- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hoghead,
Both Jews and Christians of bygone days believe Eden is a idyllic place and Revelations speaks of the tree of life in the midst of Paradise. Some a number of centuries ago advanced the hypothesis that it Eden is symbolic as is the rest of the story of creation. That would be true of its mention in Revelations as well.
Nowadays there are many who doubt most likely do in supposed advances of soft sciences.
A key point in Scripture is that the wages of sin is death and without sin there is no death, illness, injury, etc. In the garden there was no sin therefore no wages of it. Plants would not be included since according to Scripture they are physical items and thus a lack a soul. On the other hand both beasts and humans have souls and would count. That is why both the later consumed vegetable matter but not animal matter.
If it is symbolism it is well thought out symbolism.
Hoghead,
There is a lot more detail in the account about Abraham though there are some brief snapshot of earlier times. It does not cover the Great Deluge very well but is covers it better than Genesis 1 covers the details of creation. The later has a lot of context that either is not written or requires research. It also uses the same word in different ways and so is confusing to those who do not seek to solve the mysteries or are careless.
It is a teaching method that is not much used today for one reason or another. It teaches one problem solving but it is not a good way to acquire and memorize vast amounts of information.
An example is “Let us make mankind”. It does not tell us who “us” is but instead leaves it as a mystery to be solved. More clues would help but God assumes we have the ability to figure it out.
Yes, this is off topic.
Hoghead,
Jesus is the prodigious example but even then it is hard to believe so many look for alternative interpretations.
Sorry I got two ideas mixed.
Jesus is the example that those that walk according to the Spirit are freed from slavery to sin.
It is hard to believe that a human being can be freed from slavery to sin (imperfection) so many look to alternative interpretation that are easier to believe.
Hello again, Kerwin,
Yes, traditionally Eden was viewed as a Paradise. I don’t know, however, how you cam up with the idea that plants don’t have souls. The Bible really does not make it clear one way or the other whether plants and animals do or do not have souls.
I’m also not sure what you mean by the “soft” sciences. Generally, that term is used for social-science fields. Today, the Bible has been viewed from the perspective both f the “soft’ sciences and the “hard” sciences, i.e., astronomy, physics, biology, etc.
Anyhow, we’re getting off topic. Occupational hazard in any serious discussion. I almost got off on the use of the term “soft science.” Long story. I earned an M.S. in clinical psychology at a Big Ten school noted for engineering. Man, oh, man, did I get the ribbing from all those engineering students I knew, about being in a “soft” science, actually it was called “soft squishy science,” bottom rank of the scientific hierarchy, there or in any school. Well, we’ll just see about that….. OK, enuf said. Let’s get back to the Trinity.
Hello again, again, Kerwin,
The Bible assumes God’s major, salvific revelations occur in history, not nature. That’s why the Bible says so very little about nature and creation. Since the only God who can save you is that God who created you, the Bible says God created us, has a creation myth. However, as the big interest was on God acting in history, specifically the history of teh ancient Israelites, the Bible simply glosses over creation. Actually, the Bible presents two very different creation stories butt edited together. Each is very brief, especially compared to nature religions, where the purpose of the religion is to explain the operations of the natural order and where the creation myth goes on for pages and pages. That is what is unique about the ancient Israelis: They were focused exclusively on a historical God, on a God acting in history, and then had very little interest in how the natural order operates. Yes, the Bible does talk about strange natural events, but solely and only in the context of a major announcement of a major watershed event in history about to take place. The Bible records that something really weird happened at the Red (actually “Reed”) Sea. But that is never provided as an instruction how to deal with rivers, just an explanation of how they got thorough their historical journey to the Promised Land, just a kind of footnote to history. The Bible does not explain why there is a desert or even much about how to survive in the desert. The desert is simply introduced as a kind of stage upon which an important historical drama is acted out. Something really weird happened with something called manna. No real details are given. Why should they be? As I said, the authors are interested in describing a major historical event: how the Israelites got to the promised land. It was not indented to be a geophysical account of desert floral and fauna or how to settle down and live at one with the desert.
Not sure what you are saying about sin here, Kerwin. Also, I’m not clear what you mean by alternative explanations. My view is that the real source of sin is in poor decision-making on our part. We sin, in our freedom, not in our slavery. Indeed, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. If we are not careful, an often we are not, then we can create real problems simply by trying to do good.
The Bible makes it very clear that God is a God of love; and when you truly love others, you do not seek to coerce them by threats of terrible punishments. It is that simple. That doesn’t mean God enjoys everything we do, can’t get angry. Quite the opposite. It doesn’t mean cheap grace, either. Quite the opposite. But it does mean universal salvation.
Hi hoghead,
So these are your derivations from scripture?
Do they rate much against the spiritual words themselves?
Well, Nick, why don’t you carefully read and consider what I have said and then read Scripture , and get back to me with your answer to this question, and we’ll take it from there? First, however, as suggested earlier, I would encourage you to take a chapter from your own book and ask yourself if you felt posting your comments, your homespun theology, is dong anything but clogging the works, confusing others by adding in the opinions of men.
hoghead1.
The Bible makes it very clear that God is a God of love; and when you truly love others, you do not seek to coerce them by threats of terrible punishments.
Love hates evil so perhaps you reevaluate your definition which is neither in scripture or a very good since evil triumphs since it wold mean no justice system. Essentially you are claiming anyone that seeks to punish anyone is doing evil. Looking at it that way then are claiming God is evil for giving governments authorities to wield the sword of his wrath (Romans 13:4) By that teaching you also claim he is either hateful or a liar for saying “It is mine to avenge; I will repay”. (Romans 12:19)
We read Scripture and believe what we want to but not necessary what it means. Many do not bother figuring it out and those that do can also be led astray by their own desires. I sometimes doubt if there is any elect on the earth.
Hoghead1,
It literally states the wages of sin are death and that can be interpreted any other way unless one claim it was symbolic or a generality.
Everyone that has sinned has been dying from that day and only Jesus of those did not sin dies and he did not stay dead because if the power of the spirit of righteousness. (Romans 1:4) He thus paid a price that was not due for him and thus redeemed those that believe.
Christ makes it very clear, Kerwin, that we are to love and forgive one another. Forgiveness, at minimum, means remission of punishment.
Hello, again, Kerwin,
I gather you are going on the penal-substitutionary theory of the atonement. God wanted to forgive our sins, yet seeks revenge. So someone had to pay for them. So Jesus volunteered or ordered to go in our place. That is a very popular POV among Christians. However, it never really got started until the Middle Ages. It is not the only possible view of teh atonement. There re also the classical theory and the perfect-pattern man theory. I reject the penal theory, as I believe this whole shipping-boy view is contradictory and unjust.
Hi hoghead,
No your words are mere gruel compared to the feast the Lord God has laid out before us.
Why do you rate your own ideas against the revelation of God?
Nick, inflammatory posts, such as this one, are totally inappropriate in a solid theological discussion. If you cannot be respectful of myself and others, then you should not be posting. If you disagree with something I or someone else says, then you should present a solid case why you disagree and not, under any circumstances, cast aspersion on their character, as you are doing here. Also, you have continued faulted and as well the fathers, you name it,, for sharing their opinions, which you feel detracts from Scripture. That seems a take off on the ancient and venerable tradition of the via negative, which argued anything we say is less than God and therefore seriously detracts from God. If that is the way you want to go, fine. However , that also applies to yourself as well. Hence, the tradition of taking vows of silence.
Hoghead1,
Forgiveness does not mean remission of all punishment. God forgave King David but only mitigated the punishment for his sin. It is clemency.
It does not because only those that change their way and do all that is right or are credited with the same are forgiven.
I am not sure God punishes anyone or whether he is attempting to save us from our self-destructive ways without doing evil. He can and has migrated our punishment so that some have a chance to repent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
