BibleQ - Latest Comments

Re: Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)?

Russell Downs — Mon, 14 May 2012 07:06:00 -0000

I agree, Ben, that the focus is local rather that global in chapter 2. i.e. the land rather than the whole earth. After all it does talk about a garden. But I don't see why it needs to be interpreted literally. I ask what would be the relevance of the formation of animals, birds and plants as local sudden miracles within a limited area, and the formation of Adam out of the ground, and then Eve out of Adam, if people and plants and animals already existed outside of the garden, as the evidence shows that they did. But yes, it is possible I suppose; I don't see any way that scientific knowledge could contradict that idea. However instead I see it as serious movie cartoon in words. I don't see it being intended to be taken literally any more than coyote chasing roadrunner; the difference is that instead intending to amuse, it is designed to instruct.

Re: Does our soul or spirit go to heaven?

Kenneth Rucker — Sun, 13 May 2012 17:36:58 -0000

To be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord. The very moment that we breathe our very last breath on earth, we will be ushered into the very presence of God. The Bible is very clear on this matter. Having no consious is refers to the dead body. Once the spirit and soul has left the physical body as it is being viewed by the individual after the person referred to has passed away. From the physical person point of view the physical body that is looked at is physically dead. But from the Lord's point of the view the person that has left the body is very much live in the presence of God, with only their soul and their spirit, waiting to be reunited with a brand new body. And this is only if they are truly saved.

Re: Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)?

Ben Harper — Sat, 12 May 2012 14:12:22 -0000

"Evidence appears to support an old earth when other theories demand it to"

Tyler you seem to believe that scientists believe the earth is old because of evolution. I would recommend that you double check the facts and look at the reasons why the earth is universally considered to be ancient amongst scientists.

Geologists - long before Darwin - and through studying the evidence, not embraced to explain other theories that were still yet to be developed, came to the conclusion that the earth was ancient. In fact modern radiometric dates agree with studies of the age of the sun, which the earth would form shortly after according to the models of planetary formation.

Two reliable dating techniques give the same date for the age of the earth. It would be of a 'miracle' if these two seperate dating methods were useless and inaccurate yet came to same date for the age of the earth! Also to consider are five seperate radiometric dating methods all agree - http://www.talkorigins.org/faq... This site makes the point as to seeing the same time on five different
clocks and then feeling free to ignore it!

I've personally always understood the focus of the "earth" in second chapter to be referring to a specific area of land. The Hebrew can be translated either earth or land and in the first chapter both instances are used. I don't accept that the account is non-literal.

Thanks for the article Russell and you make the point here are many non-literal accounts but in those instances it is very clear it is so. 'Visions of Daniel' or 'parables of Christ' are quite obviously not historical events. Adam and Eve are by New Testament writers clearly identified as real people, in no place that I am aware of in Scripture is any indication that this chapter is non-literal. Any contradiction can be resolved by understanding Genesis 1 referring to the heavens and earth and Genesis to a specific land instead of the whole earth.

Re: Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)?

Russell Downs — Thu, 10 May 2012 08:21:52 -0000

There is a very simple way, Tyler, of deciding between the two alternative hypotheses. I perceive the “sequential order” hypothesis of Gen 2 and 3 as being the more natural reading. You prefer an interpretation that allows a literal reading but assumes that the passage jumps around in time. However a literal reading contradicts known facts, so it cannot be correct. For example fossils of flowering plants have been found in the Cretaceous period which finished sometime between 65.2 and 65.8 million years ago. The end of the Cretaceous was the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs. How can we know this? It has been known since the early 19th century that flowering plants are in the Cretaceous layer because even then there were many examples of such fossils, and many more have been discovered since. The early geologists were not able to put a date on the period; they only realised that the rocks were old (Miller, 1874). Actually Miller’s book is a very precious one to me. It was given to me when I was in my twenties by my grandfather in the 1970s, who in turn was given it by an old man in the early 20th century. Miller was a Christian geologist; his book was written just before he died. At that time the Christians (in my church at least) did not just listen to the science of the time; they were passionate about it. In the mid-20th century reliable methods of dating rocks were devised. These rely on the decay rate of some radioactive minerals. There is nothing startlingly new or controversial about this. The science has been very robust for a long time. I am aware that there has been some very naïve criticism of radiometric dating. The basic idea of radiometric dating is that if you know the original amount of radioactive material, the rate of decay, and the current amount of both “mother” and “daughter” material then it is fairly straightforward matter of calculating the age. The naïve criticisms challenge the assumptions that we know the original amounts of “mother” and “daughter” material, that we cannot be sure that there has not been pollution from external material, or that the rate of decay has changed over time. Without looking closely at the science these criticisms may sound persuading. However do we really think that highly intelligent people who have devoted their lives to the subject would not have thought of these things? In fact not only have they thought of them, but the methods they use test the assumptions of the initial amount of “mother” and “daughter” material, and in some cases are actually able to calculate what those amounts are. The methods used check for pollution from other materials; in many cases they find evidence that the mineral material has been corrupted and they therefore abandon that mineral sample. There is no evidence that the rate of decay can change by any more than a miniscule amount. However if the decay rate has previously been higher than it now is, then how much faster must it be to allow for a date of ~10,000 years? The answer is that if the decay rate was that high then the entire globe of the earth would have been completely obliterated, so high would the temperature be. Several different radiometric methods have been used with different radioactive material. They all reach very similar conclusions (Dalrymple, 1991). The Cretaceous period, and therefore flowering plants, is much older than 65 million years. Actually it is more like 130 or 140 million years. The Bible does not teach things that contradict known facts. The creation by God of flowering plants described in Gen 1 and 2 was over a long period of time. I could have looked at animals but I deliberately focussed on flowering plants in this discussion because it is the area that I am most familiar with; I have been studying this subject at Master’s level in recent years. I can assure you that none of the scientists I have dealt with, including some Christian scientists, have any doubt at all that plants are very ancient. You might as well tell a fisherman that fish are mythical creatures as tell a botanist that plants are only 6,000 years old.

References

Dalrymple, G. B. (1991). The Age of the Earth. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Miller, H. (1874). The Testimony of the Rocks. Edinburgh: William P. Nimmo.

Re: Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)?

Previous Convictions — Wed, 09 May 2012 22:32:28 -0000

How do you know Adam and Eve understood what death was?

Re: Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)?

Tyler Carlisle — Wed, 09 May 2012 12:35:33 -0000

The conclusions are valid given the stance. One doesn't need to say that such a view excludes historical fact if the very idea is that the details of Genesis 1 and 2 aren't accurate.

The idea that death was already present is not clear from Scripture. All that we see mentioned thus far is life and life abundant. Eve did seem to understand what the serpent was telling her, but what death did she understand? You said that sin led to the eternal death, not mere mortality. Do you think this is how she viewed it? Can we then say that Eve experienced eternal death for her action? The Bible doesn't say, but we know physical death occured.

I think the best way to understand this is to look at the dialogue following the transgression. To Eve, God said He would multiply her pain in child-bearing. And to Adam, God said the ground would bring forth thorns, he would eat the plants of the field, he would have to work for his bread, and he would return to dust.

If we assume a more naturalistic explanation of Genesis, then most of these realities would have already been present. Adam would have already eaten plants, he would have already had to sweat for bread, and he would have known he would return to dust.

One point to make though. You appear to acknowledge Adam and Eve were present. This would be hard to reconcile with Brother Downs' view. Since it is not to be taken literally, we couldn't say this ever occured.

In Christ,

Tyler

Re: Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)?

Tyler Carlisle — Wed, 09 May 2012 11:55:54 -0000

I agree with your timeline except where you seem to close the door on certain ideas where the text makes no demand for it. Again, you are saying that there is no problem interpreting this as another chronological account. Between points (d) and (e) you allow no room for interpretation in light of Chapter 1. The two chapters logically support one another and haven't need to be divorced. In point (i) you make a clear assumption that this was the day for creation of these animals, not just their naming. The text does not say this. I can see why it might be read that way. Though, I believe a natural reading would understand the description provided in chapter 1 and wouldn't find warrant for introducing a new concept. Even if you read the verse as "God formed", it does not imply a necessity in rendering this as a same-day occurence.

I have made my reply to the "evidences" in another comment to Brother Burke. I would be willing to discuss the claims in depth. I agree that if something doesn't make sense, we should seek to resolve it. Though I hold that Scripture provides the most reliable means of discernment as Inspired and Inerrant, and able to be trusted in a literal context.

I do appreciate your sincerity, Mr. Downs. I am currently a Religion major and have enjoyed talking to those who have studied years beyond me. I hope my comments never appear as overly aggressive. It is a genuine pursuit of truth with love and respect for those I disagree with. Old earth or young earth, Christ unites us.

In Him,

Tyler

Re: Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)?

Tyler Carlisle — Wed, 09 May 2012 11:28:21 -0000

There are severeal answers to your first question, Jonathan. To me, biblical witness is very important. Jesus attributed the Torah to Moses in John 5:45-47 and Mark 12:26. There are more examples of this, of course. The disciples also had this understanding which I'd be happy to share those passages as well if you requested. In addition, Ecclesiasitcus (an apocryphal book), the Talmud, the Mishnah, Philo, Josephus, and early church fathers also held to Mosaic authorship.

Jonathan, what makes these facts demonstratable? This is a question either you or Russell can answer for me. I anticipate an answer along the lines of a "testing element" such as C-14. If so, I would provide my reasons to say that such a method is demonstratably fallacious. But any case is welcome here.

I also disagree with the statement that an old earth theory was adopted by the mainstream church "centuries" ago. Evidence appears to support an old earth when other theories demand it to. For example. There is no stand-alone evidence for an old-earth. But it is embraced because it is the most plausible explanation of other theories, namely evolution. That is something to keep in mind. We look for the most plausible explanation. Evolution demanded an old-earth in order for it to be rational. Darwin's studies convinced many of his theory's genuine possibility. Consequently, supporting beliefs have also been widely adopted even though they are independently debatable. So, the greatest evidence for an old-earth, for instance, is closely linked with the assumption of evolution. In other words, "ancient fossils" are not "ancient" because our testing methods prove them so. They are ancient because that description makes them fit the greater philosophy.

Since the church as I know it has only began embracing evolution in the Modernist age, I think "centuries" is a stretch. But you're welcome to offer your take.

In Christ

Tyler

Re: Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)?

Russell Downs — Wed, 09 May 2012 10:09:28 -0000

The section starting at Gen 2:5 is a description of a
development of agriculture and responsible use of God’s garden. The passage describes
a sequence:

(a) There was no shrub or plant of the field; no
agricultural plant had sprouted.

(b) God did cause it to rain yet.

(d) Mists (or springs), depending on the translation,
watered the (farm)land

(e) God formed man (the farmer) from the earth.

(f) God planted an orchard (agricultural focus
again) and placed the farmer.

(g) There is a strong focus on the farmer’s role in
stewardship of the land (v15).

(h) God’s intention is stated (v18) of giving the
farmer a special companion.

(i) God created farm animals and birds.

(j) And brought them to the farmer to name them.

(k) However God’s intention of creating a helper to
really allow humans to take control was not yet fulfilled, so God formed a
woman out of the man.

To translate Gen 2:7 as “The LORD God had formed the man…”
is technically possible but is not following the natural sequence. Simpler and
better is “The LORD God formed…”.

Similarly Gen 2:19 technically can be translated as “The
LORD God had formed … every living animal of the field and every bird…”. But
simpler, and following the sequence of the passage a better translation is “The
LORD God had formed … every living animal of the field and every bird …”.

There seems to be no intention in this passage of synchronising
with the other, also non-literal account of Gen 1. Rather God is telling a
slightly different story. To force a literal meaning does violence to the flow
of the passage.

What I have done here tonight (I am in Australia so it is
almost midnight as I type this sentence) is to just read and understand the
passage, obviously based on things I have read and ideas I have absorbed. But I
am making a genuine attempt to actually read what God is saying; not to try to
support a particular point of view.

I might have another closer look at your comments, Tyler,
tomorrow evening. I will note however that although this site is primarily a
Bible site, nevertheless the Bible has to make sense; any interpretation that
contradicts known facts cannot be correct. You have lightly dismissed the
scientific evidence. You refer to what I have listed as “speculations”. Nothing
could be further from the truth. The evidence for dating that is very much
older than 6000 years is very solid. Perhaps I could give an overview of the
evidence another day. A Christian does not need scientific knowledge to
understand the gospel. However if he or she bases faith on something that is demonstrably
false then shipwreck will result. I could say much more, but I’ll leave it for
another day.

Re: What should you do when you love someone else’s spouse?

TruMan — Wed, 09 May 2012 04:46:15 -0000

When i was a kid like 6-7 years old i ask God with all of my heart put in my way the right person and i ask him to show me who that person would that i would love the most in my life be i try to see it but then i taught God also speaks in symbols some how the name came to me the first n middle name and the father last name and the mother i and knew where i would meet her and how and throw and i what country she was from and what state she would come from but i felt a pain in my hearth and i ask God and words come to my mouth that she would like my older cousin and would have a child together i even knew the name of the child. fowards in time like 10 years later i was at my cousin's house with his mom my mom and his younger brother whom i hang with a car pull up in front of the house and my heart jump and i told my cousin the younger
the love of my life is here she came with my female cousin to visit we never seen the girl before but some how i knew stuff about her crazy thing happen that i did not know how to tell her i loved her i mean we just met but some how i did not remember that God told me that she was going to be with my cousin so before i told her i heard two people speaking to me telling me do not tell her that but still i told as was telling how i felt i could see it in her eyes that she did not like me as a man maybe not her type but still i keep trying u know if this is the girl am going to love the most in my life even if i saw the future of her marring my cousin i still would try mjy heart hearted so much that i had to walk away as i was doing it i could not help it to cry i walk into my younger cousin's room and i started to scream like i was getting tortured. so like 8 years pass by and she is with my cousin they have a 4 year old baby and one on the way but i still feel the same way for her i dont want her to leave my cousin to get with me not anymore but there love is still there i wnat to stop loving her but at the same time i don't i lost the love i had for other people they treated me like crap and know they want to be christian and tell me u must love ur family i mean is gone i don't even want to get marry anymore u know if it hurted so deeply to love a girl that i never meet before and still does i know that God say's in his words not
to want what belong to someone else but i wanted her i loved her before he ever did vefore there where together ? Would God send me to hell for loving someone when they are with somebody else even if i loved that person vefore they meet. Love is Great but why does it hurt so much i find life on earth meaningless i just want jesus to came for his church i dont like the world but am stuck in it i just wanted one person to be with i mean if u put me with a woman that i loved and she loved me in returned by ourself in any place i would be happy but i no logger want that this i just want this life to be over and start the next one in heaven. u know i one point veofere i read the bile i said to my self is ok if he has her in this life i mean marriage is until death so ill just show her how much i love her in heaven there we will be together forever but naaaaaaaaa
no one will be getting married in heaven so nooo i dont want to get married to have sex i just want to be there with the girl that i love and hold hand together n tell each other i love u walk in paradise together thats what i really wanted from God after his love and mercy that why i dont even work i mean for what to find myself in a nice home all alone and old for that i bee a homeless the only reason i likke to fix my self and have nice thing a nice house with beautifull garden is for my girl if she not there was the point. is like what is heaven without God that what being in this world without the girl love is

Re: Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)?

Jonathan Burke — Wed, 09 May 2012 03:32:14 -0000

Where is the evidence that Moses wrote Genesis? Russell did not list speculations, he stated demonstrable facts.

"Those points can only be said to support an old earth theory if we adopt
an old-earth perspective. That's the presupposition, not the
conclusion. We must presume the earth was created millions of years ago
in order to accept that those findings endorse it. Note: these claims do
not verify an old earth."

This simply isn't true; the points Russell raised actually prove that the earth is very old. Multiple independent lines of evidence demonstrate this; it was accepted by mainstream Christianity centuries ago.

Re: Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)?

Jonathan Burke — Wed, 09 May 2012 03:27:19 -0000

Russell did not say that the creation account is a story to teach spiritual truths to the exclusion of historical facts. The conclusions you attributed to him are not his.

Mortality was the result of sin for Adam and Eve, and any who were born after them. That death already existed is clear from the fact that the environment created by God could not have operated without death, and the fact that Adam and Eve already understood what death was.

Re: Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)?

Tyler Carlisle — Tue, 08 May 2012 21:33:00 -0000

From Russell's point of view, the creation account is a story to teach spiritual truths. While I agree spiritual truths are present, there is also a story of God's creative process which he denies as factual. Therefore,
1. It is not historically accurate.
2. God cannot be said to have spoke those words.
3. God cannot be said to have married them.
4. We cannot say there was an actual speaking serpent; therefore, no prophecy.
5. If the creation account is a myth, it is not true.
6. Since it is not true, it has no authority to discern truth.

You're right Jonathan, Scripture is clear that death is the result of mortality. But mortality is the result of sin. Gen 3:3.

In Christ,

Tyler

Re: Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)?

Tyler Carlisle — Tue, 08 May 2012 20:48:41 -0000

Mr. Downs, thank you for replying.
These "tensions" do not appear to be inherent in the text from my perspective. Again, it seems to me that you are reading it as a separate account and not one that presupposes the first.

(1) Your first "tension" is between Genesis 2:5 and 1:12-13. The problem with that is that 2:5 does not say that there was no shrubs by the time of Adam. It says that there was no shrub because God "had not caused it to rain on the land" and there was no man to work the ground. Verse 6 can be read two ways. Either the mist was part of the "problem" or it was the "solution". If it's part of the problem, then we're saying God needed rain, not mist, to water the earth. But if the mist is the solution in the place of rain, then it occured before verse 7, when God creates Adam. I like to entertain the Water-Canopy theory to explain this "mist" and lack of rain. But, regardless, there is no contradiction.

(2) Next, since the Bible cannot be said to contradict in the last point, I see not problem in reading about the orchard.

(3) 2:19 does not say the animals were created after Adam. It says the Lord brought to Adam what He "had formed". This was the day of their naming, not their creation.

(4) Since this is based on the former I don't count it as separate.

(5) Gold was described as pure. Remember who was writing this. From Moses' persepective, he could describe it as pure. Adam never said he felt that way.

(6) Because the snake could speak and reason, it was not really a snake. Should we also say, "Because a dead person cannot live again, Jesus never rose and there is no atonement." Of course not. But Jesus is different, right? He was God incarnate. Yet the snake was Satan incarnate. Just because miracles aren't always seen as the probable explanation, it doesn't mean they don't occur.

If by a natural reading you mean a loose, look-over type of reading then you're absolutely right. But God's Word wasn't meant to be skimmed through. You said objections would be "forced" into the reading. I don't see how any of the above were forced. I read the same passages you did.

Next you correctly say I didn't address the "scientific evidence". You did not list evidences, you listed speculations. Let me explain. Those points can only be said to support an old earth theory if we adopt an old-earth perspective. That's the presupposition, not the conclusion. We must presume the earth was created millions of years ago in order to accept that those findings endorse it. Note: these claims do not verify an old earth.

Lastly, you're right. Non-literal stories can be a wonderful means of communicating spiritual truths. But consider Christ's audience. These people knew He was telling parables and they knew (to some degree) His purpose for doing so. Daniel acknowledged his visions were visions. They represented what was to come and his audience understood that. But Moses had no disclaimer on this story. In fact, consider what he penned in Duet. 13:1-5 and 18:20-22. Israel was given criteria for distinquishing God's message and messenger from false prophecies and prophets. Would he consider himself exempt since his prophecies were not 100% true? And if he was not 100% truthful, what does that say about God's character (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18)?

I don't see any way to resolve your stance biblically, Brother Downs. And as the site itself states: it serves to provide biblical answers.

In Christ,

Tyler

Re: Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)?

Jonathan Burke — Tue, 08 May 2012 03:34:31 -0000

* 'Since it contains no historical truth'
* 'if God never spoke those words?'
* 'if God never married them?'
* 'Which according to your view, never happened'
* 'One is God's book, the Bible. If we assume that this is a myth-laden and erring product'
* 'We have seen that you say the first has no authority to discern the second'

Russell didn't say any of those things. Scripture is clear on the fact that death comes as a natural result of mortality, and that eternal death comes as the punishment of sin. This does not contradict in any way what Russell wrote.

Re: Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)?

Russell Downs — Mon, 07 May 2012 23:36:47 -0000

I understand your perspective, Tyler, since I once shared many of the opinions you have expressed. I will say three things:
(1) You have not really addressed the issues I raised as to why a literal reading is not the natural reading. I agree that the passage can be viewed as a zooming in on day 6; but in that case it is very difficult to maintain both Gen 1 and Gen 2 because of the tensions between the two records if viewed literally. Those tensions evaporate when seen as non-literal. Gen 2 (and Gen 1 for that matter) are in deliberate contrast to the obscene pagan views of the time on the creation.
(2) You have not addressed the overwhelming scientific evidence that I have briefly alluded to. This cannot lightly be dismissed.
(3) A non-literal account can be used to teach spiritual lessons. For example Jesus's parables. Or even Daniel's prophecies that teach of the subjugation of human pride to God.

Re: Why did David pick up five stones when he faced Goliath (1Sam. 17:40)?

reeder — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:33:27 -0000

I would offer, based upon the text, that David had no
knowledge of Goliath or his brothers. The scripture clearly states
David's declarative question, "Who" is this uncircumcised Philistine?

Nothing in the text would substantiate David's awareness of Goliath's linage at
this stage in David's life. Nothing in the
text indicates that David did any study of Goliath, but rather went to the
stream, placed 5 smooth stones in his Shepard’s pouch and went prepared to
be used as God's instrument in the death of this person casting insults at Israel; the
army of The Living God!

A similar event happened with the 5 wise virgins and the 5 foolish virgins in a New Testament story. One group came prepared and the other came 1/2 prepared. In the end this last group was completely UN-prepared, or not prepared at all. David teaches us what preparedness looks like in his battle with this uncircumcised Philistine.

The indication, without a lot of mental gymnastics, is that David knew the battle belonged to his God; went prepared to do battle with others as well as Goliath. There is absolutely no indication from the text that David was fearful of missing God's mark, i.e. Goliath's forehead. David's statements of war were born of belief -->faith, Goliath's statements of war were borne of arrogance, his incentives coming from his own incredible strength and size.

God loves to "stack the deck" so incredibly high against the odds that we come away understanding only God's hand could saved the day. Which is exactly what David was verbalizing and demonstrating; which is exactly what David expressed from his own "history" with more than one bear and more than one lion. David trusted / believed / obeyed The Living God of Israel - YAWH

David's ONLY concern was to PROVE today, “The Living God in Israel” is present in this battle and WILL carry the day!
David is putting God's Name on the Line. First with his brothers and
those standing by, 2nd with Saul,
3rd with Goliath, 4th with Israel,
and 5th with the Philistine army.

YHWY intends David to prove that He is in Israel's camp.

There appears to be no doubt in David's mind that God would have success in
removing this scourge form the battle, through the use of David's skill and courage. As the text indicates David is
running toward Goliath as he places his stone in the sling and throws his
projectile toward the target.

One does not run while using a sling unless he has complete confidence in his
capacity and complete confidence in his God, who will this day give Goliath's
head into David's hand.

It is interesting to note that Goliath falls forward rather than backward. Not dissimilar to the wall of Jericho, which fell outwards. Thus providing David with the opportunity to remove Goliath's sword from its sheath which was most likely worn on his back. This gives David full advantage of striking Goliath at the back of his neck completely severing his head from his body. Another requiter that The Living God who is with Israel is supernaturally intending this event.

One is made to wonder where the shield bearer who was standing in front of Goliath disappeared to??? One would think, "here is a young man with nothing but his sling surly I can use my own sword and defeat him. Interesting, that.

It seems plausible that the number 5 may have some spiritual significance and I
like your critical thinking. More study would need to be done on my part
to have a discernible understanding.
Thus I’m not in a position to respond intelligently about your thought
provoking statements.

Respectfully

Re: Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)?

Tyler Carlisle — Mon, 07 May 2012 12:57:33 -0000

The two accounts in Genesis are in all actuality one account, with the illusion of division. The only way we can interpret it is to acknowledge that the "second" presupposes the "first", and therefore was never written to serve as a second day-by-day description. Genesis 1 focuses on the big picture; the wonderous. Chapter two narrows down to a man-sized scope. The order is different because the perspective/focus is different. I believe this would sufficiently answer the question. And I believe a "natural reading" would encourage this view.

Now, let's look at the meaning as you see it, Mr. Downs. Since it contains no historical truth, you shaved it down to:
"It contains spiritual principles :

(1) The responsibility of humankind to care for the world.

[Where does that responsibility come from, then, if God never spoke those words? Gen 1:28]

(2) The importance of marriage.

[What makes it important if God never married them?]

(3) The relative positions of men and women. This may not suit modern ideas; but it is nevertheless an explanation.

[I agree with that much.]

(4) Human sin leads to the sentence of death.

[There is no way to assume this given your stance. Since life existed long before man and there was death, man's sin could not be the cause for the sentence in a broad scope. And since man is the product of evolution, which involved death, sin cannot be the cause of death in a narrow scope. The question then, is when did God establish Himself as a Ruler and Judge? The Bible says at creation. But you say there really is no sure point in time when this occured (Moses' testimony is faulty, afterall). So that leaves Moses with the burden. Through him came both the law AND sin. Contrary to both Old and New Testaments]

(5) An implied prediction of the coming of Jesus Christ (Gen 3:15)."

[Which according to your view, never happened.]

So I assume you listed those points simply as meaning that could be taken from them, not as meaning you yourself hold to.

God has left us two books. I agree. One is God's book, the Bible. If we assume that this is a myth-laden and erring product, it cannot be here because of God. If it has no authority on natural issues then what authority can it be said to have?

The other book is God's Work. We have seen that you say the first has no authority to discern the second. What is left other than "science" and a troubled faith without a cause?

The only possible Christian view must be that God gave us the Bible in order to discern His work. That would mean holding that it is truthful and factual, no matter what the "world" claims is contrary. I find it easier to debate the so-called "evidences" you state from naturalism than debate what the Bible records. I would encourage you to analyze the conservative arguments that use the Bible as the basis for interpreting the evidences in order to not only pursue truth, but a stronger faith and relationship with the Lord.

In Christ.

Re: Is it okay for Christians to eat pork and shellfish?

Jonathan Morgan — Mon, 07 May 2012 06:59:26 -0000

Hi Stephanie,

I would argue that, while many of the 10 commandments do apply today, the reason why they apply is because Jesus commanded them, not because they were in the law. The same applies to the other parts of the law. It's not a slippery slope to sin, but a recognition that we are under the law of Christ rather than the law of Moses. I suggest you consider Hebrews 7:12.

Re: Is it okay for Christians to eat pork and shellfish?

Stephanie — Sun, 06 May 2012 22:02:08 -0000

I am torn on this issue. I know the Law was fulfilled through the work of Christ, but just because it is fulfilled doesn't give us the right to do whatever we wish. It's not okay to break the 10 commandments just because the Law is fulfilled. My struggle is that if there was a Law established concerning unclean foods, then I think God takes it seriously. If the Law no longer applies to clean or unclean, then people will say well what's the difference with any sins since the Law has been fulfilled, thus allowing them to deliberately sin and mock God's grace. I truly don't know if Christians should eat pork, shellfish, et..Yes the Law was fulfilled, but how is some of the Law null while others aren't. This can lead to a slippery slope to sin.

Re: Is it okay for Christians to eat pork and shellfish?

Jonathan Morgan — Sun, 06 May 2012 11:21:47 -0000

I don't think it applies solely to the Catholic Church. However, even if it did, just consider whether the reasoning Paul uses to establish his case. He is saying that the things created by God are good things, and so if we are thankful to God for them then we really shouldn't reject them. He suggests it becomes holy because it has been prayed for. I think that reasoning applies to all foods, not just those rejected by the Catholic Church.

Re: Who is the Lord in Genesis 18:1?

Jonathan Morgan — Sun, 06 May 2012 09:27:56 -0000

Do you have a citation for that?

Re: Who is the Lord in Genesis 18:1?

FC_USA — Sun, 06 May 2012 01:14:40 -0000

Jesus was with God from the beginning. So he WAS in existance, he just came down to earth 2000 years ago...

Re: Why wasn’t the lying prophet killed? (1 Kings 13)

Mike Dunne — Sat, 05 May 2012 08:23:57 -0000

Julia,

I think the answer to the question is, 'We don't know,' which you rightly pointed out. Although your related questions are interesting, I'm not sure it would help someone seeking answers. While we all question the whys and wherefores that we come across in Scripture, sometimes the simple answer, 'We don't know,' is sufficient.

The other day I listened to a Muslim giving his testimony - he spoke of why he decided to follow Islam and the main answer he gave was a scathing indictment (in my opinion) of Christians:

He said, "When I asked hard questions of Muslims, they would open the Qu'ran and show me the answer. When I asked Christians, they would give me their opinion."

Then he went on to say that the opinions of Christians - of different denominations but sometimes within the same denomination - were all different.

In other words, there was no consistency to the message, but more importantly you can surmise the he believed Christians were depending on their own insight and/or their own personal interpretation of the Bible to answer the man's questions - instead of just opening up the book and showing him (I'm thinking of Philip in Acts 8). Philip didn't share his opinions about Christ and the Gospel of salvation, he took the Scripture the Eunuch was reading (Isaiah) and helped the man understand how the Prophet's message was fulfilled in Jesus.

There are many things that God has simply chosen not to reveal to us. While this is frustrating, perhaps Christians need to re-think our desire to extrapolate sometimes.

Have a great day,

Re: Is it okay for Christians to eat pork and shellfish?

askme — Thu, 03 May 2012 12:39:01 -0000

I have to comment on your use of 1 Timothy 4:1 as it pertains to diet. I believe you have taken it out of context. If you read that entire chapter it is clear that diet is not the main point. If fact Paul is talking about the Roman Catholic Church. In the end times 'some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils: ...Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created'. This refers to the Catholic doctrine of forbidding priests and nuns to marry and the abstaining of meat on Fridays. The whole chapter is unrelated to dietary laws.