[_ Old Earth _] Questions for Young Earth Creationists

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The Bible doesn't call anything "a rabbit." But it's always possible someone made an error in transcribing the Bible and got some things wrong.

UT answered earlier:“Yes, you see how I mistranslated the words, ‘hare’ and ‘coney’ to my version of a similar animal. It is possible that the translator misinterpreted the word for ‘hare and the coney’ because of his familiarity with an animal relative in his area, to make it understandable to the reader, not realizing that some people would get all anal about it and make huge objections on a computer discussion board years later alleging major scientific gaffes about cud-chewing.

It only matters if you want to insist that the Bible is inerrant. If so, then it has to be. If not, then it isn't. This is a minor error, one which has no bearing on the real message therein. It just means it's not inerrant.

God didn’t get it wrong. Your understanding of inspiration is wrong. Everything man does is flawed. If I tell my child about my past and he decides to write it for a report in school, I have inspired him. I gave him correct information but then when I read the report, it’s not exactly as I told it, even if it’s close enough.

I think that's much closer than enerrancy.

Barbarian observes:
They imagined they could build a tower to heaven. Do you honest to God think that is possible? Either it's allegorical, or they could build a tower to heaven, or God was mistaken. Your choice, but there's only one choice for a Christian.

The text itself tells us this. Either it is allegorical, or humans can build a tower to heaven and then become all-powerful, or God can be wrong.
What would you pick?

“First of all, they could build a tower that would reach unto heaven, but as the Russian cosmonaut said, God is not there.

It's hard to believe you are serious. One cannot build a tower to heaven.

I think they wanted to get above flood level. Higher than the highest mountaintop, no doubt.

I don't think adding new material to Scripture is the way to resolve this one.

If you READ the bible it is quoting GOD and what he said. God was concerned that man could do anything he wanted and had to be stopped.

More to the point, if you had read it, you would see that God had expressed concerned that men might build a tower to heaven and if so, then they would be able to do anything they imagined to do.

This is absurd on the face of it. It is clearly allegorical. It is impossible to build a structure to heaven, and it is absurd to think that doing it would make men omnipotent.

You don’t know exactly what God meant when he said they would die and neither do I.

I do know that He didn't mean a physical death, because He told Adam that it would happen the day he ate from the tree, and yet Adam lived on physically for many years after he did so.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian observes:

It only matters if you want to insist that the Bible is inerrant. If so, then it has to be. If not, then it isn't. This is a minor error, one which has no bearing on the real message therein. It just means it's not inerrant.

God is inerrant. God’s message to man was inerrant. Man’s translation of that purfext werd of God into the writtan text has flwas, but with comon sence, we can determane wht he said wuth a hi digree of confudense, if we take into considerashun the translatir’s limitashuns of ignorinse and bias.



Barbarian observes:

It's hard to believe you are serious. One cannot build a tower to heaven.

I don't think adding new material to Scripture is the way to resolve this one.

I said they were building a tower whose top would reach unto heaven, not that would actually reach all the way to the top of heaven where God‘s throne is. There are three heavens mentioned in the Bible; the sky, the cosmos, and God’s throne.



Barbarian observes:

More to the point, if you had read it, you would see that God had expressed concerned that men might build a tower to heaven and if so, then they would be able to do anything they imagined to do.

This is absurd on the face of it. It is clearly allegorical. It is impossible to build a structure to heaven, and it is absurd to think that doing it would make men omnipotent.

They imagined they could build a tower whose top would reach to heaven. This is what they imagined to do since they were unrestrained by language barriers. God’s concerns were that they would not be restrained in their attempt to unite against him, to their own destruction. It is absurd to surmise that the Bible suggests that God is fearful that man would be able to attack him or become omnipotent. The rest of scripture does not support your characterization of this passage.




Barbarian observes:

I do know that He didn't mean a physical death, because He told Adam that it would happen the day he ate from the tree, and yet Adam lived on physically for many years after he did so.

Do you realize that from the moment we are born, we begin to die physically? Our cells are dying and being replaced every moment we live. If the process of death began the day Adam ate of the fruit, he died physically from that day forward

 

[reznwerks]

god

Barbarian observes:

It only matters if you want to insist that the Bible is inerrant. If so, then it has to be. If not, then it isn't. This is a minor error, one which has no bearing on the real message therein. It just means it's not inerrant.

God is inerrant. God’s message to man was inerrant. Man’s translation of that purfext werd of God into the writtan text has flwas, but with comon sence, we can determane wht he said wuth a hi digree of confudense, if we take into considerashun the translatir’s limitashuns of ignorinse and bias.
If God wanted to send a message and the message got garbled who is to blame when the sender has it in his power to send a message that is not garbled? In a corporate environment he would be fired.



Barbarian observes: [quote:ba5d6] It's hard to believe you are serious. One cannot build a tower to heaven.

I don't think adding new material to Scripture is the way to resolve this one.

I said they were building a tower whose top would reach unto heaven, not that would actually reach all the way to the top of heaven where God‘s throne is. There are three heavens mentioned in the Bible; the sky, the cosmos, and God’s throne.
The bible is very clear on this. God and others at the round table are concerned that man would now be like Gods. No mention of any other heavens are discussed at this point. You are doing like so many others do and that is pull scripture out of anywhere in order to validate your beliefs . Sorry but it doesn't work like that.Satan was correct in that he said to Adam if you eat you will become like Gods. Read the story. Satan did not lie.



Barbarian observes:

More to the point, if you had read it, you would see that God had expressed concerned that men might build a tower to heaven and if so, then they would be able to do anything they imagined to do.

This is absurd on the face of it. It is clearly allegorical. It is impossible to build a structure to heaven, and it is absurd to think that doing it would make men omnipotent.

How can it be absurd if God was concerned about it? Do you think the bible writers went to Harvard and studied English and how to use allegory?LOL Who told you this?


They imagined they could build a tower whose top would reach to heaven. This is what they imagined to do since they were unrestrained by language barriers. God’s concerns were that they would not be restrained in their attempt to unite against him, to their own destruction. It is absurd to surmise that the Bible suggests that God is fearful that man would be able to attack him or become omnipotent. The rest of scripture does not support your characterization of this passage.
Sorry but that is exactly what the bible says. All you have to do is read it.




Barbarian observes:

I do know that He didn't mean a physical death, because He told Adam that it would happen the day he ate from the tree, and yet Adam lived on physically for many years after he did so.

Do you realize that from the moment we are born, we begin to die physically? Our cells are dying and being replaced every moment we live. If the process of death began the day Adam ate of the fruit, he died physically from that day forward
Yet we have no evidence that reality was anything but what we observe today. We start dying as you observe the moment we are born. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary this is as it always was.

[/quote:ba5d6]

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

edited

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

If God wanted to send a message and the message got garbled who is to blame when the sender has it in his power to send a message that is not garbled? In a corporate environment he would be fired.

The message is to those who were intended to receive it. They get it. Apparently you don’t.

Reznwerks wrote:

The bible is very clear on this. God and others at the round table are concerned that man would now be like Gods. No mention of any other heavens are discussed at this point. You are doing like so many others do and that is pull scripture out of anywhere in order to validate your beliefs . Sorry but it doesn't work like that.Satan was correct in that he said to Adam if you eat you will become like Gods. Read the story. Satan did not lie.

I am willing to concede that you may be right on this. Perhaps, as Barbarian has suggested, man was capable of anything he could imagine. Perhaps they had stumbled onto a technique of re-creating some of God’s methods of ‘hocus pocus’ by rearranging molecules or some other bizarre means that we have not found again. Perhaps we will cross the language barrier and unite against God with some technological wonder that will make us think we are capable of destroying our creator. Oh wait… I’m skipping ahead to the end of the book… bad habit…


Reznwerks wrote:

[quote:f51b5]Barbarian observes:More to the point, if you had read it, you would see that God had expressed concerned that men might build a tower to heaven and if so, then they would be able to do anything they imagined to do.
This is absurd on the face of it. It is clearly allegorical. It is impossible to build a structure to heaven, and it is absurd to think that doing it would make men omnipotent.

How can it be absurd if God was concerned about it? Do you think the bible writers went to Harvard and studied English and how to use allegory?LOL Who told you this? [/quote:f51b5]
This was not my quote, so I’ll let you and Barbarian hash that one out. I don’t believe the account is an allegory.

Reznwerks wrote:

Sorry but that is exactly what the bible says. All you have to do is read it.

There’s more than one explanation to resolve the difficulty you find with the passage. You would rather make it into a case against the Bible and a literal interpretation of it. You have a right to your opinion.

Reznwerks wrote:

Yet we have no evidence that reality was anything but what we observe today. We start dying as you observe the moment we are born. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary this is as it always was.

I guess it’s a classic case of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots.’ The evidence has been preserved for us. Some of us believe the Bible. Some of us reject it.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes: Quote:
It only matters if you want to insist that the Bible is inerrant. If so, then it has to be. If not, then it isn't. This is a minor error, one which has no bearing on the real message therein. It just means it's not inerrant.

God is inerrant. God’s message to man was inerrant. Man’s translation of that purfext werd of God into the writtan text has flwas, but with comon sence, we can determane wht he said wuth a hi digree of confudense, if we take into considerashun the translatir’s limitashuns of ignorinse and bias.

Assuming we know what that is, and how it affected inspiration. And assuming we got all the inspired books, and didn't include any that weren't inspired.

What makes you think that happened?

Barbarian observes:It's hard to believe you are serious. One cannot build a tower to heaven.

I don't think adding new material to Scripture is the way to resolve this one.

I said they were building a tower whose top would reach unto heaven, not that would actually reach all the way to the top of heaven where God‘s throne is. There are three heavens mentioned in the Bible; the sky, the cosmos, and God’s throne.

So, if we add a bit to the text, you think it can be resolved? I think it's a bad idea to add anything.

Barbarian observes:
More to the point, if you had read it, you would see that God had expressed concerned that men might build a tower to heaven and if so, then they would be able to do anything they imagined to do.

This is absurd on the face of it. It is clearly allegorical. It is impossible to build a structure to heaven, and it is absurd to think that doing it would make men omnipotent.

They imagined they could build a tower whose top would reach to heaven. This is what they imagined to do since they were unrestrained by language barriers.

Obviously, it is impossible to build a tower to heaven.

God’s concerns were that they would not be restrained in their attempt to unite against him, to their own destruction.

This would be another addition. Not a good idea.

It is absurd to surmise that the Bible suggests that God is fearful that man would be able to attack him or become omnipotent.

That is what it says if you take it literally, although "attack" is not in it anywhere. That is your addition, too.

The rest of scripture does not support your characterization of this passage.

You should let the text interpret itself, and not seek contradictions in other verses.

Barbarian observes:
I do know that He didn't mean a physical death, because He told Adam that it would happen the day he ate from the tree, and yet Adam lived on physically for many years after he did so.

Do you realize that from the moment we are born, we begin to die physically?

Nope. Besides, that's not what God said. He said Adam would die the day he ate from the tree. And yet Adam lived on for many years. So we know that is not a literal, physical death.

Our cells are dying and being replaced every moment we live. If the process of death began the day Adam ate of the fruit, he died physically from that day forward

Sorry, not scriptural. God says Adam would die. Not start to die. Not become mortal. God said he would die the day he ate from the tree.

So we know it cannot be literal. As you see, the only way to make it literal, is to add a lot of extra doctrines to God's word.

I'd advise against it.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian observed:

Assuming we know what that is, and how it affected inspiration. And assuming we got all the inspired books, and didn't include any that weren't inspired.
What makes you think that happened?

So, if we add a bit to the text, you think it can be resolved? I think it's a bad idea to add anything.

How about if we just add a little common sense to our reading?


Barbarian observed:

Obviously, it is impossible to build a tower to heaven.

Obviously “a tower whose top may reach unto heaven†is not “a tower to heaven.â€Â

Barbarian observed:

This would be another addition. Not a good idea.

This would be making sense of the text, in a normal way. Making a mountain whose top reaches unto heaven out of a molehill just makes one look asinine.

Barbarian observed:

That is what it says if you take it literally, although "attack" is not in it anywhere. That is your addition, too.

No, it does not say God is fearful of man. It only says that nothing that they have imagined to do will be restrained. In the book of Jasher, the account is clearer.

Barbarian observed:

You should let the text interpret itself, and not seek contradictions in other verses.

You should always seek to interpret verses in light of other passages so that you have a complete and accurate picture. There should not be contradictions. When one is found, it is usually easily resolved by better understanding of the whole.

Barbarian observed:

Nope. Besides, that's not what God said. He said Adam would die the day he ate from the tree. And yet Adam lived on for many years. So we know that is not a literal, physical death.

Obviously God is not using our definition of ‘death’ then, is he? There are more kinds of death than we know.


Barbarian observed:

Sorry, not scriptural. God says Adam would die. Not start to die. Not become mortal. God said he would die the day he ate from the tree.
So we know it cannot be literal. As you see, the only way to make it literal, is to add a lot of extra doctrines to God's word.
I'd advise against it.

LOL. So you can determine at exactly what point Adam died in God’s estimation. How about in chapter 3, verse 22 when God says if man puts his hand to take from the tree of life he will live forever (not die today) and to prevent this eternal life from happening, he drives him from the source of this life? Sounds like being cut off from eternal life today is literal eternal death-right-now-today to me. Death is separation from the source of life.

So at what point does God’s word become literal (if ever) in your expert opinion?

 

[reznwerks]

huh

Reznwerks wrote:

If God wanted to send a message and the message got garbled who is to blame when the sender has it in his power to send a message that is not garbled? In a corporate environment he would be fired.

The message is to those who were intended to receive it. They get it. Apparently you don’t.
I thought God loved everyone. You think God is an elitist.

Reznwerks wrote:[quote:06e97]The bible is very clear on this. God and others at the round table are concerned that man would now be like Gods. No mention of any other heavens are discussed at this point. You are doing like so many others do and that is pull scripture out of anywhere in order to validate your beliefs . Sorry but it doesn't work like that.Satan was correct in that he said to Adam if you eat you will become like Gods. Read the story. Satan did not lie.

I am willing to concede that you may be right on this. Perhaps, as Barbarian has suggested, man was capable of anything he could imagine. Perhaps they had stumbled onto a technique of re-creating some of God’s methods of ‘hocus pocus’ by rearranging molecules or some other bizarre means that we have not found again. Perhaps we will cross the language barrier and unite against God with some technological wonder that will make us think we are capable of destroying our creator. Oh wait… I’m skipping ahead to the end of the book… bad habit…


Reznwerks wrote:

[quote:06e97]Barbarian observes:More to the point, if you had read it, you would see that God had expressed concerned that men might build a tower to heaven and if so, then they would be able to do anything they imagined to do.
This is absurd on the face of it. It is clearly allegorical. It is impossible to build a structure to heaven, and it is absurd to think that doing it would make men omnipotent.

How can it be absurd if God was concerned about it? Do you think the bible writers went to Harvard and studied English and how to use allegory?LOL Who told you this? [/quote:06e97]
This was not my quote, so I’ll let you and Barbarian hash that one out. I don’t believe the account is an allegory.

Reznwerks wrote:

Sorry but that is exactly what the bible says. All you have to do is read it.

There’s more than one explanation to resolve the difficulty you find with the passage. You would rather make it into a case against the Bible and a literal interpretation of it. You have a right to your opinion.

Reznwerks wrote:

Yet we have no evidence that reality was anything but what we observe today. We start dying as you observe the moment we are born. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary this is as it always was.

I guess it’s a classic case of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots.’ The evidence has been preserved for us. Some of us believe the Bible. Some of us reject it.
Yes it is a matter of belief. However there has to be a reason for the belief. Do you have any? Do you have any real evidence other than the bible that shows that man was destined to love to infinity?

[/quote:06e97]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

I thought God loved everyone. You think God is an elitist.

God loves everyone but not everyone loves God. He doesn’t force you and if you love evil and hateful passions, and refuse to give them up, you get to keep them. You will be drawn to what you love. God is good, love, life, light, peace… if you love those things, you will be drawn to him. The choice is yours. You can change your own destiny. You can change from someone who hates God to one who loves him. The Bible teaches that God hates the wicked but if the wicked turns from his wicked ways, God will love and receive him just a father receives a prodigal son. There is a place for anyone who repents because “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.â€Â

Reznwerks wrote:

Yes it is a matter of belief. However there has to be a reason for the belief. Do you have any? Do you have any real evidence other than the bible that shows that man was destined to love to infinity?

Yes, I do. I didn’t start with the Bible, I started with the Creator. I spoke to him in spirit and in truth and he answered me. The Bible just filled in the details for me. Hebrews 11:6 says that he that comes to God must believe that he exists and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him. Without stepping out in faith, you won’t find him, even though he is closer to you than your skin.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Assuming we know what that is, and how it affected inspiration. And assuming we got all the inspired books, and didn't include any that weren't inspired.

What makes you think that happened?

So, if we add a bit to the text, you think it can be resolved? I think it's a bad idea to add anything.

How about if we just add a little common sense to our reading?

I was hoping for a straight answer. Those weren't rhetorical questions.

Barbarian observes:
Obviously, it is impossible to build a tower to heaven.

Obviously “a tower whose top may reach unto heaven†is not “a tower to heaven.â€Â

How do you suppose one could build a tower capable of reaching heaven?

Barbarian observes:
This would be another addition. (to scripture) Not a good idea.

This would be making sense of the text, in a normal way.

For most of us, adding to it is unwise.

Barbarian observed:
That is what it says if you take it literally, although "attack" is not in it anywhere. That is your addition, too.

No, it does not say God is fearful of man.

True. That's why I said that He expressed concern. He did.

Barbarian observes:
You should let the text interpret itself, and not seek contradictions in other verses.

You should always seek to interpret verses in light of other passages so that you have a complete and accurate picture.

But you can never use one to refute another. That's what I objected to.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Besides, that's not what God said. He said Adam would die the day he ate from the tree. And yet Adam lived on for many years. So we know that is not a literal, physical death.

Obviously God is not using our definition of ‘death’ then, is he? There are more kinds of death than we know.

You're almost there. God was not talking about a literal, physical death, but a spiritual one. This is what is meant when it is written that through man, death entered into the world.

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, not scriptural. God says Adam would die. Not start to die. Not become mortal. God said he would die the day he ate from the tree.
So we know it cannot be literal. As you see, the only way to make it literal, is to add a lot of extra doctrines to God's word.
I'd advise against it.

LOL. So you can determine at exactly what point Adam died in God’s estimation.

God says that Adam died many years after he ate from the tree. So that's not unknown.

How about in chapter 3, verse 22 when God says if man puts his hand to take from the tree of life he will live forever (not die today) and to prevent this eternal life from happening, he drives him from the source of this life? Sounds like being cut off from eternal life today is literal eternal death-right-now-today to me. Death is separation from the source of life.

No. Death is the end of life. God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam eats, but dies a figurative, spiritual death, not a literal one. He lives on for many years after.

This is how we know the "death" God spoke of was not literal, not physical.

So at what point does God’s word become literal (if ever) in your expert opinion?

When the text makes it clear that it is. Likewise, as in this case, when the text makes it clear that it is not literal, we know that it is not.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian observes:

I was hoping for a straight answer. Those weren't rhetorical questions.

That was a straight answer. If we read these accounts with as much common sense as we use when reading the morning paper, we wouldn’t be making a big deal over such minor points.

Barbarian observes:

Obviously, it is impossible to build a tower to heaven.
How do you suppose one could build a tower capable of reaching heaven?

Obviously “a tower whose top may reach unto heaven†is not “a tower capable of reaching heaven.â€Â

Barbarian observes:

This would be another addition. (to scripture) Not a good idea.
For most of us, adding to it is unwise.

Do you think misquoting it and making it sound foolish so we can dismiss it as an allegory is a better idea? Taking it in conjuncture with the account in Jasher gives it more sense and in the literal fashion it was written in.

Unred Typo wrote, earlier:“They imagined they could build a tower whose top would reach unto heaven. This is what they imagined to do since they were unrestrained by language barriers. God’s concerns were that they would not be restrained in their attempt to unite against him, to their own destruction. It is absurd to surmise that the Bible suggests that God is fearful that man would be able to attack him or become omnipotent. The rest of scripture does not support your characterization of this passage.â€Â
Then, Barbarian answered earlier:

Sorry but that is exactly what the bible says. All you have to do is read it.

Then, Barbarian back pedaled from that by saying:

That is what it says if you take it literally, although "attack" is not in it anywhere. That is your addition, too.

Later, Barbarian observed:

True. (it does not say God is fearful of man.) That's why I said that He expressed concern. He did.

Actually, God’s concerns were that they would not be restrained to do whatever it was that they had imagined to do. The Bible records that they had imagined that they could build a tower whose top would reach unto heaven. We can read some other things they had imagined to do in Jasher. Some things can be literal and some things are literary tools like metaphors to stress a point in an actual historical account. Using common sense will help you understand passages literally without turning everything into some symbolic fable.



Barbarian observed earlier:

You should let the text interpret itself, and not seek contradictions in other verses.

Then Barbarian insisted:

But you can never use one to refute another. That's what I objected to.

I interpret verses in light of other passages, both in the Bible and in Jasher, for instance, so that I have as complete and accurate a picture as possible. What verses did I use to refute any other passage?

Barbarian observes:

Nope. Besides, that's not what God said. He said Adam would die the day he ate from the tree. And yet Adam lived on for many years. So we know that is not a literal, physical death.

You're almost there. God was not talking about a literal, physical death, but a spiritual one. This is what is meant when it is written that through man, death entered into the world.
Sorry, not scriptural. God says Adam would die. Not start to die. Not become mortal. God said he would die the day he ate from the tree.

So we know it cannot be literal. As you see, the only way to make it literal, is to add a lot of extra doctrines to God's word.
I'd advise against it.
God says that Adam died many years after he ate from the tree. So that's not unknown.
Death is the end of life. God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam eats, but dies a figurative, spiritual death, not a literal one. He lives on for many years after.

This is how we know the "death" God spoke of was not literal, not physical.

You arbitrarily chose to make some kind of parable from this ambiguity that is not even implied. God says the day they ate of the tree, they would die. Why do you stop with the word ‘die’? Why not make a big deal about the word ‘day’ being an extended period, like you probably do with the first seven days of creation? Death is a separation. Death appears to be a process of separation of parts of the entire being from the life forces that sustain it.

The immediate effects of Adam’s sin seems to be a separation from innocence. From this point, there is seen a separation from God when he and Eve hide. This is death of a relationship with the source of life. When he was cut off from the tree of life, this became a permanent condition that only life in Christ could remedy. Just as your hair and fingernails continue to grow after your heart and brain function cease, Adam’s existence continued but in a diminished state. He began the process of dying from the moment he ate the fruit. His spirit was not eradicated but cut off from God’s presence, just as his body was cut off from the tree of life. God calls this ‘death’ and who are we to argue with him? You are willing to spiritualize the entire word and limit it to the spiritual death, as if the spirit of man ceased to exist after man sinned, yet, the Bible says that they that worship God must do so in spirit and in truth and throughout the Bible are numerous mentions of this spirit in man. Adam’s spirit was no more ‘dead’ than his body the day he ate of the tree. A better explanation might be the concept of ‘under the sentence of death’ while he lives.


Barbarian observes:

When the text makes it clear that it is. Likewise, as in this case, when the text makes it clear that it is not literal, we know that it is not.

This is not some kind of symbolic myth. These events occurred and were written and preserved for us fairly intact. If it were a parable, we would have been told. There is no break in the story and from the beginning onward, it continues with actual names and even genealogies. Someday, you may meet Adam and tell him face to face he is only symbolic and not a literal person. That should be good for a laugh.

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian again asks for a justification for adding material to Scripture)
I was hoping for a straight answer. Those weren't rhetorical questions.

That was a straight answer. If we read these accounts with as much common sense as we use when reading the morning paper, we wouldn’t be making a big deal over such minor points.

If God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, and Adam lives on for many years after, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that God was not talking about physical death.

Barbarian observes:
Obviously, it is impossible to build a tower to heaven.
How do you suppose one could build a tower capable of reaching heaven?

Obviously “a tower whose top may reach unto heaven†is not “a tower capable of reaching heaven.â€Â

Barbarian observes:
This would be another addition. (to scripture) Not a good idea.
For most of us, adding to it is unwise.

Do you think misquoting it and making it sound foolish so we can dismiss it as an allegory is a better idea?

You should be more respectful of Gods word, than to dismiss allegory as foolish.

It is absurd to surmise that the Bible suggests that God is fearful that man would be able to attack him or become omnipotent. The rest of scripture does not support your characterization of this passage.â€Â

(I missed unread typo's addition of "attack" the first time he used it.)

Barbarian observes:
That is what it says if you take it literally, although "attack" is not in it anywhere. That is your addition, too.

Later, Barbarian observed:Quote:
True. (it does not say God is fearful of man.) That's why I said that He expressed concern. He did.

(unread type agrees)

Barbarian observes:
You should let the text interpret itself, and not seek contradictions in other verses.

But you can never use one to refute another. That's what I objected to.

I interpret verses in light of other passages, both in the Bible and in Jasher, for instance, so that I have as complete and accurate a picture as possible. What verses did I use to refute any other passage?

You only tried to refute the passage about the Tower.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Besides, that's not what God said. He said Adam would die the day he ate from the tree. And yet Adam lived on for many years. So we know that is not a literal, physical death.

You're almost there. God was not talking about a literal, physical death, but a spiritual one. This is what is meant when it is written that through man, death entered into the world. ...

Sorry, not scriptural. God says Adam would die. Not start to die. Not become mortal. God said he would die the day he ate from the tree.

So we know it cannot be literal. As you see, the only way to make it literal, is to add a lot of extra doctrines to God's word.
I'd advise against it.

LOL. So you can determine at exactly what point Adam died in God’s estimation.

God says that Adam died many years after he ate from the tree. So that's not unknown.

Barbarian observes:
Death is the end of life. God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam eats, but dies a figurative, spiritual death, not a literal one. He lives on for many years after.

This is how we know the "death" God spoke of was not literal, not physical.

You arbitrarily chose to make some kind of parable from this ambiguity that is not even implied.

It's not ambiguous at all. You just don't like what it says.

God says the day they ate of the tree, they would die.

Corrrection. He says the day Adam eats from the tree, he will die.

Why do you stop with the word ‘die’?

I didn't . You edited out the part where I told you God said he would die the day he ate from the tree.

Why not make a big deal about the word ‘day’ being an extended period, like you probably do with the first seven days of creation?

Six. And then, if God is speaking "day", meaning "many years", why does He suddenly change and say Adam died many years later, instead of in a day? This may make sense if Genesis is allegory, but not if it is literal.

Death is a separation. Death appears to be a process of separation of parts of the entire being from the life forces that sustain it.

Death is when life ends. And as God observed, Adam did not die for many years after. There's no way to twist this one to anything but what it is.

The immediate effects of Adam’s sin...

Sorry. God said "you will die the day you eat from it." And Adam clearly did not die physically. This is why we know it cannot be literal.

Barbarian observes:
When the text makes it clear that it is. Likewise, as in this case, when the text makes it clear that it is not literal, we know that it is not.

This is not some kind of symbolic myth.

More precisely, it's an allegory. The events and characters are real, but they are expressed in allegorical terms.

These events occurred and were written and preserved for us fairly intact.

I know you want to believe that, but as you learned, there is no way to change it to a literal account without asserting that God said something that is not true.

If it were a parable, we would have been told.

The text itself tells us this. God does not lie.

Someday, you may meet Adam and tell him face to face he is only symbolic and not a literal person.

Why would I tell him that? Do you suppose that God or Adam do not exist, if they appear in an allegory?

That should be good for a laugh.

Indeed. Consider what you've learned here, and profit from it.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian observes:

Death is the end of life. God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam eats, but dies a figurative, spiritual death, not a literal one. He lives on for many years after.

This is how we know the "death" God spoke of was not literal, not physical.

When we die in this life, we do not cease to exist. We no longer live within the sphere of existence inside our physical bodies, but we move on to another realm. When we move from our bodies to the next place, those who knew us in this life say that we died when really only the person we are was removed from our physical body. Adam had an existence with God that he could no longer enjoy the very day he ate of the tree. God said he died. This is a literal death, not figurative, not an allegory. We may not understand what aspect of Adam’s person died that day but God said Adam would die that very day, not Adam’s spirit. When Adam left his physical body, hundreds of years later, those who knew him in this earthly life said he died. It was a literal death that was ultimately caused by the removal of Adam from the life in the garden. This literal physical death was passed on to all Adam’s descendants. The death that Adam died the day he ate of the tree was not passed on to his descendants because they never experienced the life that Adam lost. As humans we have body, soul and spirit. We have a measure of ‘life’ in those aspects of our being. We don’t have the life that Adam and Eve enjoyed in the garden. You seem to want to reduce the concept of Adam’s death to a spiritual death. Since we still possess a spirit, this cannot be the case.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Death is the end of life. God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam eats, but dies a figurative, spiritual death, not a literal one. He lives on for many years after.

This is how we know the "death" God spoke of was not literal, not physical.

When we die in this life, we do not cease to exist. We no longer live within the sphere of existence inside our physical bodies, but we move on to another realm.

Our bodies die. That is physical death. This is why we know that God did not mean a literal death, because that did not happen to Adam. He lived on for many years after, even though God said that he would die the day he ate from the tree.

Adam had an existence with God that he could no longer enjoy the very day he ate of the tree. God said he died. This is a literal death, not figurative, not an allegory.

Literal death would mean he actually died. We use death as a figure of speech to refer to a "spiritual death."

We may not understand what aspect of Adam’s person died

We only know it was not a literal death, because Adam didn't die until much later.

There's no way to spin this one. You're just going to have to accept it the way God told you.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

We only know it was not a literal death, because Adam didn't die until much later.

There's no way to spin this one. You're just going to have to accept it the way God told you.

I do accept it as God told it, a literal account of actual real events. I find no problem with admitting that God has a different perspective on death for Adam and whether you label it as spiritual death or literal death makes no difference to me. The point is that the account is literal. I don’t even know what your problem is, except that you may want to avoid stepping on the ToE with it’s billions of years and somehow keep your finger in the Bible. Whatever.

 

[Barbarian]

I do accept it as God told it, a literal account of actual real events.

You'll accept it, if you get to change it to your liking.

I find no problem with admitting that God has a different perspective on death for Adam and whether you label it as spiritual death or literal death makes no difference to me.

That's a significant change. But you have to understand that when we say a man "dies", the literal meaning is his body stops functioning.

Once you come to grips with the reason you won't accept God's word, you will find there's no problem whatever.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

You'll accept it, if you get to change it to your liking.

Changing a literal account to an allegory is totally unacceptable. I haven’t changed anything in the text to understand what is being said. I have only made allowances in the inadequate human concepts of life and death. I didn’t see anywhere in the Bible where God gave us a clinical definition of Adam’s death.

Barbarian wrote:

That's a significant change. But you have to understand that when we say a man "dies", the literal meaning is his body stops functioning.

What we refer to as death is just the visible physical effects. I think God knows more about it than we do. When he said Adam would die the day he ate of the tree, I think he knew what it was for Adam to die, which may or may not have any more resemblance to our death than the death of a cucumber. Some things we just aren’t told. Get over it.


Barbarian wrote:

Once you come to grips with the reason you won't accept God's word, you will find there's no problem whatever.

Don’t you mean that once I let it become a make believe story, it can be manipulated to fit any world view, religion or scientific theory that rears it‘s ugly head? How convenient. I think I will accept it as written and let God be true and every man a liar.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian on Genesis:
You'll accept it, if you get to change it to your liking.

Changing a literal account to an allegory is totally unacceptable.

As you learned, the text itself says that it cannot be literal, since a literal re-interpretation of Genesis includes God saying things that are not true. This is why St. Augustine finally gave up trying to find a way to make it literal.

I haven’t changed anything in the text to understand what is being said. I have only made allowances...

Why not just accept it without inserting "allowances?"

in the inadequate human concepts of life and death. I didn’t see anywhere in the Bible where God gave us a clinical definition of Adam’s death.

It does say when he died. And it was long after God said, if you take the story literally. God was wrong, or this is not literal. Not much of a choice, is it?

Barbarian wrote:
That's a significant change. But you have to understand that when we say a man "dies", the literal meaning is his body stops functioning.

What we refer to as death is just the visible physical effects.

Yes. Adam died literally, many years after he left the Garden. God did not use "death" in the literal sense.

I think God knows more about it than we do. When he said Adam would die the day he ate of the tree, I think he knew what it was for Adam to die,

He did. In fact, he says when Adam died:
Genesis 5:4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Not the day he ate from the tree. That was a different sort of "death", not a literal one.

Barbarian observes:
Once you come to grips with the reason you won't accept God's word, you will find there's no problem whatever.

Don’t you mean that once I let it become a make believe story, it can be manipulated to fit any world view, religion or scientific theory that rears it‘s ugly head?

Nope. God can use allegory, and does. You should have more respect for Him than to use those terms for His Word.

I think I will accept it as written and let God be true and every man a liar.

You accept what you like of it. The rest, you change to suit yourself.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

He did. In fact, he says when Adam died:
Genesis 5:4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Not the day he ate from the tree. That was a different sort of "death", not a literal one.

Whether it was a spiritual death or a kind of death that we don’t understand, the day Adam ate of the tree, he died a literal death according to God. Your characterization of this different sort of "death" as not a being a literal one is just playing games with the text and you have no reason to assume it is not literal, except you prefer to use that as an excuse to turn the account into an allegory.

Barbarian wrote:

Nope. God can use allegory, and does. You should have more respect for Him than to use those terms for His Word.

There are many instances of allegories, parables, metaphors, symbols and similes the Bible. This is not one of them.
We can argue this until the cows come home and you will be probably still be blind to the iron clad truth before you, even if it slaps you up side the head. I think since we both must have better things to do, let’s just agree to disagree. Saying the same thing seven different ways won’t change anyone’s mind. Better not to become frustrated and insulting.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
He did. In fact, he says when Adam died:
Genesis 5:4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Not the day he ate from the tree. That was a different sort of "death", not a literal one.

Whether it was a spiritual death or a kind of death that we don’t understand, the day Adam ate of the tree, he died a literal death according to God.

Yes. But many years later, according to God. The "death" God spoke to Adam about was not a literal one. That happened much later. God was speaking figuratively, meaning a spiritual death, not a literal one.

Your characterization of this different sort of "death" as not a being a literal one is just playing games with the text

It's God's characterization, not mine. Note that God says Adam died many years later. That is literal.

and you have no reason to assume it is not literal,

No assumption required. You only have to look at the text to see it.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. God can use allegory, and does. You should have more respect for Him than to use those terms for His Word.

There are many instances of allegories, parables, metaphors, symbols and similes the Bible. This is not one of them.

I know you want to believe that. But the text clearly shows that it is. And calling such things "make believe" stories is an insult to God.