That’s not really a “good” rebuttal because you are equivocating on the word “good” claiming that God’s “goodness” is equivalent to creation’s “goodness”. Furthermore, there was the man born blind for God’s glory (John 9). It seems you are judging God trying to force your idea of what is “good” on what God called “good” in creation.
When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die! ’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 9 Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have [b]delivered your soul.
Thanks for the Bible commentary on these verses. The trees from Eden being like the nations from Adam is neat.
Again notice that the passage references both blood and the soul. It is physical and spiritual death.
Not necessarily…blood throughout the bible is an image of life and purity, not necessarily death. Levitical law required that the priests purify the tabernacle and altar with blood, Jews were protected and declared themselves pure by painting their doors with blood at passover,
In the passage you are referencing, there is a double meaning. God is warning Ezekiel that if he does not bring the message to the wicked man, that man’s destruction (spiritual death) will be on Ezekel’s hands, AND that man’s purification is also in Ezekel’s hands through the message that God speaks. God is imparting the weight of responsibility for delivering the message, and tells Ezekiel that he is innocent just by speaking God’s warning.
It is a reference to spiritual death, and Ezekiel’s spiritual responsibility to save sinners, not physical death and that God wants Ezekiel to kill people physically. “but his blood I will require at your hand” does not mean that Ezekiel needs to kill anyone that doesn’t obey, it means that Ezekiel is responsible for their purification.
James reiterates God’s command to all followers to close his book:
James 5:19-20 - 19 My brothers and sisters , if anyone among you strays from the truth and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that the one who has turned a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.
This is in regard to spiritual death, I would say most of the bible is in regard to spiritual death except for specific detailed accounts of physical death.
1 Like
I will add that when people say, “I am saved by the blood of Jesus”, they are referring to many different things, not just Jesus’ death.
John 6:53 - So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
This passage thoroughly confused Jewish scholars of the time and caused many of Jesus’ followers to abandon Him. This is a great example of how people who take the Word in a purely literal sense will never understand the truth.
Mark, Jesus is the Passover lamb. The only reason blood is an image of life and purity is because of Jesus’ sacrificial death. Yes, it’s a metaphorical truth, but the blood needed for sacrifice is still a real thing.
How do you know? This also at odds with the fact that we have an immune system. Why give us an immune system if we were never meant to get sick?
I don’t know about the Bible being used to correct errors, but for the science, I agree. Of course I don’t think its God who uses science to correct errors, we do it ourselves. Christians believe Jesus turned water into wine, homeopaths believe water has memory, acupuncturists believe there are unseen qi points or meridian lines on the human body. While science cannot fully rule out these events, it renders them very unlikely and ridiculous to accept.
If God is trying to help us reject the claim that Jesus walked on water through what we know now about density physics, then that’s good.
Jesus or Dionysus turning water into wine is a prescientific claim which is extremely implausible based on what we we know from modern chemistry, so it is essentially erroneous to believe this event (and similar ones) happened.
Implied by the text (e.g., the fruit of the Tree of Life) and systematic theology course topics beyond the scope of this thread and my time constraints.
Not at all.
A good immune system usually protects us BEFORE we get sick! Our immune system is operating 24/7. Not just when we are sick.
Investigate Ultimate Causation versus Proximate Causation.
Correct.
Agreed.
That clause heads into personal opinion—which I certainly respect.
Non-sequitur.
Have there been events which could not be explained via natural processes? Some say yes. Some say no.
In other words you don’t really know. You just think that should be the case, apparently after taking the problem through intensive systematic theology.
You didn’t get the point here. Our immune system protects us from pathogenic microbes. Adam and Eve had immune systems. If they couldn’t fall sick due to infection, then what was the purpose of giving them an immune system (especially adaptive immunity which keeps “records” of previous infections) in the first place?
If you assert that God (although you don’t specify which) ultimately uses science to rid errors without any evidence, then I can dismiss it the same way.
Its not personal opinion, its fact. The claims of homeopathy are ridiculous, don’t you agree? Why are they any different from a tale of Dionysus or Jesus turning water into wine?
This is relevant Allen. If you believe that God revealed the actual history of Homo sapiens through evolution, ridding us of the error that all humans descended from a specially created couple, then there is every possibility that God is trying to use what we know from the laws of physics to tell us a man who is denser than water could not have walked on water.
There are certainly mysterious events which are not yet explicable through natural processes. If history has taught anything, natural explanations eventually come to light.
See Dr. Swamidass’ GAE book. An evolutionary history of Homo sapiens is not necessary in conflict of a specially-created couple. You will find many Peaceful Science threads on this topic.
Obviously. The question I posed could be reworded as “never be explained by natural processes.” It is an age-old question: Are there non-natural processes, aka supernatural interventions?
Are you correcting me, arguing with me or agreeing with me? I don’t get your point. My point is that blood has many different meanings and taking one passage to mean one thing (physical death as you were arguing earlier) is a theological error in hermeneutics and promotes a very one dimensional view of scripture that in my opinion leads to misunderstanding.
I wasn’t arguing against the GAE narrative of special creation. I was arguing against the YEC version which you think is largely in error as it ignores findings of modern science.
If you think their narrative is in error because it rejects paleontological and genetic data indicating we were not the first hominids and lived alongside now extinct hominids, then why can’t you equally see the claim of Jesus walking on water as equally in error as it ignores what we know from modern density physics.
It is far likely that there will be natural explanations for everything we observe in the physical world, than supernatural ones. Spontaneous remission of cancer or other diseases were certainly mysterious and deemed to be explicable by solely supernatural means. Of course you know that’s changing now. Supernatural explanations have never explained anything. When they compete with natural explanations, they almost always lose out.