The flood, and meat eating.

The OP deals with a claim about the Bible. If you are saying one has to scientifically prove God exists before discussing the topic, then really the whole thread topic should never have been placed here because that is an entirely different thread, trying to prove the existence of God via science.If one is to offer an explanation on how the ideas in the text can fit with modern science, then we can do that, and that's what I am doing here. The first step is to try to get a handle on the fundamentals of what existence is. How do things exist?I think the discoveries thus far on how things exist suggests that a scenario that I have layed out is plausible.You act as if the scenario is so out there to be wholly unscientific, and yet science offers explanations for quantum physics observations such as the multi-verse, which is not proven either.My idea is not so different than the multi-verse concept, except that I am suggesting that this could occur without the alternatives within the multi-verse ever taking on real form. Probably that gets into physics too much, and they are problems that are unresolved in quantum physics, but at the same time, there are critical discoveries as well, and imo, those discoveries support my idea here.

The evidence is what I am talking about, and what you are ignoring, and that is the nature of fundamental existence, which quantum physics is seeking to answer.Until you answer that question, and get a very good handle on it, you really are just basing everything on assumptions as far as data since the assumption is that the past is static.Can you prove that the past is static?Where is your evidence?You say you have evidence of such and such time in history, but that's all based on an interpretation of the data, not the data itself. The data says nothing about ancient history. It is interpreted to say things about ancient earth history based on uniformatarian assumptions, namely that of a static time-line, which itself is based on concepts of time increasingly more unscientific.Understanding the nature of physical existence and time, and how time is part of the universe, is fundamental to answering any questions in this arena with any sort of validity.It's true that science has only uncovered a little bit, and that more evidence is needed, but since all the evidence points to ideas of reality and time consistent with what I am saying, I'd say you have a great deal to make up if you are going to present conclusive evidence to support your concepts of physical reality and time, which are evident from your statements.Can you provide any evidence that the past is unchanging? Or is that a mere assumption on your part?

No one ever said that. Next. No, QM does not. Multi-verse theorists posit this. Please show some evidence to back up your claims that other QM theorists believe ALL potential universes coexist. So then my theory must be correct, right? Btw, you are wrong to equate multi-verse theory with all quantum physics interpretations, and had you read my posts, you would see that I was merely using the multi-verse to debunk your idea that such ideas are unscientific, and to show that QM observations do seem to indicate reality is more in line with my perspective than your's. I wish that were so. I wish I could just choose to make the world a perfect place, but I cannot. I can choose maybe to view it that way or some esoteric concept, but bottom line is our choices are indeed limited to a degree. By what definition? Please show what the heck you are talking about? I can create characters in a story and "affect" them in anyway I want, but they cannot affect me at all. That's a dumb argument. First off, God self-exists, and thus existence is dependant on God for the concept to have any meaning at all.God's self-existence is really a form of existence we can only imagine due to God allowing us to imagine. There is no reason to think God is dependant on the creation of the thing we call existence in order for Him to self-exist.In fact, only He really exists in the sense of self-existing. Everything else is dependant, but not God.God by definition has the attribute of self-existence.

Good point. Well, wave/particality duality seems a lot of like a magical POOF action, but we are digressing.The "why" is that man's consciousness fell. It was darkened while gaining more knowledge. It is possible that quantum physics interpretations which show consciousness somehow involved in the collapsing of the wave function, or whatever you want to call it, indicates that consciousness of man, the observer, somehow plays a role in the manifestation of reality in one form or another. That, to me, is evidence for how such a change could occur. You've got it totally backwards. No one is adding to the text to make it fit a "model." The Bible says death entered into the world via Adam's sin. Now, there are some ways people try to get around this. One is claiming that death entered into the world of man, or that death refers to spiritual death only, but that animals lived and died and ate one another, etc,....If one takes the Bible's claims of death beginning with Adam's sin as meaning what it appears to on the face of it, then you can either just reject the Bible, or you can accept my interpretation. There may be another alternative out there, and I am open to that, but imo, what I am saying is consistent with both scientific principles as we know them and with the text of the Bible.If you want definitive proof, that may not be possible. What may be possible is to determine that the scenario I put forward is scientifically possible, assuming God's existence, and harmonious with what we know about time and physical existence.Edit to add: What makes you think what I am proposing is YEC? Additionally, I think for any evolutionist to complain about "just-so" stories begs the question of who is the pot and who is the kettle.This message has been edited by randman, 07-27-2005 11:22 AM

How do you explain Paul's use of Genesis to mean that "death entered the world" via Adam?Paul was a highly educated Pharissee before becoming a Christian, and he says death entered the world via Adam's sin.I still see no credible explanation for that. I agree that cattle are for meat, but the explanations that somehow the phrase on death entering the world is merely symbolic as one post states above, does not work for me. Paul is talking about a literal resurrection in his treatise.The unbeleiving approach is to dismiss it all as myth, which just happens to be coincide with general principles such as the Big Bang, and "Let there be light", and man being a later creation to sea animals, and the fact there are prehistoric birds that were created from the sea, and a different set of birds from the ground, and stuff like that.The believing approach, imo, fits these things together and sees a pattern that the Bible speaks of, which agrees approximately with the current time-line history, due to the pattern, but in which changes are made.So we still have the Big Bang of "Let there be light," and we still see dark matter and energy separated from light as Genesis records. We still have man appear as a rather late creation in the world, but we have a different creation time-line to a degree, compared to the original creation which had no sin.

Also, cattle are also used to plow fields and for milk. Nonetheless, it does seem odd to speak of cattle for the garden.An explanation could well just be they were not at that time used for meat or to plow fields, but became that way later.

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.On reproduction, there could well have been a far lower rate originally, which incidentally fits well with the original longer lifespans after the Fall.My point here is that the Bible suggests that the creation itself was changed, the entire creation, including forms of animals, when sin entered into the world. To posit, based on the current creation, how certain facts contradict the Bible's depiction of the original creation is a fallacious argument.If you want to say there is no evidence other than the Bible for this original sinless creation, fine.But you don't have any evidence against it either.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.But once again, you cannot claim science is advanced enough to dismiss these ideas either.

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

Ringo, the problem here is I provide you with evidence, and then you pretend it never happened. As such, it sort of gets useless to respond to you anymore.Take science's discovery of the Big Bang and now dark matter and energy. Both of these discoveries are predicted by the text of the first few verses of Genesis.You choose to ignore that "evidence," and I suspect either chalk it up to coincidence or perhaps you offer a different interpretation of the text.How do you propose the text of Genesis was right concerning the Big Bang, and probably dark matter and energy?

Hmmm...I always thought it was because God required a blood sacrifice and so Cain's offering was unacceptable, and he knew that ahead of time but didn't want to barter for his brother's lamb or something, at least that's the way I've heard it taught.So in that context, there was sibling rivalry, pride, and jealousy prior to the incident, which just got worse as Cain's offering was rejected.

jar, why would "the fruit of the ground" not refer to the fruit from the tree that grows from the ground?Do you have any textual evidence from the Bible that supports your notion here?I suppose you could argue that since Cain's error was likened to Baalam's greed, that this meant fruit that had fallen on the ground, but then again, maybe his greed was he didn't want to have to purchase a lamb from his brother.Let me add that despite your comments that only those that have never read the Bible would agree with you, the Bible itself is pretty clear in other places that "the fruit of the ground" is a phrase that simply refers to fruit that has grown from a plant growing from the ground and not to fruit that is old and bad and has fallen on the ground.In fact, it is surprising to hear you claim the Bible indicates otherwise.Can you cross reference the phrase with the rest of the Bible and tell us how you came up with your idea here?This message has been edited by randman, 10-24-2005 01:42 AM

Jar, the term "the fruit of the ground" in the Bible means fruit or vegetables. It DOES NOT MEAN fruit that has fallen on the ground.There is absolutely no textual evidence for your interpretation whatsoever.Scholars are thus probably correct that Cain's sacrifice was most likely unacceptable due God requiring a blood sacrifice, although as someone pointed out on the thread, God also required a sacrifice in the Law of "the fruit of the ground" and so it could possibly be that Cain offered less than his best, but the idea that "fruit of the ground" refers to fruit that has fallen on the ground is just wrong, and your arrogance in pretending that anyone that has read the Bible would agree with you is misplaced.For example, Deut 26:2
”...you shall take some of the first of all the fruit of the ground which you harvest from your land...’

So "the fruit of the ground", you agree, does not mean fruit that has fallen on the ground?I am not sure what you are saying? I get you feel the issue was Cain brought spoiled or not so good fruit, but it seemed you were arguing that based on "the fruit of the ground" meaning fruit that had fallen on the ground, and now you appear to be saying that the term means best fruit, and the opposite of fruit that has fallen on the ground.It still reads to me, without further explanation, that it is likely that God required a blood sacrifice and therefore Cain's offering was rejected, but the text does not say one or the other. So it could be that Cain tried to short-change God, but either way, the term "fruit of the ground" does not mean fruit in poor or bad condition.

jar, you just have a problem admitting when you were wrong, as your following statement illustrates. Clearly you stated that the "fruit of the Ground" refers to fruit that had fallen to the ground.You were shown to be wrong, but rather than gracefully admit your error in the text while still maintaining the overall stance, which is one possible interpretation, you tried to cloud the issue and now spout off smears.too bad jar....irregardless, "the fruit of the ground" does not refer to fruit that had fallen on the ground. You just jumped to conclusions there.The fact that Cain's offering was rejected is substantiated. Exactly why his offering was rejected is not given in the passage and is open to interpretation.