So would I - because it’s a silly proposition that has nothing whatsoever to do with what actually happened.
Apparently you can’t even convince children without invoking ridiculous strawman arguments to oppose.
Only if and because their parents and teachers had taught them to. It means nothing.
For real? @AllenWitmerMiller is trying to make the argument that the God of Scripture can have attributed to Him being the source of natural evil where God stands outside of any moral paradigm and just chooses to create it out from the fabric of His Being. He does so by challenging me to study what the Hebrew word that the English language translates as “good” really means. While ignoring all the rest of Scripture?
God in His perfection can create what is perfectly moral. God in His relational nature as a Triune God will take pleasure in creating relation creatures. God in His volitional nature will create those relational creatures with volition. God who is love recognizes that lovingness cannot exist under compulsion so He gives humans the ability to love or not to love. God who is morally perfect necessarily suggests that that which is morally imperfect also exists in order to even understand moral perfection. God, if He is morally perfect MUST also exert wrath upon all that is imperfect as He also must be perfectly just in His moral perfection. So Gods creation of perfectly moral but volitional humans made in His image who are called to love Him by choosing what is right and not choosing what is wrong, chose wrongly. It was this choice and this choice alone that introduced an evil that manifest a futility into all of Creation :
For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. Ro8
According to Scripture all of creation is anticipating the revelation of the saints to be revealed after Christs second coming where the lion and lamb, wolf and goat will no longer be enemies.
There are many other Scriptures and the whole of Scripture that point to God never being the source of wrongness, but rather wrongness being only what God is not…when wrongness occured in the garden, this is why God allows the futility of all of the created order and why God in His perfect justice will impose wrath upon all evil and why the gospel is necessary for reconciliation of man to God and why, for those of us saved are to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” (php 2.) When you guys toy about semantics and definition of words like “good” to justify God being a Creator who in his nature uses luck in mutation, disposal of the weak, disease, natural evil in the evolutionary perspective, this does not indicate to me a fitting reverential response of “fear and trembling” to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Rather, this shows me that the fear of man and dependence upon the facade of man’s science trumps God and His Word and reverence due Him.
@greg, I admit to skimming the thread, but it seems you are drawing a LOT from a single, simple suggestion that you look into the meaning of a Hebrew word.
It is the case of the opposite. I have been trying to demonstrate from the whole of Scripture that the evolutionary worldview is unfitting to it, and it is others who skirt by focusing on one word and the seeming arrogance of the position that only those who know Hebrew are capable of understanding the true intentions of God in Scripture.
I dont know Hebrew, but i am fully capable of reading intricate detailed commentaries by theologians who do. I am also capable of seeking God and His Spirit for wisdom to understand Scripture. If i were to assign a value on what appears to most good theologians of apostacy towards those who say they are gospel converts, the highest number for the most misunderstanding are those accepting of the tenants of mainstream evolutionary science. We must not be fooled to think that just because medical science is helpful that mainstream science in general it can be a trusted resource for discovering our history. I still cannot believe the essence of the ongoing debate with ann gauger over enzyme evolution vs lackthereof. This is truly the perfect example of missing the forest for the trees riding the train of the pride of who is more scientifically astute. Unbelieveable.
This response to the general listener to this discourse as i have already shared my heart w you harshman and you seem to always reply with disdain. For those: We do see God working today. I have experienced clear direct manifestations. Here is the thing: giving detail on what i absolutely cannot ascribe to happenstance or coincidence does not transform hearts. What this does most times is enthuse the idolatrous human heart towards magic tricks and the fruits of faith and not towards the One whom through transformation and the bearing of fruit will flow in Christ. The gospel is the power unto salvation and those who trust Christ for their forgiveness will understand.
We are all sinners. I still sin im sad to say. I am growing but point is, we are all in the same boat:sinners by nature and sinners by choice. Having a childlike faith in a Great, holy God who sent His,Son to absorb the wrath we deserve is the only means to right relationship with God. When we grow in this relationship and God sees that we can be more maturely trusted with manifestations of the Spirit without being tempted to exploit those with a new book or to illuminate self, then perhaps in His will He will do so. The main manifestation will come in the form of peace that passes understanding. No longer being enslaved of attempts to make much of self in a form of legalistic righteousness is freedom beyond compare! Back to vacation friends. Catch up later this pm
No I am not a sinner. I don’t accept your definition of sin. My morals and ethics are based on my instincts, the legal framework of the society that I live in and most importantly my reasoning as an educated and intelligent person of today.
The most “intricate” and “detailed” commentaries provide complex exegetical arguments which require a strong grasp of Hebrew and the Greek of the Septuagint (and sometimes Arabic, Northwest Semitic, and various other languages of the Ancient Near East.) Indeed, as my language skills have deteriorated with age, I sometimes struggle to follow some of those exegetical arguments. So I would agree that you are capable of reading those “intricate detailed commentaries” but, based on your posts on this forum, I question whether you are capable (or even willing) to understand them. Your posts suggest that you have erected an impervious screen around your mind and that you filter out any evidence and analysis which threatens your presuppositions.
So am I. So are many others on this forum. Yet, they disagree with your interpretations of the scriptures. Moreover, there is no promise in scripture which states that being able to seek God’s wisdom while reading the scriptures will insulate God’s people from disagreements and errors in interpretation. Instead, the proof texts often cited online to suggest otherwise get posted by people who usually ignore the fact that the “seek and ye shall find” and “ask for wisdom” scriptures mostly pertain to seeking God, seeking an understanding of salvation by faith, and seeking wisdom on how to be Christ-like.
No surprise there. The news headline and teaser would be “Greg Deems All Theologians Who Disagree With Him To Be Apostates. Film at 11.”
Even though “mainstream science” improves our understanding of the history of planet earth and the history of life on earth on a daily basis? Good luck with debunking that reality.
You’ve yet to post anything from “the rest of scripture” which conflicts with what I told you.
Meanwhile, I have a question for you, @Greg, which exposes your own refusal to pay attention to what the Genesis text clearly states. There was a Tree of Life in the Edenic garden. It’s fruit provided HAADAM and his wife with immortality. In other words, the Tree of Life was an “antidote” for death.
Then the LORD God said, “Look, the human beings have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!”
— Genesis 3:22 (NLT)
Tell us, Greg. Why would God provide an antidote (the fruit of the Tree of Life) for a poison (that is, death) which you claim did not yet exist in God’s creation?
Read Genesis 3:22 in any English Bible translations you wish and you will realize that the “obvious reading” (which you so often emphasize on these forums) totally destroys your claims that God did not include biological death (an “evil” as you choose to call it) in his creation.
The Hebrew word TOV (commonly translated “good” in most English Bible translations) is well explained in those “intricate” commentaries you mentioned as referring to that which is exactly as God intended the creation to be. Each creative result of God’s sovereign power described in Genesis 1 is well functioning and suitable in accomplishing God’s intended purposes for his creation. The word TOV doesn’t mean “perfect” as many evangelical traditions groundlessly presume. (The Hebrew language is quite capable of describing “perfection” using other words, if that had been the intention of the Genesis text.) The word TOV also doesn’t entail Greg’s humanistically-driven desires as to what “good” should mean in Greg’s personally idealized world of what he thinks God’s creation should be like. We must read on the Genesis text on its own terms, not Greg’s.
In the past Greg has totally mangled my statements about God and death. What I have indeed written on these forums on multiple occasions is that God is quite willing to use death for his good purposes. Indeed, God commanded animal sacrifice in the Mosaic law as an atonement for sin—and it was God’s will that Jesus Christ obeyed in sacrificing himself in a cruel death on the cross for the atonement of sin. These were God’s sovereign plans. Not Satan’s. God used death to bring about his good purposes.
Moreover, God created a biological world where the death of organisms is absolutely essential to the transfer for solar energy and nutrients and the continual recycling of all biomass on the planet. We even have scriptures which praise God for providing food for predatory animals:
The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God. — Psalm 104:21 (NIV)
Greg, that sounds pretty good to me! Praise God.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that after Adam’s sin God created a new biosphere (a second creation) within which death and nutrient recycling appeared on earth for the first time. Instead, Genesis makes clear that only HAADAM and his wife were “insulated” from an otherwise harsh world (a world which included weeds and thorns and hard-to-work soil) because God planted a special garden reserve where they had access to the fruit of the Tree of Life and therefore could live forever without fear of death. Obviously, they knew what death was because:
“But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” — Genesis 2:17 (NIV)
Yes, the “certainly die” refers to spiritual death (with physical death later to follow) but there is no doubt from the text that they understood that their being spared death in such a special place came with conditions: They had to obey God in order to avoid such death.
Yes, Greg, we know that death already existed in God’s creation. Indeed, even Adam’s and Eve’s daily meals involved the death of plant cells at the very least, and the nutrient-cycle which thrived in the Edenic garden depended upon the death of organisms and living cells. There is no statement in scripture to the contrary.
Greg has decided to “help out” the Bible by decreeing his personal definition of TOV (good) and assuming that that TOV/good can be truly good only in the contrived sense which he demands rather than the good intended by the original author and God himself. Greg doesn’t think biological death is TOV so he simply denies it, despite admitting his ignorance of Classical Hebrew. Interesting.
You mean it would have provided them had they bothered to eat it. That they clearly had not is shown by God’s speech during the expulsion from Eden. It’s a wonder that the order in which a person eats fruit can have such a powerful effect on history.
“Clearly had not”? Here is the text:
22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. — Genesis 3:22-24 (NIV)
Moreover, the Tree of Life, the antidote for death, clearly existed prior to the sins of Adam and Eve. Thus, Greg’s claim that biological death was not in God’s plan for his very TOV/good creation fails.
Yes, and it clearly shows that they had not eaten of the tree of life, as eating once makes you immortal; thus the man can’t be allowed to reach out his hand, once.
This is peripheral to your main point, of course. I wasn’t disagreeing with that at all. In fact it supports your point; Adam was mortal, not yet having eaten from the tree of life. One must also suppose there was real, not just potential, death in the garden if there was even a single annual plant in it, at the least, not to mention all the insects, worms, and such with short generations. We must posit either death or birth control if we are to avoid being buried in flies.
It may be “clear” to you but not at all to me. Not in the English text and not in the Hebrew text.
Adam and Eve were told by God that they could eat the fruit of all of the trees in the garden except for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. You are proposing that, somehow, Adam and Eve never got around to eating of the Tree of Life’s fruit but that God was suddenly concerned that they would decide to do so after the recent turn of events.
Interesting.
Indeed. Perhaps Greg will insist that mayflies used to live forever but after the fall God assigned them a lifespan of just one day—while granting bristlecone pines thousands of years. Apparently, according to Greg, a huge number of changes in the earth’s biosphere took place after the fall in a “second creation” (i.e., or at least, total overhaul) which the Bible somehow fails to mention! (Perhaps before citing the favorite prooftext about the creation “groaning”, @Greg should read some of those “intricate” commentaries to see what he may be misunderstanding.)
Yes. That’s what it says; in the English, “Lest he reach out his hand…”. God is concerned that Adam will become immortal by eating the fruit, and so must be expelled from the garden quickly before that can happen. How is that not clear?
I have studied Scripture for years now and am more convinced than ever that God’s scorecard has nothing to do w number of converts, or the smallness of number of those who WILL suffer if they dont repent of sin and received grace by faith in Christs atoning work on the cross. Rather, Gods scorecard is Himself and He wins. He is holy, self existent and the one and only ultimate. If there are no converts next year, He wins. He does not need me, you or anybody. Salvation is the privilege of coming into relationship with Him to illuminate Him and His goodness. The joy i have comes not from punching a conversion ticket that gives me the better me. Rather it comes when i take my eyes off me to Another who is infinately more worthy. If Christianity was all about wafting and marketing misc strategies to sort of deceive people into the fold, i know me- id run. It is rather central around Creator God who transcends nature who is worthy of our worship. He is the best decision i have made. The Bible says that the wisest thing we can do is to humbly choose Him.
I’ve heard all of the worst exclusivist and infernalist apologetics, but this one really takes the cake.
So that is not an apologetic but a synopsis of Scriptural principle. The gospel saves us from sin and sin is defined by Scripture as anything made ultimate over God Himself. We see in Scriptire that even marriage between a man and woman can take on a dangerous idolotrous demeanor not acceptable in Gods sight. Money and material goods are not evil and can be used to glorify God in festive occasion…yet Scripture tells us “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” These are all the basis that warrants the need of forgiveness by a God who does so in order to ultimately bring joy to His people as they enter what CS Lewis calls “the dance” where the triune God in the Father Son and Holy Spirit bring glory to each other. We are saved by grace…so that no man may boast and instead find joy in illuminating Another. This is about as precise a synopsis of the Christian worldview i can offer and i am very curious, since you are so disagreeable, if you would not mind sharing with us yours as you represent the eastern orthodox perspective.
How you reach that conclusion totally escapes me. Nothing is said about Adam never eating of the Tree of Life previously. And none of my Hebrew professors (including the rabbi who taught my Genesis 1-3 exegesis course) ever found any of the spin on the verb that you are trying to apply.
Nothing is said about many events that didn’t happen. But God’s statement makes sense only if a single dose is enough for immortality. Adam only has to reach out his hand and eat in order to live forever, and he must be prevented immediately. That’s what the story says. Further, it fits the nature of other immortality stories; Utnapishtim doesn’t have to renew his immortality. Once conferred, it’s permanent.
Not sure what verb you’re talking about, but how did they interpret the story, particularly God’s speech?
The tree of life is also mentioned in Rev 22. The tree of life is present for “the healing of the nations” i admit that i dont completely understand what the presence of this tree in both Eden and in the renewed earth means entirely. The tree of life to me represents the fact that death is the enemy and God in His perfection created Eden as well as Adam and Eve perfect and free of everything wrong, death included. Evil obviously existed during this time as satan was around. And death is the works of this enemy, not God. I hear evolutionists say, well death and decay are part of nature so they must be part of God. I think that they forget that we live and breathe in a fallen world and the idea of the natural in our minds subjected to this world may be quite contrary to that which is approved of by God. After the renewal of all things, death will be no longer. The earth will be inhabited by God’s people for 10,000 years. Animals will be present as Scripture states that the lion and goat will cohabitate. That form of the “natural” is truly of God.
Attributing God with even the slightest form of evil even in natural evil, and suggesting that His nature that is more one for caring for the weak and rejected and contrite is rather one who creates within a moral fabric completely encapsulated within Himself death, pain, survival of fittest evolutionism- is wrong thinking. It seems to me that you are taking a stance of trusting mainstream science, evolutionism first, and fitting scripture into that form second. Am i off on this accessment?