Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Death in Relation to the Creation and Fall
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 208 (721630)
03-10-2014 12:13 PM


Genesis 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
Genesis 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
Obviously, plants would not have been among those that "went in unto Noah into the ark" among all those creatures that had "the breath of life" in them. And in the second verse quoted the "breath of life" is said to be in the "nostrils."
Whatever modern science says is irrelevant if we want to understand what the scripture says about life and death. Whether the above definition is comprehensive of scripture's definition or not isn't clear of course.

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Diomedes, posted 03-10-2014 3:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 03-10-2014 5:47 PM Faith has replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 32 of 208 (721641)
03-10-2014 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
03-10-2014 12:13 PM


Genesis 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
There are numerous animal species that do perform respiration through nostrils. Most of the insect species on the planet breathe through their skin. Does that imply they were not on the ark?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 03-10-2014 12:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 208 (721644)
03-10-2014 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
03-10-2014 12:13 PM


Yeah, but so what?
Genesis 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
Genesis 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
This just tells who was on the ark and who died. It is not an exhaustive list or definition of what constitutes being alive. The scripture you cite does not advance your point one iota. Trees were not on the ark; they did not go into it "two by two", but the passage is completely silent about whether or not they were alive. The same can be said for ants.
Nobody can tell from either verse whether a particular sea mammal went onto the ark or whether they survived despite the lack of dry land. We might say the same thing about dolphins, sharks, or whales. And we cannot conclude from those verses that the author of Genesis or anyone else believed that those animals were not alive.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 03-10-2014 12:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 03-10-2014 9:46 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 34 of 208 (721647)
03-10-2014 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
03-10-2014 5:47 PM


Re: Yeah, but so what?
The subject is what the Fall did to the Creation, and the introduction of death and decay is the traditional understanding. Some here said some things died before the Fall, such as plants and insects. Since I believe scripture clearly says that the entire Creation was affected by the Fall I figure these creatures had to be affected by the Fall in some way too, and I conjecture that IF they died, which I don't know and neither do you, the death they may have died previous to the Fall was not death in the same sense it occurred to animals and humanity due to the Fall. Some of them may not even have existed before the Fall.
I quoted scripture that seems to make a distinction between classes of living things in terms of breath and blood. There definitely does seem to be such a distinction in the scripture, but again this is all conjecture. However, it was clearly LAND animals that went onto the ark, not sea creatures.
For sure plants are not treated as dying by being eaten, whether they are treated as having life in some sense or not. Plants were surely affected by the Fall too, however. Perhaps they ONLY "died" by being eaten before the Fall, but then also withered and died for the first time afterward. God said thorns would be a problem for Adam after the Fall, implying they didn't even exist before. All this is conjecture with a scripture verse here or there for support.
There is no doubt, however, that both humanity and the higher animals were subject to death after the Fall and not before, as "the lion will lie down with the lamb" is the result we expect from the final redeemed Creation, "nature red in tooth and claw" being the result of the Fall.
Plants and the other creatures mentioned as supposedly dying before the Fall must have been affected in some way, however, which is not specified in the Bible, and will no doubt be transformed in ways we can't even guess about, when the Creation is finally fully redeemed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 03-10-2014 5:47 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 03-10-2014 11:42 PM Faith has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 35 of 208 (721648)
03-10-2014 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
03-10-2014 12:24 AM


three kinds of trees
Faith writes:
I gave you what the commentators say, I don't know otherwise. If you have a theory why don't you give it?
i'm not sure you particularly gave me any answers from the commentators with regards to my question. but let me phrase it like this:
quote:
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
yahweh planted the garden after he made the man. he did not have a garden already, for his own use, and then think, "wouldn't it be great if i had a servant to water my plants while i'm away." he made the man first, and then built the garden, filling it with food for the man.
there are three kinds of trees in the garden. one gives him food he doesn't otherwise have. another gives him knowledge he doesn't otherwise have. and third... does nothing at all, in yahweh's original design? so why did yahweh place it in the garden?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 03-10-2014 12:24 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-10-2014 10:58 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 44 by herebedragons, posted 03-11-2014 12:10 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 208 (721649)
03-10-2014 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by arachnophilia
03-10-2014 10:07 PM


Re: three kinds of trees
there are three kinds of trees in the garden. one gives him food he doesn't otherwise have. another gives him knowledge he doesn't otherwise have. and third... does nothing at all, in yahweh's original design? so why did yahweh place it in the garden?
So it gives life. They ate from, and obtained, the knowledge of good and evil. But they didn't eat from, and gain, the life. So, ultimately, they will die. Is that what the authors intended?
It seems like the trees "sustained" whatever they were of. And they could take it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by arachnophilia, posted 03-10-2014 10:07 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 03-12-2014 12:13 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 208 (721650)
03-10-2014 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
03-10-2014 9:46 PM


Re: Yeah, but so what?
I quoted scripture that seems to make a distinction between classes of living things in terms of breath and blood.
Of course there a classes of living things, and of course the scripture supports the idea that the death of a man is of different impact or import than the death of a tree or a calf. There is no need to demote the death of those other things to establish that.
and the introduction of death and decay is the traditional understanding.
And of course my position is that what you call a traditional understanding is not supported by the text. You can support it only by pulling bits of text out of context, but in no other way.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 03-10-2014 9:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 03-11-2014 12:18 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 38 of 208 (721651)
03-10-2014 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
03-10-2014 12:33 AM


I've given you reasoning based on scripture, you are answering with reasoning based on your own notion of science.
I am answering based on recognized science in today's modern world. Or do you not agree that plants absorb carbon dioxide and there are animals that do not have blood circulatory systems? How are these statements "my notion of science"? Those are scientific facts.
The scriptural phrase is "whose breath is in their nostrilsx. Again, what I said is simple truth according to scripture: plants do not breathe air as plants and animals do
I have no clue what you mean by "plants do not breath air as plants". What does that mean??
y. Stop trying to make the Bible bow to science.
I am not. I believe the Bible spoke in the language of its day. That does not negate the truth of modern science.
That is the great error of "liberal Christianity."
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am telling you that your interpretation of the Bible does not jive with the Bible itself or modern science.
It says that life is in the blood, so I would conclude that for whatever reason God does not put them on the same level as the animals preserved on the ark.
I have not even mentioned the ark. My point is that the Bible is right in saying that life is in the blood in the fact that the blood caries vital nutrients and oxygen for some animals to continue to live aka life is in the blood. However, you drew the distinction that animals were considered "life" by the standards of the Bible and that plants were not and you backed that up with the statement taken out of context "life is in the blood". It is you, not me taking all this scripture out of context to back up your claim that death came to all creation except plants, sponges, jellyfish, worms, fish, insects, etc, etc. Your twisted and warped interpretation of scripture does not make sense or fit
hermeneutically with the rest of scripture.
T COUDL ALSO BE THAT THEY DID NOT DIE UNTIL THE FALL EITHER. Who knows.
But that defeats your very claim that death came to all creation not just humans.
No, the problem here is that YOU are imposing some anemic idea of science of your own on the scripture.
I am not imposing anything. You are the one making the claim. I am questioning this claim.
. Scripture defines its meanings as I have tried to lay them out.
But you are trying to make cherry picked OT scripture fit NT scripture which does not say what you think it says. "The Wages of Sin is Death" talks about spiritual and physical death of humans not all of creation. The very next phrase is "but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." which has nothing to do with all of creation. All of creation is not going to be granted eternal life as a gift from God. YOU, Faith, are taking this verse out of context, and trying to make it say what you want it to say without looking at the audience and context this scripture is in. If you read the whole passage that Paul writes to the Romans, you see he is talking about the assurance of salvation and about being dead to sin and alive in Christ and how it effects a believers relationship with God. Nowhere in this passage is he discussing that death came to all of creation after the fall of Adam.
When he does talk about Adam and death in Chapter 5 he says "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned"
"Death came to all people", not all creation. You are putting your own spin on this and trying to inject meaning that is not there.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are. - C.S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 03-10-2014 12:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 39 of 208 (721653)
03-11-2014 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by NoNukes
03-10-2014 11:42 PM


ALL Creation is subject to death because of the Fall
and the introduction of death and decay is the traditional understanding.
And of course my position is that what you call a traditional understanding is not supported by the text.
The task is always to reconcile scripture with scripture. Paul says sin and death ENTERED THE WORLD by Adam:
Romans 5:12: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
"The world" is not just the human race but you all try to make it mean that. This reading is confirmed by the passage I also quoted about how ALL CREATION is suffering until the manifestation of the Sons of God:
Romans 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God....
And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
"THE CREATURE" obviously means ALL CREATURES. ALL CREATURES "shall be DELIVERED FROM THE BONDAGE OF CORRUPTION" -- which is death and disease and decay. ALL CREATURES it says. And what does such deliverance amount to? THE REDEMPTION OF THE BODY.
This is also partly an answer to DevilsAdvocate's overemphasis on spiritual death as the result of the Fall, and his insistence that death of the body was already part of the Creation rather than the result of the Fall. But it also implies that all creatures suffer IN THEIR BODIES as a result of the Fall. So one way or another DEATH happened to them as a result whether we are able to sort all this out or not.
SO: We're talking about death and decay that entered into the world and affected ALL CREATION as a result of the Fall. I have been trying to think about how scripture presents life and death so as to answer your "science" complaints that mangle the meaning of these obvious scriptures. Again, However these are to be understood scripturally it is clear that THE ENTIRE CREATION, ALL CREATURES, have been made subject to decay and death as a result of man's sin. The rest is all details and sophistic nitpicking.
The traditional theological understanding has a lot of scripture to stand on. It is you who are taking things out of context.
------
ABE: There is really nothing more to say. You are all going to interpret these scriptures against the traditional interpretation in order to allow for your belief in evolution and I'm just going to insist on the interpretation I've given here. There is nothing more to say.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 03-10-2014 11:42 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-11-2014 12:56 AM Faith has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 40 of 208 (721660)
03-11-2014 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
03-10-2014 12:42 AM


So VERY sorry but that is not how that passage reads,
That is your interpretation and does not fit with the context of the entire scripture as I explained in my previous post.
nor iis it how the greatest and truest theological minds have read it.
Not true.
Augustine, one the most well known theologians of early Christianity indicates in his writings that he believe animal death existed before the fall.
Also, several other (but not all) theologians believed this as well including Clement of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopseustia.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 03-10-2014 12:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 41 of 208 (721662)
03-11-2014 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
03-11-2014 12:18 AM


Re: ALL Creation is subject to death because of the Fall
The task is always to reconcile scripture with scripture. Paul says sin and death ENTERED THE WORLD by Adam:
Good grief, how about the "death came to all people" part?
The NASB is widely recognized as one of the most accurate translations of the Bible. It states "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"
If you look at the literal Greek translation it says:
"because of this as by one man sin into the world entered and by sin death also thus to all men death passed"
That is the literal word for word translation from the Greek. The word for death here means physical or spiritual death. From Strong's concordance: "separation from the life (salvation) of God forever by dying without first experiencing death to self to receive His gift of salvation".
Sin entered the world by man, specifically by Adam & Eve, and death passed to all mankind because of this sin. That is because we are mortal creatures who know right and wrong aka eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (as opposed to animals or any other living thing) we are prone to sin and thus seperate ourselves from God.
Also the word "world" in Greek is "kosmos" which can be defined as "the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family". That is one definition of several.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 03-11-2014 12:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by herebedragons, posted 03-11-2014 11:18 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 03-11-2014 2:30 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 03-12-2014 12:45 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 42 of 208 (721675)
03-11-2014 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
03-10-2014 12:42 AM


nor iis it how the greatest and truest theological minds have read it.
But your definition of "greatest and truest theological minds" is those that agree with your point of view. If a theologian has a differing point of view, then they are "liberal." So you simply define yourself into the right without having to consider alternative points of view as having any value what-so-ever.
simply trying to justify the false science of evolution by the Bible, which means of course by twisting its meanings.
We are at a place in church history that is not so different from where the church was in Galileo and Copernicus's time. The "greatest and truest" theologians of the time were certain the earth was the center of the universe. In fact, a plain, literal reading of the scriptures demands that. But people began to realize that the evidence for a heliocentric model was so overwhelming that they needed to re-evaluate their understanding of scriptures.
Evolution is like that today. It is not a matter of trying to manipulate scripture to fit modern beliefs; it is asking the question "could we have misunderstood scripture all this time?" For me the answer is clearly "YES." and many, many great, sincere, godly christian men and women of today's church agree with me. I attend a Nazarene church, which is part of the holiness movement, in the tradition of Wesley; and the denomination is beginning to have serious conversations about this issue. They just recently had a conference in California about this very issue. Some of the things that came out of it:
1. We affirm God to be the Creator, that nothing exists without His divine providence.
2. We reject Godless narratives on origins (meaning ideas about origins that suggest that God does not exist or is not involved in His creation)
3. We affirm the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God and through it God actively speak to people.
4. We maintain that the Bible is NOT a scientific treatise and does not truly address HOW God created or the time frame in which He did create.
5. We need to be open to differing points of view regarding origins and create honest, sincere dialog between those that have different ideas and understanding.
(Note: I am not a spokesperson for the CoN, so by "we" I mean this is the consensus that I gathered from reading commentaries on the conference. At this point it is simply a dialog, but a significant group of leaders are drafting a motion to make these types of amendments. I expect at our next global conference there will be some changes to our manual that reflect those points. I don't expect that a theistic evolutionary model will become official church doctrine, but it will be a step the right direction.)
So, some of the "greatest and truest" theological minds of today ARE realizing that we may have misunderstood scripture all this time. It is not a matter of compromising, it is a matter of seeking the truth. Sorry Faith, but you don't have a monopoly on it.
Scripture, however, seems to confine the meaning of life and death to humanity and the higher animals, whose "life is in their blood" and whose "breath is in their nostrils" and which God commanded Noah to preserve on the ark. As I've already said. This seems to be how SCRIPTURE defines life as it is relevant to its purposes.
Are you sure about this? Unborn children do not have "the breath of life in their nostrils" does scripture exclude them as "not life in the same way" as the rest of humanity?
Another inconsistency in this stance is that you have huge numbers of organism that are not included on the ark because they don't fit this category of "life is in their blood" and whose "breath is in their nostrils". At the same time, you have a flood so devastating that it rips up enormous amounts of sediment and lays them down a thousand feet thick in just a few weeks or months. There is just no way that insects, plants, fish, whales, etc ... could have survived such a catastrophe. They would all be buried under tons and tons of sediment.
I had a creationist say to me that flies did not need to be on the ark because they could " well ... fly." as if I was too dumb to recognize the simple truth of that. Really? Flies, mosquitoes, beetles, and wasps could stay airborne during such a deluge as has never been seen? Nonsense! Just go outside during a modern day rain shower; the flying insects are all grounded, there is no bugs flying around. And what about the insects that can't fly like ants or spiders?
Part of "truth" is being consistent. For me, rather than trying to "fit modern science" into the Bible, I am looking for consistency. Your position is extremely inconsistent, IMHO.
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : typo
Edited by herebedragons, : again

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 03-10-2014 12:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 03-11-2014 3:27 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 43 of 208 (721687)
03-11-2014 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by DevilsAdvocate
03-11-2014 12:56 AM


Re: ALL Creation is subject to death because of the Fall
The NASB is widely recognized as one of the most accurate translations of the Bible.
Not to Faith. She is a KJV Only type; ALL other versions are corrupt - according to her.
I almost never read the Bible in KJV (I switch back and forth between NASB, NIV, CEB, NLT and the MSG) but when discussing things with Faith KJV is the translation you have to use, otherwise, it is dismissed as corrupt right off the bat.
Anyway, one of the arguments for no death before the fall is that God made the creation perfect. However, scriptures say that "God saw that it was good" and "behold, it was very good." not "perfect." The presumption that death could not have existed in a "perfect" world is well ... presumptuous. Actually, the perception that death is "bad" comes from our fallen nature, that is, our knowledge of good and evil. Without that knowledge, would we know death was "bad?" Would death be "bad?" Sharks are one of the most viscous, cold-blooded killers on earth, yet we shouldn't think of them as "evil" they are simply doing what they were made to do - eat, live and reproduce. (I can hardly imaging sharks eating plants before the fall ) They certainly don't think of themselves as evil.
So why do we presume that death as part of the creation is "bad" and could not exist in a "perfect" creation? Part of the reason is that death has a different significance for humans and so we extrapolate that onto other creatures. The fall placed the responsibility for the significance of life and death in our laps rather than in God's. We now are responsible for our own choices; the significance of our own life and death is now up to us. Thus God laments that "man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil." That is what salvation is really about, returning the significance of our life and death to God, the way it was originally intended.
I also noticed something else in the KJV that is pertinent to this discussion. In Gen 1:20, God says "Let the water teem with swarms of living creatures. and let the birds fly above the earth ... (21) God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, ..." Then in verse 24 when referring to land animals the same terminology is used: "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind; ... " No distinction between types of "living creatures." and clearly recognized creatures that dwell in the sea as "living creatures."
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"
One of the things that YEC proponents fail to realize is that creation was already corrupted before Adam and Eve. The serpent comes to Eve and tells her that God lied to her, that God wanted to deny her the ability to know good and evil. Traditionally the serpent is thought to be Satan in disguise (I have my doubts that Satan literally appeared to Eve in the form of a snake, but ... ). Is this not a part of creation? Yes, it is. The "fall of man" was man's choice to participate in this "rebellion" this "fallen nature." Man did not invent sin nor was he the first to participate in it, but he found this independence, this "knowledge" desirable and so chose to participate.
As a student of ecology and environmental studies, my experience says that what is actually messed up about this world is where humans get involved. Our reliance on ourselves and our own "knowledge of good and evil" is what has royally screwed up this world. If the world doesn't function like it should, it is because of man's influence. Humans are the source of the world's problems, not the rest of nature. So the world became broken through the actions and authority of humans, not by sin directly.
HBD
p.s. I am addressing you not because I think we disagree, but because I think we largely agree in our worldview. Faith has more-or-less declared there is nothing more to discuss and that she is not going to budge or even consider opposing views. I would rather have a discussion where the conversation can move forward and some resolutions can be made which help me better understand my own position and help me get closer to understanding what the truth is.

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-11-2014 12:56 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 03-11-2014 4:11 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 44 of 208 (721694)
03-11-2014 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by arachnophilia
03-10-2014 10:07 PM


Re: three kinds of trees
I believe you are a bit of a Hebrew scholar and I am curious about the Hebrew term used for "die" in Gen 2:17. The translation says "in the day that you eat from it you will surely die" The word used for "die" is mut (I have no idea how to make special characters, so "mut" is the best I could do). In fact, my concordance says this phrase is actually "mut" + "mut". AIG suggests that this is literally "dying you will die." and suggests that this indicates that they would begin the process of dying. However, I see no indication by how the word is used elsewhere that this means anything but a literal, physical death - not a process of dying. In fact, there are several places where mut + mut is used throughout the OT and each time it gives the impression of a certainty that one would be killed, almost like a vow. What is your take on this and what is your understanding of how the word is used?
Also, I understand that the Hebrews viewed death as a separation - so physical death would be a separation of soul and body; spiritual death would be separation of God and man. Could you comment on your understanding of how the ancient Hebrews viewed the concept of death?
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by arachnophilia, posted 03-10-2014 10:07 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by arachnophilia, posted 03-12-2014 12:33 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 45 of 208 (721713)
03-11-2014 1:57 PM


Here's the tree of knowledge...
Here's the tree of knowledge. Seems something has been lost in the various translations...

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024