 |
No, the seeds that are eaten travel thru the digestive system and are eventually expelled to take root. Adam and Eve didn't eat the fruit seeds; they were thrown away and became the beginnings of new plants.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Do you eat a seed-filled apple core, watermelon seeds, the mesh full of seeds in the middle of a squash?
Because, before the Fall, there was no death.Quote:
How do you know they did not eat meat?
Good grief I am so glad I don't live in your neighborhood. I can only imagine. Peas, carrots, and beans are chewed up and swallowed except, I guess, at your house.Quote:
No, the seeds that are eaten travel thru the digestive system and are eventually expelled to take root.
Why do you say that?Quote:
Because, before the Fall, there was no death.
WG: Because, before the Fall, there was no death.
You're being silly, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No. Why do you say that?
That was the punishment of the Fall, Death. Before the Fall, everything was wonderful, perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The death spoken of was only for man and was spiritual death.
You're kidding, right? Why then have living things, in particular humans, died since the Fall?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Why is there physical death?
I thought this reply by DW was good.
Quote:
What happens to a carrot when you pull it up and eat it? Or a turnip? What happens to the grain plants when you harvest the seeds?
They die. "No death" is based on a misinterpretation of Romans 5:12. Even though "death came to all MEN" makes it clear he's only talking about human death, there are those who think it's talking about every living thing.
They all forget that plants are living things, too.
How do you know they did not die before the fall? Plants, for instance, died upon being eaten. The living cells of tree limbs died and decomposed when they fell off of trees. There was plenty of death.Quote:
You're kidding, right? Why then have living things, in particular humans, died since the Fall?
I have NEVER been taught that EVER!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Both spiritual death and physical death are the consequences of Adam’s fall.
You’ve never been taught that eating an organism causes its death?
I don’t know of any reason to agree with your second statement.
There ya go, twisting what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I said --
There. Was. No. Death. Before. The. Fall.
Regarding plants --
Unlike animals and humans, plants are never described in the.Bible as being “living creatures” (nephesh chayyah).
It's an allegory anyway. Go back to whatever you were doing before posting here.Quote:
I don’t know of any reason to agree with your second statement.
Why is it you so easily get angry when your statements are questioned? So sensitive!
Come to think of it, that seems true of all the liberals on this site.
I'm laughing! I do not get angry at ANYone. Bring angry isn't in my genes.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
If I disagree with you, I must be angry. I get it.
If you say this (Go back to whatever you were doing before posting here.) when you are happy, then I'd hate to see you when you are mad! Have you always had problems with simply being honest?
Nah. When you just make it up as you go along, as you do, you never really get it.Quote:
If I disagree with you, I must be angry. I get it.
First you say it is mere allegory, and then you want to get into details. At any rate, plants are unquestionably living organisms, so there you are. There was death before the fall.Quote:
Regarding plants --
Unlike animals and humans, plants are never described in the.Bible as being “living creatures” (nephesh chayyah).
Go back to what DW said earlier. Read it until you understand it, then come back.
She laughed hysterically. It certainly (again) didn't take much to propel you into sarcasm, nastiness, and going off topic. Dwashbur was right in Post 67.
Strange how you so eagerly (and no doubt hysterically and non-angrily) support DW's similarly non-angry post 67, and yet ran past his very valid observation in post 78. Rather selective.
At any rate, have it your way.
Humans and cows and ducks leave seeds behind, too, they just look like calves, children, and eggs.Quote:
Plants leave seeds for the next generation. Adam and Eve ate fruits and veggies from God's Garden. No roasted rib eye steaks or grilled burgers.
There are lots of plants that don't leave seeds, and there are lots of seeds that we chew up and consume so they can't pass through our digestive systems unchanged. Do we really suppose Adam and Eve hadn't discovered bread?
We know plants are a live and the ancients knew it as well. If there was no death before the Fall then every carrot Adam ate continued to live in multiple masticated pieces somehow.
Come on, WG. I expect better from you.
Dwashbur, you know me better than that!Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Here's a thought-provoking article:
Could There Have Been Any Death Before the Fall?
https://apologeticspress.org/could-t...20as%20animals.
Here's another one:
Genesis 2:17—“You Shall Surely Die”
https://answersingenesis.org/death-b...ll-surely-die/
This is from your first link.Isn't that exactly what you are disputing???Quote:
"First, we know that plants were certainly able to die before the Fall, because they were to serve as food for humans and animals throughout the Earth (Genesis 1:30). Nobody seems to dispute that truth."
I didn't say yay or nay to either link I posted. I said they are thought-provoking.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That's quite a strategy. Never say anything definite.Quote:
I didn't say yay or nay to either link I posted.
I have been told to post links to articles that will stimulate thinking!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Who asked you to do that?
That's how discussion is created and stimulated!
Discussion only exists when people have sufficient courage to post their ideas and subject them to scrutiny. Otherwise, it's just polite conversation. That's fine and useful, but not really discussion. Or at least that's my view.
Yes! Discussion -- the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas (not insults).
" the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas..." I'm all for it.
Insults? You mean like this?Quote:
to exchange ideas (not insults).
Or this?Quote:
She laughed hysterically. It certainly (again) didn't take much to propel you into sarcasm, nastiness, and going off topic. Dwashbur was right in Post 67.
The biggest aggravation I have here is an absolute refusal to answer any question deemed a little dangerous to one's position. For instance, there was the member who steadfastly refused to simply say whether or not he believed in the resurrection, a question which remains unanswered to this day. Really hard to "exchange ideas" with someone who won't do any exchanging.Quote:
If you can't even realize that, we're done. In fact, I'm done anyway. This is tiring and boring. You have one set of rules for yourself and another for everyone else. You can make wild claims and back them up with nothing but anybody else has to provide a doctoral dissertation on the subject.
I'm done with your double standard. Have the last word, we all know you will anyway.
Would you be satisfied with a maybe?
And the "refusal to answer" has nothing to do with being "dangerous" to one's position or belief.
Sure, as long as it's an honest "maybe".Quote:
Would you be satisfied with a maybe?
Then what is the reason?Quote:
And the "refusal to answer" has nothing to do with being "dangerous" to one's position or belief.
How will you know if it's an honest maybe?
The reason could be NOYB.
Can't generally tell.Quote:
How will you know if it's an honest maybe?
Then the person should say that. But it's hard to imagine entering into a discussion with someone but then refusing to answer a serious question because of that.Quote:
The reason could be NOYB.
Interesting articles. The first one makes my point for me then backpedals a little. I would quibble with the subject of footnote 6 because nothing in Gen 1:29-30 requires that all the creatures be herbivores. No animal death also requires a world without any cliffs to fall off of, ponds to fall in, rocks to trip over and break one's neck, the entire idea creates an impossibly complex scenario that frankly can't stand up to reality. And I like the way he demonstrated that Romans 5 is talking about HUMAN death and nothing else.
The second article is on a slightly different topic, and this author betrays a very cursory knowledge of Hebrew. Specifically he fails to understand the nature of the definite article when used with the construct state. If that means nothing to you, I'm sad to say it probably means nothing to this author, as well. And therein lies the problem. He's way over his head trying to talk about Hebrew grammar. His conclusion is reasonably solid, but that's not necessarily because he knew what he was talking about.
I have no use for Answers in Genesis, and stuff like that is a big reason why. They take a little of this and a little of that and think they know something.
I'm thinking Heaven will be like the Garden of Eden. Will the heavenly feast include veggie dishes, platters of grilled prime rib, bbq chicken, and meatloaf? No cliffs to fall off, lakes to drown in?
I'm thinking it'll be way better than that. The end of the book shows us Earth 2.0 and it looks a lot more interesting than a garden.
As for prime rib, I'll say the same thing that Billy Graham said when asked if there will be sex in heaven: if God can't come up with something better, it'll be there.
Great answer, dwashbur! Since I'm nearly there, I am eagerly looking forward to this next adventure!
I'd start the description off with God himself. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all there and accessible to us. What could compare with that? It's impossible to describe.
Nice to see the great Billy Graham had a sense of humor about the afterlife. As he aged, he morphed from strict fundamentalism to being more and more open ecumenically.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
It came up while he was doing a Q&A in the late 60's at the height of the sexual revolution. The questioner's tone made it clear he was expecting some sort of rigid, prudish answer about the evils of sex. I don't think he was prepared for the answer, or the boisterous laughter that followed.Quote:
Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
As for prime rib, I'll say the same thing that Billy Graham said when asked if there will be sex in heaven: if God can't come up with something better, it'll be there.
Nice to see the great Billy Graham had a sense of humor about the afterlife. As he aged, he morphed from strict fundamentalism to being more and more open ecumenically.
It's a shame his son has taken such a massive kerplop on the man's legacy. It makes me sad.
So running a charity that annually reaches out to hundreds of thousands of people suffering from natural disasters is a kerplop?Quote:
It's a shame his son has taken such a massive kerplop on the man's legacy. It makes me sad.
Yeah, what a giving guy. "Franklin Graham drew scrutiny in 2009 for drawing a full-time salary from Samaritan's Purse, while simultaneously receiving a full-time salary from Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA).Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
According to 2014 data, Graham is the highest paid Samaritan's Purse employee at $622,252 annually and leads other charities in compensation.[28] The preacher gave up a salary at the evangelistic association during the late economic downturn,[29] but the leaders urged him to accept compensation again and he now receives increased retirement contributions as well as a regular salary.[30] The evangelistic association reported 2013 revenues as $106.5 million and 2014 as $112,893,788.[31][32]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:15 PM. |