Theology questions Adam wants ECs to answer

Simple: he had gone to God to get permission.

Satan has no freedom to just do things to people or Creation, according to Job; he has to go make application to the Most High and get explicit permission.

Jesus was playing along with Satan’s ‘fishing expedition’. Each challenge Satan posed was an attempt to get Jesus to either abandon course or reveal crucial information, and in each response Jesus deftly turned aside both.

So “given the power” is right to the point: we know from Job that Satan can’t do a thing without getting permission from God first, and in the temptation narrative we see that God allowed just enough to leave Satan puzzled and probably with some very wrong ideas about what was going on.

But twisting the text is the only way to get from Satan having to ask God for permission to bother one of God’s people to Satan being able to run around freely perpetrating mass deception on humanity.
Nothing in the text anywhere suggests that Satan can be in more than one place, let alone orchestrate massive changes to God’s Creation in order to deceive us – or that God would go along if Satan wanted to do so!

The mess comes from the fact that you are operating under the misconception that science has anything to do with the scriptures, or more broadly that the Old Testament can be read as though it was written under a modern worldview.


adam…thanks for your defense of your perspective. I would have to say that Satan can distort anything. But that is not the point. God gave us minds to explore, discover, learn, theorize and so forth. He gave us that right. Some of those who asserted that the earth was older than the 6000-yr age data which YEC insists on — some of those advocates actually were Christians. They made their assertions because of the data they had received. The subject being discussed here is a big one. And the arguments are intense. I will see what you and others have said elsewhere.

1 Like

I vaguely remember reading in one of the Fathers where it was regarded as historical, but with the comment that since all those others were taken unjustly then God took them all straight to Heaven. I haven’t read any others on that so I can’t say if it’s a minority view or not; I remember it because it seemed a really alien way of looking at things, something no one in the West would have conceived of.

Or, as one of the old Lutheran theologians suggested, given the Spirit’s involvement and the fact that Satan still qualifies as a heavenly being, there was likely a mode of presence involved that isn’t available to mundane humans like us.


The whole YEC enterprise requires ignoring literary genre, starting with denying the dual nature of the Creation account and the triple message – especially the fact that the order of events in the Creation account is the same as in the Egyptian version which predates the Genesis writings.

False dichotomies are also essential to the YEC program – they serve to keep people from asking deep questions.

Adam and others could benefit from the content of some lectures by a rabbi I knew in St. Louis (long enough ago it seems like a different life) along with some on YouTube these days. Jewish mythology has some hefty content concerning the spiritual hierarchies Paul alludes to with his mention of powers and principalities, content that puts the whole relationship between Satan and Heaven and the world into perspective. Adam seems to treat Satan as God’s enemy, ascribing to him powers in a way that comes very close to Manichaean dualism – but the truth is much more in line with what the blessed Martin Luther wrote in his hymn Ein Feste Burg regarding “the old evil Foe”: “one little word shall fell him” [and that word is the name of an archangel, the response to “I will be like God!” – “Mi-cha-El”, in English “Who is like God?”, a question quite simply answered “Yeshua”, Jesus].

And in line with the topic, both ignoring literary genre and asserting false dichotomies, along with ascribing frightening power to enemies, are tools in the conspiracy theory kit.



  1. are you trying to input a human morality argument into the theme of the bible? Why is it that an atheistic argument is front and centre in your mind on this topic?

It seems to me that you are suggesting that it is only God who inflicts the wages of sin on us and that the devil has nothing to do with it. Are you of the belief that the satan is only given the ability to temp us into failure and the rest is Gods doing? Is that your theology?

As a Christian, i should have thought it universal doctrine that pain suffering and death are all direct consequences of sin not because God punishes us with them, but because there is a devil who is given the power to inflict such things on Gods creation.

I accept that the above is a muddy line, and is probably a topic of debate, however, generally my understanding is that all Christians believe that suffering, pain, and death are within Satans power unless God chooses in particular circumstances to restrict him. Would you not agree that irrespective of whether or not the book of Job is an allegory, the point of the illustration remains?

  1. To your point about satan and Christ…tell me, Christ went out into the wilderness for 40 days without food and water (that is the biblical statement)…so he survived on either nothing or whatever he found out there…but clearly it was barely enough for survival given he required support from the angels after the temptation due to extreme weakness from his time in the desert.

Scientifically, how did Christ have the energy to walk to the top of a high mountain…one that could clearly offered a decent panoramic of the Holy Land, then walk down from that mountain into the city and get access to the top of the Herodian temple (bypassing solders somehow), so that Satan could tempt Christ into throwing himself off the roof of the temple to his death?

I think you are digging a hole for yourself Phil…your morality and common logic arguments that deny miracles are not good ones.

Exactly…that is absolutely 100% exactly correct. Finally you get the point. Clearly you now have not option but to agree that it was Satan who whipped up the wind storm that destroyed the house full of Jobs Children in Job Chapter 1!

Thank you at last we are getting somewhere!

This is not a claim i have even once made. You are barking up trees!

It is the false interpretations of this forum where individuals have willfully tried to twist my words into said ideas…again, this illustrates the error with the entire premise of this topic…that YEC enterprise is grooming conspiracies with lies.

I have said this before, the entire reason why i continue to challenge your claims is because they have significant fundamental issues that are not consistent across the Christian philosophy.

You cannot make the argument “we separate science from our religion”…that is nonsense. You claim to be a Christian because you read the bible…it wasnt revealed to you by looking at a rock.

The bible is a philosophical statement, based on historical events, about the Christian world view. It is absolutely impossible to simply pick and choose which parts of that philosophy you wish to follow.

*The irony of some of the doctrines i hear from people with really bad theology is that they ignore one of the most fundamental lessons that came out of the Bible…The huge problems caused by the Mixed Multitude of Exodus. *

It was these individuals who were the trouble makers in the Israelite camp in the Sinai desert that ultimately led to 40 years of wandering in the wilderness until that entire generation had died out. God purged the entire camp of this group by refusing them entry into Canaan until they had, all died! A lot of good people suffered with them and that is a consequence that demonstrates that we are all sinners…none of us may escape the wages of sin without Christs atonement on the cross.

Anyway, back on topic…

The bible specifically tells us in Revelation that God will spit luke warm individuals out of His mouth…they are not wanted in the kingdom.

  • Revelation 3: 14To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

  • These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Originatore of God’s creation.

  • 15I know your deeds; you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were one or the other! 16So because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to vomit you out of My mouth!

The point of this part of the narrative is exactly that…luke warm. Following a mixed multitude theology (ie church in Laodocea) is bad and that kind of thinking will not enter the kingdom of heaven. The bible tells us this is because by being luke warm, one is not actually giving their heart to God…they are choosing to mix the two…to be an individual with mixed multitude loyaltes and live a double life!

Ok, so what is my point…my point is, my theology and my science must maintain allegiance to my world view. I am not able to pretend that bible writers didnt say or mean what it is clearly obvious they did say and mean. We cannot muddy the waters by ignoring cross linking biblical evidences that reference statements that are fundamental to Christianity. So, given that dilemma, my science must gell with the bible…whether or not anyone is willing to be truthful about this, you simply cannot claim that your world view is second to your science…anyone who makes that claim is ignoring some of the most basic beliefs in life.

An illustration…Humans dont defend their back yards from intruders because a rock is a million years old. You have to ask yourself, why do you defend your backyard from intruders…is that a philosophical or a scientific choice? For me, its most definately philosophical…its a morality argument…the 10 commandments immediately come to mind (“thou shall not steal” is high on the list).

Given the social belief that is found all around us about “ones sacred ground…their turf”, does society place more importance on the age of a rock or, defending their backyards from intruders?

I mean we all were waiting for the condemnation/warning/driven by concern/etc post.

The entire bit about suffering from is all from Satan, is pretty interesting. I mean, when Paul suggested to Timothy to drink some wine and no longer just water, this was to prevent Satan’s attacks. This totally follows your hermeneutic as do the rest of the Scriptures.

You are setting up multiple stumbling blocks that are not required by Scripture and then “hinting” that most Christians in the world are either just claimants, compromised, going to hell, or just really misguided. It kinda sucks that you do this and no, it is not a Holy Spirit-led purpose that drives this.

1 Like

one thing that i notice a lot about responses from individuals is that they do not actually address the referencing in my posts. What i see in this response is an example of that.

So that you may skip over everything in my post above (because most people dont read more than a few lines anyway), perhaps you would care to answer the following question…

When you are at home and an intruder attempts to gain access to your backyard clearly with the intent on perhaps taking some of your stuff

do you defend “your turf” because a rock is a million years old or, do you defend it because of morality (ie thou shalt not steal)?

You’ve made it repeatedly, insisting that Satan is practically omnipotent and that God goes along with Satan perpetrating lies on humanity. You picture Satan as rearranging the world’s geology and genetics and more in order to drive people away from God.

Yeah, you’ve invented that position but you have not yet ever shown any actual knowledge of what the scriptures say about themselves; all you ever do is demand that God have coerced the ancient writers into ignoring the audience they were writing for and instead speaking to people mired in scientific materialism.

Making things up about other people still doesn’t qualify as either a valid means of discussion or for that matter consistent with the ten Words delivered to Moses.

Gnosticism, in modern garb.

That statement cannot be supported from scripture at all; it is derived from a modern worldview that is alien to the ancient literature you refuse to admit constitutes the scriptures.

What uneducated person delivered that speculative error? That’s not what the scriptures say at all! According to the inspired writer, it was the entire people of Israel who turned coward and decided God couldn’t be trusted.

Exactly – but you don’t even recognize what your worldview is! YEC arose from the church being infected with the idea that for something to be true it has to be scientifically and historically accurate, an idea that doesn’t come from anywhere in the scriptures but from the philosophy of scientific materialism.

That’s not an illustration of anything but a failure to think clearly. People’s reason for defending their own backyard is neither scientific nor philosophical, it’s gut-level devotion to self. Both science and philosophy an offer reasons why people react that way, but they are not the reasons that people do so.


I will deal with the above individually

Statement A - “False dichotomes are essential to the YEC program…they serve to keep people from asking deep question.”

Given the extensive answers that i regularly give on these forums, are you honestly making such a claim? Can you honestly find a single example of where my theology does not challenge responses here with exceptionally deep questions?

Let me respond to the above with a significant one for you directly…

  1. Christ died on the Cross for the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23…you mention Paul so im using a pauline reference)

  2. The second coming is narrated in the bible as a future event that will result in the physical “gathering together to meet Christ in the air” redemption of mankind back to God.

  3. God, in the garden of Eden, warned Adam and Eve that if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they would surely die.

You claim point 3 above to be allegorical and that the death is spiritual death. I agree that it is spiritual, however, due to the following, it is also physical

Christs pain, suffering, and death on the cross were physical were they not St Roymond?

Revelation 14:12 tells us that the patience of the Saints are those who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus. Do you believe this statement in Revelation requires only a spiritual keeping of the commandments and a spiritual belief in Christ (ie that there are no fruits of our faith on show)?

Statement B - “Adam seems to treat Satan as God’s enemy, ascribing to him powers”

do I as a bible believing Christian even need to address this ridiculous statement? That is exactly what the bible says of Satan. I am surprise that if you are Christian you have a different view of this…what bible do you read from?

You want to go deep…sort out the above dilemma please!

Statement C - “but the truth is much more in line with what the blessed Martin Luther wrote in his hymn Ein Feste Burg regarding “the old evil Foe”: “one little word shall fell him” [and that word is the name of an archangel, the response to “I will be like God!” – “Mi-cha-El”, in English “Who is like God?”, a question quite simply answered “Yeshua”, Jesus”

The first part of this I am not following the relevance of, however, the last part is of no issue. I am a Seventh Day Adventist and our denomination belives that Christ is Michael the Archangel. Is there a specific reason for you to bring this up actually given you probably know im SDA?

i would suggest that the only reason why you would make such a claim is because you have not yet made the connections in your various theological beliefs between one passage of scripture and any others related to it. That is is actually typical of the opposite of my world view. I regularly cross link my theology, but because you dont read more than 1 or two lines, you miss all of that unfortunately. I cannot help it if you do not read the entire post and check the references to see if they are valid or not.

May i suggest that in future, when someone gives you linked bible references backing up their claims, you check your own bible concordance (or your bible margin) to see if these are valid references. If you refuse to do this, then you cannot make the claim what you are reading is rambling. That is a statement from lazyness.

btw if you are calling the following question rambling…???

if the death God warned Adam and Eve about is just spritual, why did Christ experience physical suffering, physical torture, and die physically on the cross for the wages of sin (Romans 6:23), and why is the redemption of mankind back to God at the Second coming a physical event?

i would ask for a relevant answer instead of just avoiding the question by calling me a rambler!

Unless you guys can theologically answer that question in a manner that supports your world view, we are stuck. You must answer the question theologically before we can move forward onto other things. You are supposed to be convincing me why i am wrong. we do not defend our back yards from theives because rocks are a million years old…we defend our turf because stealing is a crime against morality (the 10 commandments). It is a bull$%^* argument to claim that morality is second to science in your world view…that is a complete lie!

They experienced physical death as they were cutoff from the Tree of Life, and Jesus experienced spiritual death on the cross.

Even OECs were good at pointing out that Adam could not have walked in the garden without killing a blade of grass.

So it goes back to understanding how death could have existed before the fall of man. Please send those verses when you have a chance.


Woah tiger hang on ther…does not biologos memberhsip claim that grass cannot sin?

Also, are you claiming that Adam eating produce from the field is sin.

Did satan temp a tree?

I’m making that claim to a large degree because you regularly employ false dichotomies. A great example is how you absolutely ignore any view of the Earth being immensely ancient that doesn’t fit into your insistence that the Bible teaches science and thus you define everything as either YEC or EC (or something; the science doesn’t interest me except that people should get the science right, so I don’t pay much attention to that label you use).

I can’t really recall any deep questions from you; what I recall are questions based on false dichotomies, on trying to force humanistic worldviews onto the scriptures, and on misrepresentations of what other people have said . . . as illustrated again here:

In posts I have made about the Garden stories, I have defended a literal reading, a mythological reading, even a morality story reading, but the closest I have come to calling it allegorical is that if someone doesn’t want to bother with working to grasp the possibilities from a scholarly point of view then “allegory” isn’t terribly misleading plus that some of the theological “greats” in Christian history have treated it that way. Your assertion here just illustrates the false dichotomy issue once again because you ignore all the other ways people have described the accounts and insist that the Garden stories are either history or allegory with no other options.

No, it isn’t. You keep claiming that the Job story shows Satan has immense power, but what it really shows is that Satan has to get permission directly and specifically from God to do the least little thing to God’s people – in other words, Satan has only the power that God specifically allows him to exercise after asking permission to do so.

There’s a name for that heresy that I can’t recall at the moment. For starters it’s totally contrary to Jude, who says that Michael couldn’t rebuke Satan directly – something that doesn’t describe Christ at all. It’s also contrary to Daniel, who tells us that Michael is “one of the chief princes”, which isn’t true about Christ – first because in that context “princes” are the created heavenly beings God put in charge of various nations, and second because Jesus is King of Kings and not a mere prince. It’s also contrary to Revelation, because Michael is described as waging war against “the dragon”, which can’t apply to Christ because Christ as Creator has no need to wage war, He only has to command. For that matter it directly contradicts Hebrews, where we learn that the Father never called any angel His Son!
It’s sort of the error of dualism, though, the idea that Satan is somehow the enemy of Jesus – he isn’t, because there’s not even a contest there since Jesus is God from all eternity while Lucifer is a created being. The name “Michael” is a taunt deriding Lucifer’s declaration, a question to which the answer is “Jesus”. And it verges on Arianism because angels are created beings and Arius taught that Jesus was created just as you or I are (whereas the apostle tells us that Jesus is superior to angels, which would result in the nonsense of saying that Jesus is superior to Himself). Heck, it verges on Apollonarianism because saying Christ is an angel reduces His humanity and even denies the Incarnation!
I mentioned it because it shows how little power Satan actually has: only one word is required to defeat Satan because it knocks him back on his presumptuous posterior and collapses his audacious assertion that he will be like God. “Micheal” is a question to whom/which “Jesus” is the answer.


I didn’t follow your previous conversations that closely. Once in awhile I’d take a look and my impression was you were doing a fair and respectable job holding to your beliefs.

This comment is disappointing. I thought we’d be able to engage the issue of death before the fall of man better than this.

Adam, people here read your posts repeatedly to try to get some sense out of false claims about us, logical errors, and what Jammy calls incoherence. I’ve read every one of your scripture citations in the original text – not in translation – and I suspect that at least one other person here is doing the same.

Your claim here is another example of conspiracy theory thinking: the assumption that people disagree because they haven’t followed your thinking. Yet it isn’t just an assumption all too often, it requires deliberately ignoring what people have actually said to you – and that makes you look not just incoherent but dishonest.

No – but your claim that it is constitutes a violation of one of those ten Words.

That has been answered a half dozen times I can think of. The question at this point is whether you have a mental block that blinds you against seeing the answers or if you are deliberately ignoring them?

But that’s been done. The real issue is that you are falsely attributing one worldview you’ve selected to people rather than actually paying attention to what they’ve said.
For example, my worldview here is that the text is above all. You’ve ignored that, both by acting as though I haven’t pointed that out and by insisting on imposing a modern humanistic worldview on the text.

That’s also been done.

No, we don’t, we defend our stuff because we regard ourselves as the center of the universe – out of selfishness.


I thought you’d say something like that, Adam. It’s a super-spiritual way of saying “I’m not listening.”

It’s not the question itself that’s rambling, Adam. It’s the context in which you’re raising it. It’s a perfectly legitimate question, but only in the context of a discussion about salvation.

Throwing Bible verses such as that into a conversation about something completely different and then accusing people of “avoiding the question” when they don’t respond to it is, again, simply another super-spiritual way of saying, “I’m not listening.” It makes you sound like you’re trying to use it as a diversionary tactic.


Case in point.

The problem with YEC is not their science. It’s their method of interpreting Scripture.

A distinction without a difference since they get their “science” or at least their rules about what science is allowed to conclude, from their interpretation of Scripture.