Succinct Defense of Primitive Fall

[magellan004]

Most of the time, I'm referring to the doctrine as set forth in the Chicago Statement, because it appears to me that most people who claim to be inerrantists go with that one. However, if I'm talking with someone who uses the term to mean something different, I'll usually go along with them for purposes of that particular conversation. Since I don't accept any version of inerrancy, I don't think it's my place to decide which is the right one for Christians to be using.


They're probably not going to leave any. But nonexistent evidence cannot prove anything, and it doesn't make any difference if we can think of a good reason for it not to exist. If there is no evidence, then I think I'm at least as justified in disbelieving as you are in believing, if you believe.


There is no evidence for that event, either.

Or rather, the only evidence for it is that we have some ancient documents saying it happened. Please excuse me if I regard that evidence as insufficient.

I like the way you look at things.

Magellan

[Cerebrum123]

Most of the time, I'm referring to the doctrine as set forth in the Chicago Statement, because it appears to me that most people who claim to be inerrantists go with that one. However, if I'm talking with someone who uses the term to mean something different, I'll usually go along with them for purposes of that particular conversation. Since I don't accept any version of inerrancy, I don't think it's my place to decide which is the right one for Christians to be using.

That's probably a good place to start, unless the person says otherwise(like perhaps the KJV Only crowd).

They're probably not going to leave any. But nonexistent evidence cannot prove anything, and it doesn't make any difference if we can think of a good reason for it not to exist. If there is no evidence, then I think I'm at least as justified in disbelieving as you are in believing, if you believe.

I completely understand that sentiment, but I don't base my belief in the Bible without evidence. The Gospels, and other parts of the Bible have been repeatedly verified by archaeology(Genesis 1 hasn't, but there is far more to the Bible than Genesis). Luke is known as a first rate historian among many scholars(many just won't accept the miracle accounts, but everything else seems to be accepted), and the rest of the Bible has a perfect track record so far.

There is no evidence for that event, either.


Or rather, the only evidence for it is that we have some ancient documents saying it happened. Please excuse me if I regard that evidence as insufficient.

Actually, there is, and it's all over the world. Every society has an account like this, and they are often very similar. I have a link that shows a grid that shows many of the other flood accounts, and on how many points they match up with the Biblical account. It basically shows that they all have the same source for the account, and that's a bit hard to do for ALL societies, unless it has roots in a real historical event. http://creation.com/noahs-flood-and-the-gilgamesh-epic

Having such similarities in an account worldwide is rather compelling evidence that something (at minimum a very big flood for the earliest human civilization, although I believe differently on what happened of course) historical in nature is being referenced, even if it has been partially distorted or lost over time.

[Whag]

Actually, there is, and it's all over the world. Every society has an account like this, and they are often very similar.

Having such similarities in an account worldwide is rather compelling evidence that something (at minimum a very big flood for the earliest human civilization, although I believe differently on what happened of course).

What do you believe happened? If god flooded the earliest civilization, civilizations still flourished afterwards and evil wasn't curtailed. It looks like a temper tantrum that accomplished nothing.

[micah719]

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The problem with the thread so far is that it ignores death...it came into the world by sin at the fall and is considered an enemy and will be ultimately defeated and destroyed. There goes the evolution defence...

[Cerebrum123]

What do you believe happened? If god flooded the earliest civilization, civilizations still flourished afterwards and evil wasn't curtailed. It looks like a temper tantrum that accomplished nothing.

Actually, if you take into account the "Nephilim", then you have not only people doing horrendous things, but you have fallen angels taking humans and mating with them(this is of course only ONE of the possibilities of what the Nephilim were, but personally it makes the most sense of what the text says). In the NT Paul talks about how certain angels had "left their appointed places", and how they had been "chained in Tartarus until the day of Judgement"(I can find the verses if you would like me to). So, now you have hybrids trying to corrupt humanity, and these would have been wiped out in the Flood. Sometimes what is now translated as "Nephilim" is translated as "giants", but in the original Greek it was gigantes, which is more equivalent to "Titans", which were supposed to have been even greater than the Greek gods, and were their forefathers. I believe that the Greek account is a corruption of what originally happened. So, wiping out a corrupted species along with humans that were evil, is a bit different than just killing evil people(again, there are those that disagree with this view on the Nephilim, but I am going by what I believe they were, and IMO it makes more sense out of the text than other interpretations I have heard).

[JimL]

Actually, if you take into account the "Nephilim", then you have not only people doing horrendous things, but you have fallen angels taking humans and mating with them(this is of course only ONE of the possibilities of what the Nephilim were, but personally it makes the most sense of what the text says). In the NT Paul talks about how certain angels had "left their appointed places", and how they had been "chained in Tartarus until the day of Judgement"(I can find the verses if you would like me to). So, now you have hybrids trying to corrupt humanity, and these would have been wiped out in the Flood. Sometimes what is now translated as "Nephilim" is translated as "giants", but in the original Greek it was gigantes, which is more equivalent to "Titans", which were supposed to have been even greater than the Greek gods, and were their forefathers. I believe that the Greek account is a corruption of what originally happened. So, wiping out a corrupted species along with humans that were evil, is a bit different than just killing evil people(again, there are those that disagree with this view on the Nephilim, but I am going by what I believe they were, and IMO it makes more sense out of the text than other interpretations I have heard).

Yeah, its a shame that as a believer you are forced to try and make sense out of nonsense, but as Whag pointed out, in the end nothing was accomplished by Gods temper tantrum, Nephilim or no. All men according to the bible, thanks to A=E, have a sin nature, including Noah and his family, which if I remember correctly was not something that was lost on God himself who after causing the flood, seemed to acknowledge the error he made, vowing to never do it again. I thought God was supposed to be omniscient?

[Doug Shaver]

I completely understand that sentiment, but I don't base my belief in the Bible without evidence.

I wasn't talking about evidence for the Bible. I was talking about evidence for one particular story in the Bible. Whether your belief in the Bible as a whole is justified is a separate issue.

The Gospels, and other parts of the Bible have been repeatedly verified by archaeology

So say evangelical apologists. A debate about this particular claim and its implications would severely derail this thread. If you'd like to defend it, you probably should start a new thread.

Luke is known as a first rate historian among many scholars

"Many"? How many? And so what? Many other competent scholars think he was no historian at all.

Responsible lay people who want answers to these questions don't just poll the authorities to get their answers. They find out what evidence the authorities are basing their conclusions on, and then they critique the arguments used to connect that evidence to the conclusions.

I have a link that shows a grid that shows many of the other flood accounts, and on how many points they match up with the Biblical account. It basically shows that they all have the same source for the account, and that's a bit hard to do for ALL societies, unless it has roots in a real historical event.

Sarfati's argument is full of logical holes. If you want me to be more specific, that should be the topic of yet another thread.

[Whag]

Actually, if you take into account the "Nephilim", then you have not only people doing horrendous things, but you have fallen angels taking humans and mating with them(this is of course only ONE of the possibilities of what the Nephilim were, but personally it makes the most sense of what the text says). In the NT Paul talks about how certain angels had "left their appointed places", and how they had been "chained in Tartarus until the day of Judgement"(I can find the verses if you would like me to). So, now you have hybrids trying to corrupt humanity, and these would have been wiped out in the Flood. Sometimes what is now translated as "Nephilim" is translated as "giants", but in the original Greek it was gigantes, which is more equivalent to "Titans", which were supposed to have been even greater than the Greek gods, and were their forefathers. I believe that the Greek account is a corruption of what originally happened. So, wiping out a corrupted species along with humans that were evil, is a bit different than just killing evil people(again, there are those that disagree with this view on the Nephilim, but I am going by what I believe they were, and IMO it makes more sense out of the text than other interpretations I have heard).

Angels have sex with human beings, creating angel/human hybrid giants. Seriously?

If you're serious, you should be ashamed of yourself that you believe these fantasies.

[Cerebrum123]

Angels have sex with human beings, creating angel/human hybrid giants. Seriously?

If you're serious, you should be ashamed of yourself that you believe these fantasies.

Don't you believe that the miracles that Jesus did, and His resurrection are just fantasies, and that I should be ashamed of them too? Well, I'm not, and I would say that this verse adequately explains why.

Luke 9:25-27
New International Version (NIV)
25 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self? 26 Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

27 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

Also, someone on this site has part of a poem by Petra I believe, and I believe it is called "Fool's Gold". It goes like this.

Some say this life I live is only foolishness
No waiting pot of gold in the faith that I possess
But the treasures of this life will slowly turn to dust
And this fool will find his gold in the Savior that I trust
Fool's gold
It's waiting in a crown
Fool's gold
In a city coming down
I'll leave the gold I can't afford for
For the higher prize I'm pressing toward
I'll preach the "foolish" cross of Christ and wait for my reward
Fool's gold
The wisdom of the cross is easy to receive
But only foolishness to them that don't believe
They may say that I'm a fool for the cross that I proclaim
But the gold that I must seek won't be found in earthly things
When the crowns of gold are laid before His feet
Then the worthy Lamb of God is a treasure we will keep
Some may call me foolish, some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man than a fool in the eyes of God

Also, these verses sum things up quite well IMO.

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1 Corinthians 1:25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness” ;

I have reasons for believing what I believe, you may not think they are good reasons, but I have them just the same.

[Whag]

Don't you believe that the miracles that Jesus did, and His resurrection are just fantasies, and that I should be ashamed of them too? Well, I'm not, and I would say that this verse adequately explains why.

Luke 9:25-27
New International Version (NIV)
25 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self? 26 Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

27 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

Also, someone on this site has part of a poem by Petra I believe, and I believe it is called "Fool's Gold". It goes like this.

Some say this life I live is only foolishness
No waiting pot of gold in the faith that I possess
But the treasures of this life will slowly turn to dust
And this fool will find his gold in the Savior that I trust
Fool's gold
It's waiting in a crown
Fool's gold
In a city coming down
I'll leave the gold I can't afford for
For the higher prize I'm pressing toward
I'll preach the "foolish" cross of Christ and wait for my reward
Fool's gold
The wisdom of the cross is easy to receive
But only foolishness to them that don't believe
They may say that I'm a fool for the cross that I proclaim
But the gold that I must seek won't be found in earthly things
When the crowns of gold are laid before His feet
Then the worthy Lamb of God is a treasure we will keep
Some may call me foolish, some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man than a fool in the eyes of God

Also, these verses sum things up quite well IMO.

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1 Corinthians 1:25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness” ;

I have reasons for believing what I believe, you may not think they are good reasons, but I have them just the same.

Why would angels have a sex drive? That's an animal trait.

All religions, not just Christianity, defend their beliefs by saying that heavenly logic is the opposite of human rationality. It's time to start being smarter and less afraid of doubting such nonsense. "Angel/human hybrid" talk is on the level of bigfootism and UFOlogy. This world never hosted human giants any bigger than neanderthal, whose skeletal remains we DO find. Neanderthals antedated civilization by tens of thousands of years.

Anthropology is a fascinating science. You don't need fantasies to cure your boredom. Reality is much more exciting and interesting.

[Cerebrum123]

Why would angels have a sex drive? That's an animal trait.

All religions, not just Christianity, defend their beliefs by saying that heavenly logic is the opposite of human rationality. It's time to start being smarter and less afraid of doubting such nonsense. "Angel/human hybrid" talk is on the level of bigfootism and UFOlogy. This world never hosted human giants any bigger than neanderthal, whose skeletal remains we DO find. Neanderthals antedated civilization by tens of thousands of years.

Anthropology is a fascinating science. You don't need fantasies to cure your boredom. Reality is much more exciting and interesting.

I never even said how large they were, people today that are around 7 ft. could be considered to be a "giant". They were likely simply larger than the average human(say around 8 ft. or so). Also, some say that rather than having large physical stature, it had to do with the fact that they were fierce warriors, and were honored by the people.

[Whag]

I never even said how large they were, people today that are around 7 ft. could be considered to be a "giant". They were likely simply larger than the average human(say around 8 ft. or so). Also, some say that rather than having large physical stature, it had to do with the fact that they were fierce warriors, and were honored by the people.

Did they shoot laserbeams from their eyes?

[Chrawnus]

Did they shoot laserbeams from their eyes?

Can you be any more obvious in your attempts to troll people?

[Whag]

Can you be any more obvious in your attempts to troll people?

Horny angels have sex with humans and create giants. How can you not troll that?

[Chrawnus]

Horny angels have sex with humans and create giants. How can you not troll that?

I don't really have a belief about what exactly the Nephilim were in the first place, but who says the procreation between angels and humans (if that is really what the text is about) had anything to do with being horny?

It's refreshing to see a troll who doesn't deny that he is a troll.