Wayne Delia

You've been completely clobbered on this issue before. What I desire to do, what I prefer to do, what I choose to do, is to do something that God knows I won't do. If that's not possible, then your idea of "desires drive choices" is wrong; if it is possible, then God is wrong in what He knows I will do. You couldn't even give a single example of something I could do which would satisfy both conditions. The failure of this and other concepts to sink in has been collectively described as your "cognitive dissonance."

WMD

Wayne Delia

In a debate I had with a very weak apologist on alt.atheism a number of years ago, my opponent was asked the same question, and he claimed that no babies died in the Flood because the Bible did not say that any babies were alive at the time. God lengthened people's lives, he proposed, and prevented any babies being born, so that at the time of the Flood no babies were killed. And nobody noticed this bizarre mass infertility, so it wasn't mentioned in Genesis.

I am not making this up.

WMD

Equinox

WMD wrote:

Wow.

Hey, since we are making up stories we like and adding them to the Bible, why not make up other stories? Let's see....... Um, Jesus writes on the ground, and saves a woman from being stoned to death! Oh, sorry, someone already made that up and added it to the Bible 1000 years ago.....

OK, ah, Grasshoppers have 9 legs instead of 10 because god decided to pull off one leg after they were created. Yeah.

And to think that the same people who treat the Bible this way turn around and claim to respect the Bible. I'd be incredulous if I didn't see it so often.


Have a fun day-

-Equinox

John A. Broussard

If I hadn't seen equally inane things in this thread I would have sworn you made it up.

On second thought, I think you did make it up.

James Madison

Well I suppose, Pharoah, I may not need in printed in bold the snake was being used by a supernatural force to assume such an occurrence. Animals in the bible do not talk on their own volition but only when used by a supernatural force is relevant evidence the snake in the Genesis account may not have been talking on it's own volition.

The other occasion in which an animal spoke, that I can immediately recall, was the donkey. God was speaking through the donkey or sent an angel to speak through a donkey.

Revelations identifies God's adversary as that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. God's adversary of course advocates rebellion against God and is in rebellion against God. God's adversary has spoken through humans throughout the NT and is mentioned in the OT in instances where he is advocating rebellion against God or seeking to subvert his plan. God commanded David not to give a census and God's adversary tempted David to disobey and David did as he was tempted. Satan uses Peter to rebuke Jesus' foretold destiny.

Additionally, this animal is advocating rebellion against God. I find that particularly odd since there does not exist any biblical precedent where animals are biblically capable of making the decision to rebel against God, make a decision to rebel against God, or even comprehend what rebellion against God would be much less to advocate rebellion to humans on it's own volition. Biblically, what the serpent is advocting is a sin, a morally devoid action. Once again biblically there isn't any establishment animals are capable of making moral decisions, sinful decisions, much less comprehending them to advocate for them.

Now admittedly this evidence does not create an unrebuttable presumption. In fact there are few things in life, if any, in which there exists an unrebuttable presumption. However, the presumption a third party, a supernatural third party, was using the snake to advocate rebellion against God is not a stretch but a reasonable presumption; and like all reasonable presumptions they are not unrebuttable.

Yeah this is one possible interpretation but I doubt it is the actual one given your interpretation is broader than what is being stated.

[B]he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." Here God is talking about a single individual, not a mass of humanity and thousands of years of snakes. Here God is talking about 1 individual and one entity. 1 entity will have it's head crushed and 1 individual will have his heel struck. So I think your interpretation is "broader" than the language allows.

post tenebras lux

Hi James, what part of Gen 3:15 don't you understand?Or is your copy of the bible missing the central bit? The 'and between thy seed and her seed' bit?

So, no, he's not just talking about putting enmity between one individual (Eve) and one 'entity' (?) (the serpent), but also cursing their 'seed' through the generations.

post tenebras lux

Well, god did create hell, didn't he. When god created the universe, including heaven and hell, he already knew (since before time began) which names were on the list of the elect and which souls would end up in hell. So, yes, he's responsible for hell existing, he's responsible for what happens in hell, and he's responsible for the fact that those people, who he has predestined (since before time began) to exist and predestined (since before time began) to end up in hell, do actually exist and thus will actually end up in hell.
Whether he has an obligation is another matter, and rather subjective (IMHO) given that we're working with different types of morality.
Additionally, your god is there in hell just as much as he is there in heaven. He knows what happens in hell, he's always known (since before time began) everything that will ever happen in hell, and yet he created hell anyway. So, yes, he's responsible for what happens there.

Are you trying to claim that an atheist has a genuine choice? That it is theoretically possible for a person whose name is not currently on the list of the elect to get his name put on the list of the elect? I've asked you about 'works' versus 'grace' before, and you gave a strange answer. Now you seem to be veering off from standard predestinatory Calvinism yet again.

post tenebras lux

Yet another (random ?) bible quote instead of a proper answer.

Sorry, Rhutchin, but I've already got one bible quote for you. I don't know why you chose to quote 2 Cor 4:4, but given that you did, I gave you 2 Cor 4:2 in return.
Here it is again, along with the first verse:I look at that quote, which I asked you to bear in mind: I look at your quite frankly bizarre (IMHO) apologetics in the last few posts, whilst noting that you claim your studying was not onerous: and I give up.

So, you claim that Eve was a bit thick? Well, why was Eve a bit thick? Was it because that is how god created her? Yep, I think so. So how does claiming that god created Eve a thick bitch help deflect the responsiblity from god? Are you seriously trying to claim that the reason why there is evil and suffering in this world, the reason why there is death and destruction instead of eternal bliss in the garden of Eden, is because your all knowing god chose to give Adam a thick bitch for his mate. :huh:

Do you have a mother, wife, sister, daughter, or something? Have you tried telling them this apologetic of yours (the whole world was doomed because god chose to create Eve a thickie)?

Jack the Bodiless

Incorrect. NOBODY in the story claims that there are two outcomes. Both God and the Serpent claim only ONE outcome. God says "immediate death". The Serpent says "NOT death: knowledge". And the Serpent is correct, and there is not the slightest hint that the fruit has ANY harmful effect. All the later "harmful effects" are inflicted on humanity by God.
There is absolutely no basis for this belief. But, regardless, the story says that God is to blame for our mortality: this is inescapable.

Even if we assume that "sin" causes a loss of immortality: God denied us the cure for our condition. And how would this "cure" work: by purging us of sin? So why didn't God let them have it? And when Jesus came to "save us" from "original sin", Christians suddenly became immortal again? Indeed, were ANY of the Genesis punisments relaxed? No, they weren't.
No, I did not. I was referring only to the ending of Genesis 2:17: the double-emphasis on death. The translation of the rest of the verse is quite straightforward, and indicates death that day (Strong's Concordance reveals the Hebrew yowm (day): maybe you should use a less ropey concordance?).

rhutchin

The Bible tends to provide a statement of major events without elaboration on how a person (like Adam) might have felt. What we get is what we get. Writers give the information they want and not what we want.

We understand that Satan was behind the actions of the serpent based on what we read later in the Bible where other writers have gone into more details of that event in order to explain points that they sought to make. I am not blaming Adam for leaving out details. God inspired those who wrote the Bible so He provided the details as he saw fit. As I read the story (without elaboration), the serpent (Satan) did lie.

The account has Eve stating the command and adding to it. It would appear that she did not really understand what God had prohibited.

Here is God’s command—

Genesis 2
16 …the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
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.

Here is Eve’s restatement with language that she added noted in bold—

Genesis 3
2. …the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Since Adam received the command and told Eve, it would appear that Adam did not explain the command very well.

Again, we have to let the Hebrew boys sort out whether the text requires instantaneous death or the process of death.

That which we read does not distinguish whether the man would die simply because he ate the fruit or because of the disobedience involved in eating the fruit. The text does say that Adam needs access to the Tree of Life in order to live after he eats the fruit. Adam would die if he did not eat from the Tree of Life. That does not seem to be the case prior to Adam’s sin.

God could have said, when giving the command:

Gen 2
16 …God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
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, as you will become like God knowing good and evil: and lest you put forth your hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever, I will banish you from the garden of Eden and you will die.

Perhaps if God had gone into such detail, Adam might have thought before he ate.

It is not in the narrative of the fall. It is here—

Romans 6
23 For the wages of sin is death;…

To understand the Bible, one must take into account all the information provided within it.

The better analogy is to one born in the United States and being a citizen. The benefits of citizenship require that one obey the governing authorities. Adam was not a slave.

Sorta like Charles Atlas telling 98 lb weaklings that they can become strong like him. Adam/Eve had become like God in a very limited sense; they certainly had not become God.

We obviously read the account differently.