Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Death in Relation to the Creation and Fall
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 208 (722230)
03-18-2014 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by DevilsAdvocate
03-17-2014 10:48 PM


Re: Inconsistencies
Or YAHWEH is literally or figuratively foretelling the concept of spiritual death as experience by the Christ.
I'd have to call this a stretch. I don't know where you get the idea that Jesus suffered a non-physical death. But why would warn Adam and Eve about something that would happen to Jesus? The text is pretty clear that Adam and Eve are the ones for whom bad stuff will happen.

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 150 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-17-2014 10:48 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-19-2014 6:06 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 152 of 208 (722236)
03-19-2014 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
03-17-2014 11:52 AM


Re: Inconsistencies
Faith writes:
What I'm doing is standard hermeneutics as I've studied them. Sure I COULD be wrong about this or that but I've spent enough time on these things to be convinced of what I've said here. The rule is to interpret the difficult scriptures by the clear scriptures, there's nothing about percentage. ALL scripture is inspired by God, and it must all be reconciled, you can't make one part contradict another. God said death would be the consequence of disobedience, and "the wages of sin is death" confirms that. Therefore the Tree of LIfe has to conform to that revelation, you can't assume there's a contradiction just because that's the way it first hits you, you can't just make it eliminate the immortality that is obviously implied in the other scriptures. Again, the obscure is to be interpreted by the clear. If you aren't clear about any of it then keep working on it, but I am clear about it.
If you've studied hermeneutics, you know that one of the most helpful keys to interpretation is context. I would encourage you to look again at the context of Rom 5:12ff.
First, Paul is clearly stressing man, not animals as his subject of discussion:
quote:
Rom. 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:
(emphasis mine)
Second, what about the word "world" (κόσμος ) in Rom 5:12? This Greek word has a very wide semantic range, so a Greek lexicon doesn't help us much. Again, we need to look at context to decide what it means. And in the context, "world" here is referring to the world of mankind, just as it does in John 3:16 (God loved the world, so that He gave His son, so that whosoever believes in him shall be saved. In Jn 3:16 "world" clearly includes only those who can possibly have faith in Christ, i.e. it is only mankind, not animals.)
Third, we need to note the context of the whole passage. Paul is comparing and contrasting the "First Adam" and the "Second Adam". The first brought sin and death, the second offers righteousness and life. In Paul's argument, if the death of the first included animals, then the eternal life offered by the second must also extend to animals, which is heterodox. Conversely, if in Paul's argument Christ offers eternal life only to mankind, then Paul only has mankind in view when he speaks of Adam bringing death.
Stepping back and looking at the context, it should be quite clear that Paul is ONLY talking about mankind in Rom 5:12ff. He doesn't have animals in view at all. Paul's comments in Rom 5:12ff cannot properly be used either to support or to deny animal death before the Fall. Whether or not animals died before the Fall of man must be argued elsewhere.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 03-17-2014 11:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 3:32 AM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 153 of 208 (722238)
03-19-2014 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by kbertsche
03-19-2014 12:50 AM


THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES
As I recall, you too believe in evolution, so that must be why you are making the same argument as all the other "liberal Christians" on this thread.
kbertsche writes:
If you've studied hermeneutics, you know that one of the most helpful keys to interpretation is context. I would encourage you to look again at the context of Rom 5:12ff.
First, Paul is clearly stressing man, not animals as his subject of discussion:
quote:
Rom. 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:
(emphasis mine)
I have argued my case basically from THREE PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN CONCERT. You cannot take one out of that context and accuse me of misreading it. I did NOT misread it. Alone it does not say anything specific about animals but in the context of the other scriptures it is clear that they also died as a result of the Fall.
There is only one passage that clearly refers to the animals and that is Romans 8:19-22 where it is said the entire Creation, or the Creatures, anticipate the revelation of the sons of God, when they too will be freed from the "bondage of corruption." MEANING DEATH AND DISEASE, what else?
Now go to God's telling Adam and Eve that if they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they WILL DIE, and the scripture that says "The wages of sin is death." This is talking only about the human beings, but IT ALSO SAYS THAT DEATH IS THE RESULT OF SIN. There was no sin before the Fall, therefore death entered at the Fall. Even if you claim that all this refers directly ONLY to humanity, consider the simple fact that animals cannot sin and therefore could not die EITHER. But yet they do die, and this is the result of what? Of God's subjecting them to death FOR OUR SAKE as a result of OUR SIN. This does not come from Romans 5:12 but specifically from Romans 8:19-22 and but also from ALL THE SCRIPTURES TOGETHER THAT I'VE REFERRED TO. These amount to the argument that THERE WAS NO DEATH BEFORE THE FALL, PERIOD, for humanity or for the creatures and that BECAUSE GOD BROUGHT ALL THE CREATURES UNDER DEATH FOR OUR SAKE AS A RESULT OF THE FALL, the ultimate redemption will include all the creatures, the whole Creation WITH US.
Here's My message 29. PARTICULARLY NOTE WHAT MATTHEW HENRY SAYS ABOUT THE DEATH OF ANIMALS, which I have bolded:
Romans 8:19-22 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
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.
Not only we but the whole creation, all creatures, wait for the redemption of the BODY. For they too were subjected to death and corruption because of the Fall of humanity by sin.
There is probably to be some kind of redemption or transformation of ALL the creatures including the plants and worms. What the Fall did to them is not clear, nor what redemption might mean to them, but they did not die before the Fall in any sense that people here are trying to claim, because there was no death before the Fall. Plants very probably did not wither in the ground and die then. I've conjectured, based on various phrases in scripture, that what is being called death of plants and insects etc is not considered in scripture to be death because they are not considered to be alive in the same sense that humanity and the higher animals are, whose "life is in the blood." It is simply a conceit of modern man to call it life and death and impose it on the scripture.
But those who have life according to the scripture also died by the Fall according to the scripture.
Matthew Henry Commentary:
When man sinned, the ground was cursed for man's sake, and with it all the creatures (especially of this lower world, where our acquaintance lies) became subject to that curse, became mutable and mortal. Under the bondage of corruption, v. 21. There is an impurity, deformity, and infirmity, which the creature has contracted by the fall of man: the creation is sullied and stained, much of the beauty of the world gone. There is an enmity of one creature to another; they are all subject to continual alteration and decay of the individuals, liable to the strokes of God's judgments upon man.
Please note that THIS passage, Romans 8:19-22, is where it is said that ALL CREATION, including the animals of course, WAS SUBJECT TO "VANITY," meaning death and corruption, FOR THE SAKE OF MANKIND after the Fall. GOD DID THIS FOR THE SAKE OF HUMANITY. It wasn't a direct result of the Fall, THEREFORE Jesus did not die "for the animals" but nevertheless His death will redeem the ENTIRE CREATION. A new heavens and a new earth, the works. AS A RESULT OF JESUS' DEATH FOR US.
I did NOT interpret Romans 5:12 to refer to the animals, but IN CONTEXT OF ALL THE SCRIPTURES I'VE REFERENCED, the death and redemption of the animals is implied.
From Message 93:
By one man sin entered the world and death by sin. Romans 5:12 Death is the result of sin, without sin there is no death.
Jesus could not die for His own sake because He was sinless. He could only lay down His life for us sinners by His own choice. Death is the wages of sin, and He paid with His own death for OUR sin, having none of His own.
The wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 Death is the result of sin, without sin there is no death.
Jesus could not die for His own sake because He was sinless. He could only lay down His life for us sinners by His own choice. Death is the wages of sin, and He paid with His own death for OUR sin, having none of His own.
The creatures await release from the bondage of corruption, that is, death, to which they were subjected for the sake of mankind. Romans 8:21
The creatures will also benefit from Jesus' sacrifice as the entire Creation will be renewed.
I state it again more completely in Message 96:
The scriptures I've quoted in concert with each other prove that the Creation itself is to be redeemed along with us, who were the cause of its also being subjected to corruption at the Fall.
By one man sin entered the world and death by sin. Romans 5:12 Death is the result of sin, without sin there is no death.
WITHOUT SIN THERE IS NO DEATH. NO DEATH, PERIOD. NOT FOR US, NOT FOR THE CREATURES, who suffer death now because God decreed it for our sake.
Jesus could not die for His own sake because He was sinless. He could only lay down His life for us sinners by His own choice. Death is the wages of sin, and He paid with His own death for OUR sin, having none of His own.
The wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 Death is the result of sin, without sin there is no death.
WITHOUT SIN THERE IS NO DEATH. NO DEATH, PERIOD. NOT FOR US, NOT FOR THE CREATURES, who suffer death now because God decreed it for our sake.
Jesus could not die for His own sake because He was sinless. He could only lay down His life for us sinners by His own choice. Death is the wages of sin, and He paid with His own death for OUR sin, having none of His own.
The creatures await release from the bondage of corruption, Romans 8:21; that is, death, to which they were subjected for the sake of mankind.
The creatures will also benefit from Jesus' sacrifice as the entire Creation will be renewed.
THESE SCRIPTURE VERSES MAKE THE CASE.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by kbertsche, posted 03-19-2014 12:50 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by kbertsche, posted 03-19-2014 10:57 AM Faith has replied
 Message 156 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2014 12:20 PM Faith has replied
 Message 159 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-19-2014 2:09 PM Faith has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 154 of 208 (722239)
03-19-2014 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by NoNukes
03-18-2014 10:28 PM


Re: Inconsistencies
I'd have to call this a stretch. I don't know where you get the idea that Jesus suffered a non-physical death. But why would warn Adam and Eve about something that would happen to Jesus? The text is pretty clear that Adam and Eve are the ones for whom bad stuff will happen.
My understanding, is that Jesus suffered both a physical death and a spiritual death i.e. a spiritual separation from God immediatley preceding his death on the cross. Because he bore the sins of the entire world, God the Father could not commune with him spiritually.
But why would warn Adam and Eve about something that would happen to Jesus? The text is pretty clear that Adam and Eve are the ones for whom bad stuff will happen.
Because, Jesus became God in the flesh on Earth to save mankind from sin which was initiated by Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve's sin was no greater than our own. They just happened to initiate the whole process.
Romans 5:14 NASB writes:
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [a]type of Him who was to come.
Adam was a Type of Christ. Type with a big T, meaning literally a model or symbol beforehand per Webster's dictionary. The word type comes from the Greek word tuptein, to strike. A Type in the Bible is a person, place, thing, or event that is a foreshadowing of a future person or event. Adam was a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ. Here is a good understanding of the relationship of Adam to Jesus Christ: A STUDY OF TYPES
The text is pretty clear that Adam and Eve are the ones for whom bad stuff will happen.
Whose legacy is carried over to the whole human race, therefore requiring the need for a savior, Jesus Christ.
A good chapter to understand the whole relationship between Adam and Jesus Christ is I Corinthians 15. Here is just a snapshot of some of the connection:
I Corinthians 15:22 writes:
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Made alive how? Made alive spiritually. We will all ultimately die a physical death, we will not all ultimately die a spiritual death.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2014 10:28 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 155 of 208 (722258)
03-19-2014 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
03-19-2014 3:32 AM


Re: THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES
Faith writes:
As I recall, you too believe in evolution, so that must be why you are making the same argument as all the other "liberal Christians" on this thread.
??? I don't believe I've ever communicated with you before. You don't know me. I am hardly a "liberal Christian". Such ad-hominem attacks don't help your case, and they certainly don't affect the meaning of the biblical text.
If you exegete Rom 5:12ff properly, you will see that it speaks only of man. Attempts to shoehorn animals into the passage are simply wrong-headed and violate Paul's argument and context.
I would recommend an article on animal death before the Fall by John Munday, originally published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society:
Creature Mortality: From Creation Or The Fall? - Reasons to Believe
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 3:32 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 1:47 PM kbertsche has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 156 of 208 (722265)
03-19-2014 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
03-19-2014 3:32 AM


Re: THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES
As I recall, you too believe in evolution, so that must be why you are making the same argument as all the other "liberal Christians" on this thread.
Uh, no. It must be because we are all looking at the same text and the conclusion we've arrived at is the one that the text leads to. You admit that you have to isolate the quotes from their context and mix them with other unrelated quotes in order to come to your conclusion:
I have argued my case basically from THREE PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN CONCERT. You cannot take one out of that context and accuse me of misreading it. I did NOT misread it. Alone it does not say anything specific about animals but in the context of the other scriptures it is clear that they also died as a result of the Fall.
If you have to mix and match quote-mines to get your interpretation, then yes, you are misreading it.
There is only one passage that clearly refers to the animals and that is Romans 8:19-22 where it is said the entire Creation, or the Creatures, anticipate the revelation of the sons of God, when they too will be freed from the "bondage of corruption." MEANING DEATH AND DISEASE, what else?
But what does the passage say is the reason that they are corrupted?
quote:
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
NIV version is easier to read:
quote:
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it
It wasn't by our own choice that we are subjected to corruption, it is by the will of god.
The Adam and Eve story is about us being subjected to corruption by our own choice, so this passage cannot be referring back to that.
As I've already explained multiple times, Romans 8 doesn't have anything to do with The Fall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 3:32 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 1:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 157 of 208 (722268)
03-19-2014 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by kbertsche
03-19-2014 10:57 AM


Re: THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES
I remember you although I don't remember much about you except that you are a scientist, a Christian, and I thought a believer in evolution. Am I wrong about any of that?
A "liberal Christian" is a Christian who doesn't regard scripture as inerrant, especially someone who rejects a literal interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Would this be a wrong understanding of your position?
ABE: Wrote the above too fast. Liberal Christianity doesn't necessarily reject parts of scripture, they can think they are believers in Bible inerrancy, but they make scripture mean something other than it has been traditionally read to mean by redefining its traditional terms. But I'd still call a Liberal Christian a Christian who rejects the first eleven chapters of Genesis.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by kbertsche, posted 03-19-2014 10:57 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-19-2014 2:15 PM Faith has replied
 Message 165 by kbertsche, posted 03-19-2014 3:15 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 158 of 208 (722269)
03-19-2014 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by New Cat's Eye
03-19-2014 12:20 PM


Re: THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES
"Mixing and matching" as you call it is standard hermeneutics. Scripture has to be read in the light of scripture. That's what I was doing in collecting those passages together.
ABE: Otherwise I dispute your reading of Romans 8, I've given my reading, and that's all I have to say.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2014 12:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2014 2:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 159 of 208 (722270)
03-19-2014 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
03-19-2014 3:32 AM


Re: THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES
Ok, lets analyze Romans 8:19-22, verse by verse and see if this makes sense:
Romans 8:19 KJV writes:
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Ok, this is talking about humans, specifically saved humans, and the suffering of saved aka Christians he is writing to not comparing to the glory that will be bestowed to the saved.
Romans 8:20 KJV writes:
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope.
What is he talking about here? What expectation? Are all of creation aka animals and plants expecting something? No, so there are one of two explanations for this. The word creature )(or creation in some translations) here, which in the Greek is (ktisis) either means all of creation (all created things by God) or just mankind (as used in Mark 16:15). So if used to mean all created things (not just man) then the meaning here has to be anthropomorphic and the passage is not to be taken literraly but rather figuratively. If the meaning of the word creation here is just referring to mankind (as in Mark 16:15) than this makes more sense in the context used here (the rest of the chapter is referring to mankind not ALL of creation). Only the second meaning can be taken literally.
Romans 8:21 KJV writes:
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
The word for corruption in the Greek is Phthora and whenever it is used it is in reference to a condition of mankind not of all of creation (I Corinthians 15, Galations 6:8, etc).
Also, this sentance only makes sense talking about humans.
The "bondage of corruption" in context of this scripture is talking of the bondage to sin as exhibited by humans. Animals and plants do not sin. So this phrase evidently does not apply to them, does it not.
Also, how is the rest of creation (outside of humans) delivered into the "glorious liberty of the children of God"? Only humans can be children of God, not plants and animals.
Romans 8:22 KJV writes:
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Again, this only makes sense in the meaning that creation means mankind. That is a common meaning of the word throughout the NT. Does all of creation including plants and animals give birth to anything new? No, the term used is referring to childbirth which only makes sense when talking about those who follow Christ becoming new creatures or a new creation as seen here:
I Corinthians 5:17 writes:
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
1 John 3:9 writes:
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
and of course Jesus many, many examples of being born again spiritually.
Then look at the next sentance:
Romans 8:23 writes:
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.
Of course, talking about groaning, etc, in reference to man's spiritual condition to being reborn as new creatures aka new beings of Christ.
ALL, of this chapter is talking about humans, mankind, 'creation' going through the process of becoming new creatures in Christ. This is not talking about animals, plants or any other living creatures. Your whole argument does not fit contextually or hermeneutically with Paul's writings here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 3:32 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 2:21 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 160 of 208 (722272)
03-19-2014 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
03-19-2014 1:47 PM


Re: THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES
A "liberal Christian" is a Christian who doesn't regard scripture as inerrant, especially someone who rejects a literal interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Would this be a wrong understanding of your position?
You can believe the scripture is inerrent but reject YOUR interpretation of the Bible. It is your interpretation, remember that. There is one correct interpretation of course, but God is the author of the Bible, not you. I use reason and my own faith to determine the correct way of interpreting these scriptures. I do believe in the inerrency of these Scriptures, but I also belive that not all scripture applies to us (i.e. much of the OT laws, etc).

"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 157 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 1:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 2:23 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

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


Message 161 of 208 (722273)
03-19-2014 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by DevilsAdvocate
03-19-2014 2:09 PM


Re: THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES
How ludicrous. I included Matthew Henry's interpretation of this passage, which is the one most familiar to me and supported by traditional Bible believers. Yours is strained to the max. Yes, the Creation itself, the creatures, are groaning in anticipation of their liberation from the bondage of corruption, WHICH IS DEATH and everything related to death. The Fall of humanity immediately brought death to humanity, but GOD then subjected the innocent animals and all the rest of Creation to death and corruption for our sake. That's the standard orthodox interpretation and it conforms to the passage which your view does not.
Romans 8:23 writes:
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.
Of course, talking about groaning, etc, in reference to man's spiritual condition to being reborn as new creatures aka new beings of Christ.
ALL, of this chapter is talking about humans, mankind,
Oh TYPICAL "liberal Christian" distortion of scripture. Blather and balderdash.
RETHINK THAT PHRASE "And not only they but ourselves also" -- It CLEARLY IMPLIES THAT SOMETHING OTHER THAN OURSELVES, I.E. THE CREATURES, THE CREATION, groans and SO DO WE.
Look we've been through this dozens of times already on this thread. You aren't going to give up your view of all these scriptures and I'm not going to give up mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-19-2014 2:09 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-19-2014 3:41 PM Faith has replied
 Message 167 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-19-2014 3:55 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 162 of 208 (722275)
03-19-2014 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by DevilsAdvocate
03-19-2014 2:15 PM


Re: THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES
You can believe the scripture is inerrent but reject YOUR interpretation of the Bible.
That's a lot of word twisting, DA. You have to stretch and strain the scriptures to arrive at your interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-19-2014 2:15 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-19-2014 3:09 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 208 (722276)
03-19-2014 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Faith
03-19-2014 1:48 PM


Re: THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES
"Mixing and matching" as you call it is standard hermeneutics. Scripture has to be read in the light of scripture.
Whatever you want to call it, what you are doing is leading you to a false interpretation of both Romans and Genesis.
That's what I was doing in collecting those passages together.
Whether you realize it or not, what you're doing is interpreting scripture through a biased assumption. Its clear that the commentators you got this idea from started with the assumption that there was no death before The Fall, and then went and looked for passages that they could take out of context in order to build a narrative that supports their assumption.
That's not hermeneutics, that spinning your own ideas into an interpretation of the Bible.
Otherwise I dispute your reading of Romans 8, I've given my reading, and that's all I have to say.
But you cannot provide an argument for why they should be interpreted in your way. And you have no response to the problems that your interpretation causes: that the purpose of the tree of life is some mystery despite being explicitly stated and that Jesus dies on the cross to save cats and dogs.
So no, giving your reading is not "all you have to say". You have to give an explanation for why it is the right interpretation and you have to address the problems that arise from your interpretation.
Avoiding those things and simply restating yourself in capital letters only makes you look more wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 1:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 164 of 208 (722278)
03-19-2014 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
03-19-2014 2:23 PM


Re: THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES
That's a lot of word twisting, DA. You have to stretch and strain the scriptures to arrive at your interpretation.
I could say the same for you. I explained in detail each scripture one by one, even giving meanings of specific Greek words and the context of the scripture with the rest of the chapter.
I Peter 3:15 writes:
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 2:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 165 of 208 (722279)
03-19-2014 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
03-19-2014 1:47 PM


Re: THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES
Faith writes:
I remember you although I don't remember much about you except that you are a scientist, a Christian, and I thought a believer in evolution. Am I wrong about any of that?
A "liberal Christian" is a Christian who doesn't regard scripture as inerrant, especially someone who rejects a literal interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Would this be a wrong understanding of your position?
ABE: Wrote the above too fast. Liberal Christianity doesn't necessarily reject parts of scripture, they can think they are believers in Bible inerrancy, but they make scripture mean something other than it has been traditionally read to mean by redefining its traditional terms. But I'd still call a Liberal Christian a Christian who rejects the first eleven chapters of Genesis.
My own position doesn't affect the text, which is what we are discussing.
But for what it is worth, I am a professional physicist and a committed Christian. I have a theology degree from a conservative Evangelical seminary and I hold to the verbal, plenary inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture. I am a member of the ETS (Evangelical Theological Society), which means that I accept the ICBI's Chicago statements on inerrancy and on hermeneutics. As a physicist, I recognize and accept evidence for an old earth and universe, but I am skeptical of many aspects of macroevolution.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 1:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024