|
Post by BlueSky on Apr 25, 2019 2:12:49 GMT
Genesis is not about science. In fact, to make the message about science is symptomatic of the problem. Bear with me..... What differentiates the seed of Cain from the seed of Seth is autonomy. Autonomy, above all, desires self determination. Therefore what is predetermined needs to be self regulated and transcended in the name of freedom. The highest good ibecomes what can be self determined as opposed to what God has predetermined The seed of Cain is distinguished by their self determined achievements as opposed to what God has predetermined. Not bad in itself but not as the highest good Let’s apply genesis to a car. A car is created with form and that form has function. This is predetermined by the manufacturer not the driver I need to be taught how to operate the car in order to safely operate the car. If I want freedom and independence from the predetermined purpose that is inherent to my car then my focus will change from how the car functions to how it was created. The roads are full of mayhem and death because the people think they can transcend their cars braking system but the people still ignore the manufacturers instruction book and continue to argue over how their cars are manufactured. Of course I agree with what you are saying as you have a great way of putting it and i am sure that you have taught us all something we didn’t see before as you have taken it much deeper. I know that the books of the bible have a message to it’s audience which are far more important than historical facts as the faithful would understand and take heed of the warnings and messages. What I am saying is that people who don’t believe in God wouldn’t see or even care about the message it would not interest them but scientific proof would. For example three things had to come into existence at once within our world paradine time, space and matter and for that to happen cannot be by chance but a creator would have to create them If a rock (matter) was created it would need to be placed somewhere (space) and when did it happen (time) and someone to make it happen (the creator) We find the answer to all four in the very first verse of the bible Genesis 1:1 1 In the beginning (time) God (the creator) created the heavens (space)and the earth (matter) Once a person understands and believes this then they will want to understand Gods message Thus both science and the message would complete each other would you agree with this? Nicely said brother.
|
|
|
Post by princess on Apr 25, 2019 19:32:10 GMT
Mfox
I have not gone very deep other than uttering a few vague descriptions here and there.
You guys keep proving my point.
The problem is like the abortion debate. Pro life apologists wasted decades of time thinking they could change the minds of pro abortionists if they could just prove scientifically that a baby in the womb is life. The abortion crowd was never concerned about whether a baby in the womb is considered life but whether or not a a baby in the womb was authentically chosen. Autonomy is the highest good therefore abortion is moral.
|
|
|
Post by mfox on Apr 25, 2019 20:50:56 GMT
Mfox I have not gone very deep other than uttering a few vague descriptions here and there. You guys keep proving my point. The problem is like the abortion debate. Pro life apologists wasted decades of time thinking they could change the minds of pro abortionists if they could just prove scientifically that a baby in the womb is life. The abortion crowd was never concerned about whether a baby in the womb is considered life but whether or not a a baby in the womb was authentically chosen. Autonomy is the highest good therefore abortion is moral. Hey princess what I was meaning is that you saw a deeper meaning than we did it was a great observation
To clarify I agree with you that autonomy was and is the biggest issue at hand and will be the reason for the second coming but God does work in many ways and science has reached some unbelievers
|
|
|
Post by princess on Apr 25, 2019 22:34:19 GMT
We are in agreement on many things and in our differences we have respect and grace for each other. I don’t think we are in disagreement here either just a different approach. If you can reach people with Genesis and science then that is good.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Sept 30, 2019 5:21:21 GMT
Many Christians believe that dinosaurs could of lived and died in a time called the gap theory before Adam was created. If so would this be biblical and did Adam and Eve walk with dinosaurs?
I believe that the earth is probably 4.5 billion years old and the universe about 14 billion years old. I take the scientists' word on it. If God created the earth in 6 days, then those were probably metaphorical days. I don't believe God made the world appear to be old to fool our scientists. Life itself, both vegetable and animal, have been around a very long time. The creation of different forms of life were apparently given to take place in stages. Obviously, vegetation must precede animal life in order for animal life to eat and survive. I don't believe the fossil record is sufficient to give a clear order of appearance . Who knows what circumstances may have caused different species to leave fossil relics? There obviously was death and carnivores before the Fall of Man, because these animals preceded the creation of Man. Death and carnivores were obviously not evil to God, since He created them--not man. So why would God find it "good" to create death and suffering in the animal world? It may have been to produce a kind of diorama illustrating the effects of sin in the universe, caused by angelic rebellion against God. Justice is good. If this "diorama" served to show man what *not* to do, to avoid evil, then the diorama was indeed a "good" thing.
|
|
|
Post by mfox on Oct 3, 2019 0:52:50 GMT
Many Christians believe that dinosaurs could of lived and died in a time called the gap theory before Adam was created. If so would this be biblical and did Adam and Eve walk with dinosaurs?
I believe that the earth is probably 4.5 billion years old and the universe about 14 billion years old. I take the scientists' word on it. If God created the earth in 6 days, then those were probably metaphorical days. I don't believe God made the world appear to be old to fool our scientists. Life itself, both vegetable and animal, have been around a very long time. The creation of different forms of life were apparently given to take place in stages. Obviously, vegetation must precede animal life in order for animal life to eat and survive. I don't believe the fossil record is sufficient to give a clear order of appearance . Who knows what circumstances may have caused different species to leave fossil relics? There obviously was death and carnivores before the Fall of Man, because these animals preceded the creation of Man. Death and carnivores were obviously not evil to God, since He created them--not man. So why would God find it "good" to create death and suffering in the animal world? It may have been to produce a kind of diorama illustrating the effects of sin in the universe, caused by angelic rebellion against God. Justice is good. If this "diorama" served to show man what *not* to do, to avoid evil, then the diorama was indeed a "good" thing. But Paul does say that death came from sin The other thing too is that meat wasn’t eaten until after the flood that how Noah kept the lions from eating other animals on the ark LOL
|
|
|
Post by randy on Oct 3, 2019 20:06:10 GMT
I believe that the earth is probably 4.5 billion years old and the universe about 14 billion years old. I take the scientists' word on it. If God created the earth in 6 days, then those were probably metaphorical days. I don't believe God made the world appear to be old to fool our scientists. Life itself, both vegetable and animal, have been around a very long time. The creation of different forms of life were apparently given to take place in stages. Obviously, vegetation must precede animal life in order for animal life to eat and survive. I don't believe the fossil record is sufficient to give a clear order of appearance . Who knows what circumstances may have caused different species to leave fossil relics? There obviously was death and carnivores before the Fall of Man, because these animals preceded the creation of Man. Death and carnivores were obviously not evil to God, since He created them--not man. So why would God find it "good" to create death and suffering in the animal world? It may have been to produce a kind of diorama illustrating the effects of sin in the universe, caused by angelic rebellion against God. Justice is good. If this "diorama" served to show man what *not* to do, to avoid evil, then the diorama was indeed a "good" thing. But Paul does say that death came from sin The other thing too is that meat wasn’t eaten until after the flood that how Noah kept the lions from eating other animals on the ark LOL I would agree with you except that I'm not convinced that the "death" that came from human sin applied to animals. Man himself did not die until he sinned. But my thought is that death could've existed in the animal world, not as a penalty for their "sins," but rather, simply as an indication of what existed in the outside environment. In the garden things were probably pretty pristine and proper. However, outside of the garden there was an entire world created to reflect a cosmic battle that had already been going on, namely the rebellion of Satan and his angels against their Maker. So, I do think death existed well before human sin. It wasn't an evil thing because it did not involve moral choice. It was reflective of a condition in the environment, and can still be viewed as "good," in terms of God's justice.
|
|
|
Post by mfox on Oct 3, 2019 21:07:38 GMT
But Paul does say that death came from sin The other thing too is that meat wasn’t eaten until after the flood that how Noah kept the lions from eating other animals on the ark LOL I would agree with you except that I'm not convinced that the "death" that came from human sin applied to animals. Man himself did not die until he sinned. But my thought is that death could've existed in the animal world, not as a penalty for their "sins," but rather, simply as an indication of what existed in the outside environment. In the garden things were probably pretty pristine and proper. However, outside of the garden there was an entire world created to reflect a cosmic battle that had already been going on, namely the rebellion of Satan and his angels against their Maker. So, I do think death existed well before human sin. It wasn't an evil thing because it did not involve moral choice. It was reflective of a condition in the environment, and can still be viewed as "good," in terms of God's justice. I don't think that life existed outside of the garden and remember satan was in the garden
|
|
|
Post by randy on Oct 6, 2019 6:20:47 GMT
That's the problem--Satan was already in the world. And he, in fact, had come to possess the serpent. The animal world had been impacted by the Evil One.
And so, I think God molded Creation to reflect this cosmic battle between Good and Evil. That may be why the animal world and the insect world reflects suffering, death, and conquest.
It was nevertheless a "good" Creation, inasmuch as it would assist Man in making a choice for good or for evil. Man chose to have both, which in fact made Man a mixed creature, the sinful flesh.
But inasmuch as Man still chose for "good," redemption for some men must take place. Good will produce good, and evil will produce evil.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Oct 10, 2019 7:30:44 GMT
Randy, a couple of points for you to consider. First we do not know when Satan was cast down to earth. Just because he used the serpent in the garden does not mean that he was already cast out of heaven. As for the animals, they all got on together in the ark where there was no evidence of them reflecting the cosmic battle. The whole earth changed after the flood.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Oct 11, 2019 14:36:54 GMT
Randy, a couple of points for you to consider. First we do not know when Satan was cast down to earth. Just because he used the serpent in the garden does not mean that he was already cast out of heaven. As for the animals, they all got on together in the ark where there was no evidence of them reflecting the cosmic battle. The whole earth changed after the flood. There's certainly a lot we don't know. I'm not sure how much the earth changed after the Flood. I don't personally think there was that much change. Some say that there was no rain prior to the Flood. How do we know that? It seems like pure speculation, both whether the Flood was universal or that it hadn't rained. As to whether Satan had already been "cast down to earth," I can't imagine that Satan was in the Garden, tempting Man, if he had not yet fallen. And if he had already fallen, then he likely had already been cast out of heaven. Again, we can't argue things we don't know. Arguing from silence gets nowhere. But we can certainly speculate and throw ideas around. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by mfox on Oct 12, 2019 22:09:35 GMT
Randy, a couple of points for you to consider. First we do not know when Satan was cast down to earth. Just because he used the serpent in the garden does not mean that he was already cast out of heaven. As for the animals, they all got on together in the ark where there was no evidence of them reflecting the cosmic battle. The whole earth changed after the flood. There's certainly a lot we don't know. I'm not sure how much the earth changed after the Flood. I don't personally think there was that much change. Some say that there was no rain prior to the Flood. How do we know that? It seems like pure speculation, both whether the Flood was universal or that it hadn't rained. As to whether Satan had already been "cast down to earth," I can't imagine that Satan was in the Garden, tempting Man, if he had not yet fallen. And if he had already fallen, then he likely had already been cast out of heaven. Again, we can't argue things we don't know. Arguing from silence gets nowhere. But we can certainly speculate and throw ideas around. Thanks. The bible mentions water coming from the ground which watered the plants. The book of job also mentions satan entering heaven so he wouldn’t be banished from heaven. The bible also also mentions Adam naming the animals so I don’t think that animals lived and died before Adam
|
|
|
Post by randy on Oct 13, 2019 2:56:02 GMT
Gen 2.4 At the time that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 no shrub of the field had yet grown on the land, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not made it rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground. 6 But mist would come up from the earth and water all the ground.
What does this mean? It speaks of a primordial period of time, in anticipation of a world about to act as a functioning machine. It only had a plan. The machine had not yet been built. There was no factory, and no workers. Only the whispers in the wind of a *plan.*
If no shrub, and no plant yet existed, this was an era between the creation of the dry land and the creation of plant life upon the planet. The mist coming up from the earth at that time seems to represent the start of plant life, even before there was a meteorological cycle.
This did not mean that rain did not water the earth after the plants had begun to sprout--only that mist initiated the process of hydrating the seeds, as such.
To say that there was no rain prior to Noah's time, for all of earth's history and plant life, and animal life, prior to the Flood of Noah, goes far, far beyond what the Scriptures are saying here, in my opinion.
I know that some commentators have suggested this. But they may just be fielding their own thoughts after reading at a surface level. I respectfully remain unconvinced...
As for Satan appearing before God in heaven, I think we're mixing up the semantics of the word "fall." We can talk about Satan's fall from heaven in the sense of an actual isolation of his presence to the atmosphere of earth, or we can talk about his fall from grace. I think the Bible is talking about the latter.
After Satan fell from grace certain "earthly" types of limitations were placed upon him. He was the 1st "materialist," for example. Things became his obsession, including himself, although he was created and answerable to God. He no longer held a relationship as servant to God because he was in open rebellion.
So Satan fell from his glorious position as the created serving the Creator. But he remained in the atmosphere of spirit-beings, who are not subject to the laws of earth the same way men are, who were created out of the earth. Satan is perfectly able to move about in the skies of the universe, but he can only go as far as God lets him in his rebellion.
The naming of the animals bears no relation to how long they had existed. They could've existed without names and categories. The important thing is that they were created before Man in anticipation of Man so that Man could in some way appreciate them. How long they existed before Man I leave to geological dating, including uranium/radiometric dating methods. They seem perfectly honest approaches to the science of dating rocks.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Oct 16, 2019 5:49:49 GMT
Thank you for sharing your thoughts Randy. Personally I generally listen to the respected commentators when their explanations help in our understanding of Scripture.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Oct 16, 2019 14:03:45 GMT
My brother loves to focus on biblical linguistics. Apparently there is a new emphasis on this in our day. Older commentators were good, but may not have had all the tools, particularly lacking some of the tools of science and linguistics. To me, all 3 should be respected--commentators, linguists, and scientists. Best of all would be a prophetic word from God. But often God leaves us to our tools of reason, and takes note of our level of honesty. Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2019 6:55:29 GMT
Personally, I don’t believe in the old earth age theories. For one thing, they go against the Bible. For another thing, palaeontologists tell us that some of these creatures died horrid agonizing deaths. How can we reconcile this fact with the statements in Genesis where God said “And it was good”?
And then too, we have the palaeontologist Dr. Mary Sweitzer (sp?) who, back in 2004 or thereabouts discovered soft tissue AND red blood cells in a dinosaur carcass that was supposedly 65million years old. Now the old earthers are looking for some slender bit of evidence to support soft tissue that is that old.
It seems to me that they need to rephrase the question and ask how they could have been so wrong for so many years.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 6, 2019 18:03:53 GMT
Personally, I don’t believe in the old earth age theories. For one thing, they go against the Bible. For another thing, palaeontologists tell us that some of these creatures died horrid agonizing deaths. How can we reconcile this fact with the statements in Genesis where God said “And it was good”? And then too, we have the palaeontologist Dr. Mary Sweitzer (sp?) who, back in 2004 or thereabouts discovered soft tissue AND red blood cells in a dinosaur carcass that was supposedly 65million years old. Now the old earthers are looking for some slender bit of evidence to support soft tissue that is that old. It seems to me that they need to rephrase the question and ask how they could have been so wrong for so many years. I tend to defer to the science of geological dating. And I don't think the Scriptures are actually detailed enough to render a verdict on these matters. Your points, however, are well-taken, and need to be answered. I don't know if my own answers are legitimate or not--it's all I have for now. I believe that although the Creation was made "good," this doesn't mean that the story God told ignored the problem of evil. So, God created the world of creatures that told the story of suffering and death, even while preserving the idea that the story itself was a good story--a story about God's word in a time of spiritual evil. The world that God created told the story of a spiritual conflict, and does not indicate that the creatures involved were themselves "evil." They were, by God's creative word, the product of a cosmic conflict in which the evil party caused God to reflect this conflict in creation itself. They were merely characters in a play, indicating that while the creation was good the story reflects the reality of both good and evil. I do believe that dinosaurs existed millions of years before the creation of Man. However, who knows how long they persevered on earth before they became extinct? There could've been a massive die-off, causing their numbers to seriously dwindle. However, they could've continued with a much lower number of fossils available for finding. But all of this is highly speculative for me. I simply cannot ignore the science of radiometric dating.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 7, 2019 2:16:47 GMT
Let me just add this. God created carnivores, which of course implies that God created creatures that caused pain to other creatures. Was God not then creating good creatures? According to the Bible, God did create them "good."
Was God "evil" or "unjust" when He created Cain, who killed his brother Abel? Was He "bad" for creating Judas when He knew Judas would betray Jesus to the barbarous Romans? Again, the Bible says that God only does good.
It seems clear to me that God could make creatures "good" even though those creatures were carnivores and depicted the presence of evil in the universe. If so, then it appears to me that the existence of carnivorous creatures before the fall of Adam does not contradict the Scriptures, which say that God created the world "good." Everything God does is good, whether evil exists in the universe or not, whether men choose to do evil or not.
|
|
|
Post by mfox on Dec 7, 2019 2:55:18 GMT
Let me just add this. God created carnivores, which of course implies that God created creatures that caused pain to other creatures. Was God not then creating good creatures? According to the Bible, God did create them "good." Was God "evil" or "unjust" when He created Cain, who killed his brother Abel? Was He "bad" for creating Judas when He knew Judas would betray Jesus to the barbarous Romans? Again, the Bible says that God only does good. It seems clear to me that God could make creatures "good" even though those creatures were carnivores and depicted the presence of evil in the universe. If so, then it appears to me that the existence of carnivorous creatures before the fall of Adam does not contradict the Scriptures, which say that God created the world "good." Everything God does is good, whether evil exists in the universe or not, whether men choose to do evil or not. Although God did create them meat wasn’t eaten until after the flood
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 7, 2019 7:42:45 GMT
Some of the relevant passages are posted below. "Livestock," ie animals raised for food, were, it seems, planned from the beginning. God "made animal skins," which may indicate that God intended animals to be killed and their skins used for clothing. And the creation of animals, over which man is to reign and which he is to subdue, were to be used as food. Both animal and plant life were to be ingested as food for man, to indicate the superiority of God's moral image over the entire earth.
Gen 1.24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 3.21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
Gen 4.20 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock.
Gen 9.3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
My thought is that God brought livestock--domesticated animals raised for food--into the ark because He intended them to be food for man, along with the plant life that had obviously been destroyed in the region where Noah's civilization had lived.
I understand that one possible interpretation is that animal food began at the end of the Flood. But I also see it as possible that animal food had already been in use, and that God was merely verifying the use of animal food, along with plant food, after the Flood, since He had preserved them for that purpose. And so, I think it is debatable that animal food only began after the Flood. We do have a statement to that effect, but I'm not sure that the other passages should be ignored either.
|
|