sword -- long before it was ever used by mankind. Doesn't that tell you something?

Yes, it tells me you have not paid close attention to what I have been saying. Remember, it is my position that Adam was not literally the first man. He was placed in the Garden of Eden by God about 4,000 years before the birth of Christ, in the middle of an already widely populated world, a world full of people who were almost certainly already forging metals and using swords.

Alan, I will try to respond to the rest of what you wrote when I get time in the next few days.

Mike

290

The Global Flood

by coldfish in

i've just read an intersting article on the flood to do with dates and whether is was truly global or a regional flood.. http://www.commentarypress.com/essay-flood.html.

my father used to be an elder for many years and the flood was one of the things that made him walk away not just from the jw but also belief in the bible.

he was hung up on issues like the flood taking place about 3500 bc and how that fit in with the pyramids.. i don't know much about egyptian history or the ages of the big pyramids, but his reasoning was if the flood wiped out every human on earth except noah etc then at 3500 bc there were only 8 people on earth.

a Christian

Satanus, You asked: Ok. Going along w your explanation, a couple of other questions come up. Did god also create those other preadamic people, or did they evolve? I believe God "created" man by putting into highly evolved primates such things as moral consciences and a desire to find answers to life's greatest questions. I believe God also then gave His new creations eternal spirits.

Before saying that the Genesis account of creation can not be understood to support evolution as God's means of creation we should remember that Genesis uses the Hebrew word for "create," Bara, only in describing God's bringing into existence the heavens and earth, life in the sea and mankind. All other kinds of life, vegetation and animals, Genesis tells us, were not directly "created" by God but were "produced" by "the land."(vs.11,12, 24) Hebrew lexicons tell us that "Bara," Hebrew for "create," refers to "the initiation" of something, while the Hebrew words translated as "produced" refer to "the fashioning of", or the changing shape of, preexisting materials. These things being so, I believe Genesis chapter one not only allows for the possibility that God used evolutionary processes to bring about all life on earth, but actually teaches us that He did so. I understand Genesis 1:26-30 as telling us of God's creation of the human race prior to His creation of Adam and Eve. I understand Genesis 2 as telling us of God's later creation of Adam and Eve. You asked: Had god introduced himself to them [ pre-adamic men] ? Not in the personal way He later did with Adam. However, God had introduced Himself to the human race earlier in other ways. You asked: Had they been sinful? Yes, in much the same way we all are sinful. Romans 3:23 tells us that "sin" is "falling short of the glory of God." Because we are all less righteous than God we are all "sinful." And so were they. However, they were largely unaware of their sinful condition, since no laws other than the law of their own consciences had ever been given them. You asked: If so, why do another test? The command God gave to Adam was not "another test." It was the first test. No direct command or "law" from God had ever been given to any member of the human race before. As Paul clearly indicates us in Rom. 5:12-14, Adam was the first man to "sin" by "breaking a command." You asked: Why not use some of them for testing instead of making new subjects? I believe God wanted to tell the story of His previous creation of mankind by creating a microcosm of that creation in Eden. I believe in order to tell this story properly God had to create two brand new people. First of all, I believe God purposely derived the name "Adam" for his newly created man whom He placed in Eden from the race of people He had earlier created and called "man." (Gen. 1:27) ( The Hebrew word for "man" is 'adam.) Why would God do that? Because I believe He intended for the story of Adam and Eve in Eden to mirror His creation of the race called "man" ('adam) He had previously created. God created Adam, not from nothing, but from from the dust of the ground, which when viewed under a microscope is seen to be filled with life, just as He had previously created the human race from pre-existing life. God gave Adam a wife who came from his own gene pool, small as it was, just as the wives He had given to the men He had earlier created had come from their own gene pools. God had a very special relationship with Adam and Eve, as His relationship with the previously created human race was very special in much the same way. God gave Adam and Eve a garden home in the middle of a barren land, just as the home He previously gave to the human race was the only "garden spot" in our barren solar system, and possibly the only "garden spot" in our entire barren universe. God made all the animals in Eden subject to Adam and Eve, just as He had earlier subjected all animals on earth to the human race He had previously created. God allowed Adam and eve to be tempted by Satan just as He had previously allowed all members of the human race to be tempted by various forms of evil, temptations they too gave into. God arranged things so that Adam and Eve would acquire an intimate "knowledge of good AND evil," in order for them to gain a personal knowledge of why God's ways are best, a knowledge that would serve them well for all eternity. He had earlier done the same thing for the entire human race.

God offered to give eternal life to Adam and Eve if they could manage to live truly righteous lives, which meant obeying God even in what some might consider to be a very "trivial" matter. He had made essentially the same offer to all members of the human race He had previously created, though it was an unspoken offer and the "trivial" commands they had to obey to receive eternal life were all those which came from their God-given consciences. Because Adam and Eve showed themselves to be less than perfectly righteous God judged them to be unworthy of eternal life. God had, for the same reason, also judged all members of the human race He had previously created to be unworthy of eternal life. Because Adam and Eve proved themselves to be unworthy of eternal life, God expelled them from their garden home and condemned Adam to return to the dust from which he came. God had, in effect, earlier done the same thing to the race called "man" He had previously created. God covered Adam and Eve's shameful condition, their nakedness, with coverings (animal skins) He Himself had made, coverings which required the shedding of blood. Just as God Himself had earlier made provision for covering over the shameful (sinful) condition of the entire human race He had previously created. A provision He made by means of a "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8) As I said, I believe that the story of Adam and Eve in Eden was meant by God to illustrate that no human being, being less righteous than God, is deserving of eternal life. But it is also meant to illustrate 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. I could elaborate further on this same theme. But I think you now understand how I understand the story of Adam and Eve, and why I think God's choice of the name "Adam" for the man He created and placed in Eden was a very appropriate one. For I believe Adam's experiences in Eden were meant to serve as a microcosm of God's previous creation of the human race, telling that very important story in small scale.

290

The Global Flood

by coldfish in

i've just read an intersting article on the flood to do with dates and whether is was truly global or a regional flood.. http://www.commentarypress.com/essay-flood.html.

my father used to be an elder for many years and the flood was one of the things that made him walk away not just from the jw but also belief in the bible.

he was hung up on issues like the flood taking place about 3500 bc and how that fit in with the pyramids.. i don't know much about egyptian history or the ages of the big pyramids, but his reasoning was if the flood wiped out every human on earth except noah etc then at 3500 bc there were only 8 people on earth.

a Christian

Satanus,

You asked: Do you believe that before 'adam' there were lots of people?

Yes, I do. Bible chronology seems to indicate that only about 4,000 years passed between the creation of Adam and the birth of Christ 2,000 years ago. But paleontologists, anthropologists and archaeologists all assure us that mankind has lived on earth far longer than 6,000 years. For instance, anthropologists date the first settlement of the Americas by modern men to 15,000 B.P. (Before the Present) and their first settlements in Australia to 35,000 B.P.

To explain this apparent conflict between well established science and scripture some Bible believers have suggested that there may be gaps in the Genesis genealogies and that, if there are, Adam may have been created by God near the time scientists tell us modern man first appeared on earth. However, such an explanation does not solve the apparent conflicts here referred to because the same scientists who tell us modern man has been around for at least several tens of thousands of years also tell us that the things Adam and his direct descendants were involved in did not take place anywhere on earth prior to 10,000 years ago. These things include raising crops, herding animals, forging tools of copper and iron and building cities. (Gen. 4) So, whether or not we use Bible chronology to date God's creation of Adam, we know that the Adam described in Genesis could not have lived any earlier than 10,000 years ago.

I believe this seeming conflict between Scripture, which has Adam ("the first man") being created six to ten thousand years ago, and well established human history, which tells us that man has lived on earth far longer than 10,000 years, is easily resolved by understanding that the Bible does not tell us that Adam was, in an absolute chronological sense, "the first man." 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.

You asked: Was this test done on two individuals, or does 'adam' and 'eve' mean a group to you?

I believe Adam and Eve were two real people created by God and placed in a garden which was located not too far from where other people were already then living. The Bible always refers to Adam as a real person. For instance, he is listed as the first human ancestor of Jesus Christ. (Luke 3:38)

This understanding 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

Mike

290

The Global Flood

by coldfish in

i've just read an intersting article on the flood to do with dates and whether is was truly global or a regional flood.. http://www.commentarypress.com/essay-flood.html.

my father used to be an elder for many years and the flood was one of the things that made him walk away not just from the jw but also belief in the bible.

he was hung up on issues like the flood taking place about 3500 bc and how that fit in with the pyramids.. i don't know much about egyptian history or the ages of the big pyramids, but his reasoning was if the flood wiped out every human on earth except noah etc then at 3500 bc there were only 8 people on earth.

a Christian

Alan, You wrote: Since Ray used a good deal of material written by Carl Jonnson, it's clear that both of them endorse the view that all humans but Noah and his family were killed in Noah's Flood ... With his permission, I am here posting non-personal parts of a personal e-mail I just received from Carl Olof Jonsson, which show that your statement concerning Carls views, as I suspected, is incorrect (see bolded and underlined sentences). In his e-mail to me Carl just wrote the following: Dear Mike, ......... A few years ago I summarized my (tentative) views about the Flood in a brief article that is published on the English section of a Swedish web site called Christian Freedom (in Swedish: Kristen Frihet). The address to the site is: http://start.at/fkf . I have also attached the same material in a separate file. The site also contains a number of other articles I have written, including some on chronology. Most of my material on the Flood was also posted by Ray Franz on the Commentary Press site, with other material added, including a number of quotations from various theological dictionaries and other works. As you know, my position is that the Flood was "local" in the sense that it did not cover the high mountains on the earth. The local area focused on in the Bible, I believe, is Mesopotamia. This does not mean that the catastrophe was limited only to that area. If, as I believe, the Flood was partially caused by a rising of the sea level, low-laying areas all around the earth must have been affected. And as people at that time usually settled in such areas, close to coasts and rivers, I conclude that people all over the globe must have been involved in the catastrophe. This does not necessarily mean that all mankind except Noah and his three sons and their wives was destroyed. I don't say so in my article. I don't remember if Ray did that in the material he published. I have chosen to leave that question open. As I'm presently working on some other projects, I can't find time for being drawn into another debate, and am therefore forced to refrain from posting anything on the JWD board. I have already spent too much time on Channel C. There is also a Swedish discussion forum about the JWs and Biblical questions where I (and Rud) have been drawn into discussions on various subjects from time to time. To be able to finish the projects we are both working on, we have decided to avoid that board, too, as far as possible. Your brother, Carl Alan, You wrote: I'd like to know your take on how your view of the Flood affects the rest of the Bible's believability. Plenty of believers strongly insist that if the Flood were not a real, global event that wiped out the human race, much of the Christian message is damaged or pointless ... I understand why many Christians feel this way. For one thing, they understand that if the flood of Noah's day was not global, or at least not universal in its destruction of the human race, then we are not all Noah's descendants. And, if we are not, then maybe we are not all even the literal descendents of the "Adam" of Genesis. And if we are not, then why do we need Jesus? Don't we only need Jesus because of the sin we inherited from Adam ? I understand why many Christians feel this way. But I think there is no need for them to worry. I think their concerns are largely based on a misunderstanding of Christ's Ransom and a misunderstanding of the events in Eden. This is, of course a bit of a long story. I'll do my best to be brief. I understand that Christ died to pay for the sins of all mankind, not just to pay for Adam's sins. I believe God used Adam and Eve as representatives of the human race to demonstrate the fact that all human beings are incapable of living perfectly righteous lives. And, because we all are incapable of doing so, none of us deserves to live forever. And, because we are all unworthy of eternal life, we can only hope to receive it as a gift from a Creator who is willing to overlook all of our unrighteousness. 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 Eve from 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".

Most objections to this natural reading of Genesis come from those who adhere to the doctrine of "The Fall" of mankind. This doctrine is based on what I believe is a misunderstanding of the apostle Paul's words in Romans 5:12-20 and 1 Cor. 15:21,22.

Romans 5:12 tells us that "sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin." But as we read further we find that the kind of "sin" that first entered into the world through Adam, the "sin", which was responsible for bringing about his "death", was the "sin" of "breaking a command".(verse 14) And we are told that the kind of sin committed by Adam "is not taken into account (or "imputed" - KJV, NAS) when there is no law." (verse 13)

Because these verses tell us that Adam was the first man to sin by "breaking a command" from God, it follows that the "death" that "entered into the world" as a result of Adam's new kind of sin would have been Adam's new kind of death, death as a penalty imposed by God for "breaking a command" from God.

However, other verses have added to the confusion. Romans 5:15,17 and 18 tell us that "many died by the trespass of one man", "death reigned through that one man" and "as a result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." 1 Cor. 15:21,22 repeats this same thought by saying that "death came through a man" and "in Adam all die."

Many Bible readers say that these verses clearly indicate that all people today have "inherited" a "fallen" or "sinful" nature from Adam. And they say that it is this "fallen" nature inherited by us, as a result of Adam's disobedience, that brings upon us God's condemnation. They maintain that these verses prove that human beings were not "sinful" creatures until after Adam's spiritual, physical and genetic natures were somehow radically changed at the time he disobeyed God in Eden. Then, they say, when Adam fathered children after his nature had been corrupted, his children and all their descendants inherited Adam's "corrupted", "fallen", "sinful" nature.

Advocates of "The Fall" doctrine insist that unless we have all "inherited" a "fallen" nature from Adam 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, I believe this understanding of the Ransom is incorrect. I believe the key to properly understanding all of Pauls words on this subject matter is found in Romans 5:19. There Paul wrote,"By one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners." (Romans 5:19, Amplified Bible) I believe Paul was able to say this because Adam, serving as God's chosen representative of the whole human race, demonstrated by his disobedience that all human beings are "sinners." ( If Adam in paradise, without a care in the world, was unable to resist sin, what chance do any of us have in doing so? ) So, after Adam failed a simple God given test of his righteousness, God had good reason to condemn the entire human race as being undeserving of eternal life. The Bible 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) These things being so, we do not all have to be Noah's descendents, or Adam's for that matter, to need God's forgiveness. We do not have to be Adam's physical descendents to be considered to be "sinners." For Adam's sin has been "imputed" to us, because of what he did. In the same way, we do not have to be physical descendents of Jesus to be considered by God to be "righteous ones." For Christ's righteousness is "credited" to believers, as a result of what He did. I think believers who "strongly insist that, if the Flood was not a real, global event that wiped out the human race, much of the Christian message is damaged or pointless," simply misunderstand the scriptures. Mike