Creation scientists

[DaveW]

That makes no sense whatsoever.  If Adam and Eve did not have to die before they sinned, then why was the tree of life in the Garden in the first place?  And once they did sin, why did God drive them from the Garden?

The obvious answer is that Adam and Eve were physically mortal as created. the Tree of Life was in the Garden to keep them from dying physically.

Gen 3:22  Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"
Gen 3:23  therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.

There is nothing in the whole of the Bible to even suggest that Adam and Eve were created physically immortal.  Nothing in the whole of creation is physically immortal.

Actually there is nothing in scripture to contradict what Amo said.  And man, unlike the rest of nature, was made in the Image of the Almighty, who IS eternal.   So while it cannot be proved definitively one way or the other, there is that distinct likelihood that unfallen man was eternal.

[4WD]

Actually there is nothing in scripture to contradict what Amo said.  And man, unlike the rest of nature, was made in the Image of the Almighty, who IS eternal.   So while it cannot be proved definitively one way or the other, there is that distinct likelihood that unfallen man was eternal.

God's putting the Tree of Life in the Garden absolutely contradicts what Amo said.  If you do not agree, then please give us a rational explanation for the purpose that God put the Tree of Life in the Garden. There is nothing about the physical being in the creation of man that is in the Image of God.  God is Spirit - PERIOD.

The very idea of physical immortality is just plain, well, stupid.

[DaveW]

God's putting the Tree of Life in the Garden absolutely contradicts what Amo said.  If you do not agree, then please give us a rational explanation for the purpose that God put the Tree of Life in the Garden.

You are making an assumption - that you know God's reason for putting that tree there.  You don't. No one does. 

There is nothing about the physical being in the creation of man that is in the Image of God.

Not any more maybe.  But before the fall? ? ? 

You are making the assumption that nothing changed at the fall.  I see Romans 8 as saying that even the fundamental laws of physics changed for the entire universe at the fall.

[4WD]

You are making an assumption - that you know God's reason for putting that tree there.  You don't. No one does.

God told us the reason.  I posted it.  So yes, I do know the reason, and so do you, unless you think that God is irrational or lying.

[DaveW]

God told us the reason.  I posted it.  So yes, I do know the reason, and so do you, unless you think that God is irrational or lying.

You are confusing a result for a reason.

God said that if fallen man ate, he would live forever.  That is a RESULT.  Not a reason.

[4WD]

You are confusing a result for a reason.

God said that if fallen man ate, he would live forever.  That is a RESULT.  Not a reason.

I am not confusing anything.  God stated the reason.  The reason for the Tree of Life was to eat and live. If Adam was not driven from the Garden, he could eat and live forever.  You can accept that or not.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

That makes no sense whatsoever.  If Adam and Eve did not have to die before they sinned, then why was the tree of life in the Garden in the first place?  And once they did sin, why did God drive them from the Garden?

The obvious answer is that Adam and Eve were physically mortal as created. the Tree of Life was in the Garden to keep them from dying physically.

Gen 3:22  Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"
Gen 3:23  therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.

There is nothing in the whole of the Bible to even suggest that Adam and Eve were created physically immortal.  Nothing in the whole of creation is physically immortal.

The even more obvious answer is that this story isn't literal.

Nobody ever learned anything by eating fruit.

[Jaime]

The obvious answer to me is that God linked the knowledge of Good and Evil to the fruit of that tree. Why would it have to be a natural consequence of eating fruit. Another example is that Moses didn't part the waters of the Red Sea by holding his staff and opening his arms. God did. Could God not just link the knowledge of good and evil to eating a fruit from a tree he had forbidden? Not as far fetched as a talking serpent, or a virgin birth even.

[4WD]

The even more obvious answer is that this story isn't literal.

Nobody ever learned anything by eating fruit.

There is certainly that. 

But even the metaphor would clearly indicate that there was no such thing as an immortal physical being.

[Texas Conservative]

The obvious answer to me is that God linked the knowledge of Good and Evil to the fruit of that tree. Why would it have to be a natural consequence of eating fruit. Another example is that Moses didn't part the waters of the Red Sea by holding his staff and opening his arms. God did. Could God not just link the knowledge of good and evil to eating a fruit from a tree he had forbidden? Not as far fetched as a talking serpent, or a virgin birth even.

Obviously a virgin birth is a metaphor.   

[4WD]

A metaphor for what?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Could God not just...

The universal argument.  Works for absolutely everything!

[Jaime]

What argument would you prefer? God is limited by things that he is not limited by like time and space etc. If the text says that the waters of the Red Sea stood up on each side of a dry path, why would it have to make scientific sense if God DID do that? Why must a virgin birth obviously mean something else? If Adam and Eve ate a forbidden fruit because it made them knowledgeable of good and evil, why is that a problem? Why does it have to mean that Jesus simply swooned on the cross and didn't literally die and be raised from the grave?

[Texas Conservative]

A metaphor for what?

If we can explain away the Garden of Eden as "not literal" why not do the same thing to the virgin birth, since that isn't very science-y either.

[4WD]

If we can explain away the Garden of Eden as "not literal" why not do the same thing to the virgin birth, since that isn't very science-y either.

Do you have some data that suggests that the virgin birth didn't happen as recorded in the Bible?

[Jaime]

Would there possibly be any scientist that deny the virgin birth? Of course there is. Are they wrong? Yes. The swoon theory is a very prominent lie counter to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

[4WD]

Would there possibly be any scientist that deny the virgin birth?

That's not data; that's just someone's opinion.

[Jaime]

Scientist don't need data to refute religion, they have peer reviewed science. Though there are Christian Scientists. Even you have said multiple times science cannot contemplate or explain religious or spiritual things.

[4WD]

Jaime, you continue to confuse scientists with science.  Science doesn't, and can't, refute anything about God of the Bible. Some scientists obviously do not believe in the God of the Bible, but they have no data to back up their lack of belief.  It is simply their opinionated belief.

[Jaime]

I agree. although the purest of scientists will not side against what science dictates as to the realm of religion or spiritual things.

I know you are a Christian first and a scientist second. That does not compute with a pure scientist. Things like the virgin birth, the resurrection, parting the Red Sea all fall into the basket labeled poppycock.

[4WD]

I agree. although the purest of scientists will not side against what science dictates as to the realm of religion or spiritual things.

Jaime, you are doing it again.  You are confusing science and scientists.  The is no science that dictates as to the realm of spiritual things.

I know you are a Christian first and a scientist second. That does not compute with a pure scientist. Things like the virgin birth, the resurrection, parting the Red Sea all fall into the basket labeled poppycock.

That is just plain wrong. There is no science basket labeled poppycock concerning miracles.  There may be scientists who do that.  But there may be lawyers who do that. There may be plumbers who do that. There may be electricians who do that. There may be physicians who do that.  There may even be some oil workers who do that.  But so what?  None of that is of any consequence where miracles are concerned.

[Jaime]

Science dictates NO dictates as to religion or spiritual matters. That IS a dictate of no comment. Yes there are scientists that label miracles poppycock. i had several as professors in college. Hard-headed scientists do it BECAUSE of what science demands of them. That kind of is laudable but still counter to reality. And science is all about reality, though it can't consider reality of spiritual things and pure scientists can't as well and I'm fine with that. Too bad for them though.

Plumbers, electrician etc do not deny spiritual things because of their chosen profession. Some scientists DO I believe. Some can't wrap their head around the apparent inconsistency. It isn't inconsistent for you who are first a Christian. Or that is my perception of you.

[4WD]

Jaime, you are simply wrong.  You do not seem to really understand what science is and isn't, and it would seem that you do not want to.  God, theology, religion, things spiritual, etc. simply do not fall within the auspices of science.  But then, neither do they fall within the auspices of plumbing, the law, banking, medicine, etc., etc. And with that I will stop now and leave the last word to you.

[Jaime]

Well if water ran uphill a plumber would be reluctant to believe that, right. If a doctor found out that vaccines, he/she pushed were actually harmful......never mind.

If one is a scientist first, it is awfully hard to accept spiritual things. You as a Christian first have no problem accepting science neither do I, but I accept and I hope you accept miracles as counter scientific, which they are, and we should have no problem with that as scientists secondly.

[Texas Conservative]

The Garden of Eden couldn't be a spiritual thing?  A place that really existed?

Can't have it both ways

[Jaime]

True, but can it be observably so?

[Amo]

The knowledge and or experience of sin, did not come by eating a piece of fruit, it came by disobeying a direct command from God. The breaking of God's commandments is sin. The fruit did not give them a knowledge of good and evil. Eating it in direct defiance of a commandment of God, gave them experiential knowledge of sin, good and evil. They had practiced evil or sin.

1Jn 3:4  Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Death was not part of God's original plan for humanity, thus the tree of life.

Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Death came upon humanity through the sin of our first parents. God separating us from the tree of life that sin might not be perpetuated eternally. Therefore are the saved who keep the commandments of God, granted access to the tree of life again. Unto eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord, the Forerunner, King, and Lord of those who have the faith of Jesus Christ and keep the commandments of God. This in contrast to our first parents who broke a direct commandment of God, bringing death and sin upon all of us, their descendants.

Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Rev 14:12  Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Rev 12:17  And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

[Amo]

That makes no sense whatsoever.  If Adam and Eve did not have to die before they sinned, then why was the tree of life in the Garden in the first place?  And once they did sin, why did God drive them from the Garden?

The obvious answer is that Adam and Eve were physically mortal as created. the Tree of Life was in the Garden to keep them from dying physically.

Gen 3:22  Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"
Gen 3:23  therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.

There is nothing in the whole of the Bible to even suggest that Adam and Eve were created physically immortal.  Nothing in the whole of creation is physically immortal.

Talk about making no sense, what kind of question is this. It answers itself. The tree of life was made to give eternal life to Adam and Eve. Duh! They had access to it before sin, and were denied access after sin. Which equals, they had eternal life before sin, and lost eternal life after sin. Access to the tree of life, was and is apparently conditional.

[4WD]

You are kidding, right?  If they were immortal before sinning, why would they need a tree of life? What does immortal mean?

[Jaime]

I understood that the tree of life provides the immortality. When it is withheld the immortality ceases.

[4WD]

immortal

adjective

1.  not mortal; not liable or subject to death; undying:
our immortal souls.

2.  remembered or celebrated through all time:
the immortal words of Lincoln.

3.  not liable to perish or decay; imperishable; everlasting.

4. perpetual; lasting; constant:
an immortal enemy.

noun

1.  an immortal being.

2.  a person of enduring fame:
Bach, Milton, El Greco, and other immortals.

If they were immortal, there would be no need for a tree life.  Obviously, the tree of life was to keep the physically mortal beings, Adam and Eve, from dying.  And that would have been just fine so long as they remain spiritually pure.  Once they sinned, then it would not have been good for them to physically live forever in the lost or fallen state.  So, God ejected them from the garden to keep them from eating of the tree of life.

They didn't die physically because they sinned.  They were mortal as created and subsequently died because they no longer had access to the tree of life. (Gen 3:22).

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

What argument would you prefer? God is limited by things that he is not limited by like time and space etc. If the text says that the waters of the Red Sea stood up on each side of a dry path, why would it have to make scientific sense if God DID do that? Why must a virgin birth obviously mean something else? If Adam and Eve ate a forbidden fruit because it made them knowledgeable of good and evil, why is that a problem? Why does it have to mean that Jesus simply swooned on the cross and didn't literally die and be raised from the grave?

I don't care very much about science, Jaime.  You talk about being a scientist second... I don't think I'm even that.  I usually actively shun discussions that try to derive things scientifically.  I'm a scientist-not-at-all.

What I do care about here is an understanding of the nature of God.  In particular, I do NOT find that God is a breaker of rules.  I find that He is the maker of rules.  He is a God of Order; not a god of chaos.  (And that is the point of Genesis 1, so it's very relevant to this conversation.)

So then, if there is a miracle - something that we cannot explain scientifically - then I am confident that somehow, some way, what happened still adheres to the rules that God established.  That means there IS an explanation; we just don't know it.  I don't know HOW the Red Sea was parted, but I'm sure God did it in a way that didn't break the laws of physics THAT HE CREATED.  That applies for your other examples as well.

There is another possibility: mis-interpretation of the text.  And that is what I think is happening with early Genesis.  The stories of Adam and Eve aren't literal.

And just because that is true for a few chapters in Genesis, that doesn't make it true in every other place across the Bible.  That logic is blatantly obviously wrong, despite how many times you may have heard it from a pulpit.

Jarrod

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

If we can explain away the Garden of Eden as "not literal" why not do the same thing to the virgin birth, since that isn't very science-y either.

I don't think early Genesis isn't literal because of science.  I think so based on a critical examination of the text.

Also, if a few chapters in Genesis are not literal, that doesn't have much (if any) bearing on several other books written by different people, over a thousand years later.  Each of them has to stand on their own merits.  Trying to link them that way is bunko.

The problem is that the church wants the Bible to be easy... just tell me which books are good, and give me a single hermeneutic for all them, thanks.  All literal?  Sure!  Let's roll with that.  And the clergy have been happy to oblige, because they want it easy as well.  Except that doesn't work.  The Bible is hard, and a single hermeneutic doesn't work equally well in all places.

Jarrod

[Jaime]

I don't know of any "physics" to allow the water of the Red Sea to stand up like walls to allow a dry path. It was simply a miracle of God. Like the virgin birth and the resurrection.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Obviously, the tree of life was to keep the physically mortal beings, Adam and Eve, from dying.

Is it obvious?  Maybe the point of the story is that knowledge of sin leads to death, while innocence preserves life.  Kind of like...

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.  But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (Romans 7)