Misc stuff :)

[Sher]

Socrates
And I see that Zeus (who even has a Cross identifying his religion although he denies the bodily resurrection of Christ)


Zeus:
EXCUSE ME dear Socrates, but I do not deny the bodily resurrection of Christ. That is a bald lie you have concocted. Please refrain yourself.

I think I misunderstood you as well, then. In this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=118892#post118892), the conversation went as follows:


Zeus:
Nowhere in that passage does it say anything about genetic mutations or heredity, nor does it literally concern anything other than the death of man (not of animals or plants). As Paul later exlains, he is talking about not physical death anyway, but rather spiritual death.


Socrates:
No, he is talking about the same sort of death that Jesus conquered in His bodily resurrection -- physical death (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).


Zeus:
You are clearly mistaken, and you should read on - according to Paul, Christ conquered spiritual death (since we are not resurrected physically):

Did you not intend to say that Soc was mistaken?

[Zeus]

Today @ 05:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120259#post120259)
Sher:

I think I misunderstood you as well, then. In this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=118892#post118892), the conversation went as follows:

Did you not intend to say that Soc was mistaken?

Yes, Soc was and is mistaken. If you go back to that thread I explain more there, but here is a simple answer.

Soc was mistaken that Christ conquered our physical death, which was the point of discussion - not Christ's physical death. Note that in the quote of mine you refer to, I clearly say "death of man." Paul clearly explains that we are not resurrected physically, but spiritually. Thus, Christ did not conquer our physical death, but he did conquer our spiritual death. He of course conquered his own physical death, but that is a different issue.

[The Barbarian]

It's true. If the death Adam incurred by eating from the tree was a physical one, then Jesus failed. We all die physically. But the "death" brought about by the fall was not physical. It was spiritual, and Jesus triumphed.

[Sher]

Today @ 01:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120313#post120313)
Zeus:

Yes, Soc was and is mistaken. If you go back to that thread I explain more there, but here is a simple answer.

Soc was mistaken that Christ conquered our physical death, which was the point of discussion - not Christ's physical death. Note that in the quote of mine you refer to, I clearly say "death of man." Paul clearly explains that we are not resurrected physically, but spiritually. Thus, Christ did not conquer our physical death, but he did conquer our spiritual death. He of course conquered his own physical death, but that is a different issue.

Thanks for clearing that misunderstanding up for me Zeus. I think it was caused by the way the quotes fell. You appeared to be answering Socrates' question of Christ's bodily Rez with "you are mistaken"

Sherry

[Zeus]

Today @ 10:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120554#post120554)
Sher:



Thanks for clearing that misunderstanding up for me Zeus. I think it was caused by the way the quotes fell. You appeared to be answering Socrates' question of Christ's bodily Rez with "you are mistaken"

Sherry

Sure thing, Sher. I'm glad somebody here understands me :) I was answering the "No, he is talking about ... physical death" part of Soc's statment, not the "Jesus conquered in His bodily resurrection -- physical death".

Z

[Sher]

Today @ 06:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120666#post120666)
Zeus:

Sure thing, Sher. I'm glad somebody here understands me :) I was answering the "No, he is talking about ... physical death" part of Soc's statment, not the "Jesus conquered in His bodily resurrection -- physical death".

Z

Hey ... don't push it :poke: :lol:

I don't know if I understand you ... but the point has been clarified for me :teeth:

Sher

[Socrates]

06-12-2003 @ 01:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120856#post120856)
Sher to Zeus:

Hey ... don't push it :poke: :lol:

I don't know if I understand you ... but the point has been clarified for me :teeth:

Sher

That these wolves in sheep's clothing like Barbarian and Zeus essentially hold to the neo-Hymenaean heresy (as DD would put it) by denying a future bodily resurrection of believers. Jesus was the first fruits, resurrected bodily, emptying the tomb, and the hope of believers. Adam's death due to sin must therefore also have had a bodily component (to avoid Zeus' pathetic quibbling about the word "physical", not to mention his twisting of what pneumatikoV means).

[Socrates]

06-12-2003 @ 02:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120218#post120218)
Zeus spruiks forth on Archaeopteryx:

As its bone structure clearly declares, it is indeed transitional. It is unlike modern flying birds in many ways, and like the flightless arms of repitles in many ways.

Rubbish -- it had the elliptical wings like those of modern woodland birds, while its feet were clearly for perching.


There is no need for it to be "half-walking, half-flying" if wings evolved from non-walking limbs, like those found on many dinosaurs, now is there?

Like what? More unquestioning gullibility towards the dino-to-bird nonsense, even questioned by leading evolutionary paleoornithologists such as Storrs Olson and Alan Feduccia.


If that ain't a leg turning into a wing, what in the world would one look like?

Certainly not like the elliptical wings like those of modern woodland birds!

[The Barbarian]

Our goat in weasel's clothing again misrepresents Christian belief:


That these wolves in sheep's clothing like Barbarian and Zeus essentially hold to the neo-Hymenaean heresy (as DD would put it) by denying a future bodily resurrection of believers.

Nope. As usual, Socrates' tactics are misrepresentation. I can't speak for Zeus, but nowhere did I deny future bodily resurrection. Socrates just made that up.


Jesus was the first fruits, resurrected bodily, emptying the tomb, and the hope of believers.

(and now the little goat-dance switcheroo...)


Adam's death due to sin must therefore also have had a bodily component (to avoid Zeus' pathetic quibbling about the word "physical", not to mention his twisting of what pneumatikoV means).

It's not hard. If Jesus came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We all die. But because (as noted in Genesis) the death God spoke of was spiritual, Jesus did save us from that more encompassing death. That Jesus was personally physically resurrected, or that we will eventually have an imperishable physical body is beside the point. We still die physically. Jesus didn't save us from that. There was no need to do it.

Maybe Socrates doesn't know any more about orthodox Christianity than he does about biology.

[Sher]

Today @ 11:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206395#post206395)
The Barbarian:

It's not hard. If Jesus came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We all die. But because (as noted in Genesis) the death God spoke of was spiritual, Jesus did save us from that more encompassing death. That Jesus was personally physically resurrected, or that we will eventually have an imperishable physical body is beside the point. We still die physically. Jesus didn't save us from that. There was no need to do it.

Maybe Socrates doesn't know any more about orthodox Christianity than he does about biology.

Or maybe you are just a poor reader ... confusing where he said bodily resurrection ... with your own twist here to physical death. Nowhere did Soc say that Jesus saves us from physical death. Nice obfuscation.

:shersig:

[Roy]

Today @ 03:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206371#post206371)
Socrates:



That these wolves in sheep's clothing like Barbarian and Zeus essentially hold to the neo-Hymenaean heresy

Is that anything to do with the Japanese surgeons who restore their female patients' lost 'virginity'?

Roy

[Minnesota]

Socs
Like what? More unquestioning gullibility towards the dino-to-bird nonsense, even questioned by leading evolutionary paleoornithologists such as Storrs Olson and Alan Feduccia.

Amusing. Given that Socs holds Feduccia's opinion in such high regard, I imagine he also goes along with Fedussia's opinion of creationists.

From Discover magazine:
Question.Creationists have used the bird-dinosaur dispute to cast doubt on evolution entirely. How do you feel about that?
Feduccia's answer:Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing. The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If that's not evolution in action, I do not know what is.
http://www.discover.com/feb_03/breakdialogue.html

ALSO


Socs

Zeus spruiks forth on Archaeopteryx:

"As its bone structure clearly declares, it is indeed transitional. It is unlike modern flying birds in many ways, and like the flightless arms of repitles in many ways."

Rubbish -- it had the elliptical wings like those of modern woodland birds, while its feet were clearly for perching.

But, to quote one of Socs' favorite "leading evolutionary paleoornithologist,"

The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution....Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1996), p. 1.

Pick-A-Little, Choose-A-Little. Pick-A-Little, Choose-A-Little. :lol: Ha! Ha! When will these creationists learn that those outside their cloistered chambers of academic fantasy, are slapping their knees and laughing in continued disbelief at such brazen selectivity. Never, I would imagine. The only thing that matters is that audience gullibility is not compromised. As long as there is one sycophant left in the room, the show will go on--even if that person is oneself. :lol: (again)

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's not hard. If Jesus came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We all die. But because (as noted in Genesis) the death God spoke of was spiritual, Jesus did save us from that more encompassing death. That Jesus was personally physically resurrected, or that we will eventually have an imperishable physical body is beside the point. We still die physically. Jesus didn't save us from that. There was no need to do it.

Maybe Socrates doesn't know any more about orthodox Christianity than he does about biology. ”


Or maybe you are just a poor reader ...

Nope. Problem is that Sher isn't aware of the reason Socrates made his false accusation.


confusing where he said bodily resurrection ... with your own twist here to physical death. Nowhere did Soc say that Jesus saves us from physical death. Nice obfuscation.

You've got it backwards again. Socrates asserted that The Barbarian does not believe that we will have a material body after resurrection, because Barbarian earlier pointed out that Jesus came to save us from a spiritual, rather than a physical death.

I agree it's a pretty goofy obfuscation, but it was Socrates who made it.

Thanks for your input. :lol:

[TheFiveSolas]

The view that Jesus came to save us from a "spiritual, rather than a physical death" is an ancient heresy called Gnosticism. Man was created as a compound unity (i.e., a physical being with an immaterial aspect). Our physical resurrection is assured, but at a future time. Just as we are not currently sinless even though Jesus has paid the price for our sins. We "hope for what we don't yet have," our glorified sin free bodies.

[The Barbarian]

The view that Jesus came to save us from a "spiritual, rather than a physical death" is an ancient heresy called Gnosticism.

No. You're confusing the gnostic disdain for the material as evil, with Christianity. We have the testimony of Genesis that Jesus was to save us from a spiritual death. And we have the fact of his Resurrection as well. If He died to save us from a physical death, He failed. He came to save us from spiritual death. We all die physically. There is no need to save us from that.


Man was created as a compound unity (i.e., a physical being with an immaterial aspect). Our physical resurrection is assured, but at a future time.

And yet we die. But we don't have to die spiritually.

You are quite a distance from Christian belief in your fixation on the body rather than the spirit.

[The Barbarian]

As its bone structure clearly declares, it is indeed transitional. It is unlike modern flying birds in many ways, and like the flightless arms of repitles in many ways.

(Socrates draws on his vast experience of dino/bird anatomy)

Rubbish -- it had the elliptical wings like those of modern woodland birds, while its feet were clearly for perching.

http://www.sauti.de/arch/image013.jpg

:rofl:

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 04:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206980#post206980)
TheFiveSolas:

The view that Jesus came to save us from a "spiritual, rather than a physical death" is an ancient heresy called Gnosticism. Man was created as a compound unity (i.e., a physical being with an immaterial aspect). Our physical resurrection is assured, but at a future time. Just as we are not currently sinless even though Jesus has paid the price for our sins. We "hope for what we don't yet have," our glorified sin free bodies.

Too right 5S ... it's not salvation from a physical death, i.e. that this body will not die ... but rather, as you said, salvation toward a physical resurrection.

1 Cor 15:1-58 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all. Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? Why are we also in danger every hour? I protest, brethren, by the boasting in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. Do not be deceived: "Bad company corrupts good morals." Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame. But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body it is raised an imperishable body, it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory. "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.

Consider the nail-scarred hands of our Saviour ... present after His Resurrection.

[Minnesota]

SHER
Consider the nail-scarred hands of our Saviour ... present after His Resurrection.

Contrary to all the paintings that depict Jesus with a spike through each hand, it is a well agreed upon fact, by historians and anatomists alike, that the spikes were, and would have had to been, put through the wrists.

It was customary for the condemned man to carry his own cross from the flogging post to the site of crucifixion outside the city walls. (8,11,30) He was usually naked, unless this was prohibited by local customs. (11) Since the weight of the entire cross was probably well over 300 lb. (136 kg), only the crossbar was carried. (11) The patibulum, weighing 75 to 125 lb. (34 to 57 kg), (11,30) was placed across the nape of the victim's neck and balanced along both shoulders. Usually, the outsetched arms then were tied to the crossbar. (7,11) The processional to the site of crucifixion was led by a complete Roman military guard, headed by a centurion. (3,11) One of the soldiers carried a sign (titulus) on which the condemned man's name and crime were displayed. (3,11) Later, the titulus would be attached to the top of the cross. (11) The Roman guard would not leave the victim until they were sure of his death. (9,11)

Nailing of wrists.
http://www.unlimitedglory.org/realitypassion4.jpg

Left, Size of iron nail, Center, Location of nail in wrist, between carpals and radius. Right, Cross section of wrist, at level of plane indicated at left, showing path of nail, with probable transection of median nerve and impalement of flexor pollicis longus, but without injury to major arterial trunks and without fractures of bones. http://www.unlimitedglory.org/realityJesus.html

[Sher]

Today @ 10:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207630#post207630)
Minnesota:

Contrary to all the paintings that depict Jesus with a spike through each hand, it is a well agreed upon fact, by historians and anatomists alike, that the spikes were, and would have had to been, put through the wrists.

:thumb:

Ya just can't find an accurate painting ...

[Minnesota]

Happy to obligue

http://www.friendsbecauseofhim.org/images/Holy%20Days/Easter/GodsLamb.gifhttp://www.ida.net/users/rdk/ces/Lesson26/crucifixion.JPG

http://www.wesleyan.org/ssd/image/BSCNT/Crucifixion.jpghttp://www.cin.org/corpus24.gif

[The Barbarian]

it's not salvation from a physical death, i.e. that this body will not die ...

Right. Jesus did not come to save us from that. He came to save us from the death God referred to in Genesis, a spiritual death.

[Sher]

Thanks Minn ... this one (http://www.friendsbecauseofhim.org/images/Holy%20Days/Easter/GodsLamb.gif) is fantastic :thumb:

[Sher]

Today @ 11:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207714#post207714)
The Barbarian:

Right. Jesus did not come to save us from that. He came to save us from the death God referred to in Genesis, a spiritual death.

No, Barbarian ... clarification point. Salvation of the physical part comes later when we are ultimately saved from physical death as well because we are bodily resurrected just as Christ was. This body will more than likely die ... unless we are raptured beforehand ... but the physical resurrection is bodily. There is no way around that via 1 Cor 15.

Sher

[Solly]

He came to save us from what physical death entails, which is judgment. What would men know about a spiritual death, how would they recognise it and learn from it? Physical death which came into the world is God's judgment on humanity and its sin, and speaks of spiritual things which we can't see, of things which lie beyond death. We die and sin is finally purged, and we are raised incorruptible. But we don't die in fear of what lies beyond, so Paul can describe it as falling asleep in the Lord, because it is to be welcomed.
In this world we are also saved from all our enemies, yet we still suffer tribulation in this world.
We are saved from sin and its results, yet we still sin.
I just get the sense there is some intense hair splitting going on from Zeus and Barbarian.

[Passant]

I'm just curious, if 1 cor 15 alludes to a physical resurrection, what does this mean?


So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[5] ; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[6] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

In particular "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body" the whole thing seems to say believers will be raised as a spiritual body.

[The Barbarian]

No, Barbarian ... clarification point. Salvation of the physical part comes later when we are ultimately saved from physical death as well because we are bodily resurrected just as Christ was.

But first we die. And after that the judgement. What about that is objectionable to you?


This body will more than likely die ... unless we are raptured beforehand

I wouldn't count on it.


... but the physical resurrection is bodily.

So we have to physically die. No problem. That's not what Christ came to save us from. It was the spiritual death that God warned Adam about in the Garden.

Are you telling me that condemned souls in Hell do not have physical bodies?

It appears that you have conceded the point, and then declared victory. :huh:

[Sher]

Today @ 12:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207756#post207756)
Solly:

I just get the sense there is some intense hair splitting going on from Zeus and Barbarian.

Yep ... that's the problem in a nutshell.

[Passant]

and no one wants to answer my question?

[TheFiveSolas]

Passant:
I'm just curious, if 1 cor 15 alludes to a physical resurrection, what does this mean?


So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[5] ; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[6] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.



In particular "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body" the whole thing seems to say believers will be raised as a spiritual body.

The United Bible Society's New Testament Handbook for translators (probably one of, if not, the best resources. Written by only the best New Testament Greek scholars as a resource for those wishing to translate the NT into other languages.) has this to say on 1st Corinthians 15:44, see the section I put in bold.



1 Corinthians 15.44.
15.44 1 Corinthians 15.44.
In this verse Paul begins to define the new body.
It is sown and it is raised: see the comments on verse 43.
Physical… spiritual: see comments on “spiritual… natural” in 2.13.
Spiritual body is a literal translation of the Greek. It does not mean a ghostly entity; on the contrary, Paul means that the source of life in the new body is the Holy Spirit. FrCL translates “a body animated by the Spirit”; or one may say “a body to which the Holy Spirit gives life.”
The last sentence of this verse can be understood as an aside or as a footnote to verse 44a. Verse 45 follows on smoothly from verse 44a. This can be shown in translation by the use of parentheses around the last sentence in verse 44.
If there is a physical body: this is not really a conditional clause but rather a statement of fact. Therefore TEV’s translation “There is, of course, a spiritual body” is a clearer rendering. One may also express this clause as “Just as there is a physical body, so also there is a spiritual body” or “Since there is a physical body, there is also….”

Ellingworth, P., Hatton, H., & Ellingworth, P. 1995. A handbook on Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Rev. ed. of: A translator's handbook on Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators . United Bible Societies: New York

So, the Greek intends to convey not a "spirit body", but rather a physical body whose "source of life...is the Holy Spirit."

The United Bible Society's Handbook comment on 1 Corinthians 2:13 is also relevant to this discussion on what "spiritual" vs. "natural" means.



It is important, therefore, for a translator to discover the precise meaning of “spiritual,” and of the opposite term, which is so often translated “natural” (see the RSV footnote). TEV’s translation of Jude 1.19 as “who are controlled by their natural desires, who do not have the Spirit” helps to make the meaning of “unspiritual” or “natural” clear. Paul and other New Testament writers were deeply influenced by Hebrew thought. So they did not make a sharp distinction between body, mind, and soul or spirit. The Hebrew word for “flesh” usually meant human nature with its weakness; the word for “soul” meant human nature with special reference to its inner life and vitality; and the word for “spirit” referred to the “breath of life,” which was not essentially part of man at all, but was breathed into him by God (Gen 2.7). However, here Paul is making a distinction between human beings who are governed by their own inner (sinful) nature, and those who are governed by the spirit of God. In this setting, RSV’s “unspiritual” and TEV’s “whoever does not have the Spirit” (verse 14; compare verse 12) are quite precise translations.
In some languages one cannot talk about “having the Spirit.” In cases like this a translator may say something like “who have the Spirit living in them.”

Ellingworth, P., Hatton, H., & Ellingworth, P. 1995. A handbook on Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Rev. ed. of: A translator's handbook on Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators . United Bible Societies: New York

Here, once again, we see two main things:
1) The Hebrew understanding of human nature needs to be kept in view. Keeping this in mind we find that the Jews (remember that Paul, who wrote 1 Cor., was Jewish) didn't make the distinction that several people in here are making between body and spirit/soul.
2) Paul was simply contrasting "natural" bodies/people who were controlled by their sinful nature with those "spiritual" bodies/people who were controlled by God's Spirit.

[TheFiveSolas]

Barbarian,
Is it your position that physical death was not a consequence of Adam's sin? IOW, that Adam would have died physically whether he sinned or not?

I ask this because you asserted the following.


It was the spiritual death that God warned Adam about in the Garden.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Hebrew of the Genesis texts implies two deaths, not one (i.e., spiritual which was immediate, and physical which began at the moment of Adam's rebellion, and ultimately culminated when he breathed his last). GrayPilgrim can verify this if he's reading the thread since he teaches Biblical Hebrew at the graduate level.

[The Barbarian]

[qoute]Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Hebrew of the Genesis texts implies two deaths, not one (i.e., spiritual which was immediate, and physical which began at the moment of Adam's rebellion, and ultimately culminated when he breathed his last).[/quote]

If so, God was not being honest with Adam. He told him that he would die the day he ate from the tree.

God even admits that He is concerned that Adam might in fact become immortal, and takes the necessary steps to see that it does not happen.

All will be resurrected, the saved and unsaved, in their bodies, if you can trust scripture. That being so, it is clear that Jesus' resurrection did not save us from physical death. Even the unsaved will be resurrected in body.

But only those who avail themselves of Jesus' sacrifice will be saved from spiritual death.

And that is what counts.

[Passant]

Thanks TFS.

[TheFiveSolas]

Barbarian,

Adam did die the day he ate. Immediately he started to die physically, and immediately he died spiritually. In addition, God substituted the physical death of an innocent creature in place of Adam's physical death that day. A fantastic example of God's mercy toward fallen sinful mankind by offering a substitute (note: the substitute died physically).

God protecting Adam from eating from the tree of life, which would have made his sinful fallen condition permanent, does not imply that he was going to die physically prior to his rebellion. It was an act of mercy on God's part.

I would still like to know if it is your view that Adam would have (eventually) died physically (though remaining "spiritually" alive) had he not rebelled?

Also, can you explain to me what you mean by "spiritual death", what exactly is dying?

[TheFiveSolas]

Passant,

It was my pleasure! Thanks for the question that spurred it.

[The Barbarian]

Adam did die the day he ate.

Spiritually, he did. That's what God was talking about.

(and a little quick soft-shoe, and...)


Immediately he started to die physically,

That's not what God said. God did not say "if you eat from that tree, you'll start dying, and die many years later". God said, "you will die the day you eat from that tree." Your revision is not scriptural.


and immediately he died spiritually.

As God told him. He died that day. But a spiritual, not a physical death.


In addition, God substituted the physical death of an innocent creature in place of Adam's physical death that day.

Imaginative, but again, not scriptural. It doesn't say that at all. That's just an excuse someone told you, because they didn't like what God said.


God protecting Adam from eating from the tree of life, which would have made his sinful fallen condition permanent, does not imply that he was going to die physically prior to his rebellion.

Actually, it does. God himself acknowledges that Adam is mortal, although he has become Godlike after eating from the tree.


I would still like to know if it is your view that Adam would have (eventually) died physically (though remaining "spiritually" alive) had he not rebelled?

Since God himself says that Adam was mortal, that pretty much settles it. He notes the one change; Adam has gained the knowledge of good and evil. Nothing else.


Also, can you explain to me what you mean by "spiritual death", what exactly is dying?

It amounts to an estrangement from God.

[TheFiveSolas]

Barbarian,

I see that you didn't really address what I had written. For instance, my point as to how the Hebrew text implies two deaths. If I remember correctly the Hebrew words it something like, "in dying you will die." Again, ask Gray Pilgrim to confirm or refute this since he teaches Hebrew at the graduate level.

You side-stepped the fact that God provided a physical substitute for the death Adam would have suffered. You claim this is unbiblical and yet it is a cornerstone teaching of the entire canon of Scripture. If you deny this then you would have to throw out all of the physical sacrifices demanded by God including the physical death of His Son.

Also your view reduces to absurdity. If our salvation is spiritual only, as you've asserted, and we are all to be physically resurrected, and per your assertion Adam would have died physically whether he rebelled or not, it necessarily follows that our resurrected physical bodies (which you've affirmed will take place) will once again die (sometime) after being resurrected. If not, then it necessarily follows that part of Jesus' plan was to save us (at a future date) from having to die physically.

So, will our resurrected physical bodies be immortal or will they die again just as Adam's would have had he not sinned?

[Sher]

Today @ 12:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=208465#post208465)
The Barbarian:

Spiritually, he did. That's what God was talking about.

And physically ... see following


That's not what God said. God did not say "if you eat from that tree, you'll start dying, and die many years later". God said, "you will die the day you eat from that tree." Your revision is not scriptural.

No ... He said "in the day" ... which, with no qualifier of it being a 24 hour period (evening/morning, cardinal/ordinal number, etc.) we know from context that it means the equivalent to "in my father's day". Do you really want to start arguing for 24 hour days in Genesis? :grin:


Actually, it does. God himself acknowledges that Adam is mortal, although he has become Godlike after eating from the tree.

Yes, after he ate ... Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever which shows that the mortality came after that point, not before.


Since God himself says that Adam was mortal, that pretty much settles it. He notes the one change; Adam has gained the knowledge of good and evil. Nothing else.

Blaaat .. wrong answer. the change is also "and live forever" ... which shows the addition of mortality ... Notice that God didn't forbid the allowance of eating from that tree until after the disobedience of eating from the first one.
Gen 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." which shows that God was not concerned with Adam eating from the Tree of Life ... why? Because he was already immortal.


It amounts to an estrangement from God.

Which is only part of it ... the spiritual part.

Just as Jesus died on the cross ... completely dead ... and rose again, conquering physical death with physical resurrection ... our own physical death will be conquered with our physical resurrection. To attempt to twist about in the wind, saying that physical death is not conquered ... is to ignore that Jesus did in fact do that ... and one day, so will we.

:shersig:

[Solly]

John Gill
for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; or "in dying, die"; which denotes the certainty of it, as our version expresses it; and may have regard to more deaths than one; not only a corporeal one, which in some sense immediately took place, man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life; of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death. Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Saviour, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death, even death eternal, Rom_6:23. So the Jews (a) interpret this of death, both in this world and in the world to come.

(a) Tikkune Zohar, 24. fol. 68. 1; 54. fol. 90. 2; 66. fol. 100. 1.

[Sher]

We know that Jesus was physicaly ... bodily ... resurrected ... not just spiritually:


Jesus was touched by human hands
Jesus' body had flesh and bones
Jesus ate physical food
Jesus' body had His wounds
Jesus' body was recognized
Jesus body could be seen and heard
The tomb was vacated
The grave clothes were unwrapped
the body that died is the same one raised

(Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 2000 ed.)

We've already established that our physical resurrection is akin to Jesus' physical resurrection ... the conquering of death.

Therefore, to deny that death is physically conquered for us, is by extension denying that is was possible for Jesus

... and your faith is useless otherwise (1 Cor 15)

:shersig:

[The Barbarian]

Nevertheless. it is clear from Genesis:

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

That God is speaking of a spiritual death, since Adam did not die physically that day.

The fact that Jesus rose physically and that at some point in the future we will be physically resurrected does not mean that Jesus saved us from a physical death.

He saved those who trust in Him. If we are to take Sher and Sola's unorthodox interpretation, then all, even the damned, are saved by Him, since they too will be resurrected.

A bizarre idea, with no Scriptural foundation whatever. The death God told Adam about in Genesis was a spiritual one, and Jesus' death and resurrection was to save us from that.

I have noted Sher's argument that "Day" in Genesis does not mean one 24 - hour day, but it seems she's seeing allegory where literal is called for, and literal when it's allegory.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 02:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206683#post206683)
Minnesota:

Amusing. Given that Socs holds Feduccia's opinion in such high regard, I imagine he also goes along with Fedussia's opinion of creationists.

:dunce: No, I go along with AiG's devastating rebuttal of this very piece Feduccia v Creationists (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0128feathered.asp#postscripts) :rofl:

Postscript: Feduccia v Creationists

Evidently some evolutionists have ‘got to’ Feduccia for the fact that creationists have cited his damaging arguments against dino-bird evolution. Discover therefore tried to close the ranks by asking a leading question. So we had better head this off at the pass in case skeptics spout all this as ‘evidence’ for their paranoia about creationists ‘misquoting’. This and Feduccia’s response is indented, and my point-by-point response is interspersed.


Discover: Creationists have used the bird-dinosaur dispute to cast doubt on evolution entirely.

A misrepresentation when it comes to Feduccia’s work. Rather, blame the evolutionists, e.g. the Skeptics at the Australian Museum, for using the dino-to-bird ‘evidence’ as ‘proof’ of evolution and against creation. It is perfectly in order to cite Feduccia’s severe criticisms as evidence against this specific evolutionary argument; after all, there can be no doubt that he is a world-class expert on fossil birds.

Also, Feduccia used dissimilarities in the development of bird and dino digits to argue strongly against the dino-to-bird theory. So it was totally legitimate to apply the same logic to the development of amphibian and amniote digits to argue against a far-bigger–picture aspect of evolution, i.e. that amniotes descended from amphibians—see Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0822_ostrich_dino.asp).


Discover: How do you feel about that?

A tug at the heartstrings.


Feduccia: Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, …

He should grace us all with a specific example, rather than an assertion.


…and they’ve put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn’t bother me a bit.

Once again, see what we actually say about the late Dr Gould (Did Creationists ‘hijack’ Gould’s ideas? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0426_gould.asp)). Our main point is, there are a number of creationist alternatives consistent with both the Bible and available evidence, while the supporters of various evolutionary camps score mortal blows against the other camp. E.g. supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution (saltationism and its relative, punctuated equilibria) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with both: punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!

The same logic applies to the dinosaur-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are both right—birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all! This is consistent with the Biblical account that distinct kinds of birds were created on Day 5, while land animals were created on Day 6 (Gen. 1:20–25)

Note, we always make it very clear that Gould and Feduccia are evolutionists, and explain what they believe. E.g. my book Refuting Evolution (http://www.answersingenesis.org/onlinestore/gateway.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-2-110) has a chapter on birds which includes Feduccia’s support of the arboreal theory of bird evolution. It is also perfectly appropriate to quote them as ‘hostile witnesses’ who can’t be accused of believing what they do because of any creationist bias. However, to many evolutionists, a creationist quoting an evolutionist presenting evidence against a specific evolutionary ‘proof’ is ‘out of context’ by definition, because the person quoted still believes in evolution!


Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not.

Once again, when dino-to-bird dogmatists claim that Archeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur, it is perfectly legitimate to cite Feduccia’s comment that this is ‘paleobabble’ because ‘Archie’ was clearly a ‘perching bird’. See also An anatomist talks about Archaeopteryx (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1352.asp).


These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution:…

This is double talk, and merely closing ranks against creationists. This is the old trick of claiming ‘there is no doubt that evolution occurred; the only disagreement is about the mechanism.’

But modern evolutionary theory is all about providing a plausible mechanism for explaining life’s complexity without God. If the disputes undermine favoured mechanisms, then the materialist apologetic crumbles. The supporters of various evolutionary camps score mortal blows against the mechanisms proposed by rival camps, as shown above, so it’s perfectly reasonable for creationists to point this out.


…Animals and plants have been changing.

This is a classic equivocation or ‘bait-n-switch’. Of course, we have long pointed out that we don’t deny that things change (the Bible even predicts this); rather, we point out that evolution ‘from goo to you via the zoo’ requires changes which increase genetic information in the biosphere. See Definitions as slippery as eels (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Definitions). But in Feduccia’s case, it’s not likely to be conscious deception, but merely ignorance of what creationists actually say, because he’s never been an aggressive anti-creationist to my knowledge.


The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If that’s not evolution in action, I do not know what is.

Wow, so the best proof of goo-to-you evolution he can come up with is corn turning into corn?! But he has yet to prove that this is an increase in information, which would be required to turn scales into feathers or a reptile lung into a bird lung (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4217cen_s1999.asp) (something Feduccia never explains in his encyclopaedic book The Origin and Evolution of Birds). Rather, this is yet another example of sorting or loss of previously-existing genetic information—this sort of change is in the opposite direction from evolution (see The evolution train’s a-comin’ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v24n2_train.asp)).

Note also a common phenomenon. An evolutionist who is an expert in one field thinks that the best evidence for evolution is in a totally different field, in which he does not speak as an authority. For example, a palaeontologist says, ‘The fossil record shows that most creatures appear fully formed, and an extreme rarity of transitional forms. But the embryologists have shown that early embryos look alike, which proves evolution.’ But an embryologist says, ‘Richardson showed that Haeckel faked the drawings purporting to show embryonic similarity (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp). But the molecular biologists have shown that the similarity of DNA points to evolution from a common ancestor’. However, the molecular biologist says, ‘There are huge differences in DNA sequences; contradictory phylogenies; and intricate biological machinery, e.g. the rotary motors of the bacterial flagellum (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp#complex) and F1-ATPase (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3799.asp). But the paleontologists have shown that the fossils show an evolutionary sequence.’

Earlier in the dialogue, Feduccia stated:


The difference between feathers and scales is very, very small. You can transform bird scutes [the scales on bird feet] into feathers with the application of bone morphogenic protein.

This totally misses the point that the cells from which scutes are formed have the genetic information for feathers already present, but turned off. Somehow the chemical induced the genes coding for feathers to switch back on. Feduccia’s ‘evidence’ offers not the slightest support for the idea that the genetic information for feathers arose where none previously existed. It would be a totally different matter if bone morphogenic protein could transform scales into feathers on a reptile, which has no genetic information for feathers! Feduccia’s claim parallels an earlier misinformed claim that retinoic acid (vitamin A) could turn scales into feathers. See Putting Feathers on Reptiles (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/1201.asp#1) for further explanation, and for electron micrographs showing the immense differences between feathers and scales. Also, feather proteins (ö-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (á-keratins). [And now, leding evolutionists have abandoned the scale-to-feather theory--see Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp).

These simple mistakes by Feduccia once more illustrate the fact that even world-class experts are usually laymen outside their own field. So creationists have nothing to fear from them. Conversely, the major propagandists for evolution tend to be atheistic story-tellers like Richard Dawkins or ‘political animals’ like fellow atheistic anthropologist Eugenie Scott.

Minnie continues with his pathetic jihad:


Pick-A-Little, Choose-A-Little. Pick-A-Little, Choose-A-Little. :lol: Ha! Ha! When will these creationists learn that those outside their cloistered chambers of academic fantasy, are slapping their knees and laughing in continued disbelief at such brazen selectivity.

When will scientifically illiterate atheists like Minnie the Frog stop trying to strain their braincell by spruiking forth on topics on which they know nothing, and trawling websites in deperation? Hasn't he learned from being stampeded by camels' feet? :lmbo:

[Sher]

Today @ 08:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209023#post209023)
The Barbarian:

Nevertheless. it is clear from Genesis:

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

That God is speaking of a spiritual death, since Adam did not die physically that day.

Again, you quote Scripture that says "in the day" ... then equviocate to "that day". But we should expect no less from you, I suppose.


The fact that Jesus rose physically and that at some point in the future we will be physically resurrected does not mean that Jesus saved us from a physical death.

Yet, that is exactly what it means. He conquered physical death with His resurrection ... and we shall do the same at ours ... or I will at least :smug:


He saved those who trust in Him. If we are to take Sher and Sola's unorthodox interpretation, then all, even the damned, are saved by Him, since they too will be resurrected.

It is hardly unorthodox ... everyone has the opportunity of salvation though Christ ... that is the reason for His death on the cross.John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him."


A bizarre idea, with no Scriptural foundation whatever.

Yet there is scripture presented to back it up ... so it is obvious that here is only your misguided attempt to twist what scripture really says to fit your bias.


The death God told Adam about in Genesis was a spiritual one, and Jesus' death and resurrection was to save us from that.

Repeating yourself ... especially without scriptural support ... does not make it so.


I have noted Sher's argument that "Day" in Genesis does not mean one 24 - hour day, but it seems she's seeing allegory where literal is called for, and literal when it's allegory.

But the evidence proves otherwise by context ... and the backing of the words of Jesus Christ. Perhaps The Barbarian should like to outline for us why we should believe him over God. :ahem: :lol:

:shersig:

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 03:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=208482#post208482)
TheFiveSolas:

Barbarian,

I see that you didn't really address what I had written.

Of course not. Barbarian merly feigns orthodoxy, but in reality he doesn't give a monkey's about what Scripture says. He is on record attacking biblical inerrancy and authority. Also, after a few of us had given the atheists a trouncing in their crass attempt to prove a biblical error with camel's feet, Barbarian and the equally lupine QED did their desperate best to rescue the atheists' case. They can't stand to see their atheist buddies on the back foot or Christians having a strong intellectual case for their faith.


or instance, my point as to how the Hebrew text implies two deaths.

This is crystal clear in Genesis 3:19, where the curse on Adam included returning to the dust from which he was made. If this is not physical death, I don't know what to call it. (Also, by logic, since theistic evolutionists believe Adam came from ape-like ancestors for which dust is a metaphor, upon death, humans should return to being apes :huh:)


If I remember correctly the Hebrew words it something like, "in dying you will die."

According to hermenutics scholar Andrew Kulikovsky, this is best explained by taking the promise of death in an ingressive sense. That is, a verbal form that designates the beginning of an action, state or event. In other words, the focus is on the beginning of the action of dying, which results in the translation ‘... for when you eat of it you will surely begin to die.’

I heard Peter Sparrow, Australia's Creation Bus man, give this analogy: if a branch is chopped off a tree and it falls onto hard concrete, one can say that it’s already dead, cut off from the source of life. But the process of physical death takes some time¯the cells in the leaves will continue to photosynthesize for several days at least. Similarly, when Adam sinned, he immediately cut himself off from the Source of life, but the dying process took 930 years

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 02:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207653#post207653)
Sher:


Minnie:

Contrary to all the paintings that depict Jesus with a spike through each hand, it is a well agreed upon fact, by historians and anatomists alike, that the spikes were, and would have had to been, put through the wrists.

:thumb:

Ya just can't find an accurate painting ...

'Tis true. The Greek and Hebrew words translated "hand" had a broader meaning than the English, and sometimes incorporated the wrists. E.g. in the NT, some chains were described as falling off the "hands"; and in the OT, bracelets were one the "hands". How many biblioskeptical arguments, including Minnie's, would quickly die the death they deserve if they realised that words from one language don't always have a 100% identical meaning to their equivalent in another language?

[Warcraft3]

When God told Adam he would "die" if he ate from the TKGE, I believe He was speaking of both spiritual and physical death.

Before the fall Adam and Eve could eat of the TOL, which gave them (and only them..since the TOL was not for the animals) virtual immortality.

But after the fall, man was given the big ol' boot out of the garden and God placed guards around the TOL so man could not eat of it.

With the supernatural TOL no longer available, nature took its course and man eventually died physically. But the physical death was a result of the larger problem of spiritual death. Spiritual death is the disease.......physical death is only a symptom.

When Christ conquered "death" He did so on two fronts.......1. He conquered spiritual death and provided an atonement so we could avoid "the second death" 2. He conquered physical death by the resurrection.



Russ

[sfs1]

Today @ 09:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209050#post209050)
Socrates:



:dunce: No, I go along with AiG's devastating rebuttal of this very piece Feduccia v Creationists (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0128feathered.asp#postscripts) :rofl:


'But the molecular biologists have shown that the similarity of DNA points to evolution from a common ancestor’. However, the molecular biologist says, ‘There are huge differences in DNA sequences; contradictory phylogenies; and intricate biological machinery, e.g. the rotary motors of the bacterial flagellum (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp#complex) and F1-ATPase (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3799.asp). But the paleontologists have shown that the fossils show an evolutionary sequence.’


The only problem with this statement is that it's wrong. First of all, molecular biologists study molecules, not evolution. This makes me suspect that whoever wrote it is clueless about biology. It's evolutionary biologists and population geneticists who would (and do) say that DNA sequences point to evolution from a common ancestor. More importantly, real biologists who compare DNA sequences (with the possible exception of a handful of religiously motivated outliers) never say that any of those things invalidate the evidence for common descent from sequence comparisons. The whole statement is just nonsense.

Look, I'm a human geneticist, and I think human genetics provides great evidence for evolution. Not for all of evolution, of course, just for human evolution, but that alone should be enough to piss off creationists.

[Roy]

Today @ 03:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209091#post209091)
steadele:

Before the fall Adam and Eve could eat of the TOF, which gave them (and only them..since the TOF was not for the animals) virtual immortality.

TOF? Not TOL?

Roy

[The Barbarian]

When God told Adam he would "die" if he ate from the TKGE, I believe He was speaking of both spiritual and physical death.

Which is O.K. as long as you realize that there is no scriptural foundation for that belief.


Before the fall Adam and Eve could eat of the TOF, which gave them (and only them..since the TOF was not for the animals) virtual immortality.

Creative idea, but not supported by Scripture. In fact, God contradicts that since He observes that if Adam eats from the TOL he will live forever. One shot gives immortality in the same way that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a one shot deal.


When Christ conquered "death" He did so on two fronts.......1. He conquered spiritual death and provided an atonement so we could avoid "the second death" 2. He conquered physical death by the resurrection.

But he didn't save us from physical death. We still die, just as we always did. And even the unsaved will be resurrected so that can't be the "death" God was speaking of; it is only for the saved.

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 11:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209132#post209132)
rthearle:



TOF? Not TOL?

Roy

Oops meant TOL. Ill edit it out....

[Warcraft3]

Hello The Barbarian:


Which is O.K. as long as you realize that there is no scriptural foundation for that belief.
I disagree. I think it can be inferred from Genesis that both are implied here.


Creative idea, but not supported by Scripture. In fact, God contradicts that since He observes that if Adam eats from the TOL he will live forever.
So you believe that Adam and Eve did not eat of the TOL before the fall? Then what was its purpose for being in the garden in the first place? I believe they did eat of it already and that continual eating would prevent old age and death (some kind of supernatural regenerative property). I believe that death was a natural part of creation, but an exception was made for mankind. Adam and Eve were placed in a protected, prepared enviornment and given the TOL to prevent old age and death. Thats what its purpose was....it was a tree of life for A&E.


One shot gives immortality in the same way that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a one shot deal.
I do not see anything directly implying this in scripture. I have no reason to believe that A&E were not eating of the tree of life prior to the fall. I would think they would eat of it, since it is specifically mentioned and is one of only two trees that have special properties. It seems kind of pointless to put the tree there if they werent going to eat of it until after the fall, since that very action would disqualify them from eating from it.


But he didn't save us from physical death. We still die, just as we always did. And even the unsaved will be resurrected so that can't be the "death"God was speaking of; it is only for the saved.
I didnt say we were saved from physical death. Christs physcial resurrection served several purposes, but none of them were to save us from physical death.

In the beginning we had the TOL, but that era has passed and so now we die just like everything else.



Russ

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian regarding the idea that Adam was immortal:
Which is O.K. as long as you realize that there is no scriptural foundation for that belief. ”


I disagree. I think it can be inferred from Genesis that both are implied here.

Barbarian observes:
Creative idea, but not supported by Scripture. In fact, God contradicts that since He observes that if Adam eats from the TOL he will live forever.


So you believe that Adam and Eve did not eat of the TOL before the fall?

It doesn't say they did. And since God says that if Adam does, he will live forever, that seems to settle it.


Then what was its purpose for being in the garden in the first place?

God doesn't tell us. I can't figure out why He permits evil in the universe, either. But I have to trust that He's doing the right thing.


I believe they did eat of it already and that continual eating would prevent old age and death (some kind of supernatural regenerative property). I believe that death was a natural part of creation, but an exception was made for mankind. Adam and Eve were placed in a protected, prepared enviornment and given the TOL to prevent old age and death. Thats what its purpose was....it was a tree of life for A&E.

There are lots of religious beliefs that are not scriptural. Yours is one of them. It doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but I have no reason to believe you are right.

Barbarian observes:
One shot gives immortality in the same way that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a one shot deal.


I do not see anything directly implying this in scripture.

God's aknowledgement of the fact is rather direct. He says that one eating of the tree of knowledge is permanent, and he notes that if Adam eats from the tree of life, he's going to live forever. God's words are evidence for the idea that both trees worked the same way. And there's not a shred of evidence for the contrary.


I have no reason to believe that A&E were not eating of the tree of life prior to the fall.

Other than God's word.

Barbarian:
But he didn't save us from physical death. We still die, just as we always did. And even the unsaved will be resurrected so that can't be the "death"God was speaking of; it is only for the saved.


I didnt say we were saved from physical death. Christs physcial resurrection served several purposes, but none of them were to save us from physical death.

Then we are in agreement on that point. When God promised a Savior, it was not to save us from a physical death.


In the beginning we had the TOL, but that era has passed and so now we die just like everything else.

I can't agree with that, in the absence of any scriptural reason to believe it.

[Warcraft3]

Hey there Barbarian:



Barbarian regarding the idea that Adam was immortal:
Which is O.K. as long as you realize that there is no scriptural foundation for that belief. ”
Barbarian observes:
Creative idea, but not supported by Scripture. In fact, God contradicts that since He observes that if Adam eats from the TOL he will live forever.

It doesn't say they did. And since God says that if Adam does, he will live forever, that seems to settle it.
I would interpret it as "if Adam was allowed continued access to the TOL he would live forever", not a one shot deal life the TKGE.


God doesn't tell us. I can't figure out why He permits evil in the universe, either. But I have to trust that He's doing the right thing.
I agree with you that sometmes you have to say "I dont know" and just trust God.......but Im not sure if your comparison to the POE is valid here.

The problem of evil and the issue with the garden are very different issues indeed. God specifically mentions two trees......the TOL and the TKGE and makes a comment on only one of them. He tells Adam he will "surely die" if he eats of the TKGE just once, but he mentions nothing of the TOL. Why is that? Because as one of the permitted trees (and indeed a special one specifically put in the garden for mans benefit) it is assumed that Adam and Eve would have eaten of it.

Also if it was truly a one shot deal I would expect to find a phrase like "because they had not yet eaten of it" in the text. Given the fact that such a statement does not appear in the text and given the TOL's obvious importance in the garden and deliberate placement (pre-fall era), I assume that A&E were in fact eating of the TOL prior to the fall. If this were not the case I would expect some kind of a direct indication of this, since the TOL was obviously an important element within Eden.


There are lots of religious beliefs that are not scriptural. Yours is one of them. It doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but I have no reason to believe you are right.
Barbarian observes:
One shot gives immortality in the same way that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a one shot deal.
God's aknowledgement of the fact is rather direct. He says that one eating of the tree of knowledge is permanent, and he notes that if Adam eats from the tree of life, he's going to live forever. God's words are evidence for the idea that both trees worked the same way. And there's not a shred of evidence for the contrary.

You are comparing two very different trees here. They served very different functions, and so I do not assume that they necessairly worked the same way. I find the "one shot immortality" to be inconsistant with the Edenic enviornment I see in the text. God provides and protects for A&E and makes things rather easy for them.....but not too easy. They still have to work and suffer for what they get (although greatly reduced) even while in the Eden enviornment. I find a TOL that operates on a continual basis fits much better into this framework than a one-shot deal.


Other than God's word.
...........Right...............but I could say the same thing about your position. Genesis is not cut-and-dry by any means, it is a rather strange book that does not lend itself to easy reading or easy interpretation.


Barbarian:
But he didn't save us from physical death. We still die, just as we always did. And even the unsaved will be resurrected so that can't be the "death"God was speaking of; it is only for the saved.

Then we are in agreement on that point. When God promised a Savior, it was not to save us from a physical death.
:cheers: Well, at least we agree on something:smile:



I can't agree with that, in the absence of any scriptural reason to believe it.
:shrug: I see scriptural reasons to believe it, but for some reason you are not seeing what I am seeing. :egad:

Perhaps you are committing "The Steadele Fallacy"...........

Russ
...who thinks at times it is difficult debating the millions and millions who so often foolishly commit "The Steadele Fallacy"...:smile:

[Socrates]

09-12-2003 @ 01:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209094#post209094)
sfs1:

[AiG's demolition of Feduccia, which SFS is too incompetent to address in any of its content]

The only problem with this statement is that it's wrong. First of all, molecular biologists study molecules, not evolution.

Twaddle. Many molecular biologists do claim to study evolution. So try something less petty.


This makes me suspect that whoever wrote it is clueless about biology. It's evolutionary biologists and population geneticists who would (and do) say that DNA sequences point to evolution from a common ancestor.

And there is no overlap?


More importantly, real biologists who compare DNA sequences (with the possible exception of a handful of religiously motivated outliers)

What, those motivated by the religion of atheism, or practical atheism aka "naturalism".


... never say that any of those things invalidate the evidence for common descent from sequence comparisons. The whole statement is just nonsense.

More likely, SFS is poisoning the well to redefine "real" biologists as those who accept evolution from goo to you via the zoo.


Look, I'm a human geneticist,

Look, I'm a chemist, and I think that the evidence of chemistry falsifies chemical evolution aka abiogenesis.


... and I think human genetics provides great evidence for evolution.

Who cares what you think? How does the genetics governing the ATP-synthase motor demonstrate anything but an amazingly intelligent common designer? You are still making inferences, not actual observations of descent.

I would prefer to believe Christ than make inferences from similarities. So should anyone with a cross icon, but I know that the term "Christian" is such deflated currency these days, so even followers of Spong and assorted Bible-rejecters like sfs call themselves by that term.


Not for all of evolution, of course, just for human evolution, but that alone should be enough to piss off creationists.

And that alone should cause us to doubt the sincerity of your icon, since if you deny the First Adam, why believe in the Last Adam?

[Gilgaron]

Evolution isn't dependent upon abiogenesis, though, Soc.

You can plug in panspermia or special creation in before it just as well.

You ought to quit equivocating evolution with naturalism.

[sfs1]

Some while ago Socrates posted the following:



However, the molecular biologist says, ‘There are huge differences in DNA sequences; contradictory phylogenies; and intricate biological machinery, e.g. the rotary motors of the bacterial flagellum and F1-ATPase. But the paleontologists have shown that the fossils show an evolutionary sequence.’

Speaking as one of the people who compare DNA sequences, I told him that his statement was wrong, that we say that genetics provides strong support for evolution, and in particular that I see strong support for human evolution in human genetics.

His response, when stripped of insults, bluster and irrelevancies, boils down to this:


Today @ 02:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=232506#post232506)
Socrates:
Who cares what you think? How does the genetics governing the ATP-synthase motor demonstrate anything but an amazingly intelligent common designer? You are still making inferences, not actual observations of descent.

Uh Socrates, you care what I think, I and others like me. You're the one who introduced what we think, remember? The only problem was that you got what we think completely wrong. Now how about you provide some support for your claim, that one I quoted above? That means showing that the people who accept evolution and who do research on comparative DNA sequences don't think they provide strong support for evolution. I think your claim has no connection to reality. Prove me wrong.

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 09:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=232887#post232887)
sfs1:
That means showing that the people who accept evolution and who do research on comparative DNA sequences don't think they provide strong support for evolution. I think your claim has no connection to reality. Prove me wrong.

The problem with people who work with DNA sequences in order to determine phylogenies seem to be that they are overly influenced by their evolutionary worldview.

Their work assumes evolution and looks for patterns that reinforce their viewpoint.

The very assumptions underlying the techniques are hopelessly naive. I discovered this when doing an analysis of protein sequences in cytochrome c, something that has traditionally been used to "prove" evolutionary relationships, but which in fact when examined by a professional data analyst does no such thing.

Evolutionists are very good at jumping to conclusions whenever they think a result agrees with their worldview. But as has happened in the past when more data comes in or when a superior analysis shows up their "proof" fallacious they abandon their previously touted "proof" and you never hear about it again.

In the case at hand where DNA is used in phylogenetic analysis there are some frequently overlooked and dubious assumptions being made.

One is that counting differences between sequences of recently demised creatures is a satisfactory measure of their evolutionary relationship in the past. Of course when an analysis of this type fails in any specific case it is chalked up to "an insufficient signal" as though such a gobblelygook explanation means anything at all.

Another usually "hidden" assumption is that each step in an alleged transformation must provide a reproductive advantage that will be used by natural selection to spread the change throughout the population to a sufficient degree that the next random mutation will be likely to act in one of the original "mutants" so than mutations will accumulate in an ancestral linage as evolution would require. This is so naive as to be almost unbelievable, and can easily be seen to be false in animal lines where reproduction rates are low and generation times are long (Haldane's Dilemma).

The reason I looked at cytochrome c was that it is highly conserved in the animal world and thus permits one to see what is going on instead of relying on algorithms of dubious plausibility. I suppose my skepticism of algorithms comes about due to my professional experience with such things. It probably was in the data analysis community where the motto, "garbage in - garbage first appeared, but the term has been around for a long time, just as I have.

At any rate cytochrome c contradicts the evolutionary phylogenetic idea, at least in the world of mammals, which is where some of the best and most extensive data is to be found.

The contradiction is that it is easy to demonstrate that the current rat/mouse/guinea pig protein sequence would be extremely close or identical to any reasonable ancestor of the mammal grouping. This implies that this sequence has remained the same regardless of the fact that this group of animals breeds rapidly and if ancestral to all mammals would have been around for close to 100 million years, more or less.

This extreme discrepancy in change rate, compared to that hypothesized for other types of mammals, defies any reasonable explanation, although some evolutionists on forums have tried their best with various "just so" stories.

[Gilgaron]

Socratism:
In the case at hand where DNA is used in phylogenetic analysis there are some frequently overlooked and dubious assumptions being made.

Most of the literature I've read used rRNA instead of DNA because rRNA will be more highly conserved than anything else in the cell and it is easy to isolate. Very little has been done using DNA that I'm aware of. I have a citation down lower in my post, but genome sequencing hasn't been completed on enough animals to establish phylogenies concretely, as far as I am aware.


One is that counting differences between sequences of recently demised creatures is a satisfactory measure of their evolutionary relationship in the past. Of course when an analysis of this type fails in any specific case it is chalked up to "an insufficient signal" as though such a gobblelygook explanation means anything at all.

They didn't account for mutation rate when back calculating for the common ancestor? It does sound like you've been reading some shoddy research.


Another usually "hidden" assumption is that each step in an alleged transformation must provide a reproductive advantage that will be used by natural selection to spread the change throughout the population to a sufficient degree that the next random mutation will be likely to act in one of the original "mutants" so than mutations will accumulate in an ancestral linage as evolution would require. This is so naive as to be almost unbelievable, and can easily be seen to be false in animal lines where reproduction rates are low and generation times are long (Haldane's Dilemma).

I'd disagree with that assumption as well. I would hope most evolutionists would note that a mutation only has to be neutral to selection to persist.


The reason I looked at cytochrome c was that it is highly conserved in the animal world and thus permits one to see what is going on instead of relying on algorithms of dubious plausibility. I suppose my skepticism of algorithms comes about due to my professional experience with such things. It probably was in the data analysis community where the motto, "garbage in - garbage first appeared, but the term has been around for a long time, just as I have.

You still have to use algorithms with cytochrome, if it somehow stayed the same throughout your target group it would be useless in determining evolutionary distance. Mitochondria mutate like everything else. Mitochondrial DNA is what has been used in studies to determine genetic drift within species.


At any rate cytochrome c contradicts the evolutionary phylogenetic idea, at least in the world of mammals, which is where some of the best and most extensive data is to be found.

So the cytochrome c evolutionary distances contradict the rRNA evolutionary distances? Do you have citations? I'd be interested in reading the literature.


The contradiction is that it is easy to demonstrate that the current rat/mouse/guinea pig protein sequence would be extremely close or identical to any reasonable ancestor of the mammal grouping. This implies that this sequence has remained the same regardless of the fact that this group of animals breeds rapidly and if ancestral to all mammals would have been around for close to 100 million years, more or less.

On what do you base the assumption that rodents resemble the common ancestor so strongly? Or are you claiming this to be an evolutionist assumption? I couldn't find a scientific paper addressing this issue quickly, but I did find this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64834-2003Sep25.html) which seems to contradict your claim.


This extreme discrepancy in change rate, compared to that hypothesized for other types of mammals, defies any reasonable explanation, although some evolutionists on forums have tried their best with various "just so" stories.

So it isn't reasonable that different groups evolve at different rates? Why not?

[John Boy]

Socrates:
Look, I'm a chemist, and I think that the evidence of chemistry falsifies chemical evolution aka abiogenesis.
That's nice. There are far more Chemists (with Ph.D's and everything) who disagree with you. There is even a whole branch of chemistry dedicated to the topic: Abiotic Chemistry. Maybe you have heard of it? :poke:

Take care. :smile:

[chickenman]

The problem with people who work with DNA sequences in order to determine phylogenies seem to be that they are overly influenced by their evolutionary worldview.

Their work assumes evolution and looks for patterns that reinforce their viewpoint.

Of course they assume evolution - its the dominant paradigm, and the patterns that DNA sequences produce DO overwhelmingly support the assumption


The very assumptions underlying the techniques are hopelessly naive. I discovered this when doing an analysis of protein sequences in cytochrome c, something that has traditionally been used to "prove" evolutionary relationships, but which in fact when examined by a professional data analyst does no such thing.

Could you present your analysis? Did you also look at nucleotide sequences for cytochrome C? What software did you use? PHYLIP?

what methods did you use to construct your tree, and what analysis did you perform to estimate its accuracy?


Evolutionists are very good at jumping to conclusions whenever they think a result agrees with their worldview. But as has happened in the past when more data comes in or when a superior analysis shows up their "proof" fallacious they abandon their previously touted "proof" and you never hear about it again.

In the case at hand where DNA is used in phylogenetic analysis there are some frequently overlooked and dubious assumptions being made.

One is that counting differences between sequences of recently demised creatures is a satisfactory measure of their evolutionary relationship in the past. Of course when an analysis of this type fails in any specific case it is chalked up to "an insufficient signal" as though such a gobblelygook explanation means anything at all.

I don't understand what you're getting at here


Another usually "hidden" assumption is that each step in an alleged transformation must provide a reproductive advantage that will be used by natural selection to spread the change throughout the population to a sufficient degree that the next random mutation will be likely to act in one of the original "mutants" so than mutations will accumulate in an ancestral linage as evolution would require. This is so naive as to be almost unbelievable, and can easily be seen to be false in animal lines where reproduction rates are low and generation times are long (Haldane's Dilemma).
This has nothing to do with inferring relationships using sequence data. Gilgaron has already answered this anyway. Any step along the way can be neutral and still be maintained in the population subject to random genetic drift.


The reason I looked at cytochrome c was that it is highly conserved in the animal world and thus permits one to see what is going on instead of relying on algorithms of dubious plausibility. I suppose my skepticism of algorithms comes about due to my professional experience with such things. It probably was in the data analysis community where the motto, "garbage in - garbage first appeared, but the term has been around for a long time, just as I have.

At any rate cytochrome c contradicts the evolutionary phylogenetic idea, at least in the world of mammals, which is where some of the best and most extensive data is to be found.

The contradiction is that it is easy to demonstrate that the current rat/mouse/guinea pig protein sequence would be extremely close or identical to any reasonable ancestor of the mammal grouping. This implies that this sequence has remained the same regardless of the fact that this group of animals breeds rapidly and if ancestral to all mammals would have been around for close to 100 million years, more or less.

This extreme discrepancy in change rate, compared to that hypothesized for other types of mammals, defies any reasonable explanation, although some evolutionists on forums have tried their best with various "just so" stories.

hang on, you compared cytochrome C amino acid sequence, and you think that the stasis it displays contradicts evolution?

:lol:

This is simply stabilising selection - the protein sequence is maintained because theres no room for improvement, and little room for deviation - it performs a precise role in the electron transport chain, the same role it has been performing ever since eukaryotes picked up their mitochondria and aerobic respiration

remember socratism, random mutation + natural selection