You bind God with time, limiting him in his sovereignty and providence. Getting your head around God’s inscrutability with respect to time isn’t something you should plan on. That does not mean you should not believe it.
Do you comprehend how a man rose from the dead? Yet you believe it, not limiting God in that way.
Well, the correct word would be everlasting. Only after dying and being resurrected, one would not have to die again.
Oh, I can totally see how the source of life can return it to a body they created in the first place.
I cannot see how a period of timelessness could possibly, reasonably or rationally exist before or after an event occurs. That is a major objection to a timeless God. A timeless God would simply not exist. For if He even scratched His metaphorical eyebrow, there’d instantly be a time before and after He did the scratching. I accept this is one problem Humans cannot possibly solve.
You don’t know the scriptures that contradict you. Huh.
With your claim that there is absolute time that God has to exist in and be constrained by then you are denying both of these:
A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
Psalm 90:4
And
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
2 Peter 3:8
I’m not going to argue about time in relation to God. To do so is above my dimensional paygrade…
I understand Bill Craig spent a Decade on the subject. Maybe I’ll read his book some time. Once I’ve solved my current focus issues.
That’s wise of you. You might however marvel and worship about God’s sovereignty over it by contemplating his works of providence. There is quite a bit posted about it. One place is here, another here (an especially fun example in my life) …and both above that post and below it as well.
If you believe God has always existed, had no beginning, you have made the first step toward believing in a timeless exisistance.
It doesn’t use the word “produced” for man either. It doesn’t say any living things are a product of design, and I think being designed is inconsistent with what it means for something to be alive. Living things are a product of growth and learning, and if anything this is even more true of human beings. The God of the Bible is a shepherd not a watchmaker – the latter idea comes from Deism.
Why? Why this difference in the case of human beings?
It is because it is not speaking of chemical biological life. It is speaking of the life of the human mind, and the divine breath is inspiration.
No if we are more than a species, then it takes more than just biology and DNA to make us human.
What problem? What behaviors do you imagine make us human?
I agree with including the Neanderthals in the biological species of humans. I do not agree this justifies your automatic exclusion of the idea that humanity consists of more than just a biological species in something which happens after the two subspecies merged together.
See above refutation of the treatment of “image of God” as a thing which anyone has. This theological terminology is not in the Bible.
God creating in His own image means His intention is a relationship with children. But that relationship with Adam and Eve failed. So this effort of God continues by calling us to seek recreation conformed to the image of His Son, which is only fulfilled in a relationship with God.
Indeed! This theological notion is a product of antiquated thinking (absolute time) which science has already rejected. Just because God is not a part of the space-time structure of the physical universe doesn’t mean that God is incapable of any temporal ordering of His own.
Eternal life is a relationship with God because there is no end to what He has to give to us and no end to what we can receive from Him. To be sure, Paul explains in 1 Cor 15 that unlike the physical body the resurrected spiritual body is imperishable. But it is a mistake to equate the eternal life promised by Jesus with the immortality of vampires. It is not just about never-ending existence which is too likely to be hell without anything to make that existence worthwhile. Jesus also says that some can expect eternal torment – so equating the ultimate hope with never-ending existence doesn’t make any sense at all. Life is more than just existence. Life is growth and learning.
Deism was one of my stops along the path from agnosticism to theism. It helped when I had no answer for the question of suffering.
Still disagree. I think it is simply the act of bringing something to life. In fact, Adam’s creation seems to me like a de novo act. I don’t like it, but the text really seems to be demanding that Adam was specially created, apart from the others and then moved into the garden. Of course, this then begs the question, why then have others outside at all, and why have the Earth produce them?
Too many similarities with other animals to claim we have anything more than they do, except the image, whatever that is. The Bible itself states we have no advantage over the animals.
I still maintain the image must be what separates us from the animals.
I’m not sure, but I am committed to my belief that man has no ghostly soul or anything within them that survives death. My only problem with my own belief here is that I cannot explain how God is going to resurrect me, without that new me being a clone.
So the image means that we are His children? In the sense my children are in my image, because they are mine biologically? But God, not having a body… You may be onto something there, but I still reject a soul within us. And I do not understand what spiritual life is. What it feels like, manifests as, or if I have ever had it. I feel fully physical.
It is more often the stop along the path from theism to atheism. That is certainly the path my father took with the conclusion that such a god is irrelevant to the living of our lives.
I don’t believe in anything put into the body to make it alive or a person. Thus I reject the puppet dualism based on the mental soul of the Gnostics. But both Paul and Jesus did teach that we have something which survives death. Paul called it the spiritual body which is brought to life in the resurrection. The difference is Paul’s teaching that the physical body comes first and the spiritual body grows from that like a plant from a seed. And I don’t think this spiritual body has any part of the space-time structure of the physical universe.
The Bible says no such thing. And there is only one important difference: language. And by language I mean a system of communication with representational capabilities which surpass that of DNA. The result is that human language can be the basis for a life all of its own – and that living organism is the human mind. Now… I don’t have any problem with the idea of other species in the universe having language. I would be delighted to find this is the case. And I believe in an infinite God, big enough for relationships with an infinite number of such other people. But so far, we haven’t found any.
However, let me clarify: the human mind is a physical living organism and not to be confused with anything spiritual.
I agree that this way of thinking is highly problematic and I would toss the whole idea of an historical Adam and Eve before accepted anything like that. But I don’t think the text demands any such thing. I certainly don’t believe in a necromancer god creating golems of dust and bone any more than I believe in magical fruit and talking animals. God created our bodies from the stuff of the earth according to the laws of nature and science is revealing the process by which this happened. Then God spoke to Adam providing the inspiration which brought the human mind to life. That is a meaning of the text I can accept.
That is the first time I have encountered such. Do you have a problem with the teaching of the Bible that God is spirit? Do you not believe we can have a relationship with this spiritual being?
I’m trying to avoid that.
We become alive again at the Resurrection. But we don’t survive death. We die and we stay that way until the Resurrection. Death is a punishment. We aren’t going to be consciously chilling out somewhere waiting until we come back to life. That isn’t death. Death is the opposite of life. There is no life in death.
Ecclesiastes 3:19-22
We agree on this.
Still not down with this.
I have a problem understanding any life within me other than plain and simple life. There is no spirit within me. I have no soul. But I am a living soul. A fully physical entity.
I can comprehend a spirit entity, to some extent. But that is not what I am.
The problem with this, is thinking that the resurrection is a physical event in the space-time structure of the physical universe. I certainly don’t believe that. The resurrection is not a zombie apocalypse of bodies climbing out of graves. But if it is not in the space-time structure then it is nonsensical to talk about remaining dead until the resurrection.
No. Death is simply the absence of life, which is a consequence of being without the necessary requirements. For physical life the necessities are chemical, but for spiritual life all you need is a relationship with God who is the ultimate source of all life.
Taken out of context.
Ecc 3:19 For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?
The purpose here is only to say that we have no advantages over animals when it comes to death. Death is not a punishment for us any more than it is a punishment for the animals. It is simply the other side of life, as night is the other side of day. We have no advantage in a “soul” different from the animals to escape death – but it says quite clearly both have a spiritual existence which continues after death.
Indeed that spiritual existence is the whole point – the purpose for which the physical universe was created. The physical universe is like the womb, providing the needs for the growth of an infant in preparation for an existence outside the womb. Likewise we are made for a relationship with a God who is spirit, thus Paul explains that we have a spiritual body to be resurrected for that relationship.
Spiritual life is in a relationship with God. That life is not within you but in God. And the spirit is not a part of the space-time structure of the universe, so yeah, it is not inside you, but exists outside of space and time. What is here and now is a physical entity. But that is not the whole of reality.
@Benjamin87 , this I can’t add value to this discussion from personal work on the question. But as a librarian, I find it hard to stop my compulsion to throw books at a question. Loren Haarsma wrote a book in the last few years that might be helpful (or add confusion), When Did Sin Begin? There is a BL podcast interview with Haarsma here: Loren Haarsma | Four Approaches to Original Sin
And a book review on it by @Jay313 linked from this discussion here
CT book review: Four ways of harmonizing Genesis and evolution
Kendel
Greetings and welcome!
These are all good questions. Have you reviewed Denis Lamoureux’ writings? He’s a PhD in both theology and evolutionary biology, as well as a doctorate in dentistry. He thinks that the entire Genesis account of creation is divine accommodation, with ancient science.
You might enjoy his book, “Struggling With God and Origins.” [Struggling with God & Origins: A Personal Story - Kindle edition by Lamoureux, Denis O… Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.](https://www.amazon.com/Struggling-God-Origins-Personal-Story-ebook/dp/B0BY38WMF3
About 4 years ago, when I read about non-concordism, I felt a ton of relief.
However, of course, that leaves the question of what portions of the Bible are accurate. He does say none of the Bible is necessarily accurate, scientifically.
It sounds like you have a very good mind. I’d be interested in what you find out.
Thanks.
Randy
Hi,
Just to clarify my views: (1) Scripture features an ancient science throughout, (2) historicity begins roughly at Gen 12 with Abraham and continues through the rest of the Bible, especially with the historicity of Jesus Christ, his life, his miracles, and his bodily resurrection from the death, (3) Genesis 1-11 is a unique and complex literary genre with an ancient cosmogony, ancient historiography, parable-like stories, a few legendary elements (some real people in genealogies), and most importantly, Holy Spirit-inspired inerrant Spiritual Truths.
I’m liking the term theological history. Most of us agree there was a historic world altering event the Noahic covenant connects to.
I think you are correct that most believe there is “a historic world altering event the Noahic covenant connects to,” but are all those who believe that correct?
How is a “local flood” WORLD altering? Hyperbolic language on your part? It only altered that locality. I doubt people on other continents or anywhere outside a few hundred miles cared very much or even heard of it. But we all know Genesis doesn’t describe a “this only affects 10% (I’m making up a number) of the world population” type flood even though that is what localizing the flood does. Unless you want to push the flood back many tens if not hundreds of thousands of years which makes any claim to preserved historical memory laughable.
Conservatives are correct in dismissing this liberal eisegesis. Genesis presents a flood that destroys humanity. Creation is undone. Destroying a tiny, local population is not what Genesis describes. and that is why they just become YECs and choose to trust God and the Bible over science. Once you let the nose of the camel in the tent, the rest of him is soon to follow.
The Pentateuch consists of ~4 strands of complimentary (overlapping) and contradictory traditions that were placed side by side many hundreds of years after they were written. I get that an actual promise to a patriarch and some form of an exodus seem troubling to deny because the bigger picture of scripture presumes then and casts Jesus in those terms. But at the end of the day, archaeology and Biblical criticism have done to the Pentateuch what science has done to Genesis 1-2. Evangelicals who accept science are treading water in no-man’s land.
Rather than fussing over the “days” in Genesis Christians should be focusing apologetical efforts on dealing with the recent archaeological trend of burying the biblical stories. We generally are NOT reading history when reading the vast majority of the Bible.
Vinnie
In the same way the fall of the Roman empire was world altering.
And how was the fall of the Roman Empire WORLD altering?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.