Evidence for God from Science

I will have seperate posts for different takes on this subject, to start with, the physical evidence, and how it relates to the bible.

The crux of your argument seems to be that in Gen 1:26 you take the word "dominion" or "rule" to mean some sort of magical power that goes through man and effects the plants and animals of the world with "the curse" (the painfull effects or entropy, or "curruption"), which you require, for no stated reason, to happen at the same time for plants and animals as mankind. To start with, it has one huge problem, the huge amount of evidence that death (fossils are DEAD), carnivores etc existed long before mankind ever did. You have not dealt with this evidence. Several options present themselves in regard to it:

You can ignore it, and pretend it does not exist. God, however, said that this universe and world and the life on it are evidence of him ( Psa 19:1, Rom 1:19 and Rom 1:20 , and many others), therefore we should look at it, and point it out to others. Therefore to ignore it is to deny God and go against his word. So far you have not mentioned physical evidence even once, dispite it being such a large amount of evidence it is like the elephant in the room that no one mentions.

You can say that this evidence is false, people have lied about it. However, it would be impossible to keep such a thing quiet considering the HUGE number of very dead, pre mankind, carniverous (and otherwise) fossils that exist. Considering the weight of that evidence, you would have to present considerable proof of that, so far, I have never heard of any that is even slightly credible.

You can say that science is evil, or otherwise deny it. However, see above, God said we should look at the natural world and heavens, science does exactly that, and using christian principles, since it was invented by christians (a monk, no less). It assumes that mankind is fallible and sinfull, and that herefore error and sins such as pride can lead some to promote ideas not because they are true, but because they want them to be true. Therefor, specific steps were invented to screen out error and bias. Denying science itself (the scientific method) is therefore, to deny the principles on which it is based, those principles being found in the bible. You are free to point out any errors in methodology that comprimise any specific finding, however, you must show that that is true, and so far, you have yet to even deal with any actual physical evidence.

You can say that God planted this evidence as a "test of faith". Since God says that what we see around us is evidence of him, that means THIS evidence is, in fact, a lie, by God. Would God lie millions of times (one for each fossile) just to "test our faith"? If God lied once, what CAN we believe? Special note, God specifically mentions some sort of brontosoarus in Job, he also mentions the time when the earth had an atmosphere so thick no light penetrated, in both cases he said "where where you when I...", which clearly shows that Job was not there at that time, and does not indicate that Job at any time saw this creature himself, anymore than he saw the early atmosphere. Also, regardless if you believe in day (which I don't) or age (which I do), whether it was one day or millions of years, those animals were created before mankind, thus, before Job, as God said, Job was not there, and neither was anyone else.

You could, I suppose, say that God changed the plants and animals in advance of Adams sin, this, at least, is in accord with the biblical and natural evidence. However, if God does this for those, why not for the whole universe at the same time (at the beginning of time, when we know that at least entropy ruled in "the heavens"). You also stated that it was not possible for entropy to have started for animals at the beginning of time, since you seem to think that during the millenium, the plants and animals must change at the same time as the believers present have their bodies changed. I see no reason why God must do something not at the same time at the start, and then at the same time at the end of that same curse. so you don't seem to believe this, or, if you do, you are not being logically consistant, which means, since you think the bible says this, that you are not being biblically consistant.

So much for the evidence, next, the bible and "dominion".

"Dominion", part 1.
Now for the central point of your argument that Rom 8 does not say that entropy started at the beginning of the universe, which seems to all center on the word "dominion" or "rule inGenesis 1:26-30 .

dayage wrote: Background to Romans 8:19-23
In Genesis 1:26-30 God created man and put him in charge of the environment of earth (animals, land and plants/agriculture: see also Gen. 2:5, 15, 19-20, 4:2; Ps. 8:6-8, 115:16). God did not put us in charge of the universe, laws of physics, plate tectonics, weather, etc. .

Of course God did not put us in charge of physics, we have no power to change physics. However, to change plants and animals to have or not have entropy (or "the curse" or "curruption") WOULD require us to have control over the laws of physics, since it is physics that dictate entropy and the curse. To say that mankind was given some sort of magical power over plants and animals, so that they did not suffer "corruption" (a very apt description of entropy) is to give mankind a power only God has. There are people who do believe something like that, they call it witchcraft. It is forbidden in the bible (despite the fact that it doesn't work), since God does not want people to think they can usurp the creative power of God, and command the laws of physics.

As to the bible verses, Genesis 1:26-30 speaks of rulership, since when does rulership involve some sort of magical power over plants and animals, so that they must change if you change? If I am a ruler over subjects, that does not give me magical power over them. I may own something, or be able to command it, without having magical power. Indeed, I will have to, since I, and everyone else, has no such power, and are forbidden to think we do, see witchcraft above.
Gen. 2:5 only speaks of man to say there was no man to CULTIVATE the ground, cultivation involves hard work, the sort of post curse thing God told man they would have to do from then on after the fall, no magic involved, or any magical symbiosis preventing or causing corruption (if there was, it would be a lot easier). Following this, we see Gen 2:8 , God planted a garden, HE did it, not man, either directly, or indirectly, with some sort of power or magical symbiosis stemming from "dominion". God planted it, as a garden, a specific word to show us that it was different from the non garden elsewhere, a garden where God could exclude the effects of "corruption" , sauch as thorns and thistles and carnivores, just like we do with our gardens. Man was not only spared the effects of the curse from thorns and carnivores, but God did all the work, so they did not have to. That is one of the hallmarks of entropy, it takes a lot of work to fight it off, Adam and Eve could be spared that while entropy was still a natural law, by God doing all the hard work so mankind did not have to. Thus entropy could exist without mankind ever actually seeing it, so long as they were in the garden. We see here God made the garden, and kept it free of corruption, before any man ever was in it, thus we see that man was not the cause of that non corruption, which rather suggests that mankind was also not the cause of the later corruption, which will be proven later. As for Gen 2:15 , cultivating and keeping does not involve magical power, in fact, in this pre curse days, probaly wasn't hard since God had excluded thorns and weeds and pests and carnivors which tend to interrupt our cultivation today, it gave them somthing to do, some control over their environment, however limited (just the power of their hands), just as we have today.

Gen 2:19 does not seem to be related to this question, why did you even include it, does naming the animals give you some sort of magical power over them? I can name animals to, doesn't work for me. In fact, this is simply, in the context, telling us how God explained that little thing about the birds and the bees to Adam ('the talk"), by simply letting him see them, and see their way with each other. From that he learned that some were very unlike him, some, mammels, more like him, and that those came in male and female, and that he was male, and that there was no female of his species around yet. Thus, when God brought the woman to him Gen 2:22 , he knew what she was and, more or less, what to do about it, as seen in Gen 2:24 .

I fail to see how Gen 4:2 relates, it simply states their names and that they did post curse agriculture, involving the usual post curse hard work. Psa 8:6 simply says that God put us in charge of earth, it says nothing about any magical powers we are given to do that. We do, indeed, have ownership (which is all Psa 115:16 says), and we do have such power as we have in our hands and feet and such tools as our minds can dream up, which does indeed give us a fair measure of control, far more than any animal can. For you to invent some sort of magical power stemming from ownership, rulership. dominion, or any such thing, is to invent something new, never mentioned in the bible. The verses you have so far given make no mention of the granting of such a power, either under our control, or some sort of symbiotic power whereby if we change, the plants and animals must also change.

The verses you mention after this, up to Rom 8:18 , there is no real contention about, that man sinned, and that there is a future resurrection and glory.

Rom 8:20 , who is "Him who subjected it", let us look. Gen 3:14 This is the first mention of any kind of curse, Gen 3:15 says where it came from, "I WILL" said God. It was God who DID, who MADE, the curse, by HIS WILL, not any magical power of Adam, or any magical symbiosis. Gen 3:16 once again we see I WILL from God, a clear curse of entropy here, pain, which was caused by God DOING it. Gen 3:17 God continues to pronounce the curse, since God WILLED the curses preceeding it, reading in context says that he continuse to do so. The "because of you" simply means it was because of Adams sin that god DID it, God took the action, a creative action that only he has the power to do, since it must be done by changing natural law, pulling back and causing this world to be a closed, not open, system. This could be done at any time God wishes, God need not do it at the same time as the sin, since God is outside of time and not bound by it. "For the creation was subjected to futility" gives no timetable of exactly when that happened, only who, "Him who subjected it", which as we have already seen in genesis was God. You seem to be saying here that God subjected the world to man, and that the curse on man therefore caused the curse on that which was "subjected" to him, the world, but this is actually denied by the text here, which says "Him who subjected it", the capitol letters saying that "Him" means God. Indeed, the ONLY one who COULD subject it is God, God is the source of all the energy and information nessisary to have an open, entropy and thus curse and corrupton free system, and therefore it must be Gods willfull action (I WILL) that brings about a curse and entropy.

Rom 8:21 Slavery, what is it really, it is where someone is forced to do something not of their own free will, as it is written in Rom 8:20 , "not of its own will", that is why that is in the preceeding verse. You seem to think that "slavery" means that the world is somehow magically subjected to mankind, so that if mankind sins, the world will magically change because of its 'slavery" to man, yet that verse says Him (capitol letter), it says nothing about any slavery to man, only to GOD.

Let us do a little thought experiment to illustrate this, God gives me a 'slave', and says "he will do whatever you say". "Anything?" "Yes, anything" "Ok slave, I want you to become seven feet tall, have huge muscles, green skin, and purple hair. Come on, hurry up! God, why isn't he doing what I saked, you said he would do anything I asked!" "I said HE would do anything you say, the he *I* made that way *I* wanted to make him. I gave you no magical power of creation to change him into something other than what *I* made him to be. If I had, I would have told you about it. I am the creater here, you are not, and I forbid you from thinking that you are, or that you have that kind of power of creation". (That would be witchcraft, or believing you can magically change things just by wanting it).

A second one, God gives the slave, and I stub my toe. I ask God "why is this slave not hopping around in pain like I am, he is in slavery to me!" "Did I say to you that whatever happens to you would happen to him? YOU are the one who stubbed your toe. I merely said he would DO whatever you SAID, not that he would feel whatever you feel, or change whenever you change. Don't you know what a slave is?"

Do these scenerios sound ridicolous? That is because they are, we DO know what a slave is, which is why God uses the word, knowing that we are human beings, who do things like slavery to other people, and thus we will know what the word means. Your definition is beyond the meaning of the word. What you are doing is called "equivocation" (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... uivocation ), changing the meaning of the clear and plain word 'slavery" to mean some sort of magical power over something. An example "The sign said 'fine for parking here', and since it was fine, I parked there." . many men have had power, rulership, dominion, over other men, subjected them, yet not ONE, EVER, has been known to have magical control over them, to change them into something they are not. So, there is no way, in ANY human experience, for us to think that these words mean anything other than what both we and God know we have seen and experienced.

So Dr. C. John Collins say so, does he? Is he a prophet? Perhaps an apostle? No? Ok, then some mere man, not appointed by Jesus personally to determine what the words of the bible are, says that some greek words are "related", sorta like, some other word written in a completly different language in an unrelated to this question verse (as in "out of context") written 2 millenium previously about something else that happened then? So I am supposed to beleive that the corruption of Romans is the same as sin itself, because the word is only sorta like other words in greek, which are sorta like a completly different word in hebrew? If God had wanted them to be identical, he could have used the EXACT SAME WORD, he didn't, so he was talking about different things. God is very carefull about the exact wording included in the bible, as it is written, every jot and titil.

Yes, a "slave (something in bondage) has a master", who did the salvery to corruption? Him, as YOU said, "God is the one who subjects", and as I have shown by what God said in Genesis. yet you then contradict yourself and say that it is in slavery to man, not God. Which is it, which do you beleive? You then give the same biblical references again, which I have covered above. It is quite possible to "subdue, bring into bondage" and to "rule over" something or someone with resorting to any magical powers. See my above examples, many have owned slaves, they were ruled over and in bondage, without any of their masters having a even a tiny bit of creative (magical) power.

As for mankinds sins effect creation, first, it is quite possible to effect creation with nothing more than our hands and feet and the tools we make up with our brains. Did you know that 700 years ago, the Mongols decided to reduce a fairly large area of earth to desert, which it has remained so to this very day (in their invasion of Persia)? These passages can very well refere to that, and the many similar actions with similar resuts that have happened throught history. Also, if they do not keep the statutes, it is because they do not believe in God, the statute giver. When they beleive in something, something bigger than themselves, they are willing to fight for it, so their neighbors leave them alone. When they no longer do, they are not willing to fight for it, and when their neighbors see this, they attack. And when they attack, each israelite, now not believing in anything greater than themselves, decides that if they stay and fight, they may be killed, even if they win. So they decide to run away instead, general panic ensues, and are chased down, and most of them killed. Those that survive are, with their families, carted away to slavery, thus, away from the land, which has thus 'spewed them OUT". This happened many times, just as God said. This is futher helped by the statutes God gave being what was good for their land and economy. Did you know that, with hard work such as farmers did back then, you can actually get more work done if you take one day of rest off in every seven? Plus, when they stop beleiveing in God, they each see themselves as God, they do what seems good to them, what they believe will benefite their short term interests. Thus they lie, cheat, and steal from each other, which hurts the economy because it is hard to do buziness with people who you don't trust. Plus, they are now wasting energy on cheating and stealing when they could have been doing productive work. Plus, some of the statutes included land use management statutes which benefite the soil itself. Plus there were statutes to regulate lending, we should all now know why lending can ruin an economy (and drive broke farmers off the land, which then returns to the wild). And then there were the statutes covering the government, without which it decides to raise taxes so that it can spend it on it's own comforts, as God said that they would when he warned them about appointing kings, we see that today to. So yes, sin can hurt the land, but there has never been any magical powers needed to do so.

Rom 8:22 "I believe it is the earth's environment since that is what we were given charge over", why would our be given charge over it mean that it is restricted to only earths environment? I have already shown above that being given charge over something need not involve any magical power over it. You have already admitted the obvious, that "God is the one who subjects" "to futility", and I have covered that in Genesis above, thus, it is God, not us, that has the power to bring the curse, or to remove it, and need not do so at the same time as man falls, or is resurrected. After all, making this universe, or any part of it, an open system, or a closed one, is obviously up to the source of the energy and information (order) that will make it that way, God, the creator. Note that God, the creator, pointed out to Job that he needed no ones help when he did his creation, his creating energy and information (order) from nothing. I see no reason why God would change his mind, God didn't need anyones help then, he didn't need anyones help to do the curse (whenever he chooses to do it, or wherever), and he will not need anyones help for resurrection, changing plants or animals, or creating a new heavens and a new earth. The messege to Job, and to us, is the central messege of the bible (1) There is a God (2) Your not it. (All the rest, sin and redemption and all the rest, follow from that).

As for what Rom 8:22 actually says, seems simple enough to me, God will say exactly what he means, and mean exactly what he says, and having infinite intelligence, choose exactly the words (and the language they were written it) to simply and CLEARLY say EXACTLY what he wants to say. He said "the whole creation", so I look up, what is the creation? Well, why not read the first mention of it, and the place that specifically describes it, such as this: " Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." And there it is, creation (what God "created") is "the heavens and the earth". Now, if the word WHOLE was not in romans, I might think it only included part of the creation, but it is, because God put it there to make absolutly sure that we know it includes the WHOLE of creation, both the heavens and the earth. God could have left that word out, he didn't, ask yourself why. Do you really think that God cannot say exactly what he means, do you really think God wants us to decide what it says because some word is sorta like some other words, which are sorta like another word in a completly different language? Do you think God cannot speak plainly and clearly when he wants to? Do you think he didn't?

As for birth, this passage does not mention birth, only "the pains of childbirth". Therefor, there is no reason to tie in ressurection to mean that ressurection will have anything to do with (or not do with) " the whole creation" (which, being as above the WHOLE creation, would be "the heavens and the earth"). In addition, the passages you include here either talk, not about birth, but the pains of childbirth, Isaiah is not in any context even metioning resurrection, Romans 8:19 does not even mention birth or pains of childbirth, and colossians and revelation mention only the ressurection of Jesus, and do not say anything about birth or specifically tie it in with resurrection. Therefor, your statement "Birth here refers to resurrection" is not supported, no ressurection is mentioned, no birth is mentioned, and there is no tying the ressurection of people with any sort of ressurection of any part of creation. Plus, it can't just be a part, can it, it must be "the whole creation", as it is written.

So Dr. C. John Collins say so, does he? Is he a prophet? Perhaps an apostle? No? Ok, then some mere man, not appointed by Jesus personally to determine what the words of the bible are, says that some greek words are "related", sorta like, some other word written in a completly different language in an unrelated to this question verse (as in "out of context") written 2 millenium previously about something else that happened then?

How is what you're doing any different?

Rom 8:23 You here seem to once again be trying to tie in this "grioaning" only with sin, to say that the creation (a limited subset denied by the preceeding verse) will change only when sin in us changes. Howver, the verse clearly says "the redemption of our body", clearly, it is not only talking about sin, in fact, it is quite possible to say that it is only talking about physical aches and pains brought on by entropy and the curse in this specific text. Your statemnt "Our sin is the reason for the groaning of both believers and the creation" is not supported by this text, in saying that our sin is somewhow tied in with our "dominion" and thus magically effects the creation.

In addition, you are confusing cause and effect. The effect is the curse, entropy, curruption (in it's romans context). God did do it becaue man sinned, but God stated that he was the cause of the physical curse on the plants and animals, he said nothing about man being the cause, or sin itself being the cause in genesis. You seem to be equating the effect of sin on mankind, in their relationship with him, and their relationships with each other, with the effect of the curse, entropy, death, and the like. The first was caused by what man did, his action, the second by what God did, his action. The reason God did the curse, the effect of entropy, is because man sinned, that does not mean that the sin itself caused the effect of entropy. As I have already pointed out, God, the creator of all things, is therefore the only one who has the power to add energy and information (order) to any part of this universe, either here on earth or anywhere. When man sinned, they said that they did not want God intimatly and noticably present at all points everwhere (knowing as you are known), as he must be to prevent ewntropy. God simply gave them what they asked for, and pulled back, and that caused entropy, the withdrawal of continiously incoming enrgy and information. God, not being a part of the creation, is not material, is "a spirit", and thus is not subject to time, which we know from science IS subject to material things. God, not being bound by time, can do his action, entropy, the curse, from the beginning of time, from our point of view. Indeed, we know that he has already done such in response to sin, for Jesus, who is God, was slain "before the foundation of the world". If he can do that, before sin ever happened, before anything in this universe ever happened, he will certainly not be limmited about when he brings the curse, or where he brings it or not brings it. he can slso do the curse 'before the foundation of the world" if he so desires, and the physical evidence of the heavens shows us entropy before any man existed, and the physical evidence of this earth, the fossils in it, shows the curse of entropy clearly evident before any man ever existed. So we have motive (prepare the earth for mankinds sin, which God knows is coming), method (God can indeed do it, as seen by Jesus doing something "before the foundation of the world:, and God being the only one with the power to do it), and opportunity (man sinned), and lots of evidence (dead stars, millions of very dead and often carniverous fossils), and I think we have a case here.

As for the future cure for creation, once again, God is the only one with the power to do it, being the sole source of energy and information there is. God has stated that he will do it, since this is God we are talking about, it does not need to be on our timetable, and it does not need to be all at once. Nowhere is it stated that our cure, our ressurection, is the CAUSE of any lifting of the curse, either just on earth or anywhere else. God is the stated cause for any lifting of the curse, and the only one who can. As such, he will do it when he is darned good and ready, he does not need to only do it in lockstep with the resurrection of believers.

Your argument was that God DOES HAVE to lift the curse only in lockstep with the resurrection of beleivers, and that that means there was no entropy, and thus no carnivores, before man sinned. The bible, and the physical evidence of this world deny that. And Romans 8:22 demand that "the curse" was universe wide, and thus present from the beginning of time.

Your argument "Romans text shows that the resurrection of the righteous is the cure for the corruption" is shown false, nowhere is it stated that the ressurection of the rightious is the CAUSE of the lifting of the curse, sin is the REASON for the curse, nowhere is it stated as the actual CAUSE of it, and nowhere is is stated that ressurection is the CAUSE of the lifting of the curse, although it may be a REASON to (not nessisarily at the same time). This is a logical fallicy called "Confusing Correlation And Causation" which says that because soemthing may happen at the same time as another, it is the cause of that other thing happening. An example: "When sales of hot chocolate go up, street crime drops. Does this correlation mean that hot chocolate prevents crime ? No, it means that fewer people are on the streets when the weather is cold." Another "The bigger a child's shoe size, the better the child's handwriting. Does having big feet make it easier to write ? No, it means the child is older." Thus, it is actually irrelevent if any partial lifting of the curse happens at the resurrection, since the resurrection does not cause the lifting. Plus, we already have ample evidence from nature that God has already had entropy, and on earth, long before any man walked on it.
Therefor, to paraphrase you, I think, and the bible and the natural world backs me up on this, that romans 8 has everything to do with animal death and the laws of physics.

And your sole reason to claim different appears to be some aberrent form of dominion theology, taken, as usual, from Gen 1:26-30, whereby you turn the word rule or dominion into some kind of magical power over creation, and build a whole mythos around this one single word. Many such exist, and have existed, of many kinds, all based on that one single word. And it is easy to see why, that word gives you POWER, and power feels good. It goes back to that old lie Gen 3:5 "you will be like God", yes, YOU can have some of that creative power, why should HE hog it all!

And do you see where it leads? Why, if YOU have "dominion" over even some of creation, why, you can effect it now. If you don't sin, or, as many false teachers say, "have the God kind of faith" (usually "proved" by sending the "great teacher" saaaay, a $1000 "faith gift"), why, YOU can lift at least a part of the curse, say being free of all disease, or becoming rich. The "faith teachera" like that verse (Gen 1:26-30), and use many of the same arguments, and the same illogical methods of arguing, that you do. They like to say that if they have enough faith, why, God HAS to do it, and, in fact, many of them are now saying that it is YOUR faith, "the God kind of faith", that does it, that you are gods (little g), after all, why should HE hog all the power! Yes, "you will be like God", sound familiar? And thats just some of the things they have dreamed up using the one little word "dominion", are you sure you want to go down that road?

Because I can assure you, if Satan sees you going down that road, he will do what he always does when he sees anyone going the wrong way, get behind them and PUSH. And you will end up where many have gone before you, with the most dangerous sin of all, PRIDE, the first sin of Satan, proud of your "dominion".

Yet another, "Dominion Theology" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology ), where mankind is required to excersise "dominion" over the earth, meaning gain political, economic, even military control over it, thus, apperently forcing God to return when they succeed, on their timetable. Yeah, why should HE hog all the power, why YOU can decide when it is a good time for him to return, as it is written "your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil", who needs God to decide when the right time is, YOU are the one to decide when the "good": time is, by YOUR actions (works rightousness). My, what a lot of traction that one little word "dominion" gets!

Canuckster1127 wrote:So Dr. C. John Collins say so, does he? ... ened then?

How is what you're doing any different?

I am not claiming to be an apostle or prophet, I am merely pointing out the clear and plain words of those who were, clear and plain because God wanted it to be very clear and very plain. Not some convoluted explaination where some word is kinda like some other words, which is kinda like some other word in a totally unrelated verse written in a totally different language. Does that sound clear and plain to you? Do you think God can't say what he wants to say? Do you think he's dumb or somthing?

I am merely shooting down the illogical argument "Appeal To Authority:, where Dr. C. John Collins is presented as "the authority". The authors of the bible, appointed personally by God, are the only authority there is, name dropping to back up your case doesn't count with the bible, unlless it is one of the actual authors of it. I am merely pointing out that the name Dr. C. John Collins carries no weight, and cannot be used to bolster the argument that a word that sorta is like these other words that is sorta like another word in a totally different language in an unrelated verse is a legitimate reading of the text, and somehow shows that mankinds "dominion" sorta magical power over plants and animals means that mankinds sin was itsaelf what caused the curse, and not God, and that this curse MUST therefore happen only just as mankind sinned, and not before.


Your argument is not with me, but with the author, God.

Your argument is not with me, but with the author, God.

You have a remarkable ability to read minds and look to pick a fight in response to a 7 word (8 if you remove the apostrophe) question. I simply asked you a question designed to ascertain how your appeal to yourself as an authority (apparently by attempting to equate your interpretation with scripture itself) was any different.

Your answer, complete with its belligerence, demonstrates what I thought might be happening quite well.

Despite your claims to the contrary, you are not God, and you are not the final arbiter of God's word.

Interestingly as well, you assume I disagree with you and have an argument with you (and God!) based simply upon (apparently) daring to question the basis of your authority in this matter.

You're not likely to receive this well, but this is directed apart from the subject at hand. You might try adding a little humility to your arguments. That might incline some to take the time to read your voluminous posts and actually try to listen to what you're saying.

As it stands, and this is just me speaking personally, not as a moderator, I really don't have much interest in what you have to say, in great measure because of how you are choosing to say it.

blessings,

bart

Legatus wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:So Dr. C. John Collins say so, does he? ... ened then?

How is what you're doing any different?

I am not claiming to be an apostle or prophet, I am merely pointing out the clear and plain words of those who were, clear and plain because God wanted it to be very clear and very plain. Not some convoluted explaination where some word is kinda like some other words, which is kinda like some other word in a totally unrelated verse written in a totally different language. Does that sound clear and plain to you? Do you think God can't say what he wants to say? Do you think he's dumb or somthing?

I am merely shooting down the illogical argument "Appeal To Authority:, where Dr. C. John Collins is presented as "the authority". The authors of the bible, appointed personally by God, are the only authority there is, name dropping to back up your case doesn't count with the bible, unlless it is one of the actual authors of it. I am merely pointing out that the name Dr. C. John Collins carries no weight, and cannot be used to bolster the argument that a word that sorta is like these other words that is sorta like another word in a totally different language in an unrelated verse is a legitimate reading of the text, and somehow shows that mankinds "dominion" sorta magical power over plants and animals means that mankinds sin was itsaelf what caused the curse, and not God, and that this curse MUST therefore happen only just as mankind sinned, and not before.


Your argument is not with me, but with the author, God.

Plain and clear according whom...

Finally, some arguments you have against "whole creation".

Mark 16:15 , it says all creation indeed, but it is assumed the reader knows that, while you may indeed preach to rocks and trees, they may not be all that responsive...He is merely aggagerating, to make sure the reader knows you are supposed to preach to ABSOLUTLY EVERYBODY. Since the context is not about creation, but about human speach of the gospel, the context shows what he means, and why. The context of romans clearly IS about "creation", mentioning many times the effects of "corruption" on the physical world, mentioning physical pain and "the redemption of our bodies", which clearly shows that he is talking about physical bodies when he speaks of this.

Collosians ok, but your other text do not support you "dominion" idea. They state quite clearly that Jesus, who is God, is the creator and sustainer of all things. No mention is made of him sharing any power or 'dominion" with mankind, indeed, it is stated that by him "all things hold together" , which means that he, not mankind, is doing the holding. Therefore, he still has power over it. The 'dominions" mentioned here are merely dominions of authorty, this showing that he, as their creater, is over them. No mention of any magical power is associated here with these, only authority. And mankind does, indeed, have a measure of authorty on earth, we can do things and no animal can stop us.

Colossians is simply using the same words Jesus used, and for the same reason. He appears to be directly quoting Jesus, to say that it has been, and is being, done, and that he also is doing it. And, by this time, the word had gone out beyond the Roman empire, and continued to travel (into africa, at the very least, to Ethiopia and beyond), Paul would not know of exactly how far, but he knew it had traveled far, and continued to travel, and would continue. And, it had been preached for a long time, in simpler form, first to Adam and Eve, then through the old testiment prophets, and also through creation itself, as it is written Rom 1:20 , and that IS seen by ALL creation, although of course most of it doesn't understand it. But hey, it's there, if they want it.

And more, once can, by logical indference, starting from "his eternal power and divine nature" as deduced from observing the universe, deduce Jesus. After all, a God who can do all that needs no help from anybody, most religions say that we need to do something to make God love us, the universe says that God can do anything we can possibly do far better than we can, and therefore, only a religion where God does it all and we merely eccept that fits, and only christianity fits that bill. It also says that God is love, because God has no fear from anything or anyone, and therefore no hate, because hate comes from hating what hurt you, or can hurt you, and we cannot hurt God, we cannot even touch him if he does not allow it, since we cannot reach him. That, and all the things on this earth that we enjoy, even though we should not, like, say, sunsets, also points in that direction. Therefore, God need not hate us, and would indeed provide some method of redemtion, being a God of love.

And indeed, some have figured this out, I heard of one remote tribe, who had a story remarkably similar to the gospel. When told the gospel, they said they always know something like that was true, they just didnt know his name. And Helen Keller, who, though blind and deaf, when she was told the gospel, said she always knew there was someone like that, she just didn't know his name. That and other such happenings show that God can, indeed, go to anyone who wishes it and reveal himself, he doesn't absolutly NEED us, he doesn't NEED anything, although he greatly preffers we do it, it makes things a lot simpler (and allows him to reward us, which he enjoys, and makes us into more the sort of creatures he wants us to become, and gets us a lot of friends in the hereafter, which we enjoy).

Finally, You state that Romans 8:22 says only that creation under the influence of sinful man, it does not limit us to any stated part of creation, makes no mention of any "influence" or state that any effect is only limited to what we "influence" (although our physical actions can indeed effect things badly, as seen in other texts). Romans 8:20 actually denies your pemise, since it clearly says "because of Him who subjected it", speaking of God who subjected the creation to futility, stating that He was the cause. The other text's I have already covered.

That pretty much covers everything. You simply need to ask yourslf "am I obsessing on the word dominion too much, and why"? others also are, and using the same arguments, and thus falling into error.

"Plain and clear according whom..."

The authors, in these specific cases, mainly Paul the apostle, and Moses the lawgiver and writer (after dictaion by God himself) of Genesis.

Do I need anyone else? Who? why?

Legatus,

You've done a whole lot of rambling about nothing. Nothing I've said indicates that I believe animals and plants were changed or that entropy came from Adam's fall. Wow!, I did not know I was claiming magical powers. Is Legatus the only one that did not understand my post on Romans 8?

Isaiah 26:16 O LORD, they sought Thee in distress; They could only whisper a prayer, Thy chastening was upon them.
17 As the pregnant woman approaches the time to give birth, She writhes and cries out in her labor pains, Thus were we before Thee, O LORD.
18 We were pregnant, we writhed in labor, We gave birth, as it were, only to wind. We could not accomplish deliverance for the earth Nor were
inhabitants of the world born.
19 Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise. You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy, For your dew is as the dew of the dawn, And the earth
will give birth to the departed spirits (the dead).20 Come, my people, enter into your rooms, And close your doors behind you; Hide for a little while, Until indignation runs its course.
21 For behold, the LORD is about to come out from His place To punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity; And the earth will reveal her
bloodshed, And will no longer cover her slain.

You do understand that the dead rising is resurrection?

Romans 8:19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

The "revealing of the sons of God" is the same thing as "the redemption of our bodies." Its resurrection.

Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5 are refering to Jesus' resurrection (first-born of/from the dead).

Romans 8:22- birth pains come before a birth. The birth here is our resurrection (Romans 8:23).

Where in Romans 8 is the word curse used?

The curses are listed in Genesis 3. The curse (Genesis 3:17-19) was on the ground that Adam was created in and kicked back into (Genesis 3:23-24), that Cain was kicked out of (Genesis 4:11-16) and Noah's relatives still lived in (Genesis 5:29). It is Eden. The garden was located within the Land of Eden, but did not fill Eden (Genesis 2:8, 10).

Finally, You state that Romans 8:22 says only that creation under the influence of sinful man, it does not limit us to any stated part of creation, makes no mention of any "influence" or state that any effect is only limited to what we "influence" (although our physical actions can indeed effect things badly, as seen in other texts). Romans 8:20 actually denies your pemise, since it clearly says "because of Him who subjected it", speaking of God who subjected the creation to futility, stating that He was the cause. The other text's I have already covered.

You can not see it because you have ignored the context of Romans 1-8 and the background that it relies on. God subjected creation to our sinful influence, when He gave creation "earth" into our hands.

In Genesis 1:26-30 God created man and put him in charge of the environment of earth (animals and plants/agriculture; see Gen. 2:15-16, 19-20 and also Ps. 8:6-8, 115:16). In fact in Genesis 1:28 God told man to kabash (subdue, bring into bondage) and to radah (rule over) ALL the earth and ALL that is in it. Psalm 8:6 gives the same picture. Man was given dominion (mashal) and all things were "put under his feet" (shiyth tahat regel).

We see this taking place in Adam Genesis 2:15, 19-20 and in his sons Genesis 4:2. What part of this is magic?

Do you know why God brought the animals to Adam for naming, in Genesis 2:19-20?

Legatus,

You amaze me. You ignore experts in Biblical languages, like Dr. Collins, but promote your own, non-expert, interpretation. I at least research the original languages, read the experts and talk to them when I'm having trouble.

I do this for the sciences as well.

Apparently you stick to English and hope your translation got it all right.

I have no connection with "Dominion Theology."

Can you ramble some more about magic? You seem to know more about it than I do.

If we are going to continue, you need to stop with this shotgun approach (many topics) and stick to one topic at a time. I'll do the same.

Lets start at the last thing you said "If we are going to continue, you need to stop with this shotgun approach (many topics) and stick to one topic at a time. I'll do the same". I responded to what you wrote, in the order you wrote it, responding to what you wrote first, then what you wrote next, finally to what you wrote last. Is this, then, "a shotgun approach"? You said "you need to stop with this shotgun approach (many topics)", yet I responded to the same topics you brought up, and in the same order that you brought them up. How then am I using a shotgun approach?

You also say "you amaze me" and "you igore experts" and "promote your own, non-expert, interpretation" This is known both as "Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man)" (also known as plain 'ol personal attacks) and as "Argument From Authority". In the first, you basically claim you have expert opinion on your side, say "my expert is better than your expert", and "I am more expert than you" and call me "non-expert". Jesus argued with many "expert" pharasees during his stay here, they were renowned experts, everyone said so. They wrote big learned books after much study that said that the bible said something completly different than the plain text said using lots of complicated arguments, Jesus came along and easily destroyed their arguments, showing that the plain text of scripture said something that anyone could understand, and showing the logical inconsistancies of their arguments. It is quite possible to surround yourself with "experts" that tell you exactly what you want to hear. Therefore, just to say "this person is an expert" does not mean that the argument you are making from their "expertise" is a correct one. "Experts" chosen because they tell you what you want to hear often use "proof by verbosity", "an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged". They also often use other logical fallacies, as i have shown in the preceeding posts.

So, to say 'this expert says this" does not mean it is correct. If the "expert" disagrees with the plain and obvious text of scripture, they are no better than the "expert" pharasees that Jesus so easily shot down when they disagreed with the plain and obvious text. Jesus, the author, wrote it to be plain and easily understood.

"Apparently you stick to English and hope your translation got it all right". This translation (actually mutiple translations) was made by "experts", many experts, whole teams of experts, experts who base their work on preceeding teams of experts, who base theirs on others before them, on back in time to the first translations, as well as teams of archeoligists and ancient scribes to find out the original text in the original languages. How is your 'expert" better than these? I prefer to rely on many "experts" rather than just cherry pick one who might just be telling me what I want to hear. I should also point out that God said that his word would stand, if translators put in a sincere effort to get it right, God will show up and make sure that they do, just as he said. I know of only one translation that is deliberatly mistranslated, and another that sorta loosely translates some words so that the reader can change the obvious meaning more easily (it may not have been written for that purpose, but that is how it is often now used).

"I have no connection with "Dominion Theology."" I do not, and did not, claim that you are actually IN classical dominion theology, which says that believers must gain political, economic, and military control over the world. I merely say that, like them, you put an awful lot of weight on the very same verses in the very same way, making claims about "dominion" that go beyod the plain reading of the text, and even contradict it at times. I did say that this emphesis on those few texts puts you in danger of all kinds of further errors that can lead you to the same places others have gone, such as "faith" theologies and various branches of dominion theologies.

However, in the interests of clarity, so that there are no mistakes, I am willing to stick with a topic per post, It will also make for shorter, easier to make posts.

So, I have a question, just so we are both on the same page. What do you believe about carnivors and thorns and entropy (or "corruption", or "the curse") before the fall? I am not asking why you believe it, you have already covered that, only what.

Do you beleive that carnivores and thorns and the like existed before the fall?

What do you do with the overwhelming physical evidence that they did exist before man, if you do not beleive that they existed before the fall? (ignore if you believe they did exist before the fall)

What, exactly, do you think was the cause, not the reason, the cause, the actual power that did it, behind the creation of carnivors and thorns?

Do you beleive that "God subjected creation to our sinful influence", that is because we were given 'dominion" over the earth, that when we changed, it was THAT, not God deliberatly causing (creating, making come into being, changing stuff) the curse? That is, that the plants and animals (that we have "dominion" over) have some sort of connection to us due to our "dominion" over them that if we change, they must change at the same time?

Do you think that it is possible for God to take an action in response to something that, in our time frame, has not happened yet, even taking that action "from the foundation of the world"?

Just a small thing "Do you know why God brought the animals to Adam for naming, in Genesis 2:19-20?"

This one is easy, just look at the verse just before it, ie, the context:
Gen 2:18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Followed immediatly by:
Gen 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
Gen 2:20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

Verse 18 shows the context, a suitable helper. Verse 20 shows the why of why God brought the animals, "But for Adam no suitable helper was found", which clearly shows that the reason God brought these animals was to find a suitable helper. Now, God, of course, knew that none of these beasties would be a suitable helper, not being humans after all, so why bring them to Adam, especially when verses 21 to 24 show that God planned to create "a suitable helper" after he brought the animals? Why not just create the woman right off, and skip all that animal bringing?

The answer is seen in Gen 2:24 , specifically, the word wife. God was Adams father, and it was time for that little talk, the one about the birds and the bees, you know, "the sex talk" (thats why the word wife is used). God brought the animals to Adam. Adam studied them, and named them based on what he saw of their types and habits (classification). He saw that some were birds and insects (birds and bees), quite unlike him. Some were reptiles and snakes and such, more like him but still unlike. Some were mammals, much closer to his type. From them (as well as the others to a lesser extant) he saw that they came in two basic types, male and female, and he saw their way with each other, and that this produced children. Then he looked at himself and said "male", and he looked at all the animals and did not see anything like him that was female. Thus, when Eve was brought to him, he knew that this was a human female, and knew at least to some extent what his relationship to her would include, things like sex and children.

So yes, I know why God brought the animals to Adam, it is clear from the deliberatly included context, the immediatly preceeding verse 18, the last sentance of verse 20, and verse 24.

Why do you think God brought the animals to Adam? And what does that have to do with carnivores before the fall?