This doesn’t answer the question. Leo is insisting that in order for creation to be “very good” everything in it has to also be “very good.” I’m just pointing out that this doesn’t even work for the YEC worldview. Satan was in sinless Eden and Satan is not very good. So if Satan can be present in a very good creation, why can’t other things that are not very good if examined in isolation (death, disease, etc) also be present?
5 Likes
It’s because I don’t think cutting and pasting Bible verses into discussions is usually an appropriate way to have discussions about theology. Discussions about theology are by definition discussions of people’s interpretations of Scripture and take into consideration the whole counsel of Scripture as well as the Church’s developed doctrines around the interpretation of specific concepts. Sticking a Bible verse in your argument doesn’t prove your interpretation of the Bible verse is a good one.
If people want to discuss the exegesis of specific texts, I’m more than happy to do so. But I’m not going to sprinkle my posts with Bible verses just to prove I know they are there. I have my AWANA meritorious award trophy to testify to my prooftexting prowess, I don’t need to demonstrate my “Bible knowledge” in that way here.
4 Likes
Maybe doing so is a password for virtue signaling. Like “Jesus sent me” might be if virtue was a speakeasy.
It totally is. But I’ve seen this movie enough times to know that it doesn’t matter what rules I play by, I’m still not going to be respected or taken seriously. Their loss.
6 Likes
How is this relevant to the current discussion?
?
I don’t think, I am. The truth of my premises (and, in fact, any premises) is irrelevant to the arbitrary opinions of fallible men. Winning a debate is an arbitrary condition of perceived victory decided by an arbitrary audience irrelevant to the truth of the matter, which may not be known by either party (in the case of debate over facts).
So, if I come to the conclusion that the sky is blue because of the magical sky wizards, then the sky is… not blue? Or if I come to the conclusion that the earth is round based on the study of itty-bitty uneecorns, does that mean the earth is… not round?
Guys, the earth is square. The flat earthers had it right, but we’re only ONE side of the cube! This means that clouds are water vapor, and not marshmallows like we thought. 
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
I’m wrong because I’m wrong… So, by that logic, are you also wrong because “you’re wrong”?
Your statement is completely illogical. You can still believe that I’m wrong, but that becomes a statement of pure arbitrary opinion, and not subject to factual discussion.
Unicorns exist... because they exist.
My foot is made of gold... because it's made of gold.
The world is a cookie... because the world is a cookie.
And if you say I'm wrong, you're wrong. Because you're wrong.
These are silly examples, but they make the point. Without justification, a fact becomes merely an opinion. Using your framework for debate, you’re attempting to convince me of the conclusion that I’m wrong (true/false)… on the premise that I’m wrong already (opinion, unsubstantiated statement). See the inconsistency? It’s illogical to use opinions as proof of facts. Note, whether it’s illogical, or inconsistent, or your opinion, has nothing to do with whether I’m actually right or wrong. It’s simply a statement that the premises upon which you attempt to prove my statements wrong are arbitrary. False premises can lead to true conclusions.
You also assume I’m unfamiliar with this presumed scholarship. You also assert that being familiar with the unnamed work of unnamed scholars is relevant to the topic at hand.
Is this scholarship more or less important than a knowledge of God’s word? Is knowledge of the scholarship and commentating of sinful fallible men required to be able to properly understand the words of a perfect infallible God?
If a person is educated to believe lies instead of truth, their education has no bearing upon their identification of false ideas. If they assume false ideas are true because of incorrect education, that hurts their ability to recognize people who are wrong. To make the point that education aids in this ability, a right education is required. Education in basketball helps not the case of the chemist. Again, I have no knowledge of your education (or of any other forum member beside myself)–this is a rhetorical point only. Ultimately, while one’s education may aid in the attaining of certain viewpoints, their education is irrelevant to their current worldview.
Is lying good?
What literary genres?
Well, why not? Can you not “do science” by starting with true facts and using those as the basis for how you examine other evidence? In science, that’s the scientific method. In the Bible, that’s exegesis, moving from the Bible outward (historical, grammatical, contextual) The viewpoint you describe as “possible” is eisegesis. Approaching the Bible with “ideas” and not approaching ideas with the Bible is not a proper hermeneutic. Jesus made many statements that insisted reality was different than what the Jews commonly accepted. Jesus too worked from the Bible to prove His deity in discourse. The acceptance of the Jews was irrelevant to the truth of Jesus’s statements.
Are spirits part of creation? Were they created?
I agree. Creation did not become “very good” because humans sinned. It was very good before humans sinned.
Holocaust, anyone? Nazis, very good? Hereretics, good? Blasphemers, good?
As an example, by your logic, anytime anyone does anything horrible that causes suffering or death or disease, those results are very good. What if they affect your family, or my family, or anyone else’s for that matter? If those things are very good, we should rejoice! "Yes, murderer, great work! Come do more of this wonderful work in my family! Yes, rapist, good work! Come do more of this very good thing!
Why are we as Christians commanded not to partake of the causing of these very good things?
The distinction between punishment and consequence is an important one. Punishment is something applied, consequence is something that naturally follows according to cause and effect. God is just. God did not “add” these things to creation (sin is the absence of God), merely the consequences of the absence of God. Our world is degenerating. Punishment is described differently, namely the fulfillment of God’s wrath. This righteous wrath has been exercised throughout history according to God’s discretion (Noah’s flood) but is ultimately withheld until the times described in Revelation.
No, actually, I don’t. Evil is a consequence of sin, which is separation from God. Separation from God causes degeneracy, and these things are evil.
Isaiah 30:18
Therefore the Lord longs to be gracious to you,
And therefore He waits on high to have compassion on you.
For the Lord is a God of justice;
How blessed are all those who long for Him.
Deuteronomy 32:4
“The Rock! His work is perfect,
For all His ways are just;
A God of faithfulness and without injustice,
Righteous and upright is He.
Psalm 9:7-8
But the Lord abides forever;
He has established His throne for judgment,
And He will judge the world in righteousness;
He will execute judgment for the peoples with equity.
Revelation 20:12-13
And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.
Colossians 3:25
For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality.
God being perfectly loving is in perfect harmony with His perfect justice. God’s love does not save willingly sinful men from the consequences of their willing separation of themselves from Him, or the punishment that will eventually come for their unrepentant actions. Instead, God’s love offers–freely–an incredible sacrifice in order to atone for this separation. The only thing that’s required is belief in the plan of salvation and repentance.
Romans 3:9-18:
" 9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 Destruction and misery are in their paths,
17 And the path of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
These are not very good things. We are all under sin. Continuing:
Romans 3:21-26:
“21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
I love Paul’s discussion of the matter here.
Let’s break this down.
Genesis 1:31:
31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
This is a strawman argument equating the marriage of two sinful people in a broken world to the perfect God describing a perfect world. It’s also based upon opinions of what is good or not, denying absolute truth.
I apologize, I should’ve been clearer (I see now that I worded things confusingly). Christ’s physical resurrection followed His physical death. Jesus died physically, something you’ve described as very good. To restate the question;
“If biological death is just part of the natural cycle, then why did Christ have to die physically? Why is a natural process that has always existed both the punishment and the consequence of sin, a spiritual separation from God?”
So… death is needed to sustain new life because… death is needed to sustain new life. I believe I addressed this form of circular logic adequately in my above paragraphs. The earth is flat, because the earth is flat.
I didn’t make a statement about a hypothetical world. I asked two questions trying to get you to clarify two unsubstantiated assertions. In my very brief research, I found that plants themselves decay and fuel the nitrogen cycle, not taking into account the nitrates that may have been already present in the soil. Animal/human death is an aid to the nitrogen cycle, and in no way essential. I’m not even deviating from “accepted mainstream science”, hence why I asked you to clarify.
But, assuming my “made up world” doesn’t follow “any of the natural laws and natural processes God has made us able to understand”, how about the law of biogenesis?
Thank you for agreeing with my point. If my “interpretation” is not accurate, then what is the correct interpretation? Point me to a text or statement you consider accurate. Simply telling me that I have the wrong interpretation does nothing to help us understand each other, which is my aim.
Glance taken: “Evolutionary providentialist/lism”. First off, I checked your profile, searched for posts written by you on the topic, and checked general web definitions. I understand it means, vaguely, that you believe God used and controlled evolution to create as He wished. Is this correct?
If so, I should point this out: when taken solely as a term, “evolutionary providentialism” means the philosophy of providence that evolves, so just asking someone to take a glance doesn’t really help anyone. To find a “good meaning” I had to dig up your old forum posts.
But, aside from that, how is the belief that God used evolution providentially relevant to our conversation? My original statement was:
In summary, I believe science and theology are two inseparable areas of knowledge, separated by the secular world in the same way that they propose to separate church and state (though in reality, they’re merely separating humanism and other religions).
And your answer was:
There is no such thing as secular science. All of the reality of God’s creation is there for anyone and everyone to study and find the physical truths about. When Christians lose sight of the fact that the Bible is about spiritual truths and not science is when the false dichotomy takes over.
The statement that, “There is no such thing as secular science.” is the crux, to which I responded:
I never said there was such a thing as “secular science”. We all have the same evidence available, the only differences are the assumptions we start with and the conclusions we come to. There are secular assumptions aplenty, and there are conclusions formed by secular bias, but there is no secular science since the world is available for people of all beliefs, biases, and worldviews to look at.
To which I responded:
So, if someone assumed God didn’t exist, must the assumption be Christian? So then, must Christians assume that God does not exist because “mainstream scientists” make that assumption?
That is, by definition, a secular assumption.
And you said:
Please learn the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. You are conflating them. Good scientists – including Christians and whatever their beliefs about the metaphysical, do the former.
And, of course, I researched the term and presented my argument. You stated without substantiation that my interpretation of the term is false, and thus my argument is wrong. Please substantiate your terms before using them as key points. To me, it’s perfectly acceptable for you to define your terms however you like, but you must define them or they mean nothing.
Ah, alas, if I were more intelligent maybe I could be more concise! Most of my time spent writing is in giving examples, proofs, examining multiple sides of my logic, recognizing auxilliary points implied by my statements, recognizing auxilliary points implied by the statements of other, and so on. I attempt to cut to the heart of each issue, as best I understand, using statements that begin with “In summary”, but these are often inadequate to encompass the issue properly.
In summary, my intent here on this forum is to keep my statements as clear as possible, arguing for my point and not right past what everyone else is saying. Sometimes short statements are best, but not always.
4.7K rock on.
I think I see where we disagree. First off, you use the phrase “in creation”, which is tricky. “In creation” implies, “not of creation”, which I would agree with. Satan was in the perfect creation, not part of the perfect creation. However, this is irrelevant; the Bible records creation was completed before Satan tempted Eve/Adam. Therefore God did not call Satan here very good, regardless of whether he was in or of creation at the time. (Satan was originally as innocent as a lamb. The name “Lucifer” means “bearer of light”.) In summary, I am insisting that everything of the creation, at the time was called very good.
Do you take Harry Potter and Tolkien as historical books?
The story is about real things.
And how do you define real things? Who is correct, a fallible sinful man looking with physical eyes at an infinitesimal percentage of creation, or an omniscient, omnipresent God who personally created everything. Do you have a better idea of what is real than God does?
I alter no text. That’s a strawman.
Please cite your sources. In my research, I see “muwth muwth” and “mot tamut” used, and they mean the same thing.
My first source HERE.
My second source is the Blue Letter Bible, which is available for download on your app store.
Please quote me saying what you assert that I’m saying. As of yet, that’s an unsubstantiated assertion, and yet another attack on my personal character. I speak not of people themselves, but of their ideas, beliefs, assumptions, and assertions.
According to you, we are scoffers following evil desires, not because we oppose Christianity but because we believe what God tells us over and over again in both the earth and the sky. And THAT is what I think you are refusing to see, hear, or understand – misusing an interpretation of the Bible to ignore the living God.
Your two statements aren’t internally cogent. Let me break it down: (notice how I speak of your statement here, and not of your character)
According to me, you are scoffers following evil desires, because you believe what God tells you over and over again in both the earth and the sky. To simplify, your statement is; “You call us scoffers because we believe what God says through general revelation.” First, I called no one a scoffer (please quote me if you think I did somewhere). Second, that statement contains an assumptive fallacy. You assume that God is telling you things, and that you’re correctly understanding what He is saying, and that I’m calling you scoffers because of this supposed belief. If He’s not telling you what you think He’s telling you, then the whole thing falls apart. You give no substantiation for either assumption.
Your second statement is merely an opinion. (I think)
Why do you believe this? Where do you see it in Scripture?
The lack of suffering is a disease called leprosy.
The lack of death is a disease called cancer.
Aha! I’ve hit 4.77K! time to stop.
You are misquoting me. The first sentence was stricken through:
Good scientists who are Christians do exactly that. Any good scientist does exactly that.
Dishonest YEC ‘scientists’ do exactly that.
1 Like
Thats a very good point Christy and absolutely needs an adequite answer.
My belief on this, and to keep it simple for now i wont add in all the bible references if that is ok…
-
God “created the heavens and the earth” (obviously the accepted Christian world view either YEC or EC)
-
Lucifer saw himself such that he decided he should be glorified not only above other angels, but on a level par with Christ (indeed perhaps even above Christ next to the Father)
-
Lucifer went on what we know as humans to be a political campaign, albeit seemingly covertly (a poor word given God knows everything), in order to rustle up support among the angels,
-
Lucifer confront God demanding change in the regime (if you will)…a bit of a coup de tat …one might say to use our modern description of the process
-
there is war in heaven between Christ and Lucifer and, given Christ is God who created the very angels waring against Him, Lucifer loses (obviously).
And here is the interesting part…
My belief is that Lucifer was cast down to this planet, rather than another in the universe, because it is this creation that was special at the time of Lucifers need for self elevation to equality with God.
Whether that is because Lucifer played some part in the mechanism for the creation of this planet, or was in some way influencial in how it was made…perhaps he claimed intellectual property rights or maybe he was right alongside God when Adam and Eve were created from the dust of the ground… something of that nature??? Anyway…
From the story of Job, we know that Lucifer clearly views this world as something of his own…and i suspect its directly related to Creation.
Lucifer must have, either directly or by proxy, been cast to this planet because it was the foundation of his political charge against God before the war in heaven. I can imagine that his claim was, as it was in the book of Job…let me test the claim that mankind will stay true to God and if mankind fails that test, then the planet is mine. What i suggest Lucifer did not consider well was the other part of Gods nature…forgiveness and the willingness of our Creator to pay the wages of disobedience in the place of His own creation.
I believe this may very well have also meant that Christs (Gods) atoning death on the cross could also have saved Lucifer and his angels. I have no way of explaining theologically at present how this could actually work…but i do believe that God is love and his love knows no bounds…so Im sure even lucifer could have been forgiven even at that late stage (at the cross).
The dilemma i face in the above belief is the notion of the close of probation talked about by new testament writers just before the Second Coming.
I am not sure at what point the “close of probation” would have existed for Lucifer…If its before the atoning sacrifice for sin…who then pays for the wages of those who have already sinned (including Lucifer himself)? If its after the cross…surely its too late because Lucifer would have then passed the point of no return by killing God ?
I think it becomes very theologically complicated i will need to do some thinking about this. What i do know is that the Old Testament Sanctuary model would both provide an avenue for that, however, it also discredits the idea as well because of the scapegoat Azazeel. Someone must take on “the responsibility” for the sin of mankind according to the OT sanctuary. If my biblical understanding is correct, He (Christ/God) cannot bear responsibility and that is demonstrated by the laying on of the Priests hands onto the scapegoat Azazeel. The Priest is transferring responsibility of the sins of the camp to the scapegoat and it is then cast out to die!
EDIT…oh i missed one part of your quote above that is theologically problematic…you said
“satan was sinless in Eden”
Lucifer rebelled in heaven and he became known as that ancient serpent the devil/satan. His rebellion in heaven was a sin…so no, I do not believe the correct understanding of scripture is to claim Satan was sinless in Eden.
It’s not, I’m just curious.
No, but that conclusion doesn’t logically follow from premises about magical sky wizards. Not all conclusions people come to are are the result of valid logical arguments. You can make inferences based on other things. You can arrive at true propositions by way of faulty inferences and bad logic, you just can’t logically prove their truth. I was just confused because you keep using the language of logic (if/then statements) but then say you aren’t trying to make logical arguments and don’t need to follow the rules of logic. Fine, I won’t assume anything more that you say is an attempt to make a logical argument. I will assume you are just sharing your conclusions and we should just take them at face values as what you have concluded.
You are misquoting me. I didn’t say you were wrong *because you are wrong. I said you are wrong and I declined to explain why I have this opinion, because it would not be a good use of my time. You have a lot more learning to do before you can accurately make generalizations about “the wording” of Genesis 1-11. And yes, that is just an assertion, not an argument. I’m not trying to convince you of anything, I was just stating a fact. It was more for the other people who are reading who understand that I have some expertise they trust to make such an assessment.
If by “knowledge of God’s word” you mean your personal understanding of an English translation in light of what a certain camp of Evangelicals have taught you, then yes Bible scholarship that informs interpretation is important, because your knowledge of God’s word is limited, fallible, and inherently biased (as is all of ours).
God’s revelation was communicated through human words in languages you don’t speak in cultures and time periods you have no experience with and translated for you by sinful, fallible, men who produced and engaged in “the scholarship” you don’t seem to have much respect for, so yes, you need Bible scholars to understand the Bible. This is obvious.
Is using a story to teach lying?
ANE creation account for one. ANE geneologies for another. ANE temple liturgy for another.
That would only be doing science if the true facts you start with are not the conclusions you are examining the evidence in light of and you are using the scientific method, which attempts to falsify hypotheses, not prove pre-existing conclusions are true.
Exegesis is not scientific. It’s a linguistic enterprise and is therefore fraught with subjectivity.
No, eisigesis is reading a pre-existing view into the text and claiming the text is about something it isn’t really about. I don’t see evolution or old earth or germ theory or heliocentrism in the Bible at all, but I accept they are true things about reality and my understanding of what the Bible intends to teach me is shaped by what I know is true about the world. It affects the inferences I make.
We all read the Bible from a social location in a language we understand in certain ways based on our experience and enculturation, and we link what we read to our pre-existing conceptual frames. That’s just how human cognition works. When you say “the Bible” you mean your interpretation of specific texts. You cannot evaluate your existing ideas against the Bible without first understanding and interpreting the Bible, and the act of understanding and interpreting the Bible will necessarily draw on your ideas of what is real and what is true about the world. It’s turtles all the way down.
Comparing something like “an eye for an eye is a good moral idea” or “men should be able to divorce wives for any reason” to “the earth is ancient” and pretending they are both “commonly accepted realities” of the same category is disingenous. What Jesus challenged was cultural and religious moral claims, not people’s understanding of how the physical or natural world functioned. Just like you can’t compare a “definition of God” to “a definition of natural selection” in some kind of interchangeable way, you can’t compare “proving Christ’s deity using rhetoric, signs and appeals to the Hebrew Scriptures” with “proving the date of a fossil with radiocarbon dating and stratiography.” These are not the same category of claim or proof.
That’s a whole other discussion isn’t it. I think “spirit” and “soul” are constructs we have to try to understand the aspects of our human minds that are transcendant and able to relate to God. I don’t think you can really tease them out from our physical biology, but I also don’t think descriptions of biochemistry of the brain is sufficient for capturing all that the human mind is and does. So, I’d say people are creatures with a spiritual dimension that is holistically integrated into their created beings. I don’t believe that souls or spirits are created separately and put in human bodies. I think the idea that we are spiritually dead and made spiritually alive in Christ is a metaphorical way of talking about something we lack the vocabulary and concepts to talk about.
I said creation did not become not very good because humans sinned. That wasn’t a typo. I don’t believe creation lost its very good status at the fall. I think creation is still very good, even with human sin in it. Listing a bunch of things sinful humans have created and equating those with God’s very good creation and pretending that’s what I meant by God’s creation is dishonest. And while we’re at it, in Christian philosophy there has always been a distinction between natural evil (death, disease, predation, natural diasters, pain) and the consequences of human sin that wreak havoc on creatures and creation. I don’t think war, murder, rape, environmental destruction driven by human greed and over-consumption are intended by God to be part of creation the way natural evil is. I never conflated these two categories of evil, you did.
Come again? It’s your logic that insists a description of a totality must equally describe all of its parts, something I have pointed out is illogical. It’s also illogical to say that because I think a very good creation can have natural evil present in it as the best possible world, I must also think that the evil results of human sin are very good. What kind of mental gymnastics got you there?
But a re-creation of the physical world to invent thorns and disease and tectonic plates and carnivores is not a “natural consequence” of any existing reality just left to play out. Their creation is an intentional act. God didn’t just allow “sin” to recreate his world, because sin is not an entity with creative power. God created the world and everything in it. If all the bad things are “consequences,” fine, but they didn’t just “happen” or spring into existence because God allowed them to happen or spontaneously generate themselves. God invented them because of sin, because according to you they didn’t exist before humans ate forbidden fruit.
Natural evil like predation and disease is not a result of anyone’s degeneracy though. How are lions eating antelopes related to human sin? The YEC narrative requires an Eden that is a fundamentally different creation than the one we live in if there was no natural evil until sin. Explain the link. Why do we have earthquakes now and not in Eden if God did not recreate the world in certain ways post fall? Or how does human disobedience affect tectonic plates in a way God “allows”?
Perfect isn’t in the text describing creation. It’s “very good” and the Hebrew word used elsewhere doesn’t ever connote perfection, it’s used to describe opinions about beautiful things, like the sight of welcoming tents or good farmland. YEC have created a construct of a perfect world pre-fall and then read that back into the Genesis text. That’s the eisigesis were were talking about earlier. God’s opinion of his creation was that it was very good. People have taken that and added quite a bit of theological baggage the phrase “God saw that is was very good” wasn’t really built to carry.
No, you are the one insisting that if creation as a whole is very good, then all parts of it have to be very good. I think this is illogical and have repeatedly said so. All I have asserted is that death can be part of a whole picture that is judged to be very good, not that death is very good. I don’t think this is very novel or hard to understand, so you can stop misrepresenting me any time.
Jesus’ death isn’t linked in the Bible with natural cycles or ending physical death, it’s linked with blood sacrifice and atoning for sin. My understanding of Christian theology is that he had to die because that was the required symbol of a substitutionary atonement, a sacrifice, and sacrifices involve killing. Jesus didn’t die of natural causes, he was crucified by angry sinful people, and in a very symbollically laden way. There wasn’t anything natural about his death, so I honestly don’t understand the question or why you think my belief that death existed in creation before sin relates to Jesus being crucified as an atonement for sin.
“Death is needed to sustain new life” is a statement of fact, not a logical argument. There is no “because” in what I said. I just described how the world we actually live in works, I did not attempt to explain why it is that way.
I don’t know what you are referring to. I do know that a creation with no animal death or carnivores in it would be unsustainable and would not flourish longterm. It would not be “perfect.”
So you think Satan fell from Heaven in the couple days between Let There Be Light and the Fall?
2 Likes
If you use the quote feature, you’ll get the quote right. I said Satan was in sinless Eden. As in, Satan was in Eden before the Fall when creation was still “sinless.” Satan was evil and was present in creation before humanity sinned, so the contention that all evil in the world only exists after human sin is not a biblical contention.
3 Likes
Math was distorted by the curse. Lol. It’s hard to work up the energy to respond to such silliness. It’s like the dude wondering whether A&E were created with an anus. Hahahahaha
Christy why do you continue to make this statement in response to those who dissagree using cross referenced and therefore self evident bible texts and theology?
How can you claim that the following is my interpretation or logic?
As an example, take the following quotes from Einstein:
- Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. …
- Life is like riding a bicycle. …
- We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. …
- If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough. …
- A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.
Now whilst I agree with them, they are not generated from my own logic when presented to you as evidence/references.
These are clearly the logic of the author who wrote them. If one was to base ones philosophy on the writings of Einstein, then one goes to Einstein for ones interpretation. What you are now attempting to claim is that Einstein didnt say what he meant and that i am twisting meaning when i quote them in context of other writings of Einstein.
Now moving over to YECism, the claim I am simply trying to interpret His (Gods) writings to suit my own pre existing belief isnt an accurate postion given i am using multiple references (and cross references) from the very source of the world view i follow!
Whether or not TEsts are willing to accept the obvious…
The only way one can come up with a different interpretation is when that individual intentionally leaves out the cross references in order to try to twist the interpretation to fit with someone else’s philosophy.
The intent here is to straw pluck and twist isolated passages of scripture so that a Christian world view can be meshed with an evolutionary one.
Ironcially enough…the very term Theistic Evolution should at least give a hint of what is actually going on here.
EDIT…
I accept that a reason for twisting isolated passages of scripture is because of observational science. We dissagree on the answer for that obviously…I claim its because Satan can interact physically in this world and can therefore corrupt nature (see the story of Job and his children killed by a storm whipped up by Satan)…you do not believe this.
Actually, I just used the quote function and that’s what it did. Why was the statement stricken through? What’s the purpose? My intent wasn’t to misquote you, but I’ve never seen statements stricken through as a literary device.
And, of course, I researched the term and presented my argument. You stated without substantiation that my interpretation of the term is false, and thus my argument is wrong. Please substantiate your terms before using them as key points. To me, it’s perfectly acceptable for you to define your terms however you like, but you must define them or they mean nothing.
I don’t know what you are talking about. I made this statement in response to something specific Leo said about the sky being blue and it had nothing to do with a Bible verse.
And it’s pretty funny that you think cutting and pasting Bible verses makes what you say “self-evident” theology. Oh, Adam.
I don’t know how you are using logic, but above I was using it in the mathematical sense as it applies to rhetoric. Like if p then q and we have agreed on ways that q can follow from a set of premises and those are called “valid arguments.”
I don’t really see the point in trying to clarify what I said or meant. You don’t understand it. Fine, whatever. Nothing that you typed relates to what I was trying to communicate and I can’t really help with your reading comprehension of my writing. Sorry.
so you dissagree with my point that if i were to be a follower of Einsteins’ writings and quoted cross referenced other writings of his in support of my beliefs (that are very obviously the same as his) that is “pretty funny”?
i think your insult is nothing more than sour grapes…an individual who simply does not have an adequite biblical knowledge to even be able to support ones world view! If I am wrong, then i suggest you start producing sound evidence instead of the above. Then we may test your evidence and investigate your cross referencing to ascertain whether or not it is sound. Given you supposedly engage professionally in academic circles where referencing is extensively used, you should have no problems in that regard.
We already know the secular scientific evolutionary view…that is not the issue here. This forum is presenting a mesh of science and Christianity…so it must resolve the Christian dilemma for that to work. We already know that secularism doesnt agree with you on this…so there is no point us debating that side of the problems you face…from that perspective both YEC and TE are defending God.
The point is Christy, this is the usual muddying of the waters that comes from TEism…they do the exact same thing JW’s do when their crappy theology is exposed…they pretend its offtopic. The topic here is Presupposions of Biblical Authority is it not?
again…you refuse to let the author explain themselves when said explanations disagree with observational science.
That goes to the heart of the problem here.
You then make the outrageous claim individuals who support the authors own views (because dozens of writers within the pages of the bible also support the same interpretation) are “very funny”.
the point is, Christianity is a Christian philosophy and the entire writings of that philosophy are contained within the bible. These are Gods word…they are not the views of men. These men (and women) wrote down what they were told by God to write whether through inspiration or directly (example Moses who communicated directly with God)
I recognise that we claim cultural influence…but there is a very definite line in the sand on that claim. For example…
We cannot claim “thou shalt not kill” does not mean exactly what it says.
We cannot claim “I will come again” does not mean exactly what it says.
We cannot claim “the wages of sin is eternal death” does not mean exactly what it says.
We cannot claim death is only spiritual if Christ died physically on the cross (in fulfillment of the OT Sanctuary service where sheep and goats were physically killed) that atonement is only spiritual!
You keep meandering around this instead claiming i am copy and pasting texts. I honestly do not see how you can make such claims unless there is the intent to mislead others who follow the study guides in their own bibles margins?
Christy can i just say this…i am not the one who writes bible concordances…i simply use them in order to ensure consistent theological knowledge and understanding across the bible.
Are you truly going to claim therefore that my following of study bible margin cross referecing is an indicator that all the scholars who wrote those study guides are wrong? That these scholars are “copy and pasting” cross references in all study bible margins and its “pretty funny”?
Nope. I frankly didn’t understand your point.
I didn’t insult anyone. I was bemused.
And no, I decline. I have better uses of my time than to try to prove anything to you. I can note from the pages and pages of things other people have typed out for you, it’s is a total waste of time. I don’t care, Adam. I don’t care that you don’t think I know anything and that what I think is not compelling to you. I have zero interest in demonstrating my “cross-referencing” skills to you. You are free to look up the articles I have published if you want to critique my academic skills, but spoiler alert, in academic writing, you don’t just cut and paste Bible verses and call it “evidence.” You have to interact with the text and relevant scholarship.
1 Like
As usual, I don’t know what you are talking about or how it relates to the discussion or anything I said. What was funny to me is the idea you expressed that if you cut and paste a Bible verse next to something you said, that makes your theology “self-evident.” Okay. Carry on.
1 Like
Because I recognized it was incorrect.
Could you see that it was stricken?
It’s a textual device, and it was an added edit. Since you didn’t recognize that, I probably should have redacted it like so: ██ (not a literary device either ; - ) or just deleted it without comment.
What did you think this was?:
I subsequently elaborated and which you appear to be ignoring:
To be perfectly honest, I don’t keep up with what most theologians or “big-time writers” are thinking. There are people and sources that I pay some attention to, but aside from YEC I don’t subscribe knowingly to any group, denomination, or denotation. It’s possible I fall under some of these denotations and denominations, but I simply don’t spend time researching them. (I also disagree with pure Calvinists and pure Arminians, so that’s something)
Actually, let me check out that particular group and let y’all know. Are there any particular sources you’d suggest I check out?
1 Like
I wasn’t recommending them, they’re all on my poopy list. But I have noticed a fairly recent doubling down and emphasis on the young earth stuff from them lately. They aren’t theologians really, they are bloggers and podcasters who say lots of stuff people listen to. I would recommend you invest time with smarter people with actual expertise though.
2 Likes