[_ Old Earth _] What did predators eat before the fall?

[jwu]

read the whole thing and you will see how they reconcile that uh, they go the greek in that. soma

I've come across soma all over the place. Based on what i've seen no, they don't reconcile it. They just seem to manically scream "see?? soma soma soma!" whenever they come across it, even though the verse itself clearly contradicts their point of view. E.g. when it literally talks about a transition from a physical to a spiritual body.

if were are meant to be in heaven and are spirits only why then are we on the earth and matthew says that we inherit the earth.

"1Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them saying:
3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

It's meant to say that the meek, the humble will have everything they missed in life. It's an allegory, not a reference to a physical lump of rock somewhere in space.

how can we ressurect something if we dont die first then arent able to recieve it.
is this new earth, heaven according to you

According to Paul, not to me. otherwise, what is that spiritual body that Paul talks about?

 

[jasoncran]

crying rock, are you saying that the word says that we could eat animals before the flood?

or that we had dominion over them.

 

[jwu]

1Co 15:35-38 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own.

Paul again and again uses the term "soma" to describe what is resurrected. The use of this term, meant to imply the physical, establishes Paul's belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus and of Christians.

Additionally, that Greek skepticism of physical resurrection was at the heart of the problem becomes clear as Paul moves on to address another question raised by those who reject his doctrine of the resurrection--what kind of body would a "resurrected body" be? The question is not about life after death (easily accepted by Greeks as a "spiritual resurrection"), but the idea of a physical resurrection itself was absurd to the questioner. Again, the fact that Paul is having to argue what kind of "soma" was raised strongly suggests that he has previously taught, and currently defending, the doctrine of a physical resurrection.

1Co 15:39-49 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, "The first man Adam, became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

First, Paul uses "soma" to throughout to describe the resurrected body.

Second, Paul uses the analogy of a seed, noting that it is "sown" a natural body but raised a spiritual body. This strongly suggests continuity between the first body and the new body, just as a seed becomes a plan, the old body becomes the new body. The obvious differences between the seed and the plan are irrelevant, as it is the continuity that we are concerned with.

It is significant that Talmudic literature uses the same analogy of a seed to explain the connection between the old body and the new one following the resurrection. According to the Talmud, Rabbi Meier used the metaphor of a grain of wheat sown into the ground but raised a blossoming flower: "If a kernel fo wheat is buried naked and will sprout forth in many robes, how much more so the righteous." (b. Sanh. 90b). Not only does this highlight Paul's Jewishness, it further suggests that Paul was discussing--as was Rabbi Meier--a physical resurrection.

please you should have looked at the greek word soma, that is the original nt translation where body is used. please try not to cherry pick this stuff as mattherew 5:5 needs to be addressed. is the earth an type of heavean to you.

Plagiarism is bad.

Other than that, soma apparently just means "body". Further adjectives like physical/natural and spiritual are used. The article that you copied even goes this far:

"Second, Paul uses the analogy of a seed, noting that it is "sown" a natural body but raised a spiritual body. This strongly suggests continuity between the first body and the new body, just as a seed becomes a plan, the old body becomes the new body. The obvious differences between the seed and the plan are irrelevant, as it is the continuity that we are concerned with."

It acknowledges that Paul explicity states that a spiritual body will be the result...ignoring this is pure delusion on part of the author.

 

[jasoncran]

from the beggining ah i see that he made them animals herbivores. i saw that in the kjv. i had to reread that.

 

[jwu]

I squeeze insect larvae out of livestock all the time. However, I would like to know the "many" insects that depend on hosts for reproduction and necessarily kill them.

E.g. the roughly 60.000 species of Ichneumonidae.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichneumoni ... _imperator

 

[jasoncran]

please reconcile that comment on that site , with the verse that says, the meek shall inherit the earth

is the world kosmos the same as heaven in greek?

if what you say is true then what shall the righteous inherit for their deeds?

please answer this as i have asked you twice already and know i didnt plagerize, i read the bible, and backed up the teaching with the site that best explains it theological soundness.

 

[jwu]

please reconcile that comment on that site , with the verse that says, the meek shall inherit the earth

is the world kosmos the same as heaven in greek?

No, it's not. But that's not the point - i don't think the verse is about actual possession of real estate in first instance. It is supposed to contrast the humble attitude of the meek with their reward, and meant to say that they shall have what they deprived themselves of. Kosmos here is poorly translated as "earth", a better translation would be "everything", "all that exists".

if what you say is true then what shall the righteous inherit for their deeds?

This further highlights that it's not meant to be taken literal. Or do you really believe that God will literally hand over the ownership of the kingdom of heaven to the righteous, effectively dethroning himself/Jesus? Do you really believe this?
These verses have "non-literal!" written all over them.

please answer this as i have asked you twice already and know i didnt plagerize, i read the bible, and backed up the teaching with the site that best explains it theological soundness.

Quoting large portions of a text without giving credit to its source is plagiarism by its very definition.

 

[jasoncran]

he dwell with us not. God told adam to have dominion over all the earth yet God came down to talk to him.

if we are only meant to be in heavean, then reconcile which you failed to do. matthew 5:5 the meek shall inherit the earth.

somebody had to die so that we can inherit the earth. Jesus did that for us, and thats talk about in the last book that you reject.

by your definition of the world kosmos, john 3:16 makes no sense.

for god loved all that there is that he gave his only begotten son .

what exactly did jesus die for?

 

[jwu]

he dwell with us not. God told adam to have dominion over all the earth yet God came down to talk to him.

if we are only meant to be in heavean, then reconcile which you failed to do. matthew 5:5 the meek shall inherit the earth.

somebody had to die so that we can inherit the earth. Jesus did that for us, and thats talk about in the last book that you reject.

You say that i failed to "reconcile" that passage. What part of my explanation did you find lacking? Please be specific.

by your definition of the world kosmos, john 3:16 makes no sense.

You are aware that words can have more than one meaning? It's a polynym. But even if that were not so, i don't see how that would negatively affect this verse.

"For in this way God loved the world: that he gave the unique son, so that all the ones trusting in him would not perish, but have eternal life."
"For in this way God loved the universe: that he gave the unique son, so that all the ones trusting in him would not perish, but have eternal life."
"For in this way God loved all that exists: that he gave the unique son, so that all the ones trusting in him would not perish, but have eternal life."

Makes sense in all variants to me. What's supposed to be the relevant difference as to whether God only loves this particular planet or the whole universe?

what exactly did jesus die for?

I think there is no disagreement between us regarding that question.

 

[jasoncran]

he dwell with us not. God told adam to have dominion over all the earth yet God came down to talk to him.

if we are only meant to be in heavean, then reconcile which you failed to do. matthew 5:5 the meek shall inherit the earth.

somebody had to die so that we can inherit the earth. Jesus did that for us, and thats talk about in the last book that you reject.

You say that i failed to "reconcile" that passage. What part of my explanation did you find lacking? Please be specific.
what is meaning of the world earth in that verse

by your definition of the world kosmos, john 3:16 makes no sense.

You are aware that words can have more than one meaning? It's a polynym. But even if that were not so, i don't see how that would negatively affect this verse.
then look at the word peter used for the world(kosmos) what did god flood?
"For in this way God loved the world: that he gave the unique son, so that all the ones trusting in him would not perish, but have eternal life."
"For in this way God loved the universe: that he gave the unique son, so that all the ones trusting in him would not perish, but have eternal life."
"For in this way God loved all that exists: that he gave the unique son, so that all the ones trusting in him would not perish, but have eternal life."

Makes sense in all variants to me. What's supposed to be the relevant difference as to whether God only loves this particular planet or the whole universe?
because he sent his son to die for men only, not plants, not the space alien. that has to line up the concept of the kinsmen redeemer. you have to be related the person who can redeem you.note the lineage of christ. through abraham and his descendents is the jew savable, the gentile is the other two sons of noah and others outside of the seed of abraham, thats why.
[quote:25p5daz8]what exactly did jesus die for?

I think there is no disagreement between us regarding that question.[/quote:25p5daz8]

 

[jasoncran]

read the whole thing and you will see how they reconcile that uh, they go the greek in that. soma

I've come across soma all over the place. Based on what i've seen no, they don't reconcile it. They just seem to manically scream "see?? soma soma soma!" whenever they come across it, even though the verse itself clearly contradicts their point of view. E.g. when it literally talks about a transition from a physical to a spiritual body.

if were are meant to be in heaven and are spirits only why then are we on the earth and matthew says that we inherit the earth.

"1Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them saying:
3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

It's meant to say that the meek, the humble will have everything they missed in life. It's an allegory, not a reference to a physical lump of rock somewhere in space.
ok so in the new whatever you say will be what will we have? where will be upon death, if you throw out revalation there's not much on our deaths and placement. only the verses on the rapture and being caught up in the air. so we just stay in heaven despite what the bible says in revalation? what of the resurrection after the millenial rein, the first resrruectrion. all those refer to resureection of something. the rcc does believe in the bodily ressurection even though some believe in evolution.
[quote:1nji5zh4]how can we ressurect something if we dont die first then arent able to recieve it.
is this new earth, heaven according to you

According to Paul, not to me. otherwise, what is that spiritual body that Paul talks about?[/quote:1nji5zh4]
a new flesh one

 

[jasoncran]

i didnt see that post for some reason

let see in order to accept the toe, you have pretty much alleogorized the major parts of the bible.

what is the meaning of parts in genesis about such person lived and he died, and the age that he lived to?

since you dont accept that adam and eve are a person, what of the ages of the men before the flood? what is your view on that.

 

[jwu]

what is meaning of the world earth in that verse

I think i did explain it above.

because he sent his son to die for men only, not plants, not the space alien. that has to line up the concept of the kinsmen redeemer. you have to be related the person who can redeem you.note the lineage of christ. through abraham and his descendents is the jew savable, the gentile is the other two sons of noah and others outside of the seed of abraham, thats why.

If so, then doesn't your interpretation that kosmos refers to the physical world fall short of that criteria as well? Plants are part of the world, after all.

There are two more fatal flaws in your argumentation:
- You invalidly assume that a polynym must have the same meaning in all places where it is used.
- You invalidly assume that that which is "loved in this way" must be congruent to that which is to be saved by Jesus. The former can easily be a superset of the latter though, without running into any logical problems.

[quote:1fcio6rx]According to Paul, not to me. otherwise, what is that spiritual body that Paul talks about?

a new flesh one[/quote:1fcio6rx]So you're saying that it'd be a physical body even though Paul explicitly said that it will be a spiritual one while explicitly referring to the old current body as a physical one, putting these two concepts in juxtaposition?
I think this is beyond reason.

let see in order to accept the toe, you have pretty much alleogorized the major parts of the bible.

Not in order to accept the ToE, but in order to reconcile it with the reality of the physical world. It also makes much more sense to me that way. E.g. the choice of the punishment for "eating from the tree of knowledge" - pain during childbirth and backbreaking field labor - make perfect sense if the tree of knowledge is interpreted as a metaphor for the intellectual development of mankind. For that caused our heads to grow relatively big compared to the rest of the body (causing pain during childbirth), and it caused the advent of agriculture. It's more like a natural, unavoidable consequence than a consciously invoked punishment that way.
When interpreted as a literal forbidden tree, then the choice of this punishment is just random and nonsensical. Furthermore, it would be cruel to sentence them to permanent punishment for doing something that they couldn't know to be wrong before actually doing it - for only after they already had eaten from the tree did they obtain the knowledge to tell good from evil, the knowledge that it is bad to disobey God.

what is the meaning of parts in genesis about such person lived and he died, and the age that he lived to?

As i said previously, i am agnostic as to whether they were real individual persons or not. Perhaps they were, perhaps not. I don't rerive any relevant information from the age numbers.

 

[jasoncran]

So you're saying that it'd be a physical body even though Paul explicitly said that it will be a spiritual one while explicitly referring to the old current body as a physical one, putting these two concepts in juxtaposition?
I think this is beyond reason.

uh then explain this verse when it talks bout the ressurection of the dead. in revalation 20:4,5

thats on the earth for those saints, look some were raised till after the millenium then it goes onto the the new heavens and new earth. and subsequent.

plants aren't saved as they dont have souls. surely you believe that.

if you are to assume that one word can change from the john 3:16, and it is different from the the world used by peter then why in the book of genesis does the lord tell noah that the he put the bow in sky as a reminder of the promise of the flood, when he could have said that this when you have sad look at the rainbow and be reminded that i shall not judge in that manner.and it also says all flesh died. not some flesh in this area.

 

[jasoncran]

what is meaning of the world earth in that verse

I think i did explain it above.
yup i take that supports the prosperity gospel,as one wont be married in the next life if we are in heaven only

because he sent his son to die for men only, not plants, not the space alien. that has to line up the concept of the kinsmen redeemer. you have to be related the person who can redeem you.note the lineage of christ. through abraham and his descendents is the jew savable, the gentile is the other two sons of noah and others outside of the seed of abraham, thats why.

If so, then doesn't your interpretation that kosmos refers to the physical world fall short of that criteria as well? Plants are part of the world, after all.if he saved the earth in this manner doesnt that mean that man will be on the earth? and not see death? which i never said that was done with the earth you did.

There are two more fatal flaws in your argumentation:
- You invalidly assume that a polynym must have the same meaning in all places where it is used.
- You invalidly assume that that which is "loved in this way" must be congruent to that which is to be saved by Jesus. The former can easily be a superset of the latter though, without running into any logical problems.

[quote:mzazx66l][quote:mzazx66l]According to Paul, not to me. otherwise, what is that spiritual body that Paul talks about?

a new flesh one[/quote:mzazx66l]So you're saying that it'd be a physical body even though Paul explicitly said that it will be a spiritual one while explicitly referring to the old current body as a physical one, putting these two concepts in juxtaposition?
I think this is beyond reason.

let see in order to accept the toe, you have pretty much alleogorized the major parts of the bible.

Not in order to accept the ToE, but in order to reconcile it with the reality of the physical world. It also makes much more sense to me that way. E.g. the choice of the punishment for "eating from the tree of knowledge" - pain during childbirth and backbreaking field labor - make perfect sense if the tree of knowledge is interpreted as a metaphor for the intellectual development of mankind. For that caused our heads to grow relatively big compared to the rest of the body (causing pain during childbirth), and it caused the advent of agriculture. It's more like a natural, unavoidable consequence than a consciously invoked punishment that way.
When interpreted as a literal forbidden tree, then the choice of this punishment is just random and nonsensical. Furthermore, it would be cruel to sentence them to permanent punishment for doing something that they couldn't know to be wrong before actually doing it - for only after they already had eaten from the tree did they obtain the knowledge to tell good from evil, the knowledge that it is bad to disobey God.they were warned not to eat of the fruit.

what is the meaning of parts in genesis about such person lived and he died, and the age that he lived to?

As i said previously, i am agnostic as to whether they were real individual persons or not. Perhaps they were, perhaps not. I don't rerive any relevant information from the age numbers.[/quote:mzazx66l]


from what i gather so far, you only believe the bible in that it can only make sense to you. we operate by faith primarily not reason in spirtual matters.

 

[jasoncran]

jwu, there will or may where you will have to just trust god , not man to do something for you. you dont seem to have that level of trust in him.

what church do you attend as i want to look at their doctrine.

the bible isnt a living document. it never changes , we get corrected on the interpretation. if we keep on saying that well God didnt really say that or did that. whats left?

 

[Bronzesnake]

So a miraculous change is it, ok, we're taking steps forward. What kind of change though? Did they have pointy teeth already before the fall? What about venom glands, or spiders' digestive fluid injecting fangs?
What scriptural evidence is there for such changes?

First of all, we know Adam and Eve were created with eternal bodies. A huge part of their punishment through God’s curse was death.

After they sinned, they were changed, as a matter of fact the entire universe was cursed and everything changed. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden.
But alas! God had a plan of redemption right from the beginning.

At the end of God’s plan, we will all be changed in the blink of an eye back to our original state.
Are we to have physical bodies? Yes, Adam and Eve had bodies right from the start didn’t they?
They ate and walked and talked with Jesus before the fall.
If you read Revelation, you will see a clear description of people in Heaven during the seven year tribulation.
They are all dressed in white robes.
We are also depicted coming back to earth with Jesus riding on a white horse.
Also, the Holy city comes down from heaven and lands on earth where it remains.
Jesus also tells us that He went home to prepare a mansion for each of us. Why would we need homes if we didn't have a body?
The scriptures also tell us that we will dwell on this earth forever.

So is there any proof that animals used to eat grass/straw etc? Yes, we know this because God says He will change not only man back to his original state, but animals as well! So what will the animals be changed back to?

Isaiah 11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

John

 

[jwu]

uh then explain this verse when it talks bout the ressurection of the dead. in revalation 20:4,5

I interprete it as the souls of the dead regaining consciousness.

plants aren't saved as they dont have souls. surely you believe that.

Of course not. I just pointed out that that which you presented as an argument against my interpretation just as well works against yours.

if you are to assume that one word can change from the john 3:16, and it is different from the the world used by peter then why in the book of genesis does the lord tell noah that the he put the bow in sky as a reminder of the promise of the flood, when he could have said that this when you have sad look at the rainbow and be reminded that i shall not judge in that manner.and it also says all flesh died. not some flesh in this area.

Huh? I can't follow you there.

We are also depicted coming back to earth with Jesus riding on a white horse.
Also, the Holy city comes down from heaven and lands on earth where it remains.
Jesus also tells us that He went home to prepare a mansion for each of us. Why would we need homes if we didn't have a body?
The scriptures also tell us that we will dwell on this earth forever.

Ah, and heaven is supposed to be a physical place too?

Note that i'm not saying that there won't be bodies of any sort, just not physical bodies made out of matter.

Isaiah 11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

And exactly that has "allegory" written all over it.
Anyway, so you say that carnivores are going to eat straw. How are they going to digest it, how are they going to chew it with carnivore teeth?

 

[jwu]

the bible isnt a living document. it never changes , we get corrected on the interpretation. if we keep on saying that well God didnt really say that or did that. whats left?

We get corrected on the interpretation - exactly! I let myself get corrected on the interpretation by God's handwork that is all around me, by the physical traces that He left.

If there are two interpretations, one compatible with what we see in nature and the other incompatible, then i choose the former.

 

[jasoncran]

yes, but you seem to believe science that changes all the time(its nature) over what an omipotent God tell his persons to write.

did the prophet isiah understand the verses on the coming of the messiah like we do, problably not but he just wrote them and believed that the lord would do what we do.

you deny a part of genesis, all of revalation and parts of isaih. for what allegory

tell me what do you believe? do you even pray, for you see by your thinking we should just beleive that the god only uses natural processes to heal(he can and does) but what are you gonna do when you are told by the docs that you are dying? pray and not believe the god will heal you.

the lord tells noah that he put the rainbow in the sky as a reminder not to flood the earth and destroy all flesh by the flood. if the rainbow was around before the flood, you might think that noah would know what the rainbow was as that wouldnt be a novel idea to him.