mightychurch.com

As I said, you consider spiritual death, not physical, is the outcome of sin, and I had assumed you consider that a sound Biblical position.  That’s hardly contrary.

Ros, you wrote: “I respect that you consider spiritual death, not physical, to be in question, ...”. That definitely is contrary to my position! Spiritual death is not “in question” as far as I am concerned: I believe it to be the correct Biblical interpretation. You are contradicting yourself between posts. Best drop the matter. Over and out…

Hi Ian, you mentioned 1 Corinthians 15 before, and I think you should think about it a little more!

Paul writes earlier in that chapter: (v12-14, NLT)

But tell me this—since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless.

Paul says we must be uncompromising on the nature of Jesus’s resurrection. If he did not rise physically (ie, only spiritually) then Christianity is useless and pitiful (v17, 19).

But right after that Paul brings it back to Adam (v21):

So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man.

The second “dead” of this sentence must refer to physical death, as that’s what the resurrection is from! But if you were correct, then the first “death” mentioned here must be spiritual only. What evidence is there for that? If Paul really meant two different types of death here he couldn’t be more confusing than to use them both within a single sentence, and without qualifiers!

I also disagree with your analysis of v56: in v54 he speaks of “bodies that will never die”, saying that is the fulfillment of Hosea 13:14 “O death, where is your sting?” This is the death that v56 speaks of - the death we will be cured of when Jesus returns and our physical bodies are transformed, not the spiritual death that we are saved from when we trust in Jesus!

The second “dead” of this sentence [1 Cor 15:21] must refer to physical death, as that’s what the resurrection is from! But if you were correct, then the first “death” mentioned here must be spiritual only. What evidence is there for that?

Here is the evidence:

Paul in v.21 must mean two types of death, for the fact is that (a) creatures existed on Earth millions of years before man, and (b) they physically died. The material evidence for this is overwhelming and indisputable. Ergo, “Adam” - if you believe in a literal ‘first man’ (What exactly was he? Neanderthal? Cro-Magnon? Homo Sapiens?) - did not introduce physical death. It’s a mistake to read the Bible as a textbook of scientific fact; natural revelation gleaned from God’s created Cosmos is just as true as Biblical truth…

No, Paul could not have meant that as he could not have known that animals were alive and dying millions of years before humans.

By all means, believe that, as many/most Christians do. But don’t think that Paul wrote about it when he couldn’t have known about it. It’s much better to simply say that Paul was wrong.

Danii, how do you know for certain that Paul “could not have known that animals were alive and dying millions of years before humans”?

In any case, for 1 Cor 15:21 there are alternatives:

1. Adam (as the ‘first man’ in the mythos of Genesis) was naturally mortal, and so eventually died physically. Therefore, in a quite trivial sense, it can be said that “death [for humans] came into the world through a man”. This, however, has no logical connection with the idea - which I am asserting as fact - that Adam’s sin lead to spiritual death.

2. Paul, being a devout Jew, takes the mythoi of the Torah seriously - though not necessarily literally - and so sets up an analogy: ‘Just as the Torah asserts such-and-such (in this case, that Adam died) so ... (physical resurrection has begun through Jesus)’.

3. Danii is correct about Paul’s ignorance of palaeontology, and Paul is simply wrong.

Because radio dating is a relatively new invention? I guess God could have specially revealed it to Paul, but then, why wouldn’t he have written and told us that?

I think that Adam’s sin lead to total death - physical and spiritual. Just as faith in Jesus leads to total new life!

Although I haven’t investigated this in detail, I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that (a) the ancient world had some awareness of fossils and their origins, including the idea of life on Earth before the existence of man; and (a) some Ante-Nicene fathers debated others concerning a primitive version of the theory of evolution. This makes your speculation rather ridiculous, Dannii.

To believe that Adam’s sin resulted in physical death necessarily entails that dinosaurs and other earlier animal life must have been immortal (since animals are presumed to be sinless)! Are you telling us you believe that fantasy too, Dannii?

Well Ian, investigate it in detail! Your vague declarations feel ridiculous to me! I’m not aware of any ancient knowledge of fossils, though I won’t rule it out. And some may have had ideas of life before humanity, but it is not the same story as what we are told today… the Jews would not have believed such things, and the Greek myths of the titans etc in no way matches evolution either. Which fathers were debating exactly what? Sure they may have debated some form of evolution, but it wouldn’t have been anything like Darwinian evolution.

I am content if you believe that no human ever died before sin. I believe the Bible teaches no death at all before sin, but if you want to limit that to humans only, I’m okay with that.

Do you believe the fantasy that the metabolic cycle just developed spontaneously?

Well Ian, investigate it in detail! Your vague declarations feel ridiculous to me!

I have neither the time nor the inclination. I only mentioned it so that you might investigate it further, beyond merely “feeling” moved to declare these propositions “vague”.

I am content if you believe that no human ever died before sin. I believe the Bible teaches no death at all before sin, but if you want to limit that to humans only, I’m okay with that.

Well then, Dannii, if you believe that “the Bible teaches no death at all before sin”, then either the Bible is plainly wrong (in the light of overwhelming palaeontological evidence) or you are wrong - unless of course you believe that prior to man

other earlier animal life must have been immortal (since animals are presumed to be sinless)!

In which we are led ineluctably back to my previous question:

Are you telling us you believe that fantasy too, Dannii?

As for your final question -

Do you believe the fantasy that the metabolic cycle just developed spontaneously?

- the answer is ‘No’, on account of the fact of evolution (which, en passant, is in no way mutually exclusive to the idea of divine creationism).

Ian, what I believe is that the palaeontological evidence in no way proves death before human sin. I don’t want to discuss that here either… unless you can point me to some specific research showing an abundance of functionality-increasing mutations.

Ian, what I believe is that the palaeontological evidence in no way proves death before human sin.

How bizarre! In that case, then, Dannii, you must also believe that prior to ‘Adam’, all food consumed by previously extant creatures remained somehow physically alive. So, for instance, when a Tyrannosaurus Rex was happily chomping away on some smaller prey a couple of hundred million years ago during the Cretaceous Period,* that prey remained physically alive all the while it was being torn apart, indeed remaining physically alive throughout the digestion of it within the stomach of the T. Rex! What’s more, that nasty carnivorous dinosaur T. Rex itself remained physically alive for millions upon millions of years right through the gradual fossilization process of its body, only expiring amongst the bedrock when naughty ‘Adam’ bit on a particular chunk of fruit, thereby sinning!

Well, I wish you good luck in trying to evangelize to the scientifically well-informed intelligentsia when they hear about that utterly risible admission: you’ll really need it, since they will surely conclude - if they’re led to understand that all Christians believe as you do - that Christians must be ignorant morons…

*NB: fossilized dinosaur turds - coprolites - are not uncommon. Presumably they were physically alive too?

I don’t want to discuss that here either…

Small wonder!

Anyhow, for me - CAUSA FINIS EST. This amusingly nonsensical diversion has taken me away from fulfilling my promise to encapsulate metamathematics in that other thread ... something to which I’ll return shortly.

How bizarre! In that case, then, Dannii, you must also believe that prior to ‘Adam’, all food consumed by previously extant creatures remained somehow physically alive.

Not at all! Actually, to use Biblical terminology, plants and insects are non-living. At least in the Bible (and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a far-near-eastern idea in general) blood defines life, as the Noahic covenant and Leviticus explain. Things without blood are therefore not alive and cannot die. Now we are free to come up with our own definitions of life, as we must, but that does not mean that the Hebrews had the same definition. (The difficult we have in classifying viruses shows this isn’t as easy as it seems.)

When God first created the world he alone had the right to shed blood. We have a few stories of murder before the flood, but God does not allow revenge killings. It is only after the flood that he allows us to shed blood and take life - both the blood of animals (by eating them) and the blood of humans (though only the execution of murders is allowed and commanded then.) God cares a lot about blood - because it is life.

An aside: most plants can be partially eaten while leaving the rest of the plant happy and growing. So even if you were to consider the loss of a plant as death, or something bad, harvesting its food should not result in that.

Dannii, I believe that Creationists only show there lack of knowledge about the history of life on this planet when they stick to a literal translation of Genesis 1-12.

As most theologions agree, a literal translation is good for the young and simple, but having more knowledge about the world is not a counter argument, but simply a deeper understanding of things.

I would never knock people who assume a literal translation, but drawing out this allegorical story to the extent that Creationists do, is not wise. It does indicate that the Christian view may be non-sensical to the educated.

Ken, please don’t insult me by claiming I interpret any of the Bible literally. I don’t, and have always denied it. I would say I interpret it as history. Now if you want to claim that’s a naive interpretation, go ahead.

But what about Romans? How should I interpret it?

@Dannii. You conveniently overlook carnivorous dinosaurs shedding blood - as in my example. You are making a mistake reading the mythoi of Genesis as literal history, thereby leading to absurdities such as the one you are now trying to foist upon readers here…

@Ken. The problem is not with Creationists per se - they are simply people who believe that God created the Universe, and everything in it (although not necessarily ‘directly’) - but, rather, with what I call autoliteralists, usually “Young Earth Creationists”. And I do “knock” them, because they are a huge obstacle to evangelism, creating a stumbling block by their erroneous reading of Genesis for intelligent people who might otherwise come to Christ.

Ian, I believe that the carnivorous dinosaurs we have fossils of died after sin brought death to the world. And what exactly am I saying that’s absurd? That the Hebrews didn’t consider plants alive?

Also, what makes you think I’m a young earth creationist? The earth could be really really old. I’m just saying that death isn’t. I say that because I believe that God inspired Paul to write Romans, and it is truly inerrant.

@Dannii, who wrote:

Ken, please don’t insult me by claiming I interpret any of the Bible literally. I don’t, and have always denied it. I would say I interpret it as history.

If so, then your “historical” reading of Genesis 1-3 does not correlate at all with the natural history of planet Earth, as rock-solidly confirmed by science (such as palaeontology and geology).

Ian, I believe that the carnivorous dinosaurs we have fossils of died after sin brought death to the world. And what exactly am I saying that’s absurd?

You just answered that question yourself, Dannii…

Also, what makes you think I’m a young earth creationist?

I didn’t assert that, if you read my posting carefully. However, in light of your statements of belief like that quoted above, I cannot see how you could be otherwise - since the alternatives are even more bizarre:

1. Dinosaurs had extreme longevity, living for many millions of years until ‘Adam’ sinned? Or worse still:
2. Dinosaurs lived contemporaneously with ‘Adam’? This is an utterly ridiculous idea that is completely unsubstantiated by science - although it is true that dinosaurs’ descendants (like birds and lizards) do share the planet with homo sapiens.

a huge obstacle to evangelism, creating a stumbling block ... for intelligent people who might otherwise come to Christ.

This is most unlikely.  Even if they say so, I would not believe it too readily. 
 
The most likely reason people do not come to Christ is the one given in John 3:19-20:

Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

Well Ros, whilst I don’t deny the truth of John 3, what we’re talking about here is another matter entirely! When John writes about ϕωϛ, ‘light’, I don’t think he had the scientific benightedness of some Christians in mind. Anyway, over the years I have personally known a number of people for whom the tenets of ‘Young Earth Creationism’ have been an insurmontable hurdle - so they aver - in coming to Christ. Many of them feel they would be obliged to check in their brains at the church door! (And certainly, for some churches that I shan’t name and shame here, that is indeed the case…)

Not another matter entirely.  You’ve mentioned twice your concern that..how did you put it…autoliteralists…make a stumbling block for the scientifically minded.  I’m only addressing that concern.  Intelligent people can come to their own terms with Genesis. 
Whatever they say, ...and they may even believe themselves what they say…, I suggest their real problem is with Christ.
Remember also:

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God

(2 Cor 4:4)

@Ros. Whilst one cannot dispute the passages from Scripture that you quote, it has to be said that they do not tell the whole story! I think it quite likely that Christians themselves can be a huge stumbling-block to potential believers - both in terms of Christians’ hypocritical behaviour (historically, over the last two millennia, many Christians have behaved lamentably indeed, and in a manner utterly at odds with the Christian ideals as upheld in the Bible) and in terms of some Christians’ insistence upon certain peripheral beliefs (which themselves are merely their personal, aberrant interpretations of various Biblical passages) being prerequisites for admission into the Christian ecclesia. In the latter scenario, were a Young Earth Creationist, for instance, to demand of a scientifically savvy seeker that, in order to be a Christian, one must accept the fiction that the world was made only 7000 or so years ago and that homo sapiens cohabited with dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus Rex, then would it really be any wonder that that seeker would probably say “No thanks” to Christianity on those grounds alone?

I fear I’d need to check in my brain at the door at whichever science institute you frequent Ian… no freedom to debate the merits of various radiometric dating methods?

Who’s making demands on non-theological issues? I think you most definitely are. If I appear to have done that then I apologise. I just care about sin having its consequence.

I fear I’d need to check in my brain at the door at whichever science institute you frequent Ian… no freedom to debate the merits of various radiometric dating methods?

This is farcical, Dannii, and you know it… Radiometric dating methods aren’t the only dating methods available; just talk to a geologist. Trying to deflect attention away from your own theological errors by denigrating scientists is, to put it bluntly, pathetic.

Who’s making demands on non-theological issues? I think you most definitely are.

Of course! But why might you insinuate that that’s in any way improper? I’m interested in knowing the truth, which is not the sole preserve of theology. The Bible does have its limitations, particularly when it comes to describing the natural world. And when assertions are made connecting theology (the doctrine of sin) with science (the manifestation of physical death), both disciples need to be interrogated in order to unearth the truth. When the latter seems to be at odds with the Bible, it’s far more likely that one’s Biblical interpretation is in error than the science, given science’s testability.

I just care about sin having its consequence.

Have I indicated anywhere that I do not?