Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hi Cheow,

    I think you missed the point about the ant. We are not asking of God could resurrect the ant. We are asking if the ant would die or not. The point is that many Christians believe there was no death before Adam sinned. Do you think there was death before Adam sinned?

    Another problem with the idea that there was no death before Adam sinned is that the world would have been three feet deep in insects if they never died.

    All the best,

    Richard
    Thanks for the clarification RAM, I do not believe that humans and animals before the fall lived forever. This is based on the the following deductions.

    1.Evidence from archeology which dated millions of years proved that animals do not lived eternally or for a very long time.
    2. Why put the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden for people to ate its fruit and live forever if people and animals were already living eternal life?
    3. Eternal life is warranted for humans due to human's intelligence and technological abilities but not for animals. Animals for eternal life...what for?
    4. Man was made in God's image; animals were not made in God's image and as such Man should inherit eternal life just like God and not animals.
    5. God did not test the animals but humans (Adam and Eve) to eat the forbidden fruit. The test would determine if humans could live forever or not. If God have tested the animals then all or most animals that we see on earth would have lived forever since they did not partake the Forbidden fruit.

    God Blessings, Peace and Grace for all.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,882
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    Thanks for the clarification RAM, I do not believe that humans and animals before the fall lived forever. This is based on the the following deductions.

    1.Evidence from archeology which dated millions of years proved that animals do not lived eternally or for a very long time.
    2. Why put the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden for people to ate its fruit and live forever if people and animals were already living eternal life?
    3. Eternal life is warranted for humans due to human's intelligence and technological abilities but not for animals. Animals for eternal life...what for?
    4. Man was made in God's image; animals were not made in God's image and as such Man should inherit eternal life just like God and not animals.
    5. God did not test the animals but humans (Adam and Eve) to eat the forbidden fruit. The test would determine if humans could live forever or not. If God have tested the animals then all or most animals that we see on earth would have lived forever since they did not partake the Forbidden fruit.

    God Blessings, Peace and Grace for all.
    Point #1 - I agree completely. We have incontrovertible evidence that animals have been living and dying for millions of years.

    Point #2 - what would have stopped the animals from eating the fruit of the Tree of Life? God didn't stop Adam and Eve, and there is no indication that he stopped the animals.

    Point #3: Why not?

    Point #4: If we start using our own reasoning about what should and should not be, why not reject the Bible story?.

    Point #5: ???
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    I wish I could make you see how ironic it is for you to call science "unproven theories" even as you appeal to the Bible as absolute fact.
    Here are more quotes: http://longevity.about.com/od/resear...programmed.htm

    "There is really no reason that the human body should "wear out" as long as it can repair and renew itself. Something other than time must be at play to cause the inevitable effects of aging. The programmed theory of aging believes that aging and death are necessary parts of evolution, not of biology."

    Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...luding-remarks

    "What medical science can tell us is that because aging and death are not programmed into our genes..."

    "Although genes certainly influence longevity determination, the processes of aging are not genetically programmed."

    Theories on the aging process: http://www.senescence.info/aging_theories.html

    "Over the years, many theories have emerged to explain what process or mechanism drives aging... That is why, at present, no consensus exists over what causes aging,"

    "Aging is a largely mysterious process."

    "Unfortunately, the inevitable conclusion of this section is that the jury is still out regarding mechanisms of aging."

    Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...r-live-forever

    "Yet aging presents an apparent paradox for evolutionary theory."

    "How does it happen that, after having accomplished the miraculous success that led us from a single cell at conception through birth and then to sexual maturity and productive adulthood...the developmental program formed by biological evolution fails even to maintain the accomplishments of its own work?"

    "Unfortunately, the programmed theory of death—that death has a competitive advantage for a species if not an individual—does not seem to have empirical support."

    "For science, aging is actually a new phenomenon that is—so to speak—in its infancy."

    Clinical Correlations: http://www.clinicalcorrelations.org/?p=2254

    "So why do we senesce and die? Proximate answers about mechanisms are emerging but remain controversial."

    Physio-Pedia: http://www.physio-pedia.com/Theories_of_Aging

    "The mechanism of the actual ageing process remains elusive."

    The point of these quotations is to point out that the reason we age and die, as explained by science is a THEORY, not scientific FACT. Death is an appointed sentence as understood by those with faith in the Bible. Biological or evolutionary programming for death is a Theory in which you must place your faith. Either the curse has altered the immorality of man or evolution. Either way, it's a matter of faith.

    I have no quarrel with you Richard over this topic, I just feel it is important to understand that this coin also has two sides. There is something at work here that science has not fully answered.

    May God's Grace and Favor be upon you Richard!

    John

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,882
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    The point of these quotations is to point out that the reason we age and die, as explained by science is a THEORY, not scientific FACT. Death is an appointed sentence as understood by those with faith in the Bible. Biological or evolutionary programming for death is a Theory in which you must place your faith. Either the curse has altered the immorality of man or evolution. Either way, it's a matter of faith.

    I have no quarrel with you Richard over this topic, I just feel it is important to understand that this coin also has two sides. There is something at work here that science has not fully answered.
    Hi John,

    Yes, the science explaining the precise mechanisms and reasons for aging is still in its infancy. This isn't surprising since we've only known about DNA for a little over 50 years. But aging is only one aspect of the question. We have a lot of solid scientific answers for the primary question of why organisms die. Disease, famine, predation, accident, etc. It is this that contradicts the Biblical account that all death is due to God's curse. That's why I asked about Adam squishing an ant.

    I think it is important to clarify the meaning of the word "theory" in science. It does not mean "unsupported hypothesis." In science, the word "theory" denotes an integrated body of knowledge supported by evidence that explains and predicts FACTS. For example, the "Theory of Gravity" explains the FACT of gravity and makes predictions that enable us to send a rocket to the moon. If the theory did not correspond to observable reality, it would be abandoned.

    This is why it is wrong to suggest that there is some sort of equivalence between faith in the Bible and "faith" in scientific theories. Scientific theories are based on facts that can be tested. If they fail the test, they are rejected. Your faith in the Bible is not like that at all. There is no fact that would cause you to reject it. And worse, there is no way to verify most of the things you believe it says. Your beliefs are based on your own fallible interpretation of words written thousands of years ago in languages that you don't understand and you have no way to objectively verify that your interpretation is correct. Case in point, Christians have strongly differed on the meaning of death and whether it existed before Adam sinned. There are four primary views:

    1) There was no death of any kind (including plants).
    2) There was no death of animals (including humans)
    3) There was no death of humans (though plants and animals died)
    4) The "death" that came from the curse was "spiritual" death, not physical.

    Each of these four interpretations have Christian advocates who passionately believe they have the true interpretation. There is no way to objectively verify which is correct because there are no experiments that could settle the issue. There is nothing but speculation and wrangling over words. This is why the Bible remains an obscure book that people can argue about "till kingdom come." The argument has continued for 2000 years because there is no test to discern between the true and the false. It is utterly fallacious to compare it in any way with the scientific method and scientific theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    May God's Grace and Favor be upon you Richard!

    John
    Thank you for your kind words. It is a joy to be exploring these issues with you.

    All the very best to you and yours,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    To allow Man in his evil state to live forever is tantamount to allowing evil to continue to grow forever. It's like allowing mosquitoes to live forever and spreading the diseases that they carry forever; reducing the lifespan of mosquitoes will reduce the possible harm and rate that these insects may spread their diseases. It's like cutting weeds or grass regularly so that they cannot overgrow in your garden. Only when Man become righteous, will God allow Man to live forever:

    May God allow us to live forever in His Kingdom.
    Hello Cheow

    Glad you joined in! I had thought some time ago wondering what the world would be like today if man was immortal in his fallen state. Think just for a moment about the accumulation of wealth. Everything in the world would be under the control of a handful of men and the majority would be subject to the old adage, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Even in these short lifespans we see an inequitable distribution of resources. Add to that the standing room only population impact on the land and you quickly find that such circumstances would have required the human race to colonize the universe.

    I once created a spreadsheet calculating population growth from Adam to the flood (less than 2,000 years based on Biblical chronology). I can't remember all the details but I think the exponential population result quickly became overwhelming (in the 5-10 billion range). Imagine the bloodshed during that time when the imagination of mens hearts were evil continually!

    All of these issues had to have been in God's calculated plan from the foundation of the world and all the adjustments He has made in order to guide the human race along its course over the last 4,000 years. I can understand why He needed to bind Himself to a people group to nurture and shield from the surrounding evil influences in order to maintain some level of control until the time of Christ.

    I find all of these scenarios very intriguing.

    God Bless you Cheow and hold fast to your precious Faith in Christ!

    John

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,882
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    ... the old adage, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
    A syllogism based on that as the Major Premise occurred to me the other day:

    Major Premise: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Minor Premise: God has absolute power.

    Conclusion: ???
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard and all

    First of all to answer Richard's question to me about Adam stepping on an ant. First of all, my answers are my own reasoning and not answers that have been given to us by God through His revealed word.

    To my mind there is nothing to say plants and animals did not die a natural death before the fall of Adam. Adam's sin had not connection to the animals and plants.

    The Genesis story of Adam and Eve is not an elaborate story and if anything the story is economical with words. The fruit of the Tree of Life probably had no eternal life-giving properties and had Adam eaten of that tree instead of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, God would have continued to keep Adam alive. We can simply liken this to the brass serpent which the people in the wilderness (after the exodus from Egypt) had to look at if they were bitten by a snake. They died if they did not believe sufficiently to go and look at the serpent. It was not any property of the brass serpent that saved them. However, since the Tree of Life was introduced in the story, it follows on that God could not let Adam have access to that tree as the scripture explains. Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.



    Can the life of a plant be compared with the life of a human? The same can be asked about insects such as the ant? We have to then define what we mean by life. God's design includes recycling and we have to take in to account the food chain.

    Consider the growth of a fruit tree. As the tree grows, leaves fall off and a branch grows from where the leaf was. Has the leaf died or was that an intended part of the growing process? As trees grow, the roots draw up minerals from deep below the surface and the leaves then fall down to the surface where the minerals are deposited on the surface on which other plants feed as the nutrients from the leaves go back into the soil. Does a caterpillar die when through metamorphosis it becomes a butterfly?

    Adam was told he could eat of all the fruit of the trees except from that one tree. Does an apple die when it is picked and eaten or when it falls from the tree? I consider the process to be just a recycling process and necessary as part of the food chain supporting life which has to reproduce to replace those plants, insects and animals that die. So, if by time and chance, Adam stepped on an ant, that and would have been crushed and it would have been recycled earlier than if it had lasted its predetermined life span.

    Birds eat worms and insects. Fish eat plankton and large fish eat smaller fish, this is all part of God's plan for plants and animals to reproduce and recycle. Do plants and animals appreciate what is happening? Do plants and animals understand the concept of beauty or is it only humans that can appreciate beauty in the same way that God meant after He had created things and then described them as very good?

    Whereas some animals are carnivorous this could change in the kingdom to come. An indication of this is given in Isaiah 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

    God is offering humans eternal life. This has not been offered to anything else as far as I can tell. Therefore, death or recycling is intended by God in this present creation and there is nothing to say this will not continue in the kingdom for plants and animals and insects etc. For eternity, those given eternal life can appreciate the beauty of plants and animals continuing the recycling process in the age to come. If this was not the case, then God could make a world full of plastic flowers that would not die and would always look the same, but then what plastic exposed to the sun will last for eternity? As it is, the way God has designed things, we humans can appreciate the continually changing scenery as the seasons come and go. Just as God cause the shoes not to wear out in the wilderness journey of the Israelites, this demonstrated God's continual restoration. God has declared that He will make all things new. If God has said He will give faithful men and women eternal life we simply have to accept that fact and do not have to ask God how can He do this. If the sun has a limited life (all be it billions of years), God will have to continually restore the sun so that it can never cease. This is the sustaining power of God at work that will continue throughout eternity. Hence the aging of God's Creation is of no worry to God, for He has everything under control and will restore things for as long as necessary, even unto eternity.

    All the best,

    David

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    A syllogism based on that as the Major Premise occurred to me the other day:

    Major Premise: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Minor Premise: God has absolute power.

    Conclusion: ???
    Hello Richard

    I can see what your ???? are leading to, but we are talking about power corrupting people. God is not in the same class as people. Therefore, the phrase has no meaning in the context of God.
    Man's power is not the same as God's power, so no conclusion can be drawn, because a like comparison is not being made.

    All the best,

    David

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard and all

    The Genesis story of Adam and Eve is not an elaborate story and if anything the story is economical with words.... God has declared that He will make all things new. If God has said He will give faithful men and women eternal life we simply have to accept that fact and do not have to ask God how can He do this. If the sun has a limited life (all be it billions of years), God will have to continually restore the sun so that it can never cease. This is the sustaining power of God at work that will continue throughout eternity. Hence the aging of God's Creation is of no worry to God, for He has everything under control and will restore things for as long as necessary, even unto eternity.

    All the best,

    David
    Well stated David. And just to link another thought, Scripture states there will be no need for the sun as He shall be its Light.

    Blessings to you!

    John

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    A syllogism based on that as the Major Premise occurred to me the other day:

    Major Premise: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Minor Premise: God has absolute power.

    Conclusion: ???
    Premise not applicable to God as the phrase was contrived by corrupt men in characterization of corrupt men. The Bible defines the human race as corrupted whether powerful or powerless. It's just that the former enables man to accomplish greater ill. Not to imply that history is wanton of corrupt rulers governing with fairness, they are just few and far between.

    As usual Richard my friend, thanks for keeping all of us on our toes.

    John

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •