cure-real
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 78

Thread: Man in God's image- an answer to an evolutionist

  1. #31

    Re: Man in God's image- an answer to an evolutionist

    Quote Originally Posted by glad4mercy View Post
    Nothing is impossible with God, but just because something is possible doesnt make it a fact.
    Then in your reasoning descent with modification is a possibility (however slight) - even in the absence of identifiable transitionals?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,349

    Re: Man in God's image- an answer to an evolutionist

    In your paradigm does science trump Scripture when you perceive a conflict between the two exists? Is science the "ultimate revealed truth"?
    I'm not actually going to bring science into the paradigm at all. I think that the truth of Scripture should stand regardless of the age. Also, science is not "revealed". Scripture is. Science is empirical.

    Science and history are two different things. Scripture is a pre-scientific record in a non-scientific language about a real historical event. There is some confusion, even among scholars, about cosmology (i.e. what the firmament is, how the Hebrews understood the solar system) and I won't go into exact details (unless you'd like to!). I will only affirm that there is a real, historical Adam, garden, etc.

    Does the Spirit through Scripture reveal that man and ape share a common ancestor?
    All scripture says is that man was formed 1. From dust, suggesting that he was made of the same stuff that he will go back to. 2. Humbly and 3. God gave him the "breath of life".

    I don't see where Adam (the first man) had a father after the flesh. Am I missing something? If the concept of common ancestry is biblical who/what/where was Adam's father 'after the flesh. Was he man (a living soul), beast, both, none of the above...
    I don't know, the Bible is silent on the matter so I will be too as to exactly HOW Adam was formed.

    1. Man is made in the image of God.

    2. Man given dominion over the earth, and over every living thing.
    I don't see the problem. Why is this impossible to reconcile?

    3 Man made a little lower than the angels.
    Correct, HOW is my question

    4 If any man or beast sheds a mans blood, he/she/or its blood must be shed. No penalty is given for shedding an apes blood.

    5 Jesus died for man, not for apes or any other creature.

    6 Man is a different flesh than the beasts, of which the apes are a part of. 1 Corinthians 15:39 ( thanks Chad!)
    These are made on the presupposition that apes are men and men are apes. They are not the same, even IF one did come from another.

    7. Most striking of all, the Bible teaches that death entered the earth because of Adams sin. If man evolved from earlier life forms, those life forms would have still been alive when Adam was created, for according to the Bible, death did not enter the world until Adam sinned.
    Death DID enter the world, but in the New Testament, the "death" isn't animal death (to suggest that they were immortal before the fall). No New Testament passage explicitly demands that animals didn't die before the fall and no Old Testament passage says that animals started to die once Adam sinned.

    Romans 5:12-Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
    Indeed, death came to all MEN.

    Additionally, Adam's sin effected the entire cosmos, not just man, ( Romans 8:20).
    Adam's sin effected all of creation, and humans are the only meaningful entities in creation that can share in a relationship with God. The same word for creation (ktisis) is used in Mark 16:15. Unless you believe that this verse suggests we preach to animals, the word in Romans would apply to only those can participate in the resurrection.

    Even in terms of the resurrection, we are to inhabit resurrected bodies and our bodies will be part of a new heaven and earth. There will be no resurrection of plants, single-celled organisms, animals, etc. they will be re-created.

    1. Sin entered into the world through one man. ( Romans 5:12)
    2. Death entered the world through sin. ( Romans 5:12)
    3. Therefore, if Romans 5:12 is true, death could not have existed before the creation of Adam.
    The type of death that entered the world is spiritual death, because Adam was told that the day he ate of the fruit he would die. Additionally, throughout the book of Romans, the life contrasted with death is not physical life, but life in Jesus, which will be eternal.

    Additionally, the Genesis text never mentions death entering the animal kingdom, and mentions that Adam was not created immortal, but rather sustained by the tree of life (Gen. 3:22). Adam was to keep a garden, which itself would indicate that his work would be meaningful and involve SOME degree of struggle over nature.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Monrovia Ca
    Posts
    2,297
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Man in God's image- an answer to an evolutionist

    That's not what I meant. When I said that nothing is impossible with God, I meant that He could have used evolution to accomplish creation if He chose to, not that I think that He might have actually done this.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Monrovia Ca
    Posts
    2,297
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Man in God's image- an answer to an evolutionist

    I don't see the problem. Why is this impossible to reconcile?
    Because it makes man higher than the beasts by creation, not evolution. The Bible does not say man is a cousin or a relative of beasts. Just for clarity, what do you think "made in the image of God" means? In what way do we resemble God, and how did God accomplish this?

    3 Man made a little lower than the angels.
    Correct, HOW is my question
    God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, then man became a living soul. Do you contend that the life Adam received from the breath of God was physical life, or was the life imparted to him the spirit of man that is said to be "in the image of God"? If you say that it was physical life, then before God breathed into his nostrils, Adam was inanimate and not a prehuman form. If you say that the life imparted in this event was the "image of God", then all animals are made in the image of God, because Genesis 1:30 says:


    And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

    What did God breath into man again?

    Genesis 2:7-the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

    What does the Bible mean by breath of life?

    These are made on the presupposition that apes are men and men are apes. They are not the same, even IF one did come from another.
    I never made such a statement that men are apes or apes are men, or that evolution teaches that. These objections are answering the statement that man is related to the ape. If man evolved from the same ancestor as the ape, then he falls into the beast category. He would just be a higher level beast. As far as I can tell, the Bible does not teach this. If you can point me to a scripture that states man evolved from beasts, please provide it.

    Death DID enter the world, but in the New Testament, the "death" isn't animal death (to suggest that they were immortal before the fall). No New Testament passage explicitly demands that animals didn't die before the fall and no Old Testament passage says that animals started to die once Adam sinned.
    Romans 8:19- For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

    Creation was made subject to vanity, and is in bondage to corruption because of the curse that came as a result of Adams fall.

    Indeed, death came to all MEN.
    Are you saying that,(other than the serpent), it was only man that was cursed in the fall?

    Adam's sin effected all of creation, and humans are the only meaningful entities in creation that can share in a relationship with God. The same word for creation (ktisis) is used in Mark 16:15. Unless you believe that this verse suggests we preach to animals, the word in Romans would apply to only those can participate in the resurrection.
    Romans 8:22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

    Paul places a distinction between the Ktisis and believers in the underlined portion of the verse above. Would you agree that the phrase "we who have the firstfruits of the Spirit" refers to believers?

    Romans 8:21- 21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

    If Ktisis refers only to humans and not to the materiel world, what other humans besides believers are waiting to be delivered from bondage to glorious liberty?

    Even in terms of the resurrection, we are to inhabit resurrected bodies and our bodies will be part of a new heaven and earth. There will be no resurrection of plants, single-celled organisms, animals, etc. they will be re-created.
    I agree that plants and animals will not be resurrected, but the statement that the creation will be delivered from bondage to corruption is not the same as saying that everything that has ever lived will be resurrected.

    The type of death that entered the world is spiritual death, because Adam was told that the day he ate of the fruit he would die. Additionally, throughout the book of Romans, the life contrasted with death is not physical life, but life in Jesus, which will be eternal.
    I agree with these two statements, but my question to you is was there a curse placed on all creation when man fell or was the curse only placed on humans?

    Additionally, the Genesis text never mentions death entering the animal kingdom, and mentions that Adam was not created immortal, but rather sustained by the tree of life (Gen. 3:22). Adam was to keep a garden, which itself would indicate that his work would be meaningful and involve SOME degree of struggle over nature.
    What did God give for food to every beast of the earth, fowl of the air, and creeping thing in Genesis 1:30. Notice he gave herb for food to every beast and bird and creeping thing. Would this vegetable diet be suitable for obligate carnivores?Do you see that a radical change was made in the creation after the fall?

  5. #35

    Re: Man in God's image- an answer to an evolutionist

    Originally posted by gladformercy
    .....I meant that He could have used evolution to accomplish creation if He chose to.....
    Yes He could have, but then the Bible would say that.

    I saw a teachig on christian station where they showed the skulls of two completely different dogs (a bulldog and something else.) They were much different in appearance when compared to the differences between "neanderthal" and "modern" man, yet nobody who believes in evolution has any problem with understanding how the two dogs didn't live ages apart. Fact is, there's no evidence in the so called fossil record that shows man descended from anything.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,349

    Re: Man in God's image- an answer to an evolutionist

    what do you think "made in the image of God" means? In what way do we resemble God, and how did God accomplish this?
    "The image of God" does not refer to the physical image of God (John 4:24). The original creation was suited to its purpose as a rational, volitional, agent possessing an eternal spirit.

    What does the Bible mean by breath of life?
    Like I said before, I won't elaborate on what I haven't studied and prayed about. When God is talking about breathing life into man, it was also breathed into animals. HOW this was done is something that scripture can often skip the middle steps and only focus on the ultimate cause.

    I personally do not find these arguments convincing, but I've read several scenarios by Timothy Keller and Dennis Bonnette (here is one http://www.godandscience.org/evoluti...t_genesis.html)

    http://www.biologos.org/uploads/proj...hite_paper.pdf

    I personally believe that in light of 1 Tim. 2:12-14, it is a better theory to explain Adam and Eve as "freshly created".

    Even if Keller and Bonnette are wrong and Ham is right, it would only be one part of the story. The bigger issue of animal immortality is still in play.

    I never made such a statement that men are apes or apes are men, or that evolution teaches that. These objections are answering the statement that man is related to the ape. If man evolved from the same ancestor as the ape, then he falls into the beast category. He would just be a higher level beast. As far as I can tell, the Bible does not teach this. If you can point me to a scripture that states man evolved from beasts, please provide it.
    I'm not saying you did, although you asked a loaded question. Man was formed from dust, yet he is not dust. How is being "dust" and better than being an ape?

    And for scientific purposes, we are apes. We were created to appear like them. How do you explain the similarities?

    Creation was made subject to vanity, and is in bondage to corruption because of the curse that came as a result of Adams fall.
    Actually, the passage you quoted says that the "creature" was subject to vanity, not creation

    Are you saying that,(other than the serpent), it was only man that was cursed in the fall?
    No, not exactly. The Bible only mentions the curses in the context of the person being cursed. So when the ground is cursed, it reflects on Adam and his purpose in this world, how his efforts to glorify God have been stifled.

    Again, the language of the curses is important. Where are we told that animals would start to die?

    Romans 8:22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

    Paul places a distinction between the Ktisis and believers in the underlined portion of the verse above. Would you agree that the phrase "we who have the firstfruits of the Spirit" refers to believers?

    Romans 8:21- 21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

    If Ktisis refers only to humans and not to the materiel world, what other humans besides believers are waiting to be delivered from bondage to glorious liberty?
    Given the context of the passage, it is absolutely correct that we as humans are all groaning as creatures (see v. 22, the WHOLE creation). We, however, have something to look forward to. (see v. 23)

    It is also interesting to note that mataiotays (frustration) and phthora (corruption) are NEVER used in scripture to describe anything OTHER than humans.

    There is no place in the Bible where animal salvation/resurrection/immortality is mentioned.

    I agree that plants and animals will not be resurrected, but the statement that the creation will be delivered from bondage to corruption is not the same as saying that everything that has ever lived will be resurrected.
    Creation (plant and animal creation) won't be delivered, it will be destroyed.

    See 2 Peter chapter 3 - the heavens and earth (which clearly would remind the reader about creation) will be destroyed by fire, much like Noah's world was destroyed by water.

    I agree with these two statements, but my question to you is was there a curse placed on all creation when man fell or was the curse only placed on humans?
    God's curse was only placed on humans, and Satan. The text does not support the idea of animals starting to die at this point.

    Just to get an idea of where you stand, do you think the story is describing why snakes crawl on their bellies and why we have thorns and thistles in our gardens?

    What did God give for food to every beast of the earth, fowl of the air, and creeping thing in Genesis 1:30. Notice he gave herb for food to every beast and bird and creeping thing. Would this vegetable diet be suitable for obligate carnivores?Do you see that a radical change was made in the creation after the fall?
    The most interesting thing about this passage is 1. its role in salvation history and 2. the lack of dietary facts provided elsewhere.

    1. Most modern folks view this as a restriction, God isn't letting humans and animals eat meat. However, this shows that God is actually GIVING creation the permission to illustrate how the eating from the tree was selfish and utterly unjustified. It isn't mentioned until chapter 9, after the flood, that man was allowed to eat meat. Originally, man was created to be a vegetarian but meat wasn't forbidden (the whole idea of a Hebrew blessing was that it was an option, if meat were truly horrific God would have forbidden it). (remember Abel raised sheep, and God killed animals for clothes. God's giving permission wasn't about diet, it was theological and essentially his "blessing" that is related to blood, the symbol of the covenants)

    2. Animals were never permitted to eat meat.

  7. #37

    Re: Man in God's image- an answer to an evolutionist

    Try think of it in these terms. Apes must have existed during the time Jesus lived, but did Jesus go to preach to the apes or offer salvation to animals? No, if not why? Surely if apes were descendants of man, Jesus would have gone and preached to them as well?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Monrovia Ca
    Posts
    2,297
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Man in God's image- an answer to an evolutionist

    Quote Originally Posted by janitor View Post
    Yes He could have, but then the Bible would say that.

    I saw a teachig on christian station where they showed the skulls of two completely different dogs (a bulldog and something else.) They were much different in appearance when compared to the differences between "neanderthal" and "modern" man, yet nobody who believes in evolution has any problem with understanding how the two dogs didn't live ages apart. Fact is, there's no evidence in the so called fossil record that shows man descended from anything.
    Janitor, I agree with you 100 percent on everything you just said. When I said God could have used evolution if He chose to, I was responding to a question from Zeke. My point was that God could have used evolution in creation if He chose to, but the Bible does not teach He did, so I contend and believe that He did not.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Monrovia Ca
    Posts
    2,297
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Man in God's image- an answer to an evolutionist

    "The image of God" does not refer to the physical image of God (John 4:24). The original creation was suited to its purpose as a rational, volitional, agent possessing an eternal spirit.
    I fully agree. We have common ground on this.

    I personally believe that in light of 1 Tim. 2:12-14, it is a better theory to explain Adam and Eve as "freshly created".
    Created from what? My point was that if the breath of life refers to physical life, then Adam was an inanimate mold of clay, before God breathed the breath of life into him. God formed Adam first, then gave him life. From clay to man, no mention of ape. When I asked if animals had the image of God, of course it was a rhetorical question. Animals are not in the image of God, yet they have the breath of life, therefore the breath of life is not the quality that makes man different from beasts and other animals, ( ie the image of God).

    My whole point was that Adam was not alive at all until God gave him the breath of life and when he began to live he was already a man. Where does a prehuman ancestor fit into this scenerio?

    [QUOTE][Man was formed from dust, yet he is not dust. How is being "dust" and better than being an ape?/QUOTE]

    The dust was the physical materiel. As we both agreed, "image of God is a spiritual quality, not a physical one. The fact that man is made in God's image is what separates him from the ape and other beasts.

    Actually, the passage you quoted says that the "creature" was subject to vanity, not creation
    Isnt it true that the word Ktisis can be translated creature or creation?

    ktiðsiv from (2936)
    Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
    Ktisis ktis'-is
    Parts of Speech TDNT
    Noun Feminine 3:1000,481
    Definition
    the act of founding, establishing, building etc
    the act of creating, creation
    creation i.e. thing created
    of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation 1b
    anything created 1b
    after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called) 1b
    the sum or aggregate of things created
    institution, ordinance

    Translated Words
    KJV (19) - building, 1; creation, 6; creature, 11; ordinance, 1;
    NAS (19) - created thing, 1; creation, 14; creature, 3; institution, 1;

    Given the context of the passage, it is absolutely correct that we as humans are all groaning as creatures (see v. 22, the WHOLE creation). We, however, have something to look forward to. (see v. 23)
    I agree, but the passage also says that the "ktisis" will also be delivered from bondage to corruption, and Paul differentiates between those with the firstfruits of the Spirit and the ktisis in Romans 8:23. Who are those with the firstfruits of the Spirit and who are the other "ktisis" that will be delivered from corruption? If the word ktisis means "all humans', then this verse is teaching universalism, and that doesnt square at all with the rest of the Bible.


    Romans 8:21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
    23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

    a. The "ktisis" will be delivered from the bondage of corrution. ( verse 21)
    b. The "ktisis" groans and travails. (verse 22)
    c. Those with the firstfruits of the spirit also groan. ( verse 23)

    Creation (plant and animal creation) won't be delivered, it will be destroyed.
    There is more to creation than plants and animals. I believe that just as humans die, decay, and are raised again in a new form, in the same way the heavens and the earth, ( not the animal and plant life on them, but the earth and heavens themselves), will be destroyed then recreated in a new form.

    Hebrews 1:10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
    12And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail

    There is no place in the Bible where animal salvation/resurrection/immortality is mentioned.
    I agree

    See 2 Peter chapter 3 - the heavens and earth (which clearly would remind the reader about creation) will be destroyed by fire, much like Noah's world was destroyed by water.
    Exactly. Noah's flood provided the world with a partial and temporary deliverance from evil. It was partial in that sin and death was not removed, but multitudes of evil men were removed. It was temporary in that eventually the earth ended up filled with wickedness again. The destruction of the earth by fire will provide the "ktisis" with a complete and final removal of evil.

    Just to get an idea of where you stand, do you think the story is describing why snakes crawl on their bellies and why we have thorns and thistles in our gardens?
    No, but the text does state that these things were results of the fall.

    However, this shows that God is actually GIVING creation the permission to illustrate how the eating from the tree was selfish and utterly unjustified...
    Which tree?

    It isn't mentioned until chapter 9, after the flood, that man was allowed to eat meat. Originally, man was created to be a vegetarian but meat wasn't forbidden (the whole idea of a Hebrew blessing was that it was an option,
    What Hebrew blessing are you referring to?

    God killed animals for clothes.
    Probably as a sin sacrifice and a covering for their nakedness, not for food.

    Animals were never permitted to eat meat.
    Are you saying they were never permitted to eat meat or that God never verbalized this permission and the permission always existed?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Monrovia Ca
    Posts
    2,297
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Man in God's image- an answer to an evolutionist

    Then in your reasoning descent with modification is a possibility (however slight) - even in the absence of identifiable transitionals?
    I do not believe evolution as presented by Darwin occurred. This is based on my study of the Bible. I believe Adam was formed from the dust of the earth, then God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and he became a living soul. Darwin did not teach this, so I do not hold Darwins theory as a possiblility. God's word is my final authority.

    And I do agree with your statement about the absence of identifiable transitionals.

    I'm sorry I didnt fully answer the question before.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,349

    Re: Man in God's image- an answer to an evolutionist

    Created from what? My point was that if the breath of life refers to physical life, then Adam was an inanimate mold of clay, before God breathed the breath of life into him. God formed Adam first, then gave him life. From clay to man, no mention of ape. When I asked if animals had the image of God, of course it was a rhetorical question. Animals are not in the image of God, yet they have the breath of life, therefore the breath of life is not the quality that makes man different from beasts and other animals, ( ie the image of God).

    My whole point was that Adam was not alive at all until God gave him the breath of life and when he began to live he was already a man. Where does a prehuman ancestor fit into this scenerio?
    It doesn't, hence we agree!

    But I know of many intelligent teaching believers (like Keller, for example) who would approach the issue in a more nuanced manner. It is true that Adam was formed from the ground, but based on other passages in Genesis that do employ figurative language to tell a literal reality, the passage refers to the creation of the human in figurative terms.

    I think that this is weak in light of 1 Tim. 2:12-14, but my point isn't to defend it, just to acknowledge that IF this is true, then it's a legitimate expression of Christian thought.

    Isnt it true that the word Ktisis can be translated creature or creation?
    Yes, but I think the context is that of creation. Biblical hermenutics is based on the presupposition that usage defines the context of the word, not a lexicon.

    Romans 8:21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
    23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

    a. The "ktisis" will be delivered from the bondage of corrution. ( verse 21)
    b. The "ktisis" groans and travails. (verse 22)
    c. Those with the firstfruits of the spirit also groan. ( verse 23)
    Ok, let's go through it verse by verse.

    19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.
    Creation (ktisis), here used with a volitional verb, can only be understood to be human in the context. Since we as believers will be revealed as the sons of God, and since such revelation won't be meaningful in any way to plants and animals, creation (ktisis) here is clearly used in the human sense.

    20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
    So unless we have a different creation here, we are talking about the same people.

    I double checked the Greek, the use of the word "aute" in verse 21 suggests that the word here is referring to humans.

    Since the context of the passage is "us", its safe to say that the creation we have talked about is that of Christians.

    22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
    So here is the verse that talks about the hope of glorification, again the whole creation refers to all believing peoples who have been created since Adam.

    23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
    This is a deliberate reference to 1 Cor. 15:20, Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:23, and Rev 1:5. "We who have the firstfruits" is to paint another picture to contrast those under the law and those who are under grace. Christ's resurrection is the firstfruits. This is all believers in the current age.


    24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
    Again, Paul is bringing the passage to a close by emphasizing WE, as human volitional agents.

    Exactly. Noah's flood provided the world with a partial and temporary deliverance from evil. It was partial in that sin and death was not removed, but multitudes of evil men were removed. It was temporary in that eventually the earth ended up filled with wickedness again. The destruction of the earth by fire will provide the "ktisis" with a complete and final removal of evil.
    So how will God redeem the world by destroying it? Destruction is the fate of the world.

    I agree
    So my question is why Romans (and God) would spend the entire letter talking about issues pertinent only to humans and then add a verse about creation. Creation is a servant of God, it cannot meaningfully have a relationship. Therefore, since the verses you mention use Biblical words that

    1. Imply some sort of relationship to God

    and

    2. Are only used to describe humans elsewhere in the Bible

    Why it would be talking about animals and plants? We won't be re-created, we will survive the destruction of the world and be resurrected, creation will be re-created.

    No, but the text does state that these things were results of the fall.
    Here is the big thing - where in the original text under discussion (Gen. 1-3) does the text ever mention a huge, cosmic "fall" where all animals changed and God essentially changed anything other than

    1. Man, woman, and Satan

    and

    2. Their relationships to the world

    What Hebrew blessing are you referring to?
    The giving of permission to both reproduce (1:28) and eat plants (1:30-31). Even though we might not reproduce for various reasons in this life, we still aren't sinning by not doing it, nor are we sinning if we remain celibate. God here is giving his blessing for man to reproduce. He does not mention abstaining for whatever reason.

    Likewise, if God had only given man plants to eat, the fact that Abel killed animals (4:2-4), God killed animals (3:21), and Noah distinguished between clean and unclean animals (7:2) all before God gave man his blessing to eat meat (9:3), strongly suggests that killing animals before this time was neither 1. impossible nor 2. immoral

    Also, God doesn't give animals the blessing to eat fruit, only "green plants".

    Also, just out of curiosity, what do you think Adam's authority over the animals meant in a pre-fall world?

    Probably as a sin sacrifice and a covering for their nakedness, not for food.
    A few problems with this:

    1. Animals were never given permission to eat both meat and fruit.
    2. I can see how the issue would not be animal death but meat eating, but even if I concede that there was no meat eating, this huge curse was oddly not mentioned during the curse itself, nor explicitly in the passage.

    Are you saying they were never permitted to eat meat or that God never verbalized this permission and the permission always existed?
    I think that the granting of permission to eat meat goes hand in hand with the rest of the text - that Biblical pronouncements on God's part are not meant to be logically airtight explanations of nutrition but rather emphasize the proper relationship between man and creation.

    For example, even though man had the power of life and death over animals (i.e. Abel and Noah), they were only explicitly given this privilege in 9:2. The purpose is to draw attention to the sacredness of blood and the ultimate lesson of the flood, which is to not take the life of another man and God's judgment on those who do.

    Do you have any Biblical support to show that animals are allowed to eat both 1. fruit and 2. meat?

  12. #42

    Re: Man in God's image- an answer to an evolutionist

    Quote Originally Posted by decrumpit View Post
    I'm not actually going to bring science into the paradigm at all.
    Science is not part of your creation paradigm? You appear to lean towards some form of theistic evolution. Is that fair to say?

    Also, science is not "revealed". Scripture is. Science is empirical.
    I used ‘revealed’ in the sense of – “to display; exhibit”. Science is exhibited/displayed empirically.

    Science and history are two different things.
    Not really - have you ever studied historical science as distinguished from observational science?

    All scripture says is that man was formed 1. From dust, suggesting that he was made of the same stuff that he will go back to. 2. Humbly and 3. God gave him the "breath of life".
    Then we can agree that Scripture does not indicate man and monkey had a common ape-like ancestor? So now we must go back to historical science to understand if hominid evolution is correct?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Monrovia Ca
    Posts
    2,297
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Man in God's image- an answer to an evolutionist

    I think that this is weak in light of 1 Tim. 2:12-14, but my point isn't to defend it, just to acknowledge that IF this is true, then it's a legitimate expression of Christian thought.
    So in other words, you disagree with them, but you don't question the legitimacy of their interpretation. Fair enough. I'm not questioning anyones orthodoxy, just presenting what I believe the Bible teaches.

    Creation (ktisis), here used with a volitional verb, can only be understood to be human in the context. Since we as believers will be revealed as the sons of God, and since such revelation won't be meaningful in any way to plants and animals, creation (ktisis) here is clearly used in the human sense.
    Again, I am not applying these verses to plants and animals in any sense. In any case, if you apply them to humans than you have to explain who are the humans that the Greek word "ktisis" is referring to, ( as opposed to those who have the firstfruits of the Spirit),. Let's move on to your explanation.

    This is a deliberate reference to 1 Cor. 15:20, Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:23, and Rev 1:5. "We who have the firstfruits" is to paint another picture to contrast those under the law and those who are under grace. Christ's resurrection is the firstfruits. This is all believers in the current age.
    Are you saying that the "ktisis" is refering to those under the law? How will those who are under the law be set free from the bondage of corruption to glorious liberty when "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." ( Romans 3:20) Salvation in both covenants was by grace through faith, not by the Law.

    Or are you saying that it refers to those who died under the Old Covenant? If so, how are those who died under the Old Covenant "groaning and travailing in pain"?

    So how will God redeem the world by destroying it? Destruction is the fate of the world.
    The same way He redeems our bodies, though they are destroyed by death. In the Bible, the word destroy is also used to describe what happens to men's bodies, and the Bible teaches that all men will be raised, though some will be raised to glory and others to shame.

    Why it would be talking about animals and plants? We won't be re-created, we will survive the destruction of the world and be resurrected, creation will be re-created.
    Once again, I never said anything about animals and plants being resurrected or recreated. As far as humans, those who die suffer the destruction of their bodies, yet their spirits remain alive until the resurrection when they receive new bodies.

    1 Corinthians 5:1-
    Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.

    Likewise, the heavens and earth will also be destroyed and made new. Revelation 21:1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

    Notice in 1 Corinthians 5:2, Paul also mentions groaning.

    1 Corinthians 5:2- 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling...

    So it is true that believers groan and travail together waiting to be clothed in their new bodies. Yet Paul distinguishes believers, ( those with the firstfruits of the Spirit) with the creature. You contend that the creature refers to Old Testament saints, I contend that creature refers to the heavens and the earth, ( not including plant and animal life). There are problems with both of these views. Let me just share two verses that share the same verb, ( allasso). One refers to the heavens and the earth, and the other to the believers body.

    1 Corinthians 15:51- Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

    Hebrews 1:10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

    I am not dogmatically saying that my interpretation is the right one, but these verses as well as others do seem to support it.
    Last edited by glad4mercy; Jun 19th 2011 at 03:00 AM.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,349

    Re: Man in God's image- an answer to an evolutionist

    Science is not part of your creation paradigm?
    As I'm sure you know, science can change. To make science part of your paradigm is build a foundation on shifting sands. Too much of YEC science (and TE science!) is built around science. To say that science is instrumental to how we view creation is to say the Bible is meant for modern audiences.

    So my argument is as follows:

    1. The Bible does not teach a 6,000 year old earth.
    2. Since the Bible does not teach it, the age of the earth is out of scriptural authority.
    3. Any arguments about the age of the earth are to be evaluated scientifically, and not based on a particular reading of the Bible (although if a 6000 year old earth is correct, then it is good science as well!)

    I used ‘revealed’ in the sense of – “to display; exhibit”. Science is exhibited/displayed empirically.
    Ok, gotcha. "Revealed" is describing "revelation", in most cases.

    Not really - have you ever studied historical science as distinguished from observational science?
    Yes, however, we can use scientific reasoning to piece together history as well as science. I have studied natural history, but for the sake of the argument we're talking about natural history as opposed to observational science. The latter cannot be confirmed in a lab and must be reconstructed using evidence.

    Then we can agree that Scripture does not indicate man and monkey had a common ape-like ancestor? So now we must go back to historical science to understand if hominid evolution is correct?
    As I've said, I do believe that the creation of man was a special event and not merely calling monkeys "men" based on 1 Tim. 2:12-14.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,349

    Re: Man in God's image- an answer to an evolutionist

    So in other words, you disagree with them, but you don't question the legitimacy of their interpretation. Fair enough. I'm not questioning anyones orthodoxy, just presenting what I believe the Bible teaches.
    I, like you, am just doing my best to follow the teaching of the Bible. While I feel that Keller is wrong on this point, I still respect his authority as a teacher of the Word, much like I respect teachers like John Piper, John MacArthur, and even CS Lewis even though I disagree with their teachings on some points. I'm just a servant trying to understand the Word. It alone is authoritative, not my interpretation of the Word.

    Or are you saying that it refers to those who died under the Old Covenant? If so, how are those who died under the Old Covenant "groaning and travailing in pain"?
    The past tense verbs "was subjected" and "has been groaning" indicate that Paul isn't just talking about his contemporaries.

    Let's look at verse 20, which creation was subject to futility by God in hope that it will be redeemed. God is wishing for our redemption based on 2 Peter.

    Now we move on to verse 22, the whole creation has been groaning. Believers and non-believers alike, no?

    Verse 23 - more specific, we are groaning as well until our adoption as sons.

    What verse is the problem?

    The same way He redeems our bodies, though they are destroyed by death. In the Bible, the word destroy is also used to describe what happens to men's bodies, and the Bible teaches that all men will be raised, though some will be raised to glory and others to shame.
    But when we are resurrected, it will be ourselves in a redeemed body (if it were not, it would be a form of reincarnation). Plants, rocks, animals, etc. will not be resurrected, they will be re-created. We will not be re-created, we will be resurrected.

    I am not dogmatically saying that my interpretation is the right one, but these verses as well as others do seem to support it.
    I got that, and I really respect that!

    I'm more curious for my sake. Here are some questions I have about your interpretation.

    1. Where in the entirety of the book of Genesis is there mention of a cosmic curse that changes animal behavior?
    2. Do you have any other instances of creation being personified in the Bible?
    3. How do you explain the fact that "futility" and "corruption" are only used to describe humans?
    4. How is the current state of nature corrupt when God uses examples from nature to declare his glory? (e.g. Job 39)?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Knowing God's answer when seeking guidance
    By *Living~By~Faith* in forum Growing in Christ
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sep 4th 2009, 11:05 AM
  2. Creationist or Evolutionist?
    By GreekAsianPanda in forum Christian Fellowship
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 21st 2009, 10:12 PM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: Dec 20th 2008, 04:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •