Did Adam And Eat Meat ?

[Scott Hutchinson]

I personally believe there was a literal tree of life,and Adam and Eve could eat of every tree except one.
I am aware that the scriptures do use symbolic imagery,and not everything in the word is literal,but at the same time we must not make literal things be symbolic,neither should we make symbolic imagery be literal,that's where diligent study and prayer come in.
The scriptures use should both symbolic imagery,as well as being literal in places.
Something could be literal in the OT.and symbolic in the NT.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Here's a test for our literal Scientific Creationists friends and supporters of ICR. It's often stated that before the Fall there wasn't any death or aging. Here's the question:

How is it that Adam would have never aged or died?

(Trust me, this ties into the question because this is an important detail that must be covered.)

I don't believe that death entered the world until Adam sinned.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

However, this is talking about the deaths of men--it is possible that eternal life was only a factor for humans. I tend to believe that there was no death for anyone or anything. A "lion lying down with the lamb" type of scenario. JMO

If death entered the world upon Adam's sin, then the long earth theory has a problem. It isn't the gap theory...that's the one that supposes there was a gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, between God's initial creation and the rest of creation. (In which dinosaurs lived and died, and Satan fell?) Anyway...the OTHER theory, which I can't remember the name of, alleges that the thousands (or millions/billions) of years it took God to get from day 1 to day 6 is where all the fossils came from. All the animals/organisms who lived and died during that time. However, if death entered the world with Adam's sin, there is a contradiction, because he was created last.

OR, death was always a factor, except for man--until sin.

I will say this, about this thread, and a few others--those of you who do NOT take a literal view of creation very quickly cut short conversation or open dialogue when you take a superiority complex with your own points of view.

There is NO good evidence of evolution, first of all. Mutation WITHIN species--yes. Evolution from one species to another? Not at all. And ESPECIALLY not naturally. Man's attempts to manipulate evolution in the lab have ended badly, to put it mildly. Not only is the process not observable, it isn't repeatable, recordable or even mildly supported by scientific evidence. That makes it BAD science.

Of course, fairness demands that we make the same assertion about creation--from a non-faith perspective, it is just a theory. There is MORE evidence supporting an orderly, deliberate creation of the earth than not.

In my opinion, in order to support certain views, one must ignore scripture, and that is never acceptable. It is necessary to search scripture to find what one should believe, and THEN search for evidence to support what is presumed by faith to be true. It is problematic and a flawed approach to decide what one believes, whether based on scientific research or not and then search scripture for support of that belief, OR to try to explain scripture away because a scientific study doesn't align with scripture.

I firmly believe that ALL matters, scientific or not, can be weighed with scripture. If the matter contradicts scripture, then I will chalk it up as "undetermined" or "unknown", but I will not ignore or explain divinely inspired scripture to support a study written by a fallible human.

As far as the specifics go--there are lots of theories, there are lots of debates, and my mind isn't made up about every little detail--but I have examined SOME issues, and I'm smart enough and knowledgeable enough about science to know when I'm being fed stupidity enmeshed in big words and scientific terms meant to manipulate the listener or reader into agreeing or feeling stupid if they disagree.

Science is actually fairly simple.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You won't ever get any here. "Apostolics" of this day and age simply clench their eyes tightly shut and play a game of "Just Pretend..."

For some reason they are completely sold on the teachings of Fundamentalist Baptists in this area of thought - but they'll send those same Baptists to hell at the drop of a hat. It makes no sense... but then again, I guess that was your point.

Sure. I was just "pretending" the other day when Hannah and I were studying cells and DNA and all the related tangents. We studied in great depth for a couple of weeks, created models, studied how DNA strands unzip, zip, etc. etc., and we found NOTHING that supports evolution, and quite a bit that directly contradicts it. We didn't close our eyes to ANYthing. I am not afraid to read articles that support evolution. I just find it hilarious that none of them have any real facts to offer--just the opinions of the author viewing the evidence through the evolution-colored glasses allowing for no other conclusions' validity. THAT is playing a game of "just pretend." Just pretend God doesn't exist. Just pretend it isn't possible. Just pretend we know what we're talking about. Just pretend that the emperor is wearing clothes.

I'm not sold on the teachings of Fundamentalist Baptists--I'm sold on truth. Whatsoever is true, that is what I'll think on. If something contradicts God's Word, it's simply not true. That isn't pretending, pel. That's putting my trust where it belongs. The world, its philosophies and its knowledge still doesn't have all the answers. When I don't have an answer, I look to scripture. I don't read National Geographic and take everything at face value. But I do take God's Word at face value.

I guess if you don't accept God's Word as infallible, absolute and irrefutable, it causes a problem with reasoning from the get-go.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

I personally believe there was a literal tree of life,and Adam and Eve could eat of every tree except one.
I am aware that the scriptures do use symbolic imagery,and not everything in the word is literal,but at the same time we must not make literal things be symbolic,neither should we make symbolic imagery be literal,that's where diligent study and prayer come in.
The scriptures use should both symbolic imagery,as well as being literal in places.
Something could be literal in the OT.and symbolic in the NT.

And isn't it fun, sorting it all out?

There's a principle of Bible interpretation, something like this: if it can be taken literally, take it literally. Problem with this is the definition of "can". Everything can be taken literally, with enough magic thrown in (and a lot of folks seem to think it's their duty to do so), so it's not much help in coming to agreement among believers. (Except, maybe, among the "everything-can" crowd.) And it doesn't help bring skeptics like me into "The Truth".

In practice, the approach for some seems to be: if it's too absurd to be taken literally, then it must have been symbolic. "Absurd" is in the eye of the beholder, of course, so it has the same problem, maybe to a smaller degree. But another problem with this (IMO) is that there is almost always a lot of different symbolic interpretations possible (and some of them are too absurd for some to believe!). So everyone picks the ones they like best, and then the fighting starts.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Things like trees clapping their hands can't be literal,whereas a vigin shall conceive did literally happen.
The bible is in essence an eastern book ,and reading it with a western mind causes us to misunderstand certain things.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Things like trees clapping their hands can't be literal,whereas a vigin shall conceive did literally happen.
The bible is in essence an eastern book ,and reading it with a western mind causes us to misunderstand certain things.

Right...but a virgin conceiving is impossible!!! Therefore, according to the logic of some, we must find a natural, scientific explanation for what happened in order to reconcile scripture with human understanding.

I reject that approach to scripture.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Things like trees clapping their hands can't be literal . . .

Can too!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I don't believe that death entered the world until Adam sinned.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

However, this is talking about the deaths of men--it is possible that eternal life was only a factor for humans. I tend to believe that there was no death for anyone or anything. A "lion lying down with the lamb" type of scenario. JMO

If death entered the world upon Adam's sin, then the long earth theory has a problem. It isn't the gap theory...that's the one that supposes there was a gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, between God's initial creation and the rest of creation. (In which dinosaurs lived and died, and Satan fell?) Anyway...the OTHER theory, which I can't remember the name of, alleges that the thousands (or millions/billions) of years it took God to get from day 1 to day 6 is where all the fossils came from. All the animals/organisms who lived and died during that time. However, if death entered the world with Adam's sin, there is a contradiction, because he was created last.

OR, death was always a factor, except for man--until sin.

I will say this, about this thread, and a few others--those of you who do NOT take a literal view of creation very quickly cut short conversation or open dialogue when you take a superiority complex with your own points of view.

There is NO good evidence of evolution, first of all. Mutation WITHIN species--yes. Evolution from one species to another? Not at all. And ESPECIALLY not naturally. Man's attempts to manipulate evolution in the lab have ended badly, to put it mildly. Not only is the process not observable, it isn't repeatable, recordable or even mildly supported by scientific evidence. That makes it BAD science.

Of course, fairness demands that we make the same assertion about creation--from a non-faith perspective, it is just a theory. There is MORE evidence supporting an orderly, deliberate creation of the earth than not.

In my opinion, in order to support certain views, one must ignore scripture, and that is never acceptable. It is necessary to search scripture to find what one should believe, and THEN search for evidence to support what is presumed by faith to be true. It is problematic and a flawed approach to decide what one believes, whether based on scientific research or not and then search scripture for support of that belief, OR to try to explain scripture away because a scientific study doesn't align with scripture.

I firmly believe that ALL matters, scientific or not, can be weighed with scripture. If the matter contradicts scripture, then I will chalk it up as "undetermined" or "unknown", but I will not ignore or explain divinely inspired scripture to support a study written by a fallible human.

As far as the specifics go--there are lots of theories, there are lots of debates, and my mind isn't made up about every little detail--but I have examined SOME issues, and I'm smart enough and knowledgeable enough about science to know when I'm being fed stupidity enmeshed in big words and scientific terms meant to manipulate the listener or reader into agreeing or feeling stupid if they disagree.

Science is actually fairly simple.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Yes, the Bible's focus is mankind. God didn't create immortal animals and require Adam to need the tree of life. The tree of life was the ONLY source of immortality.

[Aquila]

But this was just an fun theological exercize. lol

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Sure. I was just "pretending" the other day when Hannah and I were studying cells and DNA and all the related tangents. We studied in great depth for a couple of weeks, created models, studied how DNA strands unzip, zip, etc. etc., and we found NOTHING that supports evolution, and quite a bit that directly contradicts it. We didn't close our eyes to ANYthing. I am not afraid to read articles that support evolution. I just find it hilarious that none of them have any real facts to offer--just the opinions of the author viewing the evidence through the evolution-colored glasses allowing for no other conclusions' validity. THAT is playing a game of "just pretend." Just pretend God doesn't exist. Just pretend it isn't possible. Just pretend we know what we're talking about. Just pretend that the emperor is wearing clothes.

You didn't notice that Hannah had DNA that unmistakenly identified her as a descendant of yours? And that your DNA unmistakenly identified you as a descendant of your parents? And so on... until we look at Hannah's DNA and that of a chimpanzee and find that she and the chimp have the same unmistakable markers showing a common descent - the same kinds of pattern that shows she's your daughter shows she (and you and I) and chimpanzees are descended from the same parents.

And how do you get "evolution = no God"?

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I'm not sold on the teachings of Fundamentalist Baptists--I'm sold on truth. Whatsoever is true, that is what I'll think on. If something contradicts God's Word, it's simply not true. That isn't pretending, pel. That's putting my trust where it belongs. The world, its philosophies and its knowledge still doesn't have all the answers. When I don't have an answer, I look to scripture. I don't read National Geographic and take everything at face value. But I do take God's Word at face value.

I guess if you don't accept God's Word as infallible, absolute and irrefutable, it causes a problem with reasoning from the get-go.

With all due respect, to insist upon a worldview that simply isn't real and then to blame that view upon a 200 year old tradition of Bible Fundamentalism and accuse everyone who disagrees with you of impiety isn't just unfair - it's frankly delusional.

Every geneticist who looks at the same DNA molecules that you say you've looked at "sees" biological evolution and sees the DNA as unmistakable proof of this fact. And they do so at some personal risk - but there it is.