Evidence for God from Science

Legatus, When you speak of the "literal meaning" of the text, which you profess apparently to know based upon a acceptance of translators guided by God, just to be clear, are you speaking from a position that the King James Bible is without error and that it is unecessary or even counterproductive to return to the origiinal languages and supporting manuscripts?

Canuckster1127 wrote:Legatus, When you speak of the "literal meaning" of the text, which you profess apparently to know based upon a acceptance of translators guided by God, just to be clear, are you speaking from a position that the King James Bible is without error and that it is unecessary or even counterproductive to return to the origiinal languages and supporting manuscripts?

No.
The king James was reasonably accurate for it's time, for people who spoke King James english. Other translations, made in good faith, are also reasonably accurate. That is so because God shows up to help honest, dilligent translaters do their job, just as he said he would. Do you believe in God? Then, do you believe God, what he said? He said his word would endure, do you believe that? Then, for him to DO what he SAID he would DO, since God, being all knowing, knows that the great majority of people do not speak greek, hebrew, or aramaic, he must make sure that any translation is accurate enough that all the main, important points, and most of the minor, perifrial points as well, are accuratly translated (and accuratly trnascribed by the original scribes, and found by the archeologists, and passed down to us today). He also, being the author, and knowing who each and every individual reader would be, made the original text, as well as the translations, plain and clear enough that the meaning of the text can be understood by all, if they use good faith when reading it (do not let their personal desires of what they want it to say make them deliberatly change the meaning of the clear text).


As for "literal meaning", this is most usually seen by three things, the context, the context, and the context. God wrote the bible so that it could be easily understood by all. An example is Jesus versus the pharasees. They were the learned "experts" of their day, great scholors, who spend great amounts of time and effort into study of the torah to show that it said what they wanted it to say. Jesus came along and pointed out the obvious differences between what they said it said and what the clear text said, pointing out the logical inconsistancies of their agruments (which were usually long, convoluted ones using every trick of fallacy and fallacious argument and taking single words out of context, just as people do today). Why do we not trust God to get the text, and it's translations, right today? This is not to say that the translation is exactly 100% accurate, just that it is sooooo very close that it is possible, if reading it in good faith, to get it right, because God made sure that it WAS possible. You might missunderstand a few, minor, perifrial points, but all the major, important stuff can be understood by anyone, and even most of the minor points. it is only when you bring personal bais, reading it as saying "what your itching ears want to hear", that you will get it wrong.


However, if you use logical fallacies and deliberatly illogical arguments, and take verses and even singe words out of their obvious (because God made it obvious) context, you can still get it wrong, regardless of whether or not you know greek and hebrew and aramaic. You might look at these links http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... ments.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument just to start. God used logic ("come, let us REASON together"), Jesus, who is God, living in the greek/roman world, knew and used logic (much to the pharasees ambarassment), and Paul was one of the formost experts on logic and learning in his day. And we can see that God, the original author of the bible, knows logic, because he uses it repeatedly throughout the book. Thus, if you want to say "logic is secular, not in the bible!", you are going to have to tell that to Jesus, and Paul, and God. And if you are going to say that, then, what will you use, fallacy? If you are not going to read it in context, then how will you read it? In earlier posts, I was doing just what Jesus and Paul did, I saw illogical arguments (I even named the fallacies in some cases) and words and verses taken out of context, and pointed that out.


Also, as for "literal meaning", I mean the meaning in context. Genesis is a straight narrative of events as they happened, Psalms is written in poetic language, Revelations is mostly written in symbolic language, etc. That is the context. The context of individual verses or words is show by those things, and the verses and words immediatly before and after that verse or word. God, the original author, made it so, why write a book that no one will understand?


As for the King james itself, as I said, it was very accurate for it's day. However, now, some passages can be less accurate, just because the language is about 400 years out of date. I do not proscribe to the "King James Only Controversy", and, in fact, know it to be a trick of Satan. The first reason is because Satan wants the bible to be hard to understand, and the 400 year old language of King James is harder to understand. Second, Satan can stimulate the sin of pride in the King James only crowd, "I am better than you, I use the only correct translation!". Satan can thus slide people right into works only rightousness, thinking that they are saved because they are more correct than someone else, more holy, beacuse they use the "only correct" translation. A recent trick of Satan is also to get as many people into "King James Only" that it supports his recent efforts to say that the christians are old fashioned, unscientific (aided by the Young Earth Creationist trick) and still living in the dark ages, by making them SOUND like they are living in the dark ages, by using very outdated language. And, of course, the King James Only thing is shown to be absurd by the simple fact that many people do now, and have in the past, and will in the future, speak languages other than english, regardless of whether it is the kings english or more modern english.

When i said that all the main points of the bible could be understood by anyone, and most of the minor ones as well, I will show an example. The Hebrew word YOM, translatable as "day" or "age". For most of human history, if you got the word wrong, and insisted that it ONLY means "day", a 24 hour day, you can still understand 99.999% of the bible, be saved, and go to heaven. When you get there, and find out your error, you laugh, God laughs with you, and that is the end of it, because it wasn't exacly a major point, was it? Now, however, things have changed, some things that were minor points have becaome major points, due to Satans current project, the "war between science and religion". Thus, if you insist that the word YOM can ONLY mean "24 hour day", and invent a whole fable of "Young Earth Creationism" (twisting many parts of scripture to do so), Satan can say "Oh, those christians, they live in a fantasy world, you don't want to be one of THEM, do you?". Thus, by mistranslation of that one word in the first chapter of genesis, it is possible to go to hell, or aid someone else to do so. Thus, that one word HAS become important, and I have made it my business (as have many others) to understand it, in the original language (and the context, of course).

And finally, the name of this thread, "carniverous animals before the fall". I have looked, and the OVERWHELMING physical evidence, millions of fossils, shows that there were indeed carniverous animals before the fall, and death, and thus "the curse" existed before the fall throughout most or all of the world. The options then were clear, the bible could be plain wrong, the science could be plain wrong, or our understanding of the bible could be plain wrong. The bible has withstood every test to show it wrong so far, and ths that seems unlikely. The HUGE amount of evidence of death (fossils are DEAD) and carnivors, before any man ever existed, makes it impossible that the science, in this case, can be wrong. That leaves the thrid option, our understanding of the bible must be wrong. I then looked, and, lo and behold, when you read the bible, in context, using logic to see what it says, it allows there to be carnivors before the fall. In fact, when you see what it says about the reason carnivors (and thorns and thistles) must exist, entropy, it demands it, and demands it universe wide. I then pointed that out, and was told I was wrong. When I asked why, I was told many logical fallacies and out of context readings of the bible. I then pointed them out, in detail, and in the order that they were given. I used the same methodology as Jesus, assuming that God wrote just what he ment to say, clearly and plainly.

So, what is it, is the science wrong, and how, or is the bible wrong, and how, or is our understanding of it wrong? Choose one. I did. Your turn.

Legatus,

If you wish to examine my beliefs and have the time you'll find I have, at this moment, 3,492 posts in which you can examine the positions I take on different issues and my belief in the scriptures. Given there are than many you're welcome at your leisure to look at them and raise questions as you wish.

The short answers to your questions (which again, are voluminous and well beyond the simple question I asked you) and come off as looking to pick a fight are as follows:

I tend to agree with you in general in many areas. I've been a Christian for 36 years. I have a degree in Biblical Literature. I am not currently in formal ministry but worked in that calling for 20 years earlier in life.

I subscribe to the verbal plenary position of inspiration. I am an old earth creationist. I don't quite agree with you in terms of Jesus taking the scriptures as simply as you state or the Bible interpreting itself as simply as you state. As a matter of fact, if most expositors took the same liberties with some of the contexts of scripture that, for example, the NT takes of the old they'd be rebuked solidly by most practicers of the methologies used today. I tend to believe that many of the methods of exposition and systematic theology utilized in the western traditionas do violence in many areas to the texts which in most cases were written in the context of Eastern or Semitic thought which has some seminal differences. Many areas overlap, but there are issues where the differences in the world views need to be understood.

In the case of Genesis, I believe Yom in context refers to a period of time in excess of 24 hours. I tend to believe science's evidence of an old earth is overwhelming but I primarily accept that the Old earth point of view is present within the Scriptures themselves, and have been well represented and consistent throughout church history. I conclude with you as well that it's not a cardinal issue. It is an important issue. I agree as well, if I 'm reading you correctly, that YEC can be a barrier to many in coming to Christ and I take that seriously as well.

So, sorry if my response is not thorough enough. You're welcome to peruse the past 6 years or so of posts for more if you wish. Keep in mind as you go however that I'm a work in progress and have changed in some of my understandings and approaches in that time.

My issues with what I've observed have been more with your style and approach than necessarily with content. I still believe, you'd find yourself better understood and received if you laid off of giving a "War and Peace" discourse when a Sundy Comic would suffice. That's up to you however.

blessings,

bart

Well, I hade to look up "verbal plenary inspiration", and found this:
"from the westminster confession of faith (1646):
VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.


it is interesting also to note that they deemed god's providence sufficient to the task, without any need
for special miracles or reinspiration.".
which I agree with. This is not suprising, my father having earned a doctorate at westminster theological seminary, and passed that on to me.
I also beleive that, mostly anyway, the translations are also "sufficient to the task" beacuse of "god's providence ", however, "sufficiant" is. in some places, not 100% accurate, usually due to bias on the part of the translator. However, it is sooo close to accurate that in most cases simply using reason and logic, the meaning is quite clear.


And that is where the problem comes in, reason and especially logic, knowing what a logical argument is, and more importantly, what a fallacious argument is, is at an all time low today. It dosn't matter how well you know the original languages if you wish the bible to say what you want it to say, and use fallacy to argue, to yourself and others, so as to convince of things that are opposite to the obvious and plain meaning of the text. This is what the pharasees did, and they spoke every day in both greek and hebrew! Thus, you can see that even the most imtimate knowledge of the laguages will not preserve you from error if you really want to err. It cetainly helps to know these laguages, or at least know how to find out (easily possible today), if you do come to a point of contention. However, if you really WANT the bible to say a certain thing, knowing the laguages will just help you craft a more clever and convincing sounding illogical argument. Thus, if you know what a fallacy looks like, it will be far easier to spot false ideas, regardless of how learned the arguer may appear. And what is a fallacy, an illogical argument? Really, they are just clever forms of lying, clever ways to twist meaning so as to convince yourself or others of something you wish to believe. You can look here http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... ments.html and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy and you can see that, at base, fallacy is indeed just a clever form of lying. And where do lies come from? originaly, from "the father of lies", Satan. Thus, if I see fallacy being used, I suspect Satan had a hand in it, either directly or indirectly. Directly by tempation, less directly by others following after the first one to be tempted's ideas, or even less directly by being simply tempted to use fallacy because that is all they know (since they may not even know what fallacy is, and thus cannot spot it, even in themselves).


In short, I have to agree with this ""Be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are farfetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers.". If I see interpretations that use fallacy, and are far from a plain reading of the text, I really don't care how well the arguer knows greek and hebrew, or how expert they claim themselves to be, I get suspicious, very suspicious, as should you. After all, there is a Satan, and you are told to be on guard agaist his wiles, and wiles is just another word for fallacy. (clever arguments to sway you).

I suggest you go to the two links I gave here, and learn what a fallacy looks like, it will be very usefull for you if you want to understand the bible, and to spot false teachings or at least have a chance to. It's also usefull to spot lies in politics, advertising, your local newspaper, and the like. And it is entirely TOO usefull to spot when you are lying to yourself (not...that that's ever happened to me personally... ).

Legatus,

Thanks for the advice. Believe it or not, I know what fallacious arguments look like. I was raised in Canada and trained in the field and have studied it independendently as well.

I have a question for you then. If God didn't use greco-Roman logic and philosophy as a foundation or major influence in inspiring His Word, what dangers might there be in relying upon that framework and overlaying it upon Scriptures written from a Semitic world view?

bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:Legatus,

Thanks for the advice. Believe it or not, I know what fallacious arguments look like. I was raised in Canada and trained in the field and have studied it independendently as well.

I have a question for you then. If God didn't use greco-Roman logic and philosophy as a foundation or major influence in inspiring His Word, what dangers might there be in relying upon that framework and overlaying it upon Scriptures written from a Semitic world view?

bart

That one is easy, use the basic logical method, but exclude that "philosphy" part. The philosophy of the greek and roman world may be riddled with false premesis, that is, very logical argumewnts based on false data, no data, or just assuptions. In addition, they often were said to be useing logic, but were instead using such tricks as Appeal To Authority ("Aristitole said, therefor it must be true"), Appeal To False Authority (what exactly does Aristitole know about the natural warld, anyway, how does he know it?), appeal to widespread belief (peer pressure), Argument by Rhetorical Question, Reductive Fallacy (Oversimplification), Argument From Age (Wisdom of the Ancients) (they used this one a LOT, for a long time), Causal Reductionism (Complex Cause), Confusing Correlation And Causation, Error Of Fact, Hypothesis Contrary To Fact (arguing from something that might have happened, but didn't), Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation) (assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more). This is just a partial list, theres plenty more of the alphabet of fallacy to go through. It was because of these logical fallacies that "the scientific method" was invented to replace it, thus trying to get at what the actual facts were, rather than mostly using appeal to authority or age as had been done previously.

In short, the greco/roman world may have invented logic (to some exstant), but they were no strangers to fallacy, and much of their world view and philosophy was based on fallacy and a lack of proven facts (false premesis).(Note, I do not know what percentage of their world view was based on false arguments or premesis, whether it was just some,or most). So I will use plain 'ol logic, which is primarily usefull to see if an argument is internally self consistant, and the scientific method, to see if the premesis of the arguments are true or false ones.

It should be noted as well that the semetics were (and still are, to some extant) no strangers to logic (or fallacy), indeed, their logic (and fallacy) predated the greek world, and many of them were masters of logic (and/or fallacy). I am not sure if they ever codified it, or gave it a name, however, at least not for wide publication, as the greeks did. As for "major influence in inspiring His Word", much of the bible was written before there ever was a greek world, or at least one that had much influence on the hebrews. Even the part were there was influence, the writers of the new testiment were not only steeped in greek logic, but semetic logic as well (Paul was a master at both), so even there the greek influence was only partial (at best, since the new testiment was based on the old).

Thus I can use the method of logic without nessisarily agreeing with the world view, the conclusions, of the people who invented the word. Just because I use a greek word doesn't make me greek.

BTW, I do not beleive that God means to have us assume a semtic, OR a greco/roman, world view. I beleive he is looking for a God centered, specifically a Christ centered, world view, which is a whole different thing. I see no reason for us to try and assume a semetic world view either. Such a semetic world view is only usefull when it came from an originally biblical world view (example in point, the pharisees versus Jesus, both semetic, one wrong).

Currently, various parts of christianity seem to have picked up other world views, like politicalism, emotionalism, miricleism, prophecyism, and the like. I can, using logic, see that these must be false views. That would take too long to go into now.

I agree with you completely in terms of a christ centered. Yes, it's possible to get caught up in world views and yes there's a lot of common ground in terms of understanding scripture in both. Reverting to pure logic and syllogisms however, isn't a method that the scriptures itself uses very much. Som of Paul's writings and the opening of the Gospel of John are notable exceptions. In the end, Scripture is best understood throught the lens of Christ however. All scripture is inspired, but not all scripture is equally important. We're under the new covenant now; the old has passed, and Christ is the heart of the gospel and our lives.

Legatus,

Sorry for the delay.

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

Yes

(2) 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?

GOD

(3) 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?

What I believe changed, is how we care for the creation and the fact that creation is now used by God to punish our sins (the flood, famines, etc). By this I do not mean that every disaster is a punishment from God. Also, after Adam and Eve were created, God rested and continues to rest. He did not and will not create again until the New Heavens and the New Earth.

Animals did not change. There was no curse put on them, only on Satan (the serpent).

The term curse is not mentioned in Romans 8.

(4) 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"?

Of course, Predestination is a perfect example. I believe I mentioned this earlier, that the Old Testament saints were saved by faith, in the coming of Christ. One thing though, the phrase "from the foundation of the world" is used in reference to events happening after (form, since – apo) the completion of creation. Luke 11:50; Hebrews 4:3

I assume though that you mean "at the very start of creation." Entropy is not a curse. It is necessary for the universe, matter, stars, etc to exist. Creatures would not be able to eat or even move (friction) without it.

The curses in Genesis 3 are all reactive and for the purpose of direct punishment.



I have two questions for you, in connection with number 3 above. If God gave man authority over the land, plants, and animals, and also allowed Satan to enter the garden to tempt man into sin, isn't God the one controlling this?

Likewise, isn't God ultimately the cause of Pharaoh's hardened heart, even though we are told that Pharaoh was hardening his own heart (Exodus 8:15, 32; 9:34) and that God was the one doing it (Exodus 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10)?

Two more questions. Do you believe the Flood was global or local? If local, why only local?

Legatus,

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?

I agree with what you said. I was trying to get to the fundamental reason for naming the animals. The naming of something was an act of showing authority or ownership over it (Genesis 1:5, 8, 10; 5:2, etc.).


You might find this of interest, because of what you said about God making a wife for Adam. In Genesis 2:23-24 the term for man (adam) is changed to ish and the the term for woman or wife is ishsha. God said that He would make a helper corresponding (ke - like; neged - before, as in standing before) to Adam. So, God took a rib from ish and made ishsha, a corresponding helper.

As we can see ishsha is a term that can mean woman, but it is also the Hebrew word for wife. As it turns out, ish is a term that can mean man, but it is also the Hebrew word for husband. Pretty cool.

From your last post, I see that you agree with me on many things, however, the problem then was to find why you did not agree with me, even though you seem to also agree. I think that it is that you see that thorns and carnivores existed before the fall, and believe that therefore they are not part of the curse. It may simply be that you see entropy as differant than I do.

Entropy, what I see: Entropy is the universe, and world, being a closed, rather than open, system. In an open system, God would constantly be pouring a stream of energy and information into everything. Stars would not die, plants would not die, people and animals would not die, because they would be in a constant state of re-creation. Stars need not run out of hydrogen becuase God could just add more, or God could simply make the light and heat itself, without a need for stars, or whatever method God preffers. Plants and animals and people would not die, since they would be in essence in a state of constantly being raised from the dead. If you ate a plant, it could grow back immediatly, therefore, there is no need for it to protect itself from having what limited life available to it being taken away by having thorns, since there is unlimited life available to it, and subracting anything from infinity still leaves infinity. As for carnivores, they would not need to eat other animals, since, in effect, they would not really need to eat anything (which would mean in effect that they are not really carnivores anymore). The same could be said of people, Jesus, after the ressurection, could and did eat fish, but he didnt really need to. Also, people would not need to feel pain (including in childbirth), since they could not be injured, and thus would not need to protect themselves.

The opposite, a closed, or entropy dominated system, has only so much energy or life to go around. Plants must protect the limited life they have available by growing thorns to keep themselves from being eaten, since they may not be able to grow back (in some areas, like deserts, there are more thorns becuase there is even less ability to grow back), Likewise, animals and people need to be able to feel pain so that they can avoid injury, becuse if they lose it, it won't grow back. There is also more work to get food since the available resources are limited, you must fight the weeds and the crows to grow corn because they also want that ground or food, since it is limited.


Adam and Eve ate in the garden before the fall, it is not stated either that they needed to or that they did not, simply that they did. The most likely explaination is that they did, which suggests that they were operating partially under the law of entropy. I say partially, because normally under that law, you have to fight entropy to eat, you have to fight thorns and carnivores and work to grow plants you need and chase down animals you need for food, and they fight back with thorns and claws and running away. In the garden, a place stated to have been entirly planted by God in a stated barren place, there were no thorns or carnivores because God made sure there were non, which is why the word meaning "an enclosed garden" was specifically used here, and why it was specifically stated that the place was chosen from a barren spot, so that we woud know that absolutly nothing in the garden grew or lived there wild, it was all only specifically placed there by God himself. Thus, the physical effects of thorns and having to work for food were not seen by Adam and Eve simply because they were not present in the garden and God had already done all the work of planting food stuffs before they arrived.

Therefore, it seem to me that the entire effect of Gen 3:17=20 can be caused by God by simply removing Adam and Eve from the garden, out into the wild outside it, where they must do all the planting and forgaing and fighting carnivores to get animals for food. And God did remove them, hence, they were no longer in an enclosed garden, but in a non garden, the wild, with wild things. There need to no change to the natural laws of the world or universe, the entropy was already out there, only now the man and woman were out in it, rather than in a nice, safe, comfey garden with God watching over them every minute (rather like watching over a toddler).

That leaves Gen 3:16 . First, it should be noted that the woman had not had any children yet, and thus would not have anything to compare to. Thus, it is possible that nothing changed with her body, God know beforehand that she would sin, and thus had already prepared the way, and was simply telling her that if she had never sinned, and God had seen this (which he did not) her body could have been an open system, with no need for pain since she could not be hurt and thus does not need pain to avoid injury, as we do now. It is also possible that, up to that point, God had specifically maitained the man and womans bodies as open systems, which could not be hurt, however, that would mean that they ate simply because they liked eating, which seems unlikely. Either way satisfies the text, the former option being the most likely and reasonable.

It should be noted, the husband ruling over the wife is stated as part of the curse, but was not caused by God himself. They had decided to make the rules themselves, to sieze control (or try to anyway), this curse was simply that they fought for control not only with God, but then with each other, and the man, being physically stronger, won more often. God did not cause that, it was and is simply a result of their changed attitudes.

I see no direct effects of sin on plants or animals other than the effects of mankinds sinful direct actions on them. Animals can't be effected spiritually, having no spirits, and no way to decide to follow or not follow God, no free will as such. They also can't really be effected mentaly, not having any real capacity that way. Plus, there is no physical evidence of any change in plants or animals from all the long time before the fall and after it, there were still carnivores and thorns and the like.

As for our rulership, I see no way this effects things other than that God said we could own this stuff and do with it as we wished. Yes, God allowed Adam to name the animals because they were his animals to name, but this gave him no special power over them other than the power of his direct actions, his hands and feet and such tools as he can make (which is considerable but limited). Thus, the effect of sin on animals and plants are that God would have not needed that the universe would be a closed system from it's very beginning if God had not seen that mankind would inveriably fall, and, in essence, demand that it be a closed system, where God is not in charge of every little thing, as he would be in an open system, where God would control absolutly everything around you in a very noticable way (you will feel it, you will feel God around you, you will "know even as you are known"). God, however, placed in the garden a "tree of life" as a visible symbol of what mankind could have in the future, in an open system (something they could see and understand, regular fruit gives regular life, this fruit gives eternal life, this was a concept they could understand). he then promised a redeemer, who would in effect usher in a future state with a universe as an open system with God always present, which is later named "the new heavens and the new earth". All statements about it indicate that it will be an open system, very different from what we have now, and different from anything like what this universe has been like from it's beginning.

Thus, I see that God, who is outside of time, saw that mankind would inveriably fall. He made a universe running on the natural laws of entropy from the beginning of time, which includes the named curse things of pain and thorns and hard work to eat. Before the fall, Adam and Eve did not feel these things because they were in a nice safe comfortable garden, all the work had been done for them, and there was nothing there to cause them pain. After the fall, they were outside the garden, where they needed to work to eat and there was things that caused pain, like thorns. Thus, "the curse" was done by God from the beginning of time, Gods only action after the fall was simply removing the man and woman from the garden into the already cursed wold outside it, where they would feel its effects.

This is stated in the text of Genesis, and also to a lesser extant in Romans. In Romans, it is stated "the creation" and "bodies", clearly indicating that this effects things physical, as well as spiritual. After all, how can plants and animals suffer spiritually, having no spirits? Therefore, they can only suffer physically. And this physicall effect is not because they sinned, or became sinful (how can a plant sin?), but because God, saw that mankind would sin, and thus made "the curse", or entropy, from the beginning of time. it's effect on us started when God removed Adam and Eve from the garden and they first started to experience hard work to eat and painful thorns. Thus, I do see Romans as stating that the whole universe was effected by sin, God doing this effect because God is outside of time at a different time than the actual sin happened from our point of view inside of linear time. I see no special effect on just the plants and animals changing them after the fall, there is no scientific evidence for this, and simply removing mankind from the garden would satisfy both the scientific evidence and the text of scripture, both in Genesis and Romans.

I see nothing in the bible that our rulership over plants and animals of this world gives is any power or effect on them other than what we can do directly with our physical actions. Also, there is no evidence (fossils etc) that plants or animals changed after the fall. Therefore, the plant and animla parts of the curse must simply be the removal of Adam and Eve from the garden, to a place where thorns existed and work had to be done to eat. There being no scriptural text denying this, specific parts of scripture stating it, such as the use of the wrod 'garden" and it matching the physical evidence, I see no other option. Our pinishment for sin is simply that we are no longer in the garden. Our hope is that eventually a new garden, universe wide, will replace this one, and that if we are in good with the gardener (which is entirely up to the gardener, we must simply accept that), we can live in this new improoved garden (better even than the old one).

Thus I see entropy and the curse as the same thing. The stated curse being effects that only happen in a state of entropy. The punishmet was having to live out in it.

I will cover the flood etc seperatly.

The questions, covered seperatly:

Yes, God allowed Satan to enter the garden. God did not need, to, God could have kept Satan out. I have to assume two things.

First is that God saw that mankind is lesser than angels, and would fall eventually sooner or later anyway, with or without Satan. This is because mankind did not see God in all his glory, and experience him directly. The angels do, and experienced directly that God is all powerfull and all loving, yet 1/3 fell anyway. Since they SAW God directly, yet rebelled anyway, they cannot be saved, because you have to be really far gone to do THAT after SEEING all the evidence which would say that you should not rebell against a God like THAT. Mankind, however, has never seen God directly, thus, they are both more likely to fall away, and it makes it possible for them to be redeemed since they are not nearly as far gone.

Second, God apperently values this thing called 'free will". God clearly wants us to CHOOSE God, not be forced into it by actually seeing him. Therefore, Satan was allowed to talk in the garden to give mankind a choice. Satan then and now is not allowed to go beyond merely presenting a choice, he is not allowed to force anyone to do anything, to simply go inside their minds and change stuff. Satan probably doesnt agree with that, he thinks God should force mankind to love him. That is because Satan is not all powerful, God is, for God to force anyone to think the way he wants, which he can easily do, they would cease to have free will, they would simply be an extention of Gods will, and thus would no longer even be a seperate creature. There would then no longer even be a need, or even want, to create them.

Therefore, God allowed Satan into the garden to give mankind the choice, and to just get it over with in a controlled environment where God could provide the other part of the choice, the redeemer and the garden and the tree of life which is a promise of a future free of the curse.

As for Pharaoh and his hardened heart, Satan whispers in one ear, God whispers in the other, all God has to do to change Pharoah's heart is stop whispering. Mankind naturally leans toward Satan, or at least Satans idea that mankind can be their own God and make their own rules, if God never spoke to anyone, no one would ever be saved (also stated very clearly elsewhere).

The flood:

The scientific evidence shows no evidnece of a world wide flood as such (only some evidence from the earlier times as seen here Gen 1:9 ). Therefore, 3 options exist, the scientific evidence is wrong (but there is too much of it, so thats out), the bible is wrong (but people have been trying to prove it wrong for millenia and failed, so that out), or our understanding of it is wrong. Considering that our understanding of it has been wrong before, and that there is a Satan who is always trying to get us to misunderstand it (often with our help), this seems extremely likely.

The text of the bible, the exact words used, allows the flood to be local. Conclusion, the flood was local.

Specifics, the flood was stated to be a result of mankinds sin to such an extant that no believer could marry another believer since there just weren't enough of them left, result, no beleivers raised as such anymore, and eventually only at most 8 left in the entire world. Therefore, the flood need only cover the area that mankind covered. The flood itself could kill many, the effects of the 40 days of rain and the refurgees fleeing the flood, resulting in crop failure and famine, which is usually followed by plague which the refugees would carry with them, would take care of the rest.

Scientific evidence:
Fossil:The area inhabited by what we call "Netherdales" just happens to cover a smallish (compared to the size of the world) area around Eden, the middle east, near east, southern europe area. Netherdales are what people look like if they live to be many hundreds of years old, Cro magnon is what they look like if they die younger, mostly after the flood when they stated a decline in lifespan. The netherdal look is becauese bones continue to slowly grow as we age, if we aged to be 900 years old, we would look something like that to. Both cro magnon and netherdales had bigger brains than we do, the better to at least fit in 900 years of memories, they may also have been smarter than we are today. It would also help them avoid alzhiemers and such. The smaller brains we have now comes with a side effect, we also have smaller jaws, but the same number of teeth as of old, hence, "wisdom teeth", we have more teeth than actually fit on our smaller jaws on our now smaller heads. There have also been many fossils that makes scientists think that netherdals and cro magnons interbred, in reality the half and half skeletons were merely evidence that their lifespans were decreasing, they were really the same race, just changing because of the genetic drift brought on when their population was reduced to only 8 total.

Genetic: There is a total of 3 sets of netherdal genes that have been found, there was enough genetic information to say that netherdales had some genes we now lack, by comparing netherdal genes to modern human ones. I know of no comparisons to cro magnon genes, I expect they would be found to change over time from netherdale to cro magnon and eventually to modern short lived humans, losing the extra genetic information along the way. We can see this in the bible, the lifespans dropped in a logerithmic curve, which clearly shows a change in genetics.

There has been discovered in humands genes the ancesters of us all. The first found is now known as "mitochondrial eve", sinc it is passed down only through the female line, and can be traced back to one single woman. They later disovered that we are all related to one man as well through the male line, which the evidence points to be around later. They then jumped up and down and crow that the bible was proven wrong, since it showed that Adam lived at a much later time than Eve did. This is easily answered with one word, NOAH. In his time, Noah, was the father of all men living, simply because after the flood the only men living were Noah and his three sons. Their wives were daughters of different mothers, so we would expect that Noahs genetic line would overwrite Adams, and would be dated later than Eves, which was not overwritten. Thus the genetic information supports the flood. The scientists admit that there is evidence of one man and one woman, but postulate a time when mankind was for some reason reduced to maybe 6000 individules total, never mentioning exactly how that happened, or mentioning that the only actual evidence we have is of only one woman and one later man. The 6000 number is just one they make up because they don't want to start believing the bible, despite the actual evidence not supporting any number greater than 1.

It is said of "mitochondrial Eve" that "she could tear small animals apart with her bear hands". This is from the fossile evidence, much denser bones caused by having much stronger muscles. In other words, they could be called "homo superior", they were stronger, faster, smarter, and probably better looking (when still "young") than anyone today. They were sort of like the superior humans in the movie "The Wrath of Khan", which goes some way to explaining why they needed to be whiped out. Their strength and smarts, plus the fact that if they sinned, they would not be going to hell anyway for say 800 years, explains a lot. Also, it takes an excuse away from mankind, we migt say, "we will beleive in you if you were nicer to use", he was, and they didn't. We might also say "if we had more time to look over the evidence, or to decide, we would decide to follow you", they had many hundreds of years, and they didn't.

Lastly, the current rage idea that God had to whipe humans out because they interbred with angels is pure BS, caused by not translating one word. The idea that angels could create bodies is not supported anywhere, especially bodies that could inseminate women (and why only male angels??). They may be able to appear as human, but that doesn't mean they can actually be them. In addition, God could easily prevent them from doing so even if they could, to allow it, and then whipe out humanity because of this action of God, would mean God was responsible, yet punished others for what he himself had done. It is nothing more than another fable.

The flood was only reginal, because the humans and thier sin was only localized. The Bible is clear that all but 8 humans died because of the Flood, not plagues and famines (Genesis 6:17; 7:21-23; Matthew 24:37-38; Luke 17:26-27; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5, 3:6).

This is like the curses, they only extended as far as the influence of sinful man. This is a strike against Romans 8 being about a curse. Plus, Romans 8 does not mention a curse.

Neanderthals were not human. We have close to 20 mtDNA samples from them covering about a 50,000 year period. We even have a complete nuclear DNA sample which also shows that they were not us.

Cro magnon were modern humans. We have mtDNA samples from 2 Neanderthals 26,000-28,000 years old and Humans (Cro Magnon) 24,000 years old. All Neaderthals clump closely together, but far from humans. We have human mtDNA from 24,000 15,000 8,000 and today, and all humans clump together.

Normal modern human's brain volumes range from 900 cc to 2,000 cc. Cro Magnon fall within this range. Our average brain volume is about 1400 cc and "genius brains" are known to range from 1,000 cc to 2,000 cc.

Neanderthals and humans are two different species.
Here is just one paper
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v98/n ... 0953a.html

Legatus,

You asked me this question:

(3) 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?

I was responding with two questions for you.

If God gave man authority over the land, plants, and animals, and also allowed Satan to enter the garden to tempt man into sin, isn't God the one controlling this?
Likewise, isn't God ultimately the cause of Pharaoh's hardened heart, even though we are told that Pharaoh was hardening his own heart (Exodus 8:15, 32; 9:34) and that God was the one doing it (Exodus 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10)?

My point was and is, that it is not an either/or situation. God is the one diliberatly causing these things. So, a simple YES to both of my questions would have been enough.