Hi Rob,

Glad to see that this group is still going.

Here are my thoughts on the first few chapters of the Bible. As a teenager I was
committed to the young-age creationist position; now for several reasons am I am
more in the literary framework camp. The more I have studied these chapters,
especially in Hebrew, the more this position (or a nuance of it) makes sense.

When I read through the text, the description reads very much like a
non-scientific (I did not say un-scientific or pre-scientific - like the flat
earth theory) theological description of creation.

For example, the purpose of the Sun and the Moon is "to rule the day and the
night" so the passage says this "a big light in order to rule the day", "a small
light in order to rule the night", however a scientific description of how the
Sun and the Moon are composed and/or a scientific description of the their
origins is missing, because the author was not concerned with such questions. By
contrast, there is apparently nothing to say about the stars except "....and [he
made] the stars"

A creationist might say in response to this: OK, it does not give us a
(detailed) description of how creation came to be, however it tells us in what
order G*d created the universe, and we must therefore believe that G*d created
the Earth on day one and the Sun and the Moon on day four.

However, there are all kinds of problems with such reasoning. One problem is
that Hebrew narrative is not sequential, as one might get the impression from
reading translations. In the KJV the Hebrew word "waw" is translated rather
slavishly into English as "and", however it may also mean but, now, etc.

One may read several sentences which go like:

"And G*d did this"
"And G*d did that"
"And G*d did something else"

and conclude that the passage is clearly stating that the "something else" in
the above three clauses happened last of all and the "did this" happened first,
whereas Hebrew narratives contain flashback clauses and clauses containing
parenthetic information, and the Hebrew preterite tense does not always mean
simple past tense, but can be translated in other ways.

For example, the first line of the Bible may be translated as

"In a beginning, G*d created the heavens and the Earth"

or "... when G*d began to create ..." (RSV footnote alternative)

( or even "G*d had created" )

To the above, I would add that the creation story contains lots of Hebrew words
plays (which by their nature cannot be seen in translation) and also, the
English translations which we have are in some ways mediocre. For serious study,
one should read the Hebrew text directly.

Dan Cook

--- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <faithhasitsreasons@...>
wrote:
>
> Kevin,
>
> This is the sort of discussion I was hoping to see here! And thank you for
your very thoughtful comments in reply to Arcee's question.
>
> I agree with you that affirming the historicity of Adam and Eve is crucial to
a biblically faithful understanding of creation. I also agree with you that
Romans 5:12 concerns the entrance of death into the human population and does
not address the issue of animal or plant death.
>
> The interpretation of Genesis 1 is something of a quagmire, with about a dozen
different explanations finding serious advocacy among Christian scholars. The
"day-age" interpretation of Genesis 1 poses no serious problems as I see it. For
example, I see nothing problematic about a figurative use of "day" occurring
with enumerated "days," nor any difficulty in using "evening" and "morning"
figuratively along with the word "day" (compare our modern idiom "the dawn of a
new day" or figurative statements such as "the sun set on the British Empire").
>
> I don't agree that Genesis 1:1-2 is not included in the "six days" of
creation. Genesis 2:1-3 appears at least implicitly to include "the heavens and
the earth" as a whole in the creative work of the six days (which is followed
there by the "seventh day"), and this is made explicit in later passages (Exod.
20:11; 31:17). Nor will this exegesis provide a coherent way of reconciling the
scientific evidence with Genesis 1. If the six days did not begin until long
after God made the heavens and the earth, and if they began with the literal
creation of light, then there was no light for that long period of time
preceding the first day. I can't think of any coherent account of the origins of
the universe in which that makes sense. The physical universe is composed
primarily of light-generating bodies (stars, etc.); if there was no light,
virtually all of what we find in the universe could not have existed.
>
> Although Genesis 1 is not technically Hebrew "poetry," its form is highly
stylized, more than any historical narrative in the Bible of which I am aware.
The six days divide the chapter into paragraphs that read almost like strophes,
with a high degree of repetition and parallel expressions ("there was evening
and there was morning"; "and God said...and it was so"; "and God saw that it was
good"; etc.). The overall structure of the six days also appears to be
thematically organized, with the first three days focusing on the environments
or domains (space, sky and sea, land with plants) and the second group of three
days focusing on the inhabitants that will "rule" in those respective domains
(celestial bodies, birds and sea creatures, animals and man). These
considerations seem to me to provide some good support for the "framework" view
of Genesis 1. Both the framework and day-age views seem to work, as best I can
tell, better than any of the other views. Neither of these views assumes or
requires theistic evolution, although both would be compatible with it (and the
framework view, ironically, would be compatible with young-earth creationism as
well).
>
> I am going to post in the "Files" section of our Yahoo Group a document that
contains various notes, outlines, and charts that I have created on science and
the Bible. These include some material of relevance to the issues discussed
here.
>
> Thanks again for such an excellent post.
>
> God bless,
> Rob Bowman
>
>
> --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "always_reforming" <kevinbywater@>
wrote:
> >
> > Hi Arcee,
> >
> > These are good inquiries to explore. Here are a few quick thoughts.
> >
> > 1) It seems to me that any position that cares to claim to hold to Scripture
must affirm an historial Adam and Eve. Those who propose theistic evolution and
claim to hold to biblical faith acknowledge Adam and Eve are seen as historical,
as the first humans, in the NT. If one proposes (as I've encountered lately)
that Jesus was merely speaking from the limitations of his own day, then it
seems to me that little need remain, as all he said could be so described. So,
this seems to me to be a limiting datum for whatever position one would care
embrace regarding creation, if one cares to hold to the Bible in a meaningful
way.
> >
> > 2) I don't think, however, that we need to hold that ALL death is the result
of the fall. Surely, when Paul writes of death entering the world through the
first man (Rom 5:12ff), we are to see that HUMAN death is the result of sin. But
it does not appear that Paul is saying that animals or bugs or plants did not
die prior to the fall. Indeed, it is difficult to find biblical resources to
support the supposition that animals were somehow inherently immortal before the
fall. And what of bacteria? And what of plants? Even so, it seems to me that
another limiting datum for whatever position one would care to embrace is that
human death is the result of sin, and thus of the fall of mankind.
> >
> > 3) I also find it difficult to embrace the day-age reading of Genesis 1. The
passage does not naturally lend itself to that reading. The days being numbered,
and refrain of "evening and morning" are sufficient to suggest quasi-normal
days. (I say "quasi" because there was little else that was normal about these
days.) And if one is not going to take Adam as historical, I don't see why one
would feel compelled to match up the days of creation with historial epochs. But
even if we read the six days as quasi-normal days, the age of the earth may
still remain an open question. For instance, a structural analysis of the
passage indicates that each day begins with "And God said..." That being so,
vv.1-2 fall outside the six days. The heavens and earth are not created within
the six days. And just how long they existed prior to the pronouncement of light
is unstated. However, this observation, if correct, need not imply a gap theory
reading of the first two verses.
> >
> > 4) Nor is Genesis 1 simply Hebrew poetry. We have Hebrew poetry in the OT,
and in the Pentateuch in particular, and none of it reads like Genesis 1.
Nevertheless, there appear to be poetic elements in the passage. For instance,
the greater and lesser lights "rule" the day and night. That is a bit of
personification. Also, God speaking need not imply anything akin to a human
vocal system. The earth bringing forth animals and such also appears poetic.
Arguably, God having a rest on the seventh day is poetic. So, while there appear
to be poetic elements, the passage itself does not read like Hebrew poetry.
> >
> > Then we have questions of the age of the earth, of whether there is a "gap"
somewhere between vv.1 and 3, of the relationship between Genesis 1 and 2, etc.
I'll not venture into my thoughts on these questions. I'll merely offer the
above as some considerations that come to my mind when I speak with folk about
Genesis 1-3. I'd appreciate your thoughts, Arcee (or anyone else).
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Kevin James Bywater
> > Summit Oxford Study Centre
> > www.summitoxford.org
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Arcee A <truthseeker41471@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > I've recently encountered someone who believed in Theistic Evolution (or
> > > Progressive Creation).  He believes that God created the universe and the
earth
> > > and all that is in it initially, thereby allowing everything to run its
natural
> > > course and letting evolution take over.  Therefore, according to this
view, man
> > > evolved from apes instead of being specially created by God on the sixth
day.
> > >  He also sees the six days of creation as representing long spans of time
> > > instead of the morning-followed-by-evening normal 24-day hours.
> > >
> > > For me, this is totally wrong since adopting this view would introduce
death
> > > coming before sin.
> > >
> > > Any inputs, anyone?
> > >  God bless!
> > >
> > > Arcee
> > >
> >
>

Thanks for your thoughts, Arcee. Permit me a few brief responses.

1) I suspect you and I would agree that not all accounts of history are quite
the same. Your note about your break up song is, perhaps, apropos. Jonathan told
a parable that spoke of real history. But one would not take Jonathan's parable
as history, per se, but as a poetic rendition of history. The question regards
what we find in Genesis 1 or 2 or 3.

2) Regarding the 4th day, several OT scholars, quite conservatives ones that
that (e.g. John Collins, John Sailhammer), suggest that it is not the creation
of the light-bearers but the assignation of purpose to them that is being
highlighted there. Perhaps an analogy here is that the land does not appear
until the third day, though it already existed under the waters. As such, the
land may have had a purpose, though it could not be assigned until its
appearance.

3) That there are poetic elements within Genesis 1 is rather undisputed: God
resting, God speaking without a mouth, darkness over the deep, the land bringing
forth animals, the waters bringing forth creatures, the greater and lesser
lights ruling, etc. This is enough to indicate that we have here not simply
historical prose. Nor does is the passage Hebrew poetry, simply. It appears
something of a mixture. And the structure, while not poetic, per se, certainly
doesn't read like Hebrew prose. Some have termed it "elevated prose," or
something like that. But this presents us with something other than commonly
supposed.

4) It is commonly thought that God pronounced the productions of each day
"good", and "very good" on the seventh day. But this is not so. I've heard it so
many times, though, at conferences, in sermons, in apologetic presentations.
Regardless, the second day does not have the commendation and the third day has
it twice. Some time ago this suggested to me that we who have a high view of the
Bible far too often fail to pay attention to the text itself. Even those who
hang the gospel on this chapter fail to appreciate its details. There's little
virtue to be found that that sort of presumption.

Blessings,
Kevin


--- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Arcee A <truthseeker41471@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> 1.  I have always believed that Adam and Eve as historical people and since I
> was young, I've viewed the creation as a literal 6-day event.  I don't know
why
> but when I read Genesis 1 & 2 I read it as a historical account just like the
> rest of Genesis.  It just makes sense to me that way.  It's only when I was
> being taught evolution in my school that I started to have questions about the
> historicity of the Bible... that is, until I became a Christian.
>
> 2.  Now, this is the first time I have heard someone say that plants and
animals
> deaths were not a result of the Fall.  Very interesting.  :)
>
> 3.  Hmmm...  Reading Genesis 1 again and focusing on verses 14-19, I
understand
> that God created the stars, the sun and the moon on the fourth day!  Which
makes
> me ask, what was the light that God created on the first day that sustained
the
> rest of creation until the fourth day?  What was the "heavens" or "heaven"
> (depending on your Bible version) that he created on the first day?
>
> But concerning your point here, I agree that this goes against the day-age
> theory.  Imagine thousands and thousands of years of life on earth without the
> sun, moon and the stars!
>
> 4.  Personally, I have no problem reading a historical account in a poetic
form.
>  We still do that today, after all.  In fact, when I was a teen-ager I wrote a
> song about how I felt when me and my then girlfriend broke up  ;)
>
>  God bless!
>
>
> Arcee
>
>
> "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only
because
> I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: always_reforming <kevinbywater@...>
> To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 9:26:16 PM
> Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Theistic Evolution
>
>
> Hi Arcee,
>
> These are good inquiries to explore. Here are a few quick thoughts.
>
> 1) It seems to me that any position that cares to claim to hold to Scripture
> must affirm an historial Adam and Eve. Those who propose theistic evolution
and
> claim to hold to biblical faith acknowledge Adam and Eve are seen as
historical,
> as the first humans, in the NT. If one proposes (as I've encountered lately)
> that Jesus was merely speaking from the limitations of his own day, then it
> seems to me that little need remain, as all he said could be so described. So,
> this seems to me to be a limiting datum for whatever position one would care
> embrace regarding creation, if one cares to hold to the Bible in a meaningful
> way.
>
>
> 2) I don't think, however, that we need to hold that ALL death is the result
of
> the fall. Surely, when Paul writes of death entering the world through the
first
> man (Rom 5:12ff), we are to see that HUMAN death is the result of sin. But it
> does not appear that Paul is saying that animals or bugs or plants did not die
> prior to the fall. Indeed, it is difficult to find biblical resources to
support
> the supposition that animals were somehow inherently immortal before the fall.
> And what of bacteria? And what of plants? Even so, it seems to me that another
> limiting datum for whatever position one would care to embrace is that human
> death is the result of sin, and thus of the fall of mankind.
>
>
> 3) I also find it difficult to embrace the day-age reading of Genesis 1. The
> passage does not naturally lend itself to that reading. The days being
numbered,
> and refrain of "evening and morning" are sufficient to suggest quasi-normal
> days. (I say "quasi" because there was little else that was normal about these
> days.) And if one is not going to take Adam as historical, I don't see why one
> would feel compelled to match up the days of creation with historial epochs.
But
> even if we read the six days as quasi-normal days, the age of the earth may
> still remain an open question. For instance, a structural analysis of the
> passage indicates that each day begins with "And God said..." That being so,
> vv.1-2 fall outside the six days. The heavens and earth are not created within
> the six days. And just how long they existed prior to the pronouncement of
light
> is unstated. However, this observation, if correct, need not imply a gap
theory
> reading of the first two verses.
>
>
> 4) Nor is Genesis 1 simply Hebrew poetry. We have Hebrew poetry in the OT, and
> in the Pentateuch in particular, and none of it reads like Genesis 1.
> Nevertheless, there appear to be poetic elements in the passage. For instance,
> the greater and lesser lights "rule" the day and night. That is a bit of
> personification. Also, God speaking need not imply anything akin to a human
> vocal system. The earth bringing forth animals and such also appears poetic.
> Arguably, God having a rest on the seventh day is poetic. So, while there
appear
> to be poetic elements, the passage itself does not read like Hebrew poetry.
>
>
> Then we have questions of the age of the earth, of whether there is a "gap"
> somewhere between vv.1 and 3, of the relationship between Genesis 1 and 2,
etc.
> I'll not venture into my thoughts on these questions. I'll merely offer the
> above as some considerations that come to my mind when I speak with folk about
> Genesis 1-3. I'd appreciate your thoughts, Arcee (or anyone else).
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Kevin James Bywater
> Summit Oxford Study Centre
> www.summitoxford.org
>

Arcee,

I agree that we need to be cautious in what order we read evidence in regards to
creation, but we also need to use caution in reading translations due to the
bias of the translators.  For instance, Hrry Orlinsky in "The Plain Meaning of
Genesis 1:1-3" (Biblical Archeologist, 1983) suggests that stating that God
created the heaven (reportedly the literal Hebrew) and the earth, merely implies
that God created everything.  Attempting to read more into these verses is to
move beyond what the Bible claims.

However, we also need to be cautious in seeking to place the Bible over the
discoveries of science.  Remember Aquinas "A mistake about creation will lead to
a mistake about God" and that Maimodes argued that the Bible and science will
not conflict when both are properly understood.  The challenge is then to
understand both science and the Bible in a way that allows both to be accurate. 
The materialistic approach will not do so.  To resort to the MultiWorld
Interpretation of quantum physics might offer a solution, but I would argue that
in fact it fails to do justice to the Bible.  Thus there are indications that
such an approach will not be an easy task, for to do wo will require a paradigm
shift.

Bill

--- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Arcee A <truthseeker41471@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi William,
>
> I think the problem is not with the available evidence but how to interpret
the
> evidence.  Do you start with what you see in the world and interpret the Bible
> based on what you see, or do you start with the Bible and then interpret the
> evidence based on what you have read in it?  As for me, well... just take a
look
> at the bottom of my signature to see my position  :)
>  God bless!
>
>
> Arcee
>
>
> "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only
because
> I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: William <eliadefollower@...>
> To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 11:19:24 PM
> Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Theistic Evolution
>
>
> Arcee,
>
> I think it fits with all available evidence.  This might force us to
reconsider
> the nature of "Sin" and "death", but that is not necessarily a bad thing.  If
we
> try to force creation to literally fit Genesis, then we have a potential
problem
> between Genesis 1 and 2, namely was man created before or after the rest of
the
> creatures.  HOwever, if we accept both accounts as either stories intended to
> teach something or as reactions against other religious traditions, then the
> problems, while not vanishing, at least shift and require us to ask different
> questions.
>
> I personally do not think that it is so bad that I must reevaluate my
> assumptions occassionally.  I would rather be forced to rethink something than
> continue to hold an incorrect understanding of God.  Let me change my mistakes
> sometimes.
>
> Bill
>
> --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Arcee A <truthseeker41471@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I've recently encountered someone who believed in Theistic Evolution (or
> > Progressive Creation).  He believes that God created the universe and the
earth
> >
> > and all that is in it initially, thereby allowing everything to run its
natural
> >
> > course and letting evolution take over.  Therefore, according to this view,
man
> >
> > evolved from apes instead of being specially created by God on the sixth
day.
> >  He also sees the six days of creation as representing long spans of time
> > instead of the morning-followed-by-evening normal 24-day hours.
> >
> > For me, this is totally wrong since adopting this view would introduce death
> > coming before sin.
> >
> > Any inputs, anyone?
> >  God bless!
> >
> >
> > Arcee
> >
> >
> > "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only
> >because
> >
> > I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
> >
>

Hi, Arcee,Bill, and all:

Here is the most relevant section of the position of the Roman Catholic Church,
Re: Theistic Evolution and how to interprete Genesis:

Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott in his authoritative Fundamentals of Catholic
Dogma, under the section "The Divine Work of Creation," (pages 92-122) covers
the "biblical hexaemeron" (the "six days" of creation), the creation of man,
Adam/Eve, original sin, the Fall, and the statements of the early Fathers,
Saints, Church Councils, and Popes relevant to the matter. Ott makes the
following comments on the "science" of Genesis and the Fathers:

"...Since the findings of reason and the supernatural knowledge of Faith go back
to the same source, namely to God, there can never be a real contradiction
between the certain discoveries of the profane sciences and the Word of God
properly understood." (Ott, page 92).

(NOTE: "Word of God, properly understood!")

As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific
accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of
creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom
and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be
regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly
scientific... The Biblical account of the duration and order of Creation is
merely a literary clothing of the religious truth that the whole world was
called into existence by the creative word of God. The Sacred Writer utilized
for this purpose the pre-scientific picture of the world existing at the time.
The numeral six of the days of Creation is to be understood as an
anthropomorphism. God's work of creation represented in schematic form (opus
distinctionis -- opus ornatus) by the picture of a human working week, the
termination of the work by the picture of the Sabbath rest. The purpose of this
literary device is to manifest Divine approval of the working week and the
Sabbath rest." (Ott, page 93, cf. Exod 20:8)

Pope John Paul II wrote to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on . . . how to
interpret Genesis:

"Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and
religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its
make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to
state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred
Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in
order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in
use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that
the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other
cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and
the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the
universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach
how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." (John Paul II, 3 October 1981
to the Pontifical Academy of Science, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

As I have stated before, discussions of this kind belong to the academe which
does not lead to faith or commitment or to action TO CALL ALL NATIONS TO LIVE
ACCORDING TO THE WAYS OF THE SPIRIT AND NO LONGER ACCORDING TO THE WAYS OF THE
WORLD but, as John Paul II said, is "alien to the intentions of the Bible, which
does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." Or to
attain eternal life!

God bless.

Isa
-----

-- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Arcee A <truthseeker41471@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Isa,
>
> Wow!  Quite a lengthy read.  I've not finished reading it though it seems that
> we agree on this one point, and let me quote you:  "FAITH and REASON are not
> mutually exclusive but rather are mutually supportive of one another."
>
> And since you pointed me to this resource, let me point you to Rob's book,
(yes
> Rob Bowman, Jr. - our moderator and founder of this forum)  which has this
> title:
>
> Faith Has Its Reasons
>
>  God bless!
>
> Arcee
>
>
> "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only
because
> I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Isa <isalcordo@...>
> To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, February 4, 2011 8:19:14 AM
> Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Theistic Evolution
>
>
> Hi, Arcee:
>
> Here is a good link to see the views of the Roman Catholic Church on Theistic
> Evolution.
>
> http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p94.htm
>
> Here is an excerpt topic of the material: "Theistic evolution" and "Evolution
> and the Roman Catholic Church"
>
> The basis for the RC position is based on the fact that FAITH and REASON are
not
> mutually exclusive but rather are mutually supportive of one another.
>
>
> Thus, "Pope Pius IX states in the following paragraph that faith and reason do
> not conflict:
>
> "10. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they
> mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the
> foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science
of
> divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and
protects
> it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds." (Vatican Council I)."
>
> Have a good read.
>
> Isa
> --------
>
> --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Arcee A <truthseeker41471@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I've recently encountered someone who believed in Theistic Evolution (or
> > Progressive Creation).  He believes that God created the universe and the
earth
> >
> > and all that is in it initially, thereby allowing everything to run its
natural
> >
> > course and letting evolution take over.  Therefore, according to this view,
man
> >
> > evolved from apes instead of being specially created by God on the sixth
day.
> >  He also sees the six days of creation as representing long spans of time
> > instead of the morning-followed-by-evening normal 24-day hours.
> >
> > For me, this is totally wrong since adopting this view would introduce death
> > coming before sin.
> >
> > Any inputs, anyone?
> >  God bless!
> >
> >
> > Arcee
> >
> >
> > "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only
> >because
> >
> > I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
> >
>

Hi to all:

In Jn 11:25-26, Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who
believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes
in me will never die. Do you believe this?" NIV

My questions to Rob and all are:

(1) At what point in the history of Chrstianity did or will this saying of Jesus
become factually historical? Before or after the resurrection of Jesus? Or none
of these? Whatever your position, please support it biblically, historically, or
with reason.

(2) What is/are the referent(s) of ". . . will live, even though he dies" and
"will never die" in the saying?

Isa
http://www.layadvocacyforchristianunity.org



Hello Isa,

In order to answer your questions we first need to understand death. There are
three kinds of death in scripture-- physical, spiritual, and eternal death.

In each kind of death as applied to man in scripture means separation or a
cutting off from realizing Gods purpose for which he was created. One can
logically substitute the word separation for death in every scripture where it
is used. It will clarify many passages to do so, as we shall see below.


1. Physical death: the separation of the inner man from the outer man�the soul
and spirit from the body. James writes,

26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead (James
2:26 NIV).


The body only dies at the time of physical death. The body returns to dust
(Gen3:19) and the soul and spirit of the righteous go to heaven to await the
resurrection of the body. The soul and spirit are immortal and therefore cannot
go back to dust.  Paul writes,

2Cor 5

8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home
with the Lord.

Phil 1

21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22 If I am to go on living
in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do
not know! 23 I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ,
which is better by far; 24 but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the
body.

Heb 12

23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have
come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 
(NIV)

The soul and spirit of the wicked go to hell to await the resurrection of the
body.

Luke 16

  19 Jesus said, "There was a certain rich man who was splendidly clothed in
purple and fine linen and who lived each day in luxury. 20 At his gate lay a
poor man named Lazarus who was covered with sores. 21 As Lazarus lay there
longing for scraps from the rich man's table, the dogs would come and lick his
open sores.
  22 "Finally, the poor man died and was carried by the angels to be with
Abraham.[a] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and his soul went to the
place of the dead.[b] There, in torment, he saw Abraham in the far distance with
Lazarus at his side.
  24 "The rich man shouted, `Father Abraham, have some pity! Send Lazarus over
here to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue. I am in anguish
in these flames.'
  25 "But Abraham said to him, `Son, remember that during your lifetime you had
everything you wanted, and Lazarus had nothing. So now he is here being
comforted, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides, there is a great chasm
separating us. No one can cross over to you from here, and no one can cross over
to us from there.'
  27 "Then the rich man said, `Please, Father Abraham, at least send him to my
father's home. 28 For I have five brothers, and I want him to warn them so they
don't end up in this place of torment.'
  29 "But Abraham said, `Moses and the prophets have warned them. Your brothers
can read what they wrote.'
  30 "The rich man replied, `No, Father Abraham! But if someone is sent to them
from the dead, then they will repent of their sins and turn to God.'
  31 "But Abraham said, `If they won't listen to Moses and the prophets, they
won't listen even if someone rises from the dead.'"


Isaiah 14

9 "In the place of the dead[a] there is excitement
       over your arrival.
    The spirits of world leaders and mighty kings long dead
       stand up to see you.
Revelation 20
11 And I saw a great white throne and the one sitting on it. The earth and sky
fled from his presence, but they found no place to hide. 12 I saw the dead, both
great and small, standing before God's throne. And the books were opened,
including the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to what they had
done, as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up its dead, and death and the
grave[a] gave up their dead. And all were judged according to their deeds. 14
Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is
the second death. 15 And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of
Life was thrown into the lake of fire. (NLT)


2. Spiritual death:  is the separation of man from God because of sin.

Eph 2

1 Once you were dead because of your disobedience and your many sins.
5 that even though we were dead because of our sins, he gave us life when he
raised Christ from the dead. (It is only by God's grace that you have been
saved!)

Isaiah 59

  2 It's your sins that have cut you off from God.
       Because of your sins, he has turned away
       and will not listen anymore.

Mt 8

22 But Jesus told him, "Follow me now. Let the spiritually dead bury their own
dead. (NLT)



3.  Eternal death: is the eternal separation from God because man chooses to
remain separated from God in sin. Eternal death is also known as the second
death.

Mt.10

28 "Don't be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot touch your
soul. Fear only God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (NLT)

Mt 25

41 "Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, `Away with you, you
cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.
46 "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go
into eternal life." (NLT)


Revelation 2

11 "Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and understand what he is
saying to the churches. Whoever is victorious will not be harmed by the second
death.(NLT)


Revelation 14

  9 Then a third angel followed them, shouting, "Anyone who worships the beast
and his statue or who accepts his mark on the forehead or on the hand 10 must
drink the wine of God's anger. It has been poured full strength into God's cup
of wrath. And they will be tormented with fire and burning sulfur in the
presence of the holy angels and the Lamb. 11 The smoke of their torment will
rise forever and ever, and they will have no relief day or night, for they have
worshiped the beast and his statue and have accepted the mark of his name."
(NLT)


Revelation 20

11 And I saw a great white throne and the one sitting on it. The earth and sky
fled from his presence, but they found no place to hide. 12 I saw the dead, both
great and small, standing before God's throne. And the books were opened,
including the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to what they had
done, as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up its dead, and death and the
grave[a] gave up their dead. And all were judged according to their deeds. 14
Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is
the second death. 15 And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of
Life was thrown into the lake of fire.(NLT)


Revelation 21

  8 "But cowards, unbelievers, the corrupt, murderers, the immoral, those who
practice witchcraft, idol worshipers, and all liars�their fate is in the fiery
lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." (NLT)


Revelation 22

15 Outside the city are the dogs�the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the
murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie. (NLT)


Isaiah 66

22 " For as the new heavens and the new earth
       Which I will make shall remain before Me," says the LORD,

       " So shall your descendants and your name remain.
        23 And it shall come to pass
       That from one New Moon to another,
       And from one Sabbath to another,
       All flesh shall come to worship before Me," says the LORD.
        24 " And they shall go forth and look
       Upon the corpses of the men
       Who have transgressed against Me.
       For their worm does not die,
       And their fire is not quenched.
       They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." (NKJV)


Note:  It is clear in Isaiah 66:24 that the corpses and the worm are in a fire
that will never be quenched The corpses  are the bodies of men in eternal hell
which will never be destroyed�bodies that will be resurrected to immortality so
they may be punished for deeds done in the body before death . Theses eternal
bodies in hell are considered dead corpses because of being without the life of
God given to the resurrected believers in Christ.  Those in hell will be
abhorrence to all the living flesh on the new earth. The purpose of this opening
in hell will be to cause all coming generations to abhor sin and its
consequences.  When natural men can actually see into eternal hell it will be a
great warning to them to walk in the ways of God....Horrifying as the thought
may be, the view  may be Gods best method of keeping eternal generations in line
with his laws and commandments  as the progress in the new earth- in the eternal
future.


John 11 tells the story of how Jesus resurrected Lazarus after he physically
died. Therefore, when

snip

  25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes
in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me
will never die. Do you believe this?"  (NIV)
He clearly meant (and has powers to) resurrect believer's bodily (v25) and grant
eternal life (26)


  So, when does this bodily resurrection happen?


1Cor 15

20 But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. He is the first of a great
harvest of all who have died.
  21 So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the
resurrection from the dead has begun through another man. 22 Just as everyone
dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given
new life. 23 But there is an order to this resurrection: Christ was raised as
the first of the harvest; then all who belong to Christ will be raised when he
comes back.


Note: The Christ was raised bodily (John 20:24-28). He was the first to be
resurrected bodily and immortality. Therefore, Lazarus was resurrected bodily
but his body was not made immortal in Jn 11�Jesus was the first to have this
honour(1Cor 15:20). The reason for resurrecting Lazarus was to define
resurrection as bodily) The resurrection of the body and immortality (and the
answer to your first question Isa) will be at the coming again of the Christ
Jesus.(1Cor.15:23)

1Cor 15

51 But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will
all be transformed! 52 It will happen in a moment, in the blink of an eye, when
the last trumpet is blown. For when the trumpet sounds, those who have died will
be raised to live forever. And we who are living will also be transformed. 53
For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die; our
mortal bodies must be transformed into immortal bodies.


1Cor15

  54 Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will
never die,[a] this Scripture will be fulfilled:
    "Death is swallowed up in victory.[b]
  55 O death, where is your victory?
       O death, where is your sting?[c]"
  56 For sin is the sting that results in death, and the law gives sin its power.
57 But thank God! He gives us victory over sin and death through our Lord Jesus
Christ.
  58 So, my dear brothers and sisters, be strong and immovable. Always work
enthusiastically for the Lord, for you know that nothing you do for the Lord is
ever useless.


1Thess 4

13 And now, dear brothers and sisters, we want you to know what will happen to
the believers who have died[a] so you will not grieve like people who have no
hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and was raised to life again, we
also believe that when Jesus returns, God will bring back with him the believers
who have died.
  15 We tell you this directly from the Lord: We who are still living when the
Lord returns will not meet him ahead of those who have died. 16 For the Lord
himself will come down from heaven with a commanding shout, with the voice of
the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God. First, the Christians who have
died will rise from their graves. 17 Then, together with them, we who are still
alive and remain on the earth will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord
in the air. Then we will be with the Lord forever. 18 So encourage each other
with these words. (NLT)


   Note: The body only dies at the time of physical death. The body returns to
dust (Gen3:19) and the soul and spirit of the righteous go to heaven to await
the resurrection of the body. The soul and spirit are immortal and therefore
cannot go back to dust.  Original body resurrection will take place when Jesus
returns (1 Thess 4:13-18)


r.hero

It's been more than a year since the last post.  Is anybody still here aside
from me?

I am also around, however I have been wondering what is going on also.

--- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "truthseeker41471"
<truthseeker41471@...> wrote:
>
> It's been more than a year since the last post.  Is anybody still here aside
from me?
>

I was wondering how anyone here would answer this question:

If God really exists, then why does he allow the unborn and infants to die so early?

God bless!

Arcee

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis

It sounds as if you are asking a variation on the age old question of why does
God allow evil or the other version that is why does God allow sufffering.  In
all these questions the asker is assuming certain things must be true, including
our human perspective.

However, we need to remember that even our human perspective changes over time,
or at least should change.  Those things that seemed like a major tragedy to me
as a child now seem as if they are simply a minor bump in the road, if even that
much.  Given that we grant God a life that extends beyond the age of the
universe, how much different will His perspective be on what is evil and what is
suffering?  Are we to proclaim that our far more limited perspective is more
proper than His?

--- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Arcee A <truthseeker41471@...>
wrote:
>
> I was wondering how anyone here would answer this question:
>
> If God really exists, then why does he allow the unborn and infants to die so
early?
>
> God bless!
>
>
> Arcee
>
>
> "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only
because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
>

Hi,

I have been on the road for over two weeks and have been unavailable to moderate
posts. Since this will continue for some time, for now I am making posts in
general unmoderated. (Some individuals may still find their posts moderated; if
so, I apologize, since I don't know who those individuals might be.) I'll try to
check back after a while and see how things are going.

Rob Bowman
List Owner
Biblical Apologetics Yahoo Group

Here is an Indirect contradiction- Most People call the Written New Testament,
the "NEW TESTAMENT", but in the "written new testament" it says in 2
Corinthians, chapter 3:2Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read
of all men:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ
ministered by us, WRITTEN NOT WITH INK, but with the Spirit of the living God;
not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.......6Who also hath
made us able ministers of the NEW TESTAMENT; NOT of the LETTER, but of the
spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

What is the best example of a contradiction in the Book of Mormon.

I would also like a good example of a solid contradiction in the Koran as well.

On the Religious Researcher blog, I have posted a piece that gives a good list
of articles pro and con on Karen King's "Gospel of Jesus' wife" Coptic fragment:

http://www.religiousresearcher.org/2012/09/19/karen-kings-jesus-wife-papyrus/

This fragment is not only a big news story at the moment, but it will be the
subject of a Smithsonian Channel documentary at the end of the month. If you
have recommendations of important articles to be added, please feel free to pass
those recommendations on to me. I will not be including short articles that add
nothing to the topic except by noted scholars whose opinion is worth mentioning.

In Christ's service,
Robert M. Bowman Jr.

I have removed it from the group's files.  Someone in Lithuania hacked into my
account.

Thank you.

Louise

All,

Today on the Religious Researcher blog, I begin a series of articles on bad
arguments against the personhood of the Holy Spirit:

http://www.religiousresearcher.org/2013/03/14/neuter-pronouns-mean-not-a-person-\
\bad-arguments-against-the-personhood-of-the-holy-spirit-1/

In Christ's service,
Rob Bowman