Evolution compatible with the biblical account? - DFWstangs Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-26-2008, 11:28 AM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Evolution compatible with the biblical account?

This question is aimed to the Christians, no need for the others to post in it.

I am noticing a lot of Christians here holding to evolution and an old earth. According to the passages below, death was the result of Adam's sin, and so prior to Adam's sin there would be no death among any man or animals. (Notice that in Genesis 1:29-30 the humans and animals were only to eat plants)

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death


So do the Christian evolutionists simply believe that in those 'millions' of years that it took those creatures to evolve from the toxic soup of the bang, that there was no death despite the clear text of Scripture that states death came through Adam?

And despite the fact that the Scriptures say that God formed "out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air"(Genesis 2:19)?

Is Adam a result of millions of years of evolution as the scientists say or was he formed in God's image as Genesis 1:26 says?

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.


Why would God tell them to be fruitful and increase in number if they had apparently already been fruitful and increasing in number for the past millions of years of evolution?

Did Paul or any of the other New Testament writers take the Genesis account literally?

1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

1 Timothy 2:13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Last edited by Phillystang; 01-26-2008 at 11:45 AM.
Phillystang is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-26-2008, 11:32 AM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Many of the positions that believe in both Christianity and evolution have to take the OT in stride. Understand it as a book of stories with lessons and not a historical textbook and you can still take it as truth alongside evolution.

Atleast, that's one way to look at it.
exlude is offline  
post #3 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-26-2008, 11:35 AM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
Many of the positions that believe in both Christianity and evolution have to take the OT in stride. Understand it as a book of stories with lessons and not a historical textbook and you can still take it as truth alongside evolution.

Atleast, that's one way to look at it.
"This question is aimed to the Christians, no need for the others to post in it."
Phillystang is offline  
 
post #4 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-26-2008, 11:50 AM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Well, I'm probably a better versed evolutionist than most (if not all) on this board and was once a Christian and am fairly versed in theology after years of courses. Don't see why you would wish to squelch my input.



Nevermind, I do.
exlude is offline  
post #5 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-26-2008, 01:04 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
Well, I'm probably a better versed evolutionist than most (if not all) on this board and was once a Christian and am fairly versed in theology after years of courses. Don't see why you would wish to squelch my input.



Nevermind, I do.
My reasoning was that someone who holds the bible to be false can easily rationalize the whole thing away as you did the first post.

"Understand it as a book of stories with lessons and not a historical textbook and you can still take it as truth alongside evolution."

If there is truth and it is God's Word, as a Christian would hold, then my question to the Christians is why do they reject what God has said in regards to creation in favor of what scientists are now saying?

If God really wasn't accurate with the creation account, then how can they believe that what is written in regards to the redemptive work of Christ is accurate?

Last edited by Phillystang; 01-26-2008 at 01:10 PM.
Phillystang is offline  
post #6 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-26-2008, 01:11 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
My point wasn't that the Bible has to be false, you just have to change your concept of truth a little.
exlude is offline  
post #7 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-27-2008, 03:30 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—
The quote says that death came to all men. Only men have souls. Could you be reading into this quote? The other quotes are the same. Plants as well as animals are alive but have no eternal souls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
And despite the fact that the Scriptures say that God formed "out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air"(Genesis 2:19)?
Scripture does not describe in detail how God did this. I am associated with an orchard. I can assure you that my food and therefore my body are formed out of the ground. I am told on Ash Wednesday that I come from dust and to dust my body will return (before the resurrection).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
Is Adam a result of millions of years of evolution as the scientists say or was he formed in God's image as Genesis 1:26 says?
Adam is the first human male, but this does not exclude humanoid creatures with no soul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
Why would God tell them to be fruitful and increase in number if they had apparently already been fruitful and increasing in number for the past millions of years of evolution?
The same command had already been given to non-human creatures in the previous verses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
Did Paul or any of the other New Testament writers take the Genesis account literally?
Paul does not speak of science or what walked the Earth in the days before Adam. We know creatures were created before Adam and that Adam was the first man. We do not have spelled out what else walked the Earth.

God does not even fix time until the 4th day. The first 3 days are of unknown length.

What do the people who lived closer to Paul’s time believe? These people did not have modern science to “pollute” there thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Origen
For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambrose
Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent. . . . The nights in this reckoning are considered to be component parts of the days that are counted. Therefore, just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day. There are many who call even a week one day, because it returns to itself, just as one day does, and one might say seven times revolves back on itself. Hence, Scripture appeals at times of an age of the world (Hexaemeron [A.D. 393]).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine
At least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar (ibid., 5:2).

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #8 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-27-2008, 03:35 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
When taking the Bible literally, do you take John 6:53-55 literally? We know that the Jews and disciples did.

For a moment lets assume that all of scripture is 100% literal. Than the Earth was created in 6 days and you must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus.

If we assume the Bible is symbolic, the Earth was not made in 6 days and we do not have to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ.

Where do you stand?

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #9 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-27-2008, 04:26 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
When taking the Bible literally, do you take John 6:53-55 literally? We know that the Jews and disciples did.

For a moment lets assume that all of scripture is 100% literal. Than the Earth was created in 6 days and you must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus.

If we assume the Bible is symbolic, the Earth was not made in 6 days and we do not have to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ.

Where do you stand?
Literal where it is clearly literal and symbolic where it is clearly symbolic.
Phillystang is offline  
post #10 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-27-2008, 04:38 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
Literal where it is clearly literal and symbolic where it is clearly symbolic.
But that's a matter of opinion. To you, Genesis is clearly literal. To me, it is clearly symbolic.
exlude is offline  
post #11 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-27-2008, 08:08 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
I follow. Symbols might have modifier words like…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus
The Kingdom Of Heaven is like leaven….
The Kingdom Of Heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field….
The Kingdom Of Heaven is like a merchant man….
The Kingdom Of Heaven is like a net….
Or it might have an introduction like…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus
And while they were listening to these things, He went on to tell a parable.
Literal might have power words like…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus
Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Literal writing might be direct, such as
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
Take and eat; this is my body.
Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #12 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-27-2008, 11:10 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Brain_mach1,

If biblical hints give us an idea if something is literal or symbolic, then what biblical hints do you have that suggest the creation account is not literal?

If Adam actually had parents that birthed him then why would they not mention them and how different could his parents actually be genetically than him?

If evolution is over sooooo many years, then Adam's parents would be no less human than him.

Was Eve formed by God from the rib of Adam or was she birthed from some sort of ape?

What gives you authority to conclude that these accounts are not true?
Phillystang is offline  
post #13 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-28-2008, 07:10 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
Brain_mach1,

If biblical hints give us an idea if something is literal or symbolic, then what biblical hints do you have that suggest the creation account is not literal?

If Adam actually had parents that birthed him then why would they not mention them and how different could his parents actually be genetically than him?

If evolution is over sooooo many years, then Adam's parents would be no less human than him.

Was Eve formed by God from the rib of Adam or was she birthed from some sort of ape?

What gives you authority to conclude that these accounts are not true?
In any of my responses, what hints were there that Adam had parents? You injected that not I. Adam is the first man and he was created by God. This does not exclude other humanoid beings created as animals. We don't know. It is a mystery.

You know where I get my authority. Jesus was specific when He named the leader of His Church. His language was not vague. "You are Peter....." I pass on what I have been taught by those with authority.

It is you who speak with false authority. I point to unknown mysteries. They are not answered by the Bible, yet you find absolutes. People I trust more than you who lived closer to the Apostles find mystery, yet you have absolute? I question your authority.

Cain and Able both brought offerings to the Lord. When did God request offerings? How did they know to do this? They did not read it and God did not tell them to. Again, mystery.

Cain is afraid of being killed in 3:14, but by whom? There is only Adam and Eve and possibly Seth. Mystery.

Cain has a child Enoch with his wife. Where did she come from? Adam and Eve or Seth? Mystery.

As I stated in a previous post, time is not set until the 4th day. The Church Fathers saw this. Again, mystery.

The Church Fathers gave many examples of how time in creation can be understood and they did not have any benefit of evolutionary theories. The people I quoted were from the 3rd to 5th Century. No evolution theory, but they saw Mystery.

Let me give you another example of unambiguous time. "I spent all day cleaning at work." Yesterday, I spent 6 hours at work. I left early because I needed to fix a washing machine at home. I did not spend 24 hours at work. I did not include night. I did not spend 8 hours at work. You have no idea how long I spent unless I specifically told you. I used to have a job which was 12 hour shifts. Firefighters work 24 hour shifts. Some of my highschool employees work 3 hour days. Was there a clock change on that day? Was it a 23 hour day, 24 hour day, or 25 hour day? You don't know.

Actual time is irrelevant to the fact that yesterday, I spent the entire day cleaning.

A day can easily just represent a cycle of beginning and end (especially since time was not set until the 4th day).

After all that, what does 6 24-hour days have to do with salvation?

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A

Last edited by Brain_Mach1; 01-28-2008 at 07:22 AM.
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #14 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-28-2008, 09:12 AM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
If you discount the accuracy of the bible as fact then anything is subject to scrutiny. Either you pick and choose what you believe and water it down, or you believe all of it (within translation variants).



Anyway..

Death was the result of sin....plants, animals, whatever...souls or not... (the body dies, not our souls). To believe in evolution cancels this out. Millions of years of death would have taken place. Not to mention that the fossil record shows that animals were eating each other for "millions" of years. Everything was vegetarian before the fall of man. To claim that animals were killing and eating each other before the fall is a Christian evolutionists biggest dilemma. To state that God created humanoid like beings for millions of years without a soul is not only useless, but also opens another corridor for speculation.(at what point were the NOT humanoids, etc) What it also does is discredit God. He made humans for fellowship and also made them genetically perfect. Even when death was introduced to the world, it still took Adam almost a century to die. That view is not very flattering for an all powerful God who created humans perfect and his image to begin with.

(on a side note, Christ at the last supper said "Do this in remembrance of Me"..ie "as a symbol of Me", one does not have to believe that they are drinking blood to take the bible literally)


Exclude, not flaming you, but if you can say "I used to be Christian and I am not anymore", then you never really were.... you may have went through the motions, but if you never received His spirit, then you never were.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed

Last edited by flashstang04; 01-28-2008 at 10:27 AM.
flashstang04 is offline  
post #15 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-28-2008, 09:36 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Trying to reconcile evolutionary theory with the Biblical account of Gods Creation is both unnecessary and futile. God is not limited in any way to what man can theorize and quantify, and trying to pigeonhole the events revealed by His Word into the limits of a science or theory devised by man serves no purpose.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #16 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-28-2008, 11:26 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
Death was the result of sin....plants, animals, whatever...souls or not... (the body dies, not our souls). To believe in evolution cancels this out. Millions of years of death would have taken place. Not to mention that the fossil record shows that animals were eating each other for "millions" of years. Everything was vegetarian before the fall of man.
But you do not know how long the first 3 days are since time is not set and you have no concept of how long the next 3 days are after time is set. Paul (in your own quote) mentions death came to all men. He says nothing about plants and animals.

You say that sins caused the death of plants, animals, whatever, yet animals were eating plants (Genesis 1:30). Taken 100% literal, the plants do not die when eaten by the animals. Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
(on a side note, Christ at the last supper said "Do this in remembrance of Me"..ie "as a symbol of Me", one does not have to believe that they are drinking blood to take the bible literally)
Why would you not believe this since Jesus says it in all 4 Gospels! Worded differently in John of course. Why would He not say symbol if that is what He meant?

Jesus even says Amen, amen or Truly, truly! Hit me over the head with a shovel!

Jesus says True food and True drink! What part of true is symbolic?

The Jews know about eating the flesh of a sacrifice. This is their culture. Jesus and his disciples are Jews, not Americans. They grew up with this.

If it were symbolic, why did the Jews disbelieve Jesus in John's account. Why did so many leave? They left because of a symbol? If they miss-understood, why did Jesus not explain it better? If Jesus meant what He said, I could see how many people would not accept it (I can thing of one right now).

Are you aware that you just re-wrote scripture? Scripture does not say "ie as a symbol". Continueing to read Paul, we find:

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

People do not fall ill or die from symbols, unless the bread was tainted.

If Jesus says AMEN to a statement, I would follow that as closely as I can. Can I get an AMEN brother?!

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #17 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-28-2008, 01:14 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
You say that sins caused the death of plants, animals, whatever, yet animals were eating plants (Genesis 1:30). Taken 100% literal, the plants do not die when eaten by the animals. Huh?

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #18 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-28-2008, 01:24 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
Everything was vegetarian before the fall of man. To claim that animals were killing and eating each other before the fall is a Christian evolutionists biggest dilemma.
Please explain how fish, sharks, and whales fit into this scenario.

Please elaborate on why animal killings are the biggest dilemma for Christian evolutionists?

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>

Last edited by jones4stangs; 01-28-2008 at 01:30 PM.
jones4stangs is offline  
post #19 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-28-2008, 01:32 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
But you do not know how long the first 3 days are since time is not set and you have no concept of how long the next 3 days are after time is set. Paul (in your own quote) mentions death came to all men. He says nothing about plants and animals.

You say that sins caused the death of plants, animals, whatever, yet animals were eating plants (Genesis 1:30). Taken 100% literal, the plants do not die when eaten by the animals. Huh?
So the humanoids you spoke of earlier were exempt? Were they animals? That way of thinking leaves serious holes. "The wages of sin are death". We are clearly told that. Everything dies as a result of sin. (read that..disease, war, strife, etc, etc.) Before sin, everything was perfect. Did these other things roaming the earth NOT come into the garden? Were they doomed outside while man was free to screw up his descendants for the rest of time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
You say that sins caused the death of plants, animals, whatever, yet animals were eating plants (Genesis 1:30). Taken 100% literal, the plants do not die when eaten by the animals. Huh?

The plants that animals and humans ate were "fruits" and were not living things. They produced fruit for the sole purpose of sustenance. No mystery there. You can to this day in fact find fruit in your local supermarket that while will you keep you alive and healthy, it is not in and of itself..a "living thing"





Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Why would you not believe this since Jesus says it in all 4 Gospels! Worded differently in John of course. Why would He not say symbol if that is what He meant?

Jesus even says Amen, amen or Truly, truly! Hit me over the head with a shovel!

Jesus says True food and True drink! What part of true is symbolic?

The Jews know about eating the flesh of a sacrifice. This is their culture. Jesus and his disciples are Jews, not Americans. They grew up with this.

If it were symbolic, why did the Jews disbelieve Jesus in John's account. Why did so many leave? They left because of a symbol? If they miss-understood, why did Jesus not explain it better? If Jesus meant what He said, I could see how many people would not accept it (I can thing of one right now).

Are you aware that you just re-wrote scripture? Scripture does not say "ie as a symbol". Continueing to read Paul, we find:

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

People do not fall ill or die from symbols, unless the bread was tainted.

If Jesus says AMEN to a statement, I would follow that as closely as I can. Can I get an AMEN brother?!

Your belief stems from the Catholic edict of transubstantiation. I do not believe that there is ANY biblical evidence to support the fact that the contents of the plate and the cup literally turn to flesh and blood at each Sunday mass. If He was actually IN the cup and on the plate, then He would be being sacrificed every time at communion...implying that He has to be sacrificed again and again. This is not what Jesus had in mind when he said "Do this in remembrance of me". In fact that belief stems from Greek philosophy brought on in the middle ages.The same can be said about water baptism..it was given as an outward expression of the change inside. Re-read Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus. Jesus was giving us a good example of His teachings concerning literalism and symbolism. He used symbolism here:

3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Jesus chose to explain further to Nicodemus what he meant so that he wouldn't be taken literally... Again, we can see this when he talked to the woman at the well:

13Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

15The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water."


Again, we see Him using symbolism and then explaining it further..the woman thought he meant "literal water", and asked for some, when in fact He of course was not.

Symbolism is used to relate, and so that it can be explained effectively.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #20 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-28-2008, 01:43 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
Please explain how fish, sharks, and whales fit into this scenario.

Please elaborate on why animal killings are the biggest dilemma for Christian evolutionists?

As for your shark/whale comment..

In a pre flood environment, we don't know how many plants and fruits were in the oceans. I stand by my original statement that they, too, were herbivores.



Because of the fact that archaeologically we can see that animals have been eating each other the whole time. One cannot believe that death is the result of man's sin and at the same time say that death had been occurring for millions of years prior to that, see?

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #21 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-28-2008, 02:18 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Does the bible say how old Adam was when he was cast out of the garden?

Does his age start on his creation or when he is cast out?

Is it possible he lived in the garden for a million year?

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #22 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-28-2008, 02:38 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
Does the bible say how old Adam was when he was cast out of the garden?

Does his age start on his creation or when he is cast out?

Is it possible he lived in the garden for a million year?
I would see no reason why it would start at the time of being cast out...not to mention that would skew the others that were born outside of the fall. The only thing that changed is the fact that his DNA would not allow his cells to keep multiplying at a certain age. Just like everyone after him. That would be my opinion.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #23 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-28-2008, 04:13 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
As for your shark/whale comment..

In a pre flood environment, we don't know how many plants and fruits were in the oceans. I stand by my original statement that they, too, were herbivores.



Because of the fact that archaeologically we can see that animals have been eating each other the whole time. One cannot believe that death is the result of man's sin and at the same time say that death had been occurring for millions of years prior to that, see?
Death as applies to man is his separation from God. Jesus redeemed mankind to eternal life with God.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #24 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-28-2008, 04:36 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk
Death as applies to man is his separation from God. Jesus redeemed mankind to eternal life with God.

Correct, and at the same time that death entered into the world it affected every other living thing as well.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #25 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-28-2008, 04:57 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
First, let me say that I know many people do not take the Bible literally. What I find interesting is the times when some people take the Bible literal and times they do not.

If Genesis so literal, even when Genesis is not specific, what does that mean to the salvation of men if the Earth is 6,000 years old versus 4 billion years old? Not much.

What does it mean to salvation if Jesus is literal and you must eat His flesh and drink His blood. For His flesh is TRUE food and His blood TRUE drink? Jesus does not explain further because all has been said and many people walked away. Amen.

What importance is there to the 1st statement being literal if the second is not?

flashstang04, I work with an Orchard and own a produce store, backery, nursery, restaurant, and gift shop. Fruit is alive when it is picked and when on the shelf. Sorry, but this is true. Fruit is alive at the time it is consumed raw. Yes, it is true. Veggies too.

As you quoted Paul, death came to all men. I will agree with you that the Bible is figurative in some cases since we obviously still die after Christ died for us. It is figurate when saying 6 days since time was not set until the 4th day. The first 3 days can not be tracked by man. Ambrose tells you that the day is a cycle marker and he wrote over 1,600 years ago.

I can’t believe you don’t take Jesus literally, but you take Genesis literal. Jesus says your must be born of water. This is literal. It is Baptism. Peter says you must repent and be baptized. It is literal and follows what Jesus said. The Church Fathers have written on this over 1,500 years ago.

I am very disturbed with your interpretation of the words truly and amen. Amen means certainly, not symbolically.

I also notice your comment about my Catholic view. In post after post you forget that the Catholic views about the words of Christ are also the views of non-Catholic denominations such as the Greeks, Assyrians, Ethiopians, and other Apostolic Churches. The older the Church, the more likely it is to have these literal views of the New Testament.

Of course the Apostolic churches build upon the Church Fathers. Some of the same people that knew the Earth is older than 6000 years without the aid of archeology.

If a person chooses to view the Bible as symbolic, I could see that who the older the text, the more symbolic. What I don't understand is the literal interpretation of the Old Testament and symbolic interpretation of the New Testament.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A

Last edited by Brain_Mach1; 01-28-2008 at 05:06 PM.
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #26 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-28-2008, 05:38 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
What does it mean to salvation if Jesus is literal and you must eat His flesh and drink His blood. For His flesh is TRUE food and His blood TRUE drink? Jesus does not explain further because all has been said and many people walked away. Amen.
Tell me where your priest gets Jesus' body from?
Phillystang is offline  
post #27 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-28-2008, 08:21 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
First, let me say that I know many people do not take the Bible literally. What I find interesting is the times when some people take the Bible literal and times they do not.

If Genesis so literal, even when Genesis is not specific, what does that mean to the salvation of men if the Earth is 6,000 years old versus 4 billion years old? Not much.

What does it mean to salvation if Jesus is literal and you must eat His flesh and drink His blood. For His flesh is TRUE food and His blood TRUE drink? Jesus does not explain further because all has been said and many people walked away. Amen.

What importance is there to the 1st statement being literal if the second is not?

flashstang04, I work with an Orchard and own a produce store, backery, nursery, restaurant, and gift shop. Fruit is alive when it is picked and when on the shelf. Sorry, but this is true. Fruit is alive at the time it is consumed raw. Yes, it is true. Veggies too.

As you quoted Paul, death came to all men. I will agree with you that the Bible is figurative in some cases since we obviously still die after Christ died for us. It is figurate when saying 6 days since time was not set until the 4th day. The first 3 days can not be tracked by man. Ambrose tells you that the day is a cycle marker and he wrote over 1,600 years ago.

I can’t believe you don’t take Jesus literally, but you take Genesis literal. Jesus says your must be born of water. This is literal. It is Baptism. Peter says you must repent and be baptized. It is literal and follows what Jesus said. The Church Fathers have written on this over 1,500 years ago.

I am very disturbed with your interpretation of the words truly and amen. Amen means certainly, not symbolically.

I also notice your comment about my Catholic view. In post after post you forget that the Catholic views about the words of Christ are also the views of non-Catholic denominations such as the Greeks, Assyrians, Ethiopians, and other Apostolic Churches. The older the Church, the more likely it is to have these literal views of the New Testament.

Of course the Apostolic churches build upon the Church Fathers. Some of the same people that knew the Earth is older than 6000 years without the aid of archeology.

If a person chooses to view the Bible as symbolic, I could see that who the older the text, the more symbolic. What I don't understand is the literal interpretation of the Old Testament and symbolic interpretation of the New Testament.

Well, agree to disagree then. You are (unintentionally I hope) mis-representing what I was trying to get across.I won't give others ammo that we "can't even agree on what or own bible says". I take the bible literal except where language study has shown me it is not..such as communion or baptism. We can discuss it when we get on the other side.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #28 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-29-2008, 09:37 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
Well, agree to disagree then. You are (unintentionally I hope) mis-representing what I was trying to get across.I won't give others ammo that we "can't even agree on what or own bible says". I take the bible literal except where language study has shown me it is not..such as communion or baptism. We can discuss it when we get on the other side.
Hey, don't quit on my account. Phillystang started this thread to challenge Brain_Mach1, that much is obvious. I'm observing to see who can best convey and represent their beliefs.

The debatable questions are:

Does Genesis have to be taken literally.

Does death apply to all the other animals (lions, tigers, bears ect.) and/or plants (trees, bushes, grass, ect.).

From my independent observation....
Brain_Mach1 has best conveyed his beliefs. Hence, the winner of this thread

What do the other observers say?

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #29 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-29-2008, 10:01 AM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
Hey, don't quit on my account. Phillystang started this thread to challenge Brain_Mach1, that much is obvious. I'm observing to see who can best convey and represent their beliefs.

The debatable questions are:

Does Genesis have to be taken literally.

Does death apply to all the other animals (lions, tigers, bears ect.) and/or plants (trees, bushes, grass, ect.).

From my independent observation....
Brain_Mach1 has best conveyed his beliefs. Hence, the winner of this thread

What do the other observers say?
Well, I would never compete with another believer, and I am sure that Brian wouldn't either.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #30 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-29-2008, 11:29 AM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
Hey, don't quit on my account. Phillystang started this thread to challenge Brain_Mach1, that much is obvious. I'm observing to see who can best convey and represent their beliefs.

The debatable questions are:

Does Genesis have to be taken literally.

Does death apply to all the other animals (lions, tigers, bears ect.) and/or plants (trees, bushes, grass, ect.).

From my independent observation....
Brain_Mach1 has best conveyed his beliefs. Hence, the winner of this thread

What do the other observers say?
It wasn't directed at Brain_Mach1 specifically, I just noticed it was common in the past couple of threads, (I don't remember specifically who). I would also suggest that "winning" will always be based on truth, not that someone was more slick with long posts and clever arguments. I hold that our source of truth is in the Bible despite what scientists may say.

My reasons are nothing mystical other than what I see as the clear teachings of Scripture. I read that God created according to their kinds and I see no hints that this is some sort of allegory or symbol.

Genesis 1:21
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.


Why does the whole creation groan if it was not effected by Adam's sin? If death prevailed long before the fall?

Romans 8
22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.


Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—
Phillystang is offline  
post #31 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-29-2008, 11:35 AM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—
Right, and if we are to take it literal, then this is the important part...


"just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin"

This means before this, there was no sin, hence no death.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #32 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-29-2008, 12:06 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
I still take "death" to mean separation from God.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #33 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-29-2008, 01:07 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk
I still take "death" to mean separation from God.

I don't see an issue with that..

Death entered the world through sin, so man dies, on the same token we are also in a separated ("dead") state until we are saved. (which leads to the second death, Rev.2:11) and ("The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Ezekiel 18:4.)

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed

Last edited by flashstang04; 01-29-2008 at 01:12 PM.
flashstang04 is offline  
post #34 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-29-2008, 03:16 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Maybe I missed something, and am earnestly curious. But if animals have no soul and thus cannot "die" as in being separated from God. Why could they not "die" in the truer since of the word pre-fall, seeing as they have no connection with sin? More explicitly, what is the evidence against this?
exlude is offline  
post #35 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-29-2008, 05:00 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—
We all agree?

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #36 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-29-2008, 05:03 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
We all agree?
yea, and "death through sin"
Phillystang is offline  
post #37 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-29-2008, 05:04 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
I have no problem with differing views of whether the Bible is literal or symbolic. To me, it is more of a question of what does it MEAN when taken literally or symbolic.

The Old Testament Bible study I am currently in was developed by the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology. Among its founders are some evangelical converts to Catholicism. The study is not whether the Old Testament is literal or not but what do the stories have to do with salvation history.

I assume we all agree with St. Jerome when he said the New Testament is concealed in the Old and the Old reveled in the New. What this means to me is I read the Old Testament discovering rhythms fulfilled in the New.

With the story of creation, I see the 3 day rhythm of Time, Space, Life. God controls all these things and is outside of them.

The above leads me to understand:
- Jesus is ETERNALLY begotten of the Father (Nicene Creed). He was not created at a specific point in time since They are outside of time.

- God does enter time and space such as when Jesus was born of Mary, but he existed before and continues to exist after.

- If this is true, what would this mean to the real presence? Jesus held Himself in His hands when He said this is My Body. Jesus is outside of Time and Space. Jesus tells us to do this. Paul asks “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” This says participation not reenactment. When Catholics and Orthodox celebrate the Mass, Jesus is NOT being sacrificed AGAIN. Instead we are participating in the single sacrifice outside of time. We are participating in Calvary. This single event in time is actually a timeless event. Jesus is the Paschal Lamb and the Greatest Todah. He is the Eucharist!

Obviously the theology from this point continues to build well beyond a post, but my point is to show how my belief in the creation story develops my theology of Christ and salvation.

In my belief, the creation story tells me about God’s power and His control of Time, Space, and Life. This says a lot about God’s and it means a lot when applied to the Apostolic Churches’ understanding of the story of salvation.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #38 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-29-2008, 05:05 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
yea, and "death through sin"
to all men

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #39 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-29-2008, 05:52 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1

- If this is true, what would this mean to the real presence? Jesus held Himself in His hands when He said this is My Body. Jesus is outside of Time and Space. Jesus tells us to do this. Paul asks “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” This says participation not reenactment. When Catholics and Orthodox celebrate the Mass, Jesus is NOT being sacrificed AGAIN. Instead we are participating in the single sacrifice outside of time. We are participating in Calvary. This single event in time is actually a timeless event. Jesus is the Paschal Lamb and the Greatest Todah. He is the Eucharist!

Obviously the theology from this point continues to build well beyond a post, but my point is to show how my belief in the creation story develops my theology of Christ and salvation.

In my belief, the creation story tells me about God’s power and His control of Time, Space, and Life. This says a lot about God’s and it means a lot when applied to the Apostolic Churches’ understanding of the story of salvation.
What do you make of this quote from a catholic answers site

http://www.catholic.com/library/Sacr...f_the_Mass.asp
"The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist. The first Christians knew that it was a sacrifice and proclaimed this in their writings."

Yet Jesus says, Luke 22:19
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

1 Corinthians 11:23-25
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."


Please note that Jesus words to the Jews in regards to eating His flesh and drinking his blood in John 6:48-59 was prior to the last passover supper.

Note the parallel in verse 57 that Jesus makes.

Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.


You say that we literally feed on Jesus, well, for the parallel to remain true, then Jesus must literally feed on the Father? Do you believe that to be so?

The passover meal was a memorial, the Lord's supper just happens to be Christ taking the elements of the passover and applying them to memorialize Himself. The passover memorial is never mentioned however in John 6:48-59

The protestants would hold that John 6:48-59 means that Christ is our very sustenance, our source of strength and our lifeline. Our only trust. Just as food sustains life for the body, Christ sustains the soul. We live because of Christ. This makes much more sense in regards to the parallel from verse 57 and keeps grace intact while avoiding mindless legalism. If anyone that eats a piece of bread gets eternal life then we should ditch the gospel message and just drop loads of bread all over the globe. This is not what Jesus had in mind.

Please take in mind Jesus explanation following these passages, it is about grace, grace, grace. Able to be believed and understood by those that the Father had enabled.

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

Last edited by Phillystang; 01-29-2008 at 06:04 PM.
Phillystang is offline  
post #40 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-31-2008, 08:49 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk
I still take "death" to mean separation from God.
Amen Brother!

And I don't mean Amen as symbolic but as the Hebrew for Certainly!

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #41 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-31-2008, 10:17 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Phillystang, I will gladly address your points later since I have 2000 years of Tradition to fall back on. But first, I demand some respect if you expect me to take you seriously.

Take note that you who take Genesis literally but John symbolically have not addressed:

1. How Cain and Able knew to sacrifice when Genesis give no instruction.
2. Who did Cain marry?
3. Who did Seth marry?

You have not addressed what a literal 6 day creation story has to do with your interpretation of salvation.

Feel free to instruct me. I asked some specific questions more than once.

I respected you enough to explain how creation has a roll in the New Testament, you have no such respect for me or others on the board. You want to show people they are wrong but you do not have anything to offer when they ask questions.

Do I detect some Pharisee? You point fingers but are not offering anything to me. Do you preach without knowing WHY you preach such things?

I am formulating a responce to your points, but I have some work to do before I get back.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #42 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-31-2008, 01:56 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Phillystang, I will gladly address your points later since I have 2000 years of Tradition to fall back on. But first, I demand some respect if you expect me to take you seriously.
I will take scripture over tradition any day. The Muslims and Buddhists have tradition too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Take note that you who take Genesis literally but John symbolically have not addressed:

1. How Cain and Able knew to sacrifice when Genesis give no instruction.
2. Who did Cain marry?
3. Who did Seth marry?
How does this prove Genesis is not literal?
Just because details were left out that were not pertinent to the information God wanted us to know? This is no argument of substance. You may as well ask what kind of fruit was it that Eve ate in the garden.

1. Just because Moses doesn't describe every detail of God's conversation with Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel doesn't mean conversations and instructions didn't take place.

Yet, with certainty, you say

"They did not read it and God did not tell them to. Again, mystery."

You assume that God did not tell them to. You conclude this with certainty even though the Genesis account is silent on it.

Genesis 4:3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD.

2. It can be assumed that his wife was unmentioned daughters of Adam and Eve. Please note that the names and mention of specific daughters are not made early on.

Genesis 4:17
Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.

3. It can be assumed that his wife was unmentioned daughters of Adam and Eve.

Genesis 5:3
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

Genesis 5:4
After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
You have not addressed what a literal 6 day creation story has to do with your interpretation of salvation.
Rather it has specific salvation implications or not, that does not give us the license to throw out passages as not literal. The offering of Cain and Able tell us something. Abel's offering was offered in faith while Cain's was apparently not.

Hebrews 11:4
By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.

We have a picture of sacrifice early on. Even though Adam and Eve had tried in their flesh to hide and cover their sin, it was God that killed an animal to cover their nakedness. Think atonement.

Gen3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

We also have an early prophecy of the coming Savior

Gen3:15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Feel free to instruct me. I asked some specific questions more than once.

I respected you enough to explain how creation has a roll in the New Testament, you have no such respect for me or others on the board. You want to show people they are wrong but you do not have anything to offer when they ask questions.
You shouldn't try to make me feel bad for holding to the literal understanding of the Bible, I am in good company with the writers of the New Testament.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Do I detect some Pharisee? You point fingers but are not offering anything to me. Do you preach without knowing WHY you preach such things?
Pharisee? For saying the Bible is literal and not siding with traditions of men? I think you are sadly misusing the term. If anything, the Catholic who trusts in his own righteousness and works for salvation is the Pharisee.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
I am formulating a responce to your points, but I have some work to do before I get back.
Good deal. Please show me where the forgiven thief on the cross fed on Jesus. Thanks.
Phillystang is offline  
post #43 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-31-2008, 05:27 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
I thank you for recognizing my questions. I hope it does not take insults to get respect from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
How does this prove Genesis is not literal?
Just because details were left out that were not pertinent to the information God wanted us to know? This is no argument of substance. You may as well ask what kind of fruit was it that Eve ate in the garden.
Now you are sounding like me. As I alluded to in Post #7 and said directly in #13 and #16 that the God is not specific in details which are not necessary for salvation. It is I who postulate that there is more than is written. It is you who says that the 6 days (with time not set on the first 3) is literal but later verses left out information which is not pertinent. What is so important about 6 days? You still have not answered this?

I assume God did tell them many things which are not in the Bible. I don’t assume that 6 days (3 of which are before time is set) means 144 hours. You are even alluding that Cain and Seth married their sisters. Did you post in the thread "What happened after Adan & Eve?"

In formulating your post you are now making my argument that information not pertinent to salvation is not necessarily in the Bible, i.e. Genesis does not have to be literal. Salvation history is not the same as natural history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
You shouldn't try to make me feel bad for holding to the literal understanding of the Bible, I am in good company with the writers of the New Testament.
We have all 4 Gospels, Acts and Paul pointing to the Bread being more than a symbol yet we never hear any of them mention creation in 6-24 hour periods. Paul mentions Genesis characters, but never talks about the creation events.

You have not addressed the passage from Paul “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”

Am I assuming correctly that your response is, “No, it is not a participation, but only a remembrance.”

In fact in Acts 2:42 They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. Breaking bread is a devotion on the level “the prayers”? This act of breaking bread must be pretty special. Plus "the" is a direct article implying specific prayers.

Luke 24:30-31 And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. Jesus preached to these disciples yet they do not recognize Him until the breaking of bread?

We still have the issue of Amen, Amen.

Catechism 1062: In Hebrew, amen comes from the same root as the word "believe." This root expresses solidity, trustworthiness, faithfulness. And so we can understand why "Amen" may express both God's faithfulness towards us and our trust in him.

Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Paul 1COR23-30: For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

Taken literally, this is serious stuff! A symbol which can lead to illness and death? These are severe consequences for symbolic speech..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
Good deal. Please show me where the forgiven thief on the cross fed on Jesus. Thanks.
He is Baptized by desire. Catechism 1259: For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #44 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-31-2008, 08:54 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
I thank you for recognizing my questions. I hope it does not take insults to get respect from you.Now you are sounding like me. As I alluded to in Post #7 and said directly in #13 and #16 that the God is not specific in details which are not necessary for salvation. It is I who postulate that there is more than is written. It is you who says that the 6 days (with time not set on the first 3) is literal but later verses left out information which is not pertinent. What is so important about 6 days? You still have not answered this?
It lays out the example of the Sabbath

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
I assume God did tell them many things which are not in the Bible. I don’t assume that 6 days (3 of which are before time is set) means 144 hours. You are even alluding that Cain and Seth married their sisters. Did you post in the thread "What happened after Adan & Eve?"
What is wrong with alluding that they married their sisters? That was a common practice since there were just starting out as the human race, it was inevitable. This became unlawful in Leviticus 20.

Yes, I posted in that thread. That's why I started this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
In formulating your post you are now making my argument that information not pertinent to salvation is not necessarily in the Bible, i.e. Genesis does not have to be literal. Salvation history is not the same as natural history.
That is an argument from silence

You conclude that 'not pertinent to salvation' = 'not literal'

Please describe the hermeneutics of this approach, that stories not pertinent to salvation means it does not have to be literal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
We have all 4 Gospels, Acts and Paul pointing to the Bread being more than a symbol yet we never hear any of them mention creation in 6-24 hour periods. Paul mentions Genesis characters, but never talks about the creation events.
That is an argument from silence, 'it's not talked about=it must be not literal'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
You have not addressed the passage from Paul “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”
Yes, the participation in the blood and body of Christ is much like the language in Romans 6.

Romans 6
3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Is baptism a real death or a symbol of a spiritual change? Why is the bread and wine different?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Am I assuming correctly that your response is, “No, it is not a participation, but only a remembrance.”
It is a symbolic participation just as baptism is, serving also as a remembrance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
In fact in Acts 2:42 They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. Breaking bread is a devotion on the level “the prayers”? This act of breaking bread must be pretty special. Plus "the" is a direct article implying specific prayers.
No mention of commemorating Christ's body and blood is mentioned there. "Breaking bread" is not always related to taking communion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Luke 24:30-31 And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. Jesus preached to these disciples yet they do not recognize Him until the breaking of bread?
So.... We won't recognize Jesus until bread is broken? I'm sorry, these 'arguments' are not compelling in the least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
We still have the issue of Amen, Amen.

Catechism 1062: In Hebrew, amen comes from the same root as the word "believe." This root expresses solidity, trustworthiness, faithfulness. And so we can understand why "Amen" may express both God's faithfulness towards us and our trust in him.
Yes, amen. Many of the sayings to the Jews were confusing to them because a spiritual truth was communicated in a physical way.

Jesus' words "You must be born again" comes to mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Paul 1COR23-30: For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
Amen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Taken literally, this is serious stuff! A symbol which can lead to illness and death? These are severe consequences for symbolic speech..
Yes, symbols have consequences, just look at the Sabbath in the Old Testament and the consequences for breaking it. Yet, we see in the New Testament that Christ is our sabbath rest, a rest from our works.

Hebrews 4:8For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
He is Baptized by desire. Catechism 1259: For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
Are you equating baptism with partaking of the communion? Where is his desire? and his charity? He was saved by grace through faith.
Phillystang is offline  
post #45 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-31-2008, 09:37 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
The protestants would hold that John 6:48-59 means that Christ is our very sustenance, our source of strength and our lifeline. Our only trust. Just as food sustains life for the body, Christ sustains the soul. We live because of Christ. This makes much more sense in regards to the parallel from verse 57 and keeps grace intact while avoiding mindless legalism. If anyone that eats a piece of bread gets eternal life then we should ditch the gospel message and just drop loads of bread all over the globe. This is not what Jesus had in mind
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

- Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

You mean some Protestant, just not Lutherins, Anglicans, Methodists....

03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #46 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-31-2008, 09:41 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
A couple more thoughts...

1. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. "

"Until He comes". Wait a minute. If He is physically present in body and blood in the bread and wine, then why does it say "until He comes"?

He is already physically there in the bread and wine!!! (if that were true)

Why would we do something in remembrance of Him ("Do this in remembrance of me"), if He is physically present in the very act of doing it?

2. When Catholics all over the world 'eat' His physical flesh, where do they get it from? If it doesn't come from heaven, then they don't actually take this passage literally.

John 6:50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.

3. Is the humanity (flesh) part of Christ (which is the part you would eat I assume) omnipresent?
Phillystang is offline  
post #47 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-31-2008, 09:42 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

- Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

You mean some Protestant, just not Lutherins, Anglicans, Methodists....
Right, Luther could not fully let go of Rome.
Phillystang is offline  
post #48 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-31-2008, 10:27 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Genesis in context (for those who love YouTube).


03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #49 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-31-2008, 10:33 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bandera County
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
A couple more thoughts...

1. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. "

"Until He comes". Wait a minute. If He is physically present in body and blood in the bread and wine, then why does it say "until He comes"?

He is already physically there in the bread and wine!!! (if that were true)

Why would we do something in remembrance of Him ("Do this in remembrance of me"), if He is physically present in the very act of doing it?

2. When Catholics all over the world 'eat' His physical flesh, where do they get it from? If it doesn't come from heaven, then they don't actually take this passage literally.

John 6:50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.

3. Is the humanity (flesh) part of Christ (which is the part you would eat I assume) omnipresent?
Wow, it is easy to just post vidoes. I am learning to play this game.





03 Mach1
[email protected] N/A
Brain_Mach1 is offline  
post #50 of 51 (permalink) Old 01-31-2008, 10:47 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain_Mach1
Wow, it is easy to just post vidoes. I am learning to play this game.
No fair, that was a thread just for videos, there were no videos in this thread until you posted those
Phillystang is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome