|
Post by foxjj on Dec 7, 2019 8:30:58 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. Randy, prior to the fall all of God’s creation was as you stated “good.” A reading of Genesis teaches us that when God created the world men did not eat meat only seed bearing plants and fruit. Also the animals did not kill one another for food because plants were their food: “Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. ” And it was so.”(Genesis 1:29-30) It was after the fall that sin entered our world and humanity started to exhibit evil in their hearts. It was not until after the flood God that allowed humans to kill and eat animals: “The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.”(Genesis 9:2-3) From these and other readings we realize that God did not initially create creatures to kill one another. Nor did he create humans to be cruel and kill as you imply when you wrote: “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.” Genesis also teaches that God only created Adam and Eve, they in turn begat children who begat children, and so on. As for Cane and Judas, they acted of their own free will.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 7, 2019 16:07:45 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. Randy, prior to the fall all of God’s creation was as you stated “good.” A reading of Genesis teaches us that when God created the world men did not eat meat only seed bearing plants and fruit. Also the animals did not kill one another for food because plants were their food: “Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. ” And it was so.”(Genesis 1:29-30) It was after the fall that sin entered our world and humanity started to exhibit evil in their hearts. It was not until after the flood God that allowed humans to kill and eat animals: “The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.”(Genesis 9:2-3) From these and other readings we realize that God did not initially create creatures to kill one another. Nor did he create humans to be cruel and kill as you imply when you wrote: “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.” Genesis also teaches that God only created Adam and Eve, they in turn begat children who begat children, and so on. As for Cane and Judas, they acted of their own free will. I understand where you're coming from, and know the verses you utilize to draw your conclusions. However, I do *not* see the Scriptures explicitly saying what you claim they're saying. For example, we don't find the Scriptures saying that "Man is prohibited from killing animals for food," nor do we read that "only vegetation shall be food for the beasts initially." Essentially, your claims are based on arguments from silence. I do think you have a legitimate argument based on the progressive description of food, from plants to animals. But it seems you've also ignored my arguments about use of the word "livestock" from before the Flood? And I do think the creative design of animals as carnivores argues for their existence from the start, rather than after the Fall of Man. The other point I'm making is that God continues to allow mankind and beasts to propagate, currently as carnivores, which will continue to cause suffering and death. This is clear from Scriptures *after the Flood.* So how can it be argued that God cannot allow this *before* Man's Fall when it's clear He is allowing this *after* Man's Fall? My concern is that if we try to dictate our arguments as "Scriptural," based on arguments from silence, we will lose those who have to commit to scientific fact and to actual Scriptural integrity. We should be able to express a belief in Scriptural authority without dictating our own *conjectures,* which are in fact arguable?
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Dec 7, 2019 16:55:28 GMT
My point is that before the fall all was good because God walked in the garden where all life excised and dwelt with each other. The definition of good is to be of the highest value which infers that God did not intend His creation to kill each other. After the fall sin had entered and life changed bringing pain and death. As Romans eight states: ”Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”(Romans 8:21)
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 7, 2019 18:26:30 GMT
My point is that before the fall all was good because God walked in the garden where all life excised and dwelt with each other. The definition of good is to be of the highest value which infers that God did not intend His creation to kill each other. After the fall sin had entered and life changed bringing pain and death. As Romans eight states: ”Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”(Romans 8:21) Certainly we agree that it wasn't God's will for men to kill one another, ie to commit murder. The reality of suffering and death among animals, insects, birds, etc. is another matter entirely. Whether before the Fall or after the Fall God remains essentially *good* in the face of this. The reality of suffering and death does not change God's essential "goodness." We may legitimately ask, How can God have positioned suffering and death among the animals before Man fell into sin? Who would've been responsible for this "evil?" We either deny it existed, against the evidence of Science, or we admit it and alter our definition of "good," as inclusive of the presence of suffering and death. That is why I believe that there were other mitigating factors that caused God to create carnivorous creatures, and to create a heirarchy of creatures in which there were predators and their "victims." In my view it was the already-existent presence of evil in the universe, designed to show its drama played out in God's Creation. It was not to do anything more than to exhibit the reality of evil in the interest of judging it on earth. If man had simply eaten from the tree of life, the dominion of God over all of creation would've been established, and a new order could've been established. But thanks for bearing with me. It's one of those "debatable" issues, though it certainly shouldn't divide Christians. Personally, I find it very interesting to look at. And I do thank you for your quotation of Romans 8.21, because it does seem to play into this.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Dec 8, 2019 7:45:19 GMT
Randy, allow me to address some of your last points. You stated: ”We may legitimately ask, How can God have positioned suffering and death among the animals before Man fell into sin? Who would've been responsible for this "evil?" We either deny it existed, against the evidence of Science, or we admit it and alter our definition of "good," as inclusive of the presence of suffering and death.”
I do not see any evidence that “God positioned suffering and death among the animals before man fell into sin.” Remember Genesis 1:30: “And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. And it was so.” The ranking of carnivores came later, after the fall when sin changed God’s created species. As for altering the definition of good. When scripture declares that our Holy God saw His creation was good, it is saying that it was excellent, of the highest standard. Which implies creation was without suffering and death. These came after sin entered our world. It is critically important to believe Genesis, because it lays the foundation for God’s plan of Salvation: “So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” (Genesis 3:14-15)
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 9, 2019 3:42:04 GMT
Randy, allow me to address some of your last points. You stated: ”We may legitimately ask, How can God have positioned suffering and death among the animals before Man fell into sin? Who would've been responsible for this "evil?" We either deny it existed, against the evidence of Science, or we admit it and alter our definition of "good," as inclusive of the presence of suffering and death.” I do not see any evidence that “God positioned suffering and death among the animals before man fell into sin.” Remember Genesis 1:30: “And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. And it was so.” The ranking of carnivores came later, after the fall when sin changed God’s created species. As for altering the definition of good. When scripture declares that our Holy God saw His creation was good, it is saying that it was excellent, of the highest standard. Which implies creation was without suffering and death. These came after sin entered our world. It is critically important to believe Genesis, because it lays the foundation for God’s plan of Salvation: “So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” (Genesis 3:14-15) I don't see anything there that would alter my position. You're utilizing arguments from silence, and denying Science. I would admit that Science is not always right. But in this case, I do believe creatures, preexistting man, ate one another. I don't, of course, deny that God made plants for many animals to eat. That says nothing about the existence of "wild animals," which clearly is implied in the distinction between "livestock" and other creatures. I don't even know how you deal with birds eating insects? Do you think they ate only plants?
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Dec 9, 2019 6:18:44 GMT
Yes, birds also ate plants, not insects, according to scripture until sin changed our world from vegetarian to carnivorous.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 9, 2019 7:39:49 GMT
Yes, birds also ate plants, not insects, according to scripture until sin changed our world from vegetarian to carnivorous. Eagles, among other birds, do not eat plants. Some do. Many animals were designed to eat meat--not just plants. Animals lived and died, well before Man was created, and therefore well before Man sinned. I'll have to leave it there.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Dec 9, 2019 16:46:46 GMT
OK Randy. Let me leave you with a question that is worth considering, which was recorded first The Biblical record or the scientific?
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 9, 2019 20:45:09 GMT
OK Randy. Let me leave you with a question that is worth considering, which was recorded first The Biblical record or the scientific? I believe the Pentateuch was written mostly by Moses approx. 1500 BC. But he obviously derived sources from before his own time--in what form I don't know? Science records don't seem to play into the issue here. Often the argument is made by Young Earth proponents that "God can do anything," and the idea of uniformitarian claims are illegitimate. In other words, to argue that birds that eat meat today have to have always been birds that ate meat is rejected, since God could've changed things in ancient history. And that certainly may be true, that things weren't always as they are now. But Science doesn't just assume this--it draws upon archaeological records, and upon geological evidence. That is a far cry from assuming the scientific records have to defer to one's subjective interpretation of the Scriptures. Many good Christians do not accept that the Bible teaches a Young Earth. I would refer you to the book that changed my thinking on this, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," by Bernard Ramm. He believed in the inspiration and authority of Scriptures, and did not think all Science has corrupt data. He believed in a Local Flood, and accepted the idea of an Old Earth. He did not, however, embrace Theistic Evolution, although he didn't automatically suspect that theistic evolutionists who are Christians are inherently corrupt believers, or deniers of Scriptural authority. In my view, the record is not a matter of literature but of scientific data. We don't have to deny all this data to uphold the authority of the Scriptures. It is our *interpretation* of the Scriptures that is suspect here. We should not *read into* the Scriptures things it does not say. After all, even though it was written by the hand of God, and is completely true, it was not intended to be a Science Manual. It simply described God's creation in the way it happened, and did not intend to describe in detail the processes He used to bring this about. There was some detail, but less than enough to be dogmatic on these issues, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by ted on Dec 10, 2019 19:30:36 GMT
It pains me to see men divided (though in my heart I know that is but an illusion caused by Satan) so I have stayed away from this discussion. Here is something to consider. How much direct knowledge do you have of Biblical knowledge? and of the data upon which the scientific theories are based?
I have far more of the former and almost nothing of the latter. What I have been taught is an outline of theory and an overview of the data and at best a rough description of how that data was taken. That leaves me with nothing to base a scientific opinion for one must have at least second hand knowledge to make sound opinion and experiment (data collection) must be independently repeated (multiple first hand sources) before theories should be generally accepted. I can only base my opinion on faith alone. I am a scientist by trade and I would find it difficult to find original (primary sources) data to support the prevailing theories. All I have is third hand Knowledge. However my biblical knowledge is two-fold: secondhand as the scripture is the testimony of those who walked with Christ directly and I have first hand experience which supports that experience. My prayer life confirms the veracity of the bible.
My point is that man is more likely to place far more faith in science and man's knowledge there man in his direct knowledge of God. It is a sad state of affairs. I have discovered that there are many fallacies and misrepresentations of the data that is taught as science. But I only uncovered that truth by going back and reading original sources to find that the conclusions currently taught do not align with the data. A good scientist always works from fundamental principles or law (observable truths that never waiver). However, most problems become so complicated that the assumptions and oversimplifications make the theories tenuous or greatly restricted in the applicability. Man is very limited in understand and our pride prevents us from acknowledging this truth, despite the fact that we are very good at manipulating matter in very useful ways. Our understanding of how it all works is still very limited.
Scientific data itself is generally not corrupt (obviously there are some who fabricate data), however man has a tendency to corrupt thing for individualistic personal gain whether in recognition or monetary. In my experience, anything scientific presented in a newspaper is at best horribly misrepresented if not outright wrong. It is my belief that because those who write these stories are journalists and not scientists, they are not in full understanding themselves as they make mistakes trying to simplify the language for their readers. The average person is left trying to understand the world by others who don't yet understand the world. The blind lead the blind. Good science require that one be very skeptical of everything. The average person doesn't know where to being to question for they are merely trying to understand. The same can be said for the Bible yet we each have the capacity to read it for ourselves therefore it is far more accessible than primary sourced scientific knowledge. Both require an element of faith when coming to believe a truth.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Dec 10, 2019 22:12:30 GMT
Thank you for your very profound post Ted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 3:32:45 GMT
I have a question about the Local Flood Theory. So far, and even though I have asked it dozens of times, no one has ever given me a satisfactory answer for it. Here is my question:
If there was going to be a local flood, why didn't God just tell Noah to move to the next valley rather than spending a hundred years or so building an ark?
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by mfox on Dec 14, 2019 5:42:51 GMT
I have a question about the Local Flood Theory. So far, and even though I have asked it dozens of times, no one has ever given me a satisfactory answer for it. Here is my question:
If there was going to be a local flood, why didn't God just tell Noah to move to the next valley rather than spending a hundred years or so building an ark?
Any thoughts?
The entire world was flooded not just local areas Genesis 7:17-20 17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Noah was saved on the ark now Jesus has become our ark through which we are saved
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Dec 14, 2019 6:47:23 GMT
I have a question about the Local Flood Theory. So far, and even though I have asked it dozens of times, no one has ever given me a satisfactory answer for it. Here is my question:
If there was going to be a local flood, why didn't God just tell Noah to move to the next valley rather than spending a hundred years or so building an ark?
Any thoughts?
Very good question gator.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 21:25:18 GMT
My exact point mfox. It was the entire earth that was flooded and not just a few local areas. I also find it interesting that there was only one door to enter the ark. And Jesus directly compared Himself to the Ark when He said "I am the door..."
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 14, 2019 22:42:06 GMT
Thank you for your very profound post Ted. I sure hope it isn't as Ted suggested, a matter of "divided brothers." If I disagree with you on some minor points of doctrine or subject, it hardly means we're spiritually divided! I derive a lot of fulfillment from discussing things, and generally learn from differences among brothers and sisters.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 14, 2019 22:50:05 GMT
It pains me to see men divided (though in my heart I know that is but an illusion caused by Satan) so I have stayed away from this discussion. Here is something to consider. How much direct knowledge do you have of Biblical knowledge? and of the data upon which the scientific theories are based? I have far more of the former and almost nothing of the latter. What I have been taught is an outline of theory and an overview of the data and at best a rough description of how that data was taken. That leaves me with nothing to base a scientific opinion for one must have at least second hand knowledge to make sound opinion and experiment (data collection) must be independently repeated (multiple first hand sources) before theories should be generally accepted. I can only base my opinion on faith alone. I am a scientist by trade and I would find it difficult to find original (primary sources) data to support the prevailing theories. All I have is third hand Knowledge. However my biblical knowledge is two-fold: secondhand as the scripture is the testimony of those who walked with Christ directly and I have first hand experience which supports that experience. My prayer life confirms the veracity of the bible. My point is that man is more likely to place far more faith in science and man's knowledge there man in his direct knowledge of God. It is a sad state of affairs. I have discovered that there are many fallacies and misrepresentations of the data that is taught as science. But I only uncovered that truth by going back and reading original sources to find that the conclusions currently taught do not align with the data. A good scientist always works from fundamental principles or law (observable truths that never waiver). However, most problems become so complicated that the assumptions and oversimplifications make the theories tenuous or greatly restricted in the applicability. Man is very limited in understand and our pride prevents us from acknowledging this truth, despite the fact that we are very good at manipulating matter in very useful ways. Our understanding of how it all works is still very limited. Scientific data itself is generally not corrupt (obviously there are some who fabricate data), however man has a tendency to corrupt thing for individualistic personal gain whether in recognition or monetary. In my experience, anything scientific presented in a newspaper is at best horribly misrepresented if not outright wrong. It is my belief that because those who write these stories are journalists and not scientists, they are not in full understanding themselves as they make mistakes trying to simplify the language for their readers. The average person is left trying to understand the world by others who don't yet understand the world. The blind lead the blind. Good science require that one be very skeptical of everything. The average person doesn't know where to being to question for they are merely trying to understand. The same can be said for the Bible yet we each have the capacity to read it for ourselves therefore it is far more accessible than primary sourced scientific knowledge. Both require an element of faith when coming to believe a truth. Hey Ted: These matters do not necessarily divide brothers. Disagreement can be helpful sometimes. There are those who turn to Evolution out of hatred for Christianity, but that doesn't apply to all. I'm not an Evolutionist, but how God created the world is certainly not something I know "first hand" either! I do trust radiometric dating, and don't know why that should be an issue? When Copernicus and Galileo began to question the conventional Christian view of the universe, that may have caused some angst, as well, right? Until we know more it's wise to not dogmatize too much. If the language of Scriptures is less than clear about these issues, we need to allow some questions to be asked. But I'm pretty solid on Creation out of nothing, instead of gradual evolution. Neither do I deny that changes can take place in animals and insects. So I do get your point by our lack of first-hand knowledge, and fully support our need to have first-hand experience with God!
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 14, 2019 22:55:25 GMT
I have a question about the Local Flood Theory. So far, and even though I have asked it dozens of times, no one has ever given me a satisfactory answer for it. Here is my question:
If there was going to be a local flood, why didn't God just tell Noah to move to the next valley rather than spending a hundred years or so building an ark?
Any thoughts?
For the Flood to be expansive enough for there to be "no land in sight" for Noah and his family, the flooded region had to be enormous, perhaps covering the entire area surrounding the Black Sea. This would be sufficient to show Noah the importance of preserving animals in that region, which is needed to support local inhabitants. Of course, local inhabitants would be dead. And so, there would be time for surrounding regions to allow animals to migrate into the formerly-flooded area, to provide food and clothes for new populations of men. The purpose of the Flood was to destroy the wicked inhabitants of that region. I think God wanted Noah and his family to witness their destruction, which would not have happened if they moved a region over. It also gave time, while Noah was building the boat, to show, prophetically, the need for the inhabitants to listen to God's warning of judgment. In other words, it was a testimony, and a graphic warning of coming judgment. It was a warning to repent, or die.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 14, 2019 23:13:40 GMT
I have a question about the Local Flood Theory. So far, and even though I have asked it dozens of times, no one has ever given me a satisfactory answer for it. Here is my question:
If there was going to be a local flood, why didn't God just tell Noah to move to the next valley rather than spending a hundred years or so building an ark?
Any thoughts?
The entire world was flooded not just local areas Genesis 7:17-20 17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Noah was saved on the ark now Jesus has become our ark through which we are saved Short of an incredible number of enormous miracles, The Universal Flood view is impossible, and not supported by the evidence. On the other hand, if we consider the "universal" language in the Scriptural account to be expressing the view of a person witnessing the event, a Local Flood still meets the criteria for being the event seen. In other words, if I stand in the middle of a region and its civilization and watch an enormous flood rise and destroy the people and animals living there, I would describe it exactly as the Scriptures describe it. The "whole earth" would be covered. "No land" would be seen." "All animals" would die. All of "mankind" would die. The language of universalism can apply to the phenomena witnessed in a limited environement. "All" of the animals *within a region* died. The qualifier "within a region" did not need to be said because in Noah's time they had no world maps, and wasn't, at any rate, concerned about anywhere but "all the earth" where they lived. There was no escape for those living in that region because the Flood was large enough not to afford the time and distance to escape. Not only could Noah not fit all of the species of animal, bird, and insects into the ark, but maintaining them would be impossible. The destruction of the entire earth would destroy fish, bird, animal and vegetable life, forcing God to recreate them all, which is contrary to the account of creation. And yes, even the fish would die. Many species depend on shallow areas, which would be disrupted by an enormous Flood. It's likely that "all the mountains" that were covered referred to lowland areas beyond the higher ranges themselves. There simply isn't enough water in our world to provide enough water to cover high mountains--not even if the earth became more level, and the sea depths are raised higher. And there would be a problem with disposing of that much water after the Flood.
|
|