Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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 196 of 208 (722420)
03-21-2014 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by DevilsAdvocate
03-19-2014 10:30 PM


Re: THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES
double post
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-19-2014 10:30 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

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


Message 197 of 208 (722421)
03-21-2014 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by DevilsAdvocate
03-19-2014 10:30 PM


Re: THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES
I AM convinced by the overall implication of the scripture verses I've put together, along with the general tenor of scripture as a whole, that there could not have been the death of any creature before the Fall (plants excepted for sure, and possibly insects and single-celled creatures excepted as well, but only possibly), but I can see that the subject has been problematic for many even before evolution became the reason for questioning these things, so I grant you that.
Death is just not a good thing in scripture or in personal experience. HBD's attempt to make death into a good thing we are simply incapable of appreciating leaves me astonished and perplexed.
And again: Even if you think only humanity died at the Fall and that Jesus' death was only for humanity, doesn't that pretty much eliminate the theory of evolution, at least for human beings?
Jesus joined us in death in order to abolish death. The Puritan John Owen wrote a book called "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ,", a title that all by itself suggests to my mind that there is no good thing about death nohow noway. Not that you've suggested there is, I'm only saying that these considerations about death in general also figure strongly in my conclusion that God could not have created any living thing with death built in to its destiny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-19-2014 10:30 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

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


Message 198 of 208 (722432)
03-21-2014 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by NoNukes
03-20-2014 11:33 PM


Re: A very small idea of God
You said, in essence that faith comes first.
I said hearing comes first as quoted in the scripture I gave. As I said before academic study of the Bible will only take you so far. Full comprehension of God's wisdom, I said is brought on through faith (trust). That is a basic premise in many denominations of Christianity. However it first has to come across as hearing. To some it is simple as hearing the basics of the good news (Gospel) for others maybe more intellectual it may require fervent study and analysis.
I Corinthians 2:6-20 writes:
Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but just as it is written,
Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the heart of man,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him.
For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
also
John 8:31-32 writes:
So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
In short it should be possible to become convinced without bringing the 'I already believe DA's interpretation' with you.
I agree with you here. Belief is a follow on to being convinced of the truths of the message. If you are just believing only because you want to believe, than that is a shaky foundation to set up your faith on. However, if you wait until you prove without a shadow of a doubt than there is a danger to that as well.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2014 11:33 PM NoNukes has not replied

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


(1)
Message 199 of 208 (722557)
03-22-2014 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by DevilsAdvocate
03-20-2014 8:41 PM


Re: Inconsistencies
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Yes, I acknowledge there are other books written or thought to be written by Biblical authors not included in the Bible. However, my understanding of why they are not included in the final canonization is due to credibility of the sources (it was not 100% sure that they were written by these authors) or they were not deemed important or relevant enough to be included. That was my understanding of the process. We can get in more detail on this if desired.
the question is, if the biblical authors thought these sources were credible enough to refer the reader to or to quote, and the people who canonized the biblical sources thought the biblical authors were credible, why didn't they also think the biblical authors were credible in considering these other sources credible?
This is one area I need to do more research on. However, considering that we don't know exactly what was in the content you state is missing (we don't know what we don't know), yes it is kind of irrelevent. What is your point?
it's true that we don't exactly what was in the content that's missing. but we do know some of that content:
quote:
Thou didst break the sea in pieces by Thy strength;
Thou didst shatter the heads of the sea-monsters in the waters.
Thou didst crush the heads of leviathan,
Thou gavest him to be food to the folk inhabiting the wilderness.
Thou didst cleave fountain and brook;
Thou driedst up ever-flowing rivers.
Thine is the day, Thine also the night;
Thou hast established luminary and sun.
Thou hast set all the borders of the earth;
Thou hast made summer and winter.
(Psalm 74:13-17)
if we know that this story, where yahweh kills leviathan, is missing from genesis, and that J (the author the eden narrative) is the only source likely to have included it, and that this story would have come before eden contextually... then we know that there was death before the man and woman's transgression.
However, are you saying you have to be an unbeliever to understand the Bible objectively?
no. but it can help. i've also seen unbelievers approach the text with their own biases; the point is that you should be able to read it without an bias. if it matches your belief, fine. but you shouldn't have to start with the belief to get to the belief.
Everyone has a bias of one degree or another. The perspective I am providing is a NT perspective. If my perspective is wrong in accordance with the NT, show me where I am wrong? Or are you saying the NT interpretation of the OT is wrong. If so, there is nothing I can argue here since you are arguing against the perspective I am providing.
i'm saying that the NT interpretation does not accurately represent the text it is interpreting. eg: there had to have been death before adam, the wages of sin are not necessarily death, etc. i'm not totally sure your interpretation matches the NT (which doesn't support original sin in the modern conception, for instance) but that perhaps is a topic for later.
Whether the NT perspective of the OT is right or wrong is the real issue. If you are just reading the OT as a text standing on its own, than yes it won't be clear the connecting between the OT and NT. I am not arguing against this.
if the connection isn't there, then it isn't there. it has to go both ways; otherwise one is just reinterpreting the other.
if god is the author of the bible, then that conclusion should be able to be demonstrated from the text without assuming it to begin with.
It is stated throughout the OT and NT that God is the author.
well, no. it's stated once or twice in the new testament that god "inspired" scripture. and it's questionable what the author even meant by that. OT books, on the other hand, tend to have either traditional attributions (eg: "the books of moses") claimed in other books, or internal claims likely inserted by editors (eg: "a psalm of david"). rarely to they claim authorship themselves, within the original source text, but even when they do, those attributions are always human. nowhere does any text in the OT ever claim to have been written by yahweh. the closest you get is the tablet containing the commandments, the actual law itself, which is included in the torah.
but that's all actually irrelevant to the point. whether or not the text even claims to be written by a god (and in this case it doesn't), the validity of the claim should be apparent from reading and studying the text.
Whether you believe that God is the author or not is a different matter.
i agree; it shouldn't be a matter of personal belief.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-20-2014 8:41 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-11-2014 10:37 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 208 (722569)
03-22-2014 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by DevilsAdvocate
03-20-2014 8:41 PM


Re: Inconsistencies
It is stated throughout the OT and NT that God is the author.
How about one quote from each Testament?
People ask for verification of exactly what you claim quite often in the Accuracy and Inerrancy forum. The response is invariably a number of verses that are easily shown to say nothing of the sort.
A brief review of the history of the Bible and the process by which the Bible was canonized ought to make it clear that nothing in the Bible can refer to collection as a whole. The NT did not even exist when the OT was written.

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 187 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-20-2014 8:41 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-11-2014 11:01 PM NoNukes has not replied

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


(1)
Message 201 of 208 (722578)
03-22-2014 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
03-21-2014 1:10 AM


Re: A very small idea of God
Faith writes:
I'm sure Jesus finds it very enlightening that His command to believe is irrational.
this one?
quote:
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
though jesus blesses those who don't need evidence, he seems to have little problem actually providing that evidence so that skeptics may believe too.
shouldn't i be able to approach the text from a neutral standpoint?
Not the Bible, it doesn't work that way. It's designed to defeat the inquiries of mere intellect while illuminating those of faith.
i feel like we should look at another example, to see why this is a bad argument. have you read the book of mormon? it too is designed to defeat the inquiries of mere intellect, while illuminating those of faith. that is to say, all objective evidence points it being wholly the work founders of mormon church, mostly joseph smith, derivative of several other works known to be smith's library, and bearing no relation what little of the source texts are known. modern literary criticism and archaeology have revealed the text to have been invented more or less out of whole cloth. and yet, it enriches the lives of the faithful members of the church of latter day saints. and yet, even the book of mormon includes a similar test to the one i gave above:
quote:
And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:4-5)
if you approach this text from the attitude of faith, what do you find? have you read the book of mormon, and asked the holy spirit whether or not it is true? why or why not? does the factual and historical evidence get in the way?
But I didn't say you can't scrutinize it, the rule is you must scrutinize it from a standpoint of faith and not critical thought of the sort you'd apply to any other text. The former will lead you well, the latter will only fragment and destroy and leave you in the dark.
again, this is not necessarily the case. critical examination of the bible need not fragment and destroy faith; not if it is true.
Wow, it's Job's FRIENDS that are modeled on the major prophets? Wow, what a blasphemous indictment of the major prophets. I'm not up to entering into a dispute about that, but boy is that a perfect proof of the destructiveness of your method.
and yet, it is their arguments that are predicated on the teachings of the major prophets: that yahweh is just, so if job (that is judah) is being punished (or exiled), he must have done something to deserve it. you can see this all throughout jeremiah, who has yahweh speaking evil to judah for crimes she must have committed. job is clearly saying that jeremiah is wrong; that he does not speak for yahweh. that yahweh is not necessarily just. if that's blasphemy, that's job's author's blasphemy, not mine.
my "method" is simple: read the words on the page, instead of making things up. if that's destructive, that's the fault of the words on the page. it's a consequence of what the bible says.
This does all make me very grateful to God, however, for giving me that faith when I first began to read the Bible. I just "knew" it was God's word and I read it as God's word from the beginning.
this may come as a surprise to you, but i became interested in the bible because it spoke to me. study of the bible itself is one of the things that has driven me away from faith. so, no, i reject your premise entirely.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 03-21-2014 1:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 7:17 PM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 202 of 208 (722579)
03-22-2014 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
03-21-2014 1:27 AM


Re: A very small idea of God
Faith writes:
But you are misrepresenting the position of belief in the second part of your comment. Of course there are warnings throughout scripture against trusting the FALSE prophets, nobody says we are to believe EVERYTHING, far far far from it.
how are we to tell the difference?
because, as far as i can tell, that verse gives a mostly objective test. it tells you how do decided who is a false prophet: do they prophesy things that do not follow, and do they ask you follow anyone except yahweh? a yes to either means the prophet it false.
if you are rejecting this biblical test for prophecy, what standard are you using? if we're not to believe everything, how do we know what to believe and what not to believe?
The command to believe is of course about believing the right people and the right teachings, which are of course first of all Jesus Himself, who validated all writers of the Old Testament, and the entire scripture itself.
actually, jesus seems to fail both prongs of the test, as both an object of worship himself (he is not yahweh, and no, saying that he is does not mean that he is any more than the golden calf was yahweh) and for prophesying things that did not come true. this is perhaps why he was always careful, at least in the synoptic gospels, to not identify himself as a god. and it's also probably the reason he was killed.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 03-21-2014 1:27 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 7:19 PM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 203 of 208 (722580)
03-22-2014 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by arachnophilia
03-22-2014 7:05 PM


Re: A very small idea of God
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
though jesus blesses those who don't need evidence, he seems to have little problem actually providing that evidence so that skeptics may believe too.
Just discussed this same example on another thread, an old thread resurrected I think, about faith? Oh well, my answer is the same: Jesus is NOT saying "Believe without evidence," He's saying "believe the witnesses," those witnesses Thomas had refused to believe, "believe what the disciples told you who witnessed the evidence you now see for yourself." It's the same physical evidence, and blessed are those who recognized that fact without having to see it for themselves. Jesus is teaching us that our faith IS established on evidence, but since it's all one-time historical events we are not personally going to get to witness that evidence directly, but He's given us witnesses galore and He wants us to trust them, and through them we possess exactly the same evidence they had. Witness evidence IS evidence and it's evidence of exactly the same things we'd see if we personally witnessed them.
One witness won't do it, even two or three might be suspect. Levitical Law required two or three at least because witnesses are not always reliable. But for the big claims of the Bible we have LOTS of witnesses. Thomas himself had the disciples who had seen the risen Lord, a lot more than two or three. We're in the same position as Thomas and what we are to learn from that incident is that we have a ton of evidence, we are not asked to do without evidence, we are asked to recognize the evidence we have.
I'll have to come back to the rest of your post, but no the Book of Mormon is NOT designed as the Bible is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2014 7:05 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by arachnophilia, posted 03-27-2014 8:21 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 204 of 208 (722581)
03-22-2014 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by arachnophilia
03-22-2014 7:15 PM


Re: A very small idea of God
The Bible is our source of the truth, we don't choose between the prophets presented to us as true prophets and we trust that the Bible has revealed the grounds for recognizing a false prophet. You cannot pit one part of the Bible against another or you miss the whole point.
Have to come back to this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2014 7:15 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by arachnophilia, posted 03-27-2014 8:27 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 205 of 208 (723226)
03-27-2014 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
03-22-2014 7:17 PM


Re: A very small idea of God
Faith writes:
Just discussed this same example on another thread, an old thread resurrected I think, about faith? Oh well, my answer is the same: Jesus is NOT saying "Believe without evidence," He's saying "believe the witnesses," those witnesses Thomas had refused to believe, "believe what the disciples told you who witnessed the evidence you now see for yourself." It's the same physical evidence, and blessed are those who recognized that fact without having to see it for themselves. Jesus is teaching us that our faith IS established on evidence, but since it's all one-time historical events we are not personally going to get to witness that evidence directly, but He's given us witnesses galore and He wants us to trust them, and through them we possess exactly the same evidence they had. Witness evidence IS evidence and it's evidence of exactly the same things we'd see if we personally witnessed them.
and yet thomas is not faulted for not believing the witnesses. rather, he is given evidence when he asks for it. this is a far cry from discouraging questioning.
I'll have to come back to the rest of your post, but no the Book of Mormon is NOT designed as the Bible is.
correct: evidence points to the book of mormon being largely the work of a single author.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 7:17 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 206 of 208 (723228)
03-27-2014 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Faith
03-22-2014 7:19 PM


Re: A very small idea of God
Faith writes:
The Bible is our source of the truth,
the bible treats truth as objective, and able to be verified outside of the bible.
we don't choose between the prophets presented to us as true prophets
do prophets ever present themselves as false? of course you have to choose between prophets who present themselves, or are presented by others as true. the point of the verse i gave you was to establish a metric for determining the truth value of the prophets: they are to be judged, in part, on the veracity of their prophecies.
but let me ask you this: who do you think this verse is talking about, exactly? traditional reading as it being about joshua (he is, after all, the very next prophet), but earlier you seemed to indicate that you thought it was about jesus. wouldn't it then explicitly mean we are to question jesus?
You cannot pit one part of the Bible against another or you miss the whole point.
why? because you accept based on authority what someone else has chosen to be part of your bible? remember, the golden calf was presented to israel by aaron, the next highest authority in the group after moses.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 7:19 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 207 of 208 (724061)
04-11-2014 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by arachnophilia
03-22-2014 2:53 PM


Re: Inconsistencies
the question is, if the biblical authors thought these sources were credible enough to refer the reader to or to quote, and the people who canonized the biblical sources thought the biblical authors were credible, why didn't they also think the biblical authors were credible in considering these other sources credible?
I am not sure it was always about credibility. Sometimes with those same said authors, it was more about applicability. Did there other works fit in with the themes of the other books of the canon. Some of the criteria for canonization included:
a. Was the workwritten by a credible author i.e. an Apostle or close disciple of Jesus or one of the Apostle or close disciple to Jesus or one of the Apostles (e.g., Luke)
b. Was the work consistent with the other canonized books? Did it contradicts these other works?
c. Was it written during the Apostolic age?
d. Was it promulgated to and used by the early Christian churches? Did they recognize it as a message inspired by God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2014 2:53 PM arachnophilia has not replied

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


Message 208 of 208 (724064)
04-11-2014 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by NoNukes
03-22-2014 5:05 PM


Re: Inconsistencies
How about one quote from each Testament?
"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 24:4
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" II Timothy 3:16
A brief review of the history of the Bible and the process by which the Bible was canonized ought to make it clear that nothing in the Bible can refer to collection as a whole.
Correct in that the Bible was written over a span of 800 years or more. The Bible as we know it today did not exist until the various early councils and synods of the early Christian church. The inspiration of the Bible by God is inferred by the many, many references of the word of the Lord/God mentioned throughout the books of the OT and NT.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2014 5:05 PM NoNukes 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