The flood, and meat eating.

Uh uh. "Does not work for me" is not good enough. This is not an opinion forum. If the sensible, symbolic reading "does not work" for you, tell us why it doesn't.(And there is no need to smear my interpretation by calling it "merely" symbolic. A symbolic interpretation can be more meaningful than a made-up "literal" one - as well as more majestic. Nor is it necessary to call my approach an "unbelieving" approach. It is only your made-up version that I don't believe.)

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Look at it this way:Do we have any evidence that the world is not flat? Or do we just have evidence that the world is round?Similarly, do we need evidence that there was no meat-eating at one time? Since all the evidence we have indicates that there has always been meat-eating, why is that evidence not sufficient?Try to understand: science deals with positive evidence - not a lack of negative evidence.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I explained why it does not work. Paul, well-acquained with the text, speaks of a literal death and resurrection of the "last Adam", Jesus. There is no hint that death means anything but the literal meaning of death.The onus is on you to show why death should be interpreted symbolically when the passage appears to speak of literal death. Keep in mind Paul is talking as well about people that have literally died and been buried in the ground.Is that symbolic too? How is it a comfort to not grieve excessively over people that have died, "fallen asleep", if in reality Paul is not even referring to that situation which he says he is.Your view of the text does not hold up.Please show how Paul's use of "death" is solely symbolic here.

Because that is predicated on a faulty concept of time which is increasingly becoming outdated, first by relativity, and now by other indications within quantum physics that time "flow", which is an improper term really but useful here, is not uniform and purely linear.You say something has "always been". How do you know that? Is there any evidence for that?Is there any scientific evidence for assuming things have always been the same?Basically, science offers evidence that our concept of a linear, uniform experience of time is erroneous.Since this concept of time is an assumption underlining your interpretation of data, your conclusions on what the data says are faulty or unverified at best.This message has been edited by randman, 07-27-2005 01:47 PM

Where did I say anything about symbolic death? I said that Adam is symbolic of all mankind.Of course Paul was talking about literal, physical death. So am I.The story of Adam, to which Paul was referring, is an explanation of why we die physically. It is also an explanation of why we are responsible for our sins - because we have the knowledge of good and evil.The story has symbolic importance far greater than any historical value that it may or may not have.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

"As far as cattle, they existed at some point as wild animals, right?
Or not?
Either way, the fact they are for meat now does not preclude the idea they could have existed just as animals."It says "cattle" and distinguishes them from "beasts of the field".
Come on. You are being deliberately dense here. When do you think Genesis was written? After the Fall, for sure. And at a time when the term "cattle" meant a domestic animal - of which one use was meat. You don't think an important detail like that (no eating meat) would have been spelled out in the Garden of Eden rule book?"On reproduction, there could well have been a far lower rate originally, which incidentally fits well with the original longer lifespans after the Fall."Ok, there you go again. Adding to the text. The command was to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" You don't multiply and replenish the earth unless you are reproducing and your offspring are reproducing. But nobody dies so how do you magically slow down the reproduction rate to keep from overpopulating the earth? (not just people, animals too) Again, it doesn't add up so more miracles are going to be needed. Now you are telling me that animals are going to go against their instincts and not reproduce every chance they get. Oh right - they were different then. And the animals with canine teeth and short guts adapted for meat eating - how did they manage to live on grass or seeds, (no molars, no gizzards to grind up the grass and seeds) anyway?What did the lions and tigers eat on the Ark, by the way? (It's after the Fall and death has entered the world so no fair saying they ate hay).

Once again, if you think that the principles of physics, chemistry, etc. have changed, the onus is on you to provide evidence of that change.The whole non-linear time thing is a complete non-starter. As I have said repeatedly, it could be used to hand-wave away anything.It is a useless concept when dealing with phisical evidence.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

How does a cow put on a condom? (Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

"There is evidence for how such changes in the time-line or alternative universes could appear, although science is too primitive at this stage to verify such theories."Say what? You can't be serious. What evidence? And please don't say Einstein's theory of relativity, string theory or quantum mechanics. None of them say anything of the kind.Besides, if you are going to resort to "alternate universes" you might just as well say "God did it, that settles it." Sorry, that's not facts and logic, that is belief. You are entitled to your own beliefs but not your own facts.

"How does a cow put on a condom?"She tells the bull he is not going to get any unless he stands still while she accomplishes the task?

I guess randman has more faith in a cow's manual dexterity than I do.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

God is the Wizard of Oz then?

I've got to reread 1984. I think you may have hit on a key to fundamentalist thought processes.lfen

chiroptera,I felt bad for even injecting the comment in there as it can lead only to off-topic stuff. I almost deleted it (rather replaced it with "sorry, off-topic comment"), but decided that might be even worse to do.But I ask, what can cause red-shift? Can gravity? The farther a star is from us, the more objects in space the light must pass by...iow, gravity from countless objects will be "pulling back" on the light all along the way, I must wonder if this can affect or even cause the red shift. But, more importantly, the red shift, if it does indeed indicate that things are moving away from the viewer, then everything is moving away from the earth...do we have any observational evidence that everything is moving away from everything (we might, but I am unfamiliar with it)? If not, the red shift could conceiveably be used to argue that the earth is the center of the universe (I'm not making that argument, though, okay).The far away, therefore long ago argument (while not convincing ME of a great age for the universe) could be used as circumstantial evidence for an ancient universe, but it does nothing to support a big bang origin.Could background radiation be explained by the fact that the universe is filled with radiation-producing objects (the sun and other stars)? It most certainly is not a "clincher."

If the ability to reproduce comes from God ('be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth'), why shouldn't we think that God could turn off the instinct to reproduce once the earth was filled?I realize that the following comment is you quoting a creationist (I am a creationist, too), but I must also disagree with the comment."On reproduction, there could well have been a far lower rate originally, which incidentally fits well with the original longer lifespans after the Fall."I would think that the long lifespans meant that fewer parent individuals could more rapidly populate an area...not the other way around. I see no reason not to think this.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 02:30 AM