What could the Pre Fall of Man biocycle looked like?

[F1fan]

This has gotten way offtopic, but what the heck, ill go with it.

The point of dropping the name and links to information is so that you can research it for yourself. as can the many others who read these threads. See that is the point, by your not providing decent evidence with supporting links to the majority of your comments you fail to provide your audience with anything stimulating that they can use to support that world view. You are grossly undermining the learning opportunities for those readers who follow you. What they do see on the other hand, is significant amounts of resources posted from the opposing side and some of them are going to study those resources...and will even be convicted by them (FYI, I'm talking about religious conviction here...not criminal)

I gave you Bart Erhman because he is not a Christian...he was an absolute gift for your camp, however, it appears that you have failed to utilize this to find additional supporting evidence from other individuals who may be used to support Bart's arguments.

Google is your friend, I suggest you spend some time using that skill like the rest of us do...there is a host of information regarding debates Bart Erhman has had over the years with textual critics on the topic of biblical inconsistencies. An excellent illustration is shown in the debate with James White and when you see the illustrations of just what the real equation of errors looks like you will quickly realise Bart is floundering...his claims are statistically insignificant.

Simple example: if one was to claim that a person who only gets 99% in an exam is failing...then we are all stuffed. That is what Bart is essentially attempting to claim with his stupidity regarding biblical inerrancy.

His other claim of no originals is actually a bum steer as has been proven by the dead sea scrolls . We know for an absolute fact these texts have been hidden away in caves untouched for almost 2,000 years. There is simply no way they could have been utilised for any kind of comparison from that time to now and yet, they closely match the modern bible translations.

Prior to the advent of the internet, individuals intent on facilitating any kind of ongoing "con" did not have the power of google to ensure the "con" could retain its consistency over the 2 millennia (the universally accepted age of the scrolls). The Chinese whispers issue has simply not happened here...and that is key to my point. There is simply no way of getting around this fact!

Whether you wish to admit the blatantly obvious or not, the age of the scolls is very accurate and scholars have proven that the textual issues Bart is complaining about are less than 1% of the entire new testament and more importantly make zero difference to any biblical theology or doctrine!

There is only one way to approach the Bible, and that is how we approach any other issue as intellectual beings: rationally and via facts. This means to drop all cultural assumptions, like what we adopt in our social experiences in Christian dominated nations. With this approach noone will have the same conclusions as believers, and that is because believers will be motivated to validate their religious assumptions, not to find the most likely answers.

Lets forget all of the above for a minute and just focus on the following scenario (its simple well known one used often so you should be very familiar with it):

Possible world view scenarios for an Atheist vs Christian

1. I claim to believe in God. His bible says that in order to attain salvation I must believe and bear fruits of that faith by demonstrating that belief to others (I am not saved by works). If I do not accept and believe, then at the close of probation just prior to the second coming or when I die (whichever comes first), I am unable to receive salvation. The point is, I must accept and believe the gospel to be saved. I choose the believe in the gospel...I'm not good at it, but I genuinely do believe. Im really lousy at it (my efforts are nothing but filthy rags), but I honestly choose to have faith.

You believe all this, and you might be mistaken. You can't know. You have fallen victim to pascal's wager. If you don't know what this is, Google it.

2. You absolutely deny God exists.

No, we reject the CLAIMS believers make that their many versions of the same God exists.

You do not have any belief or faith.

There is not adequate evidence to conclude these absurd religious concepts are true, or even likely true, so we default to being unconvinced.

The gift of salvation being offered to you, you openly reject 100%. According to the Bible, you have no chance of being saved.

The "gift of salvation" is a concept that not only has no evidence of being true, but it is absurd. Why does a God need to create a mortal to be executed as a sacrifice to himself? What a mess. This is obviously a rehashing of Egyptian and pagan lore.

Possible Outcomes

A. If I am wrong...what do I lose exactly? I die and rot in the grave exactly as you do and that's it for the both of us. If I'm dead I won't know any different so in reality, I don't think I lose anything more than you do actually....we both end up exactly the same.

This is what pascal admits. This is what the facts and reason offer as the most likely outcome.

B. If you are wrong...what do you lose? At the end of the millennium, the bible says that all of the wicked will be raised to face their judgment. They will have all of the sins of the world put in front of them (I suppose metaphorically or on some kind of "big screen in the sky") and the Bible specifically states that all of these wicked people will realize they have chosen poorly and accept that they were wrong. Then they will face a terrible second, and very final, death. Fire will come down from heaven and burn the crap out of them and everything else that is evil in this world. In the meantime, I will look upon you and watch you die a terrible death, and then off I go to live in a new world for all eternity...a world with no more sickness or death...a happy place. I get to visit other galaxies and see things that we only dream of right now.

Why would a God create this horrific scenario but offer no convincing evidence that any of it is true? Is this what a loving God would do in the first place? This is a God with serious mental health problems, and you want to believe this is good?

Why don't Eastern religions include this, why are they left out of God's plan? Sounds fishy. I'm not convinced. It sounds like a lot of threats that mere mortals would invent to scare compliance from the ignorant masses.

I do not care whether or not you think the above option B is a fairytale...

Of course you don't, you understand how absurd it is, and to listen to argumenst against what you believe mb

simply look at the point for what it is for a minute and ask yourself the following question;

Out of the two of us, who is going to suffer the most if they are wrong? Who's is the potentially better outcome really...your worldview or mine?

Irrelevant. This assumes both options are equally probable. Your scenario is not factual, nor reasonable. This is the fear tactic that pascal uses and argues for, and it is a huge failure. Look up the arguments against pascal's wager.

Notice atheists stand by their intellectual and emotional integrity and will not fall prey to religious coersion and threats. You seem to be victim of this, and this is your hell on earth. You have no freedom, and your loss if wrong is living a lie during your one chance at life.

Might I ask at this point...how many people reading this are non-Christians that play lotto? Why do you play? Shouldn't that same philosophy apply to Christianity...you engage with the hope that you might win?

I live via the facts available, and my ability to reason objectively. I don't gamble with my meaning in life. I can't pretend to live in an illusionary world. Theists do, which is why they gamble by accepting pascal's wager. You know what a wager is, yes?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I suppose Ellen White did not need to focus on YEC. With her being a prophet in the eyes of the SDA, any little thing she said would be considered true. There are plenty of Christians in many parts of Christianity who read Genesis 1 and 2 in a YEC way and I don't think SDA was a cause of that, it is just that I heard of Price and his ideas about the geological column showing a record of the flood.
It is of course possible to not be a YEC and still see the 7 periods of time in the creation account and keep the Sabbath as a SDA or Jew etc (the initial Sabbath is not said to have an evening and morning so maybe that means it was not a literal day and has not ended yet.)
When it comes to those Christians who say that Christians should be YECers or they are denying the gospel, I cannot see it.
IMO YECers who insist on a literal understanding and that it cannot be anything else, are responsible for many young people turning away from the Bible once they go to University and learn some science

Hi Brian, agree with your point about EG White and Adventism. Traditionally the more conservative Adventists tended to get a bit carried away preaching gloom and doom unless EG White was followed exactly according to her writings. That is unfortunate because she is published as having said that is not the way her writings were to be taken. She never called herself a prophet either BTW. She did believe she had a message to deliver and a ministry to preach...but she never claimed to be a prophet as far as I recall.

You comment about YEC and the gospel is an interesting one and here is something that probably should shed some light on the more recent "explaining away" of this dilemma that TEists face on the topic.

Please note the 4th commandment (in particular the part I have highlighted in bold)

8Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work—neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant or livestock, nor the foreigner within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
​

Now here is the interesting part about that section of the 4th commandment...and my response to you here is kinda in the form of a self answering question. The idea being that people really think about this observation...

In all of bible history, has there ever been a time when individuals in the bible who worshipped God did not worship weekly?
In all of the history of the early Christian church, is there any evidence to suggest that those Christians did not worship weekly?
In the entire period of the reformation, is there any evidence to suggest that any of those in the Christian church did not worship weekly?
In our modern Christian churches, is there any evidence to suggest that these denominations don't believe that one should engage in worship weekly?

After considering the above questions, how then does one reconcile the idea that the 4th commandment referred to a day in history that may have been thousands of years?

Do you see the enormous theological problem that TEists face with this issue. Even if they claim the books of Moses are nothing but an allegory, how can they possibly ignore the fact that every single character in Jewish and Christian religious history has always kept a weekly day of worship...which is entirely consistent with the idea that Exodus 20:11 is a single weekly day. Are we honestly going to attempt to explain this away by now claiming we worship every 7 thousand years? Which day would be the next sabbath I should worship on and, in which year would I do it?

I know the next claim and answer to the above would be, "oh we worship God every day". Yeah right, but they still only go to church on Sundays don't they...so my point remains! In any case, there are significant theological problems with the "every day is a sabbath day" claim. It simply isn't biblical...the bible very specifically demonstrates over and over again that there is but one sabbath day that God himself set apart from all other days as a special day of worship. It is the ONLY day he Sanctified for His Sabbath...there is no other (I don't even need to reference this...all Christians already know this and its easy to research for oneself)

 

[AdamjEdgar]

You have fallen victim to pascal's wager.

It is funny how often these kinds of copout answer get thrown around...seemingly intelligent responses but in reality they are not a response at all. You seem to think that is an answer to the proposition and its apparently an easy way out for you, however, it is not an answer. Let me spell this out for you...

The issue with the claim that is the flaw identified in Pascals Wager

The general answer to the wager is that it is a over simplification and ignorance of the complex conditions, variety of choices, and range of repercussions of people's choices. People have more than two choices of religion etc etc.

The problem is, what I have identified cannot be answered by that claim of a flawed wager. I am not asking you to choose between Christianity, Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, Spiritualism...or any other ism.

I only believe in a single God and I use the historical method to proclaim that my God is historically proven to be the most ancient and most likely true God. I base this on quite a number of factors (which are well known among Christian writings), however there are more modern methods of demonstrating the probability that the Christian bible is the original autograph of the history of mankind...the human genome project demonstrates our origins came from the locations indicated by the biblical account. We have lots of other evidence indicating the same origin.

Given the above, I am not debating which religion...you are here debating a Christian world view...otherwise you would be on a different forum I suppose wouldn't you?

In spite of the above, an atheist has no religion. So even if it was a Hindu posing the same question...it would still deny the validy of the claim there are flaws in Pascals wager.

The question is not, the world is complex and many outcomes are possible...the religious world view is rather specific...if you do not participate, you cannot reap the rewards. That I think is universal across all religions just like the lottery, is it not?

So again,
please directly answer the wager. In terms of your lifes experience, which would you genuinely choose given the specifications outlined (treat this as a simple equation rather than seeking truth or error...just answer the equation)

In the event I am wrong what do I lose?

In the event you are wrong, what then happens to you according to the Christian scriptures?


What if the Christian scriptures are right? Given the very strong historical evidence that supports at least the characters illustrated in the Bible as having really existed and, the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Codex Sinaiticus showing conclusively that the bible transcript has not changed in thousands of years... so it being a "con" is highly improbable, isnt that worth something to you?

So if one is to use the lottery illustration, why don't you play the lottery on this one, what have you got to lose exactly?

if your simple answer to this is nothing more than "its a flawed pascals wager", I don't see the point in you even being here...and yet here you are debating this very question! The fact you're here suggests to me it is meaningful enough to have your interest!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi Brian, agree with your point about EG White and Adventism. Traditionally the more conservative Adventists tended to get a bit carried away preaching gloom and doom unless EG White was followed exactly according to her writings. That is unfortunate because she is published as having said that is not the way her writings were to be taken. She never called herself a prophet either BTW. She did believe she had a message to deliver and a ministry to preach...but she never claimed to be a prophet as far as I recall.

You comment about YEC and the gospel is an interesting one and here is something that probably should shed some light on the more recent "explaining away" of this dilemma that TEists face on the topic.

Please note the 4th commandment (in particular the part I have highlighted in bold)

8Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work—neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant or livestock, nor the foreigner within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
​

Now here is the interesting part about that section of the 4th commandment...and my response to you here is kinda in the form of a self answering question. The idea being that people really think about this observation...

In all of bible history, has there ever been a time when individuals in the bible who worshipped God did not worship weekly?
In all of the history of the early Christian church, is there any evidence to suggest that those Christians did not worship weekly?
In the entire period of the reformation, is there any evidence to suggest that any of those in the Christian church did not worship weekly?
In our modern Christian churches, is there any evidence to suggest that these denominations don't believe that one should engage in worship weekly?

After considering the above questions, how then does one reconcile the idea that the 4th commandment referred to a day in history that may have been thousands of years?

Do you see the enormous theological problem that TEists face with this issue. Even if they claim the books of Moses are nothing but an allegory, how can they possibly ignore the fact that every single character in Jewish and Christian religious history has always kept a weekly day of worship...which is entirely consistent with the idea that Exodus 20:11 is a single weekly day. Are we honestly going to attempt to explain this away by now claiming we worship every 7 thousand years? Which day would be the next sabbath I should worship on and, in which year would I do it?

I know the next claim and answer to the above would be, "oh we worship God every day". Yeah right, but they still only go to church on Sundays don't they...so my point remains! In any case, there are significant theological problems with the "every day is a sabbath day" claim. It simply isn't biblical...the bible very specifically demonstrates over and over again that there is but one sabbath day that God himself set apart from all other days as a special day of worship. It is the ONLY day he Sanctified for His Sabbath...there is no other (I don't even need to reference this...all Christians already know this and its easy to research for oneself)

"Bible history" only goes back to about 500 BCE with any reliability. Before that there is very little evidence of the books of the Torah. There are some books that appear to be older than the Torah. Moses was almost surely a legendary figure. A lot of the Old Testament took its present form during the Babylonian captivity. One needs to study all fields to properly understand the Bible. The seven day week appears to have come from the Babylonians and they got it from the Sumerians before them.

How would you support your beliefs without relying solely on the Bible?

 

[paarsurrey]

Friend @AdamjEdgar belongs to SDA (Seventh Day Adventist ).
" Revelation chapter 21 "

What does one mean by pre-fall, did (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah mention it, if yes, then kindly quote from him, please?? Right?

Is "Revelation chapter 21" from Yeshua, please?:

Holy Bible King James Version (Red Letter Edition)
The Roman Catholic Holy Bible with the words of Jesus in red.

It is not, right?

Regards

Anybody else, please.

Regards

 

[AdamjEdgar]

"Bible history" only goes back to about 500 BCE with any reliability. Before that there is very little evidence of the books of the Torah. There are some books that appear to be older than the Torah. Moses was almost surely a legendary figure. A lot of the Old Testament took its present form during the Babylonian captivity. One needs to study all fields to properly understand the Bible. The seven day week appears to have come from the Babylonians and they got it from the Sumerians before them.

How would you support your beliefs without relying solely on the Bible

now you have posted something that I am genuinely interested in. It presents a far better line of thinking and this I appreciate and it deserves engagement/answering.

You mention Babylonian captivity...do you recall the dates of the rise and fall of the Babylonian empire...Nebuchadnezzar for example, one of its most famous kings ransacked Jerusalem in about 604 B.C. We have documented evidence of that also in Babylonian artifacts...so that is pre-500 B.C (not by a lot obviously).

We know from discoveries that the Biblical account of the Hittites, which was long considered a fairytale is in fact true. We know that this empire existed about 1700 years B.C from artifacts found outside of the Bible account.

We know that there is an artifact showing the Israelite King "Jehu" bowing before the Assyrian King Shalmaneser III sometime between 860 and 830 B.C.

To be honest, I really think it is very difficult to make the claim that the entire history of the Jewish culture dating back at least 2,000 years B.C is a lie. You are in fact making the claim that any civilisation that cannot provide written documentary evidence of their history is living a fairytale. That cuts out most if not all oral traditions...i think that the vast majority of scholars would discredit those who attempt to do this to any civilization. You cannot then claim, "oh but the Australian Aboriginals had drawings in caves"... the Israelites have enormous amounts of historical artifacts dating back millennia before Christ that more than adequately address these concerns. We also obviously cannot discredit the Bible talking about other cultures we know existed (Hitittes, Assyrians, Egyptians, Babylonians/Caldans, Persians).

Even the Philistines are a very good example as outside of the Bible, wouldn't you know it, one of the earliest sources of record of their existence is found in the temple of Ramses III at
Medinet_Habu. They existed for more than a millennia B.C. It is generally accepted that they were probably wiped out by King Nebuchadnezzar around 600 B.C.

Just wondering...how far back does archeological history need to go before you will actually believe its true? Does it matter that the Isaiah Scroll is between 350-150 B.C given we have artifacts from both Jewish and other cultural sources that clearly predate this by hundreds if not a thousand years earlier?

Given its plainly obvious the Dead Sea Scrolls date 2000 years ago, the reformation bible translators have obviously had no access to these scrolls in 2000 years, and yet the modern text is almost identical to those scrolls...doesn't that suggest no corruption of the historical account in 2000 years.

Add to this the Isaiah scroll which dates back a further 200-300 years...and its almost identical to the rest of the scrolls in cross-referencing other books of the Bible that refer to passages from the book of Isaiah, do you not see the consistency there and the credibility this assigns to the writings of the Bible as a historical record?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Anybody else, please.

Regards

I really am not trying to be mean here but honestly...what you are doing is a bit problematic and might not be the best approach to this question...

A large number of Jews are clearly still waiting for their Messiah and of course this would seem to mean the New Testament Gospel has no relevance to them. Having said that, I am not sure its a good idea to engage in a Christian discussion on this topic in that manner. Messianic Jews are far better equipped to deal with this [New Testament inspiration] issue.

It appears to me that perhaps you are of the Jewish faith and not Messianic. Would it not be better for you to simply stick with the facts that are relevant to your faith and not argue points you cannot make a case for or against (such as denying New Testament authenticity). Whether Jews choose to accept reality or not, documented religious history of God's people has moved on from the 5 books of the Tora and the 24 books of the Tanakh...we have just a wee bit more of the story now, and what he have in the New Testament has strangely enough, remained consistent with those early writings/books you claim as authoritative!

If you wish to argue the councils of Nicea (325), Rome (382), Trent (1546), and the Westminster Confession of faith in 1647...perhaps start another thread I do not need to argue those points here.

We know for a fact he [Jesus] really existed. Even well known atheist scholars admit and indeed even advocate that historical truth. We know on the balance of probabilities he was killed on a cross by order of Roman regional governor Pontius Pilate, at the demand of the Jews, during the reign of Herod Antipas. Given that and the above information, it is simply pointless to go down this rabbit warren with the argument "did God inspire/write Revelation 21".

 

[Subduction Zone]

now you have posted something that I am genuinely interested in. It presents a far better line of thinking and this I appreciate and it deserves engagement/answering.

You mention Babylonian captivity...do you recall the dates of the rise and fall of the Babylonian empire...Nebuchadnezzar for example, one of its most famous kings ransacked Jerusalem in about 604 B.C. We have documented evidence of that also in Babylonian artifacts...so that is pre-500 B.C (not by a lot obviously).

We know from discoveries that the Biblical account of the Hittites, which was long considered a fairytale is in fact true. We know that this empire existed about 1700 years B.C from artifacts found outside of the Bible account.

I am sorry, but you cannot claim that the Bible stories are true. They are just not totally wrong. And the Hittites were a major force for a while so there very likely would have been a history of them from several sources. The Hebrews could have got their stories from Babylonia and put their own spin on it. We know that the Hittites were a real people. There are multiple independent sources that confirm this. We cannot go from there and claim that the Bible is right. The Bible may be right.

We know that there is an artifact showing the Israelite King "Jehu" bowing before the Assyrian King Shalmaneser III sometime between 860 and 830 B.C.

To be honest, I really think it is very difficult to make the claim that the entire history of the Jewish culture dating back at least 2,000 years B.C is a lie. You are in fact making the claim that any civilisation that cannot provide written documentary evidence of their history is living a fairytale. That cuts out most if not all oral traditions...i think that the vast majority of scholars would discredit those who attempt to do this to any civilization. You cannot then claim, "oh but the Australian Aboriginals had drawings in caves"... the Israelites have enormous amounts of historical artifacts dating back millennia before Christ that more than adequately address these concerns. We also obviously cannot discredit the Bible talking about other cultures we know existed (Hitittes, Assyrians, Egyptians, Babylonians/Caldans, Persians).

Where did I say that? You need to drop the black and white fallacies. There are parts of it that archaeologists are very sure did not happen. There are stories like the Flood myth that have been refuted hundreds of times over. Some of the Bible bein wrong does not mean that all of it is wrong just as some of the Bible being right does not mean that all of it is right.

Even the Philistines are a very good example as outside of the Bible, wouldn't you know it, one of the earliest sources of record of their existence is found in the temple of Ramses III at
Medinet_Habu. They existed for more than a millennia B.C. It is generally accepted that they were probably wiped out by King Nebuchadnezzar around 600 B.C.

Just wondering...how far back does archeological history need to go before you will actually believe its true? Does it matter that the Isaiah Scroll is between 350-150 B.C given we have artifacts from both Jewish and other cultural sources that clearly predate this by hundreds if not a thousand years earlier?

If I recall correctly Isaiah was written at different times. Some of it was the work of Isaiah, but some of it is thought to be history written as if it were prophecy. And what we find in the Bible is that the more modern a story is the more reliable it tends to be. But once again some of it being wrong does not mean that all of it is wrong.

Given its plainly obvious the Dead Sea Scrolls date 2000 years ago, the reformation bible translators have obviously had no access to these scrolls in 2000 years, and yet the modern text is almost identical to those scrolls...doesn't that suggest no corruption of the historical account in 2000 years.

That only tells us that there was little corruption of those scrolls. Judaism was an active established religion. It would have attracted trained scries and the people with the talent to be reliable scribes. The New Testament in its earliest days did not have those. The New Testament Gospels and other sources have to rely on what would have been amateurs at times. It would be more likely to have errors as part of it than the Dead Sea scrolls.

Add to this the Isaiah scroll which dates back a further 200-300 years...and its almost identical to the rest of the scrolls in cross-referencing other books of the Bible that refer to passages from the book of Isaiah, do you not see the consistency there and the credibility this assigns to the writings of the Bible as a historical record?

And oncer again, Judaism was an established religion with well trained scribes at that time. Christianity, not so much.

 

[F1fan]

It is funny how often these kinds of copout answer get thrown around...seemingly intelligent responses but in reality they are not a response at all. You seem to think that is an answer to the proposition and its apparently an easy way out for you, however, it is not an answer. Let me spell this out for you...

The issue with the claim that is the flaw identified in Pascals Wager

The general answer to the wager is that it is a over simplification and ignorance of the complex conditions, variety of choices, and range of repercussions of people's choices. People have more than two choices of religion etc etc.

It is ignorant, as it assumes Christian dogma is likely true and a person should gamble on an outcome most favorable due to fear, not reason. Oddly the wager, and your challenege, both exist as an exercise because your God isn't known to exist, and Christian dogma has no authority. It had authority back when the Catholic church had power, and when the Church of England endorsed the King, but the Enlightenment realized the weakness in religious authority and decided secular rule of law is superior, and they were correct. Western civilization has flourished under secular law in ways that theocracies do not allow.

The problem is, what I have identified cannot be answered by that claim of a flawed wager. I am not asking you to choose between Christianity, Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, Spiritualism...or any other ism.

Your challenge is Christian based, and it can only make sense to those who assume Christian concepts are true. No one else feels the fear and threat that hell exists as a punishment. That is what the wager and your challenge as: to assume hell is inevitable unless you believe a certain set of concepts is true.

I only believe in a single God and I use the historical method to proclaim that my God is historically proven to be the most ancient and most likely true God. I base this on quite a number of factors (which are well known among Christian writings), however there are more modern methods of demonstrating the probability that the Christian bible is the original autograph of the history of mankind...the human genome project demonstrates our origins came from the locations indicated by the biblical account. We have lots of other evidence indicating the same origin.

Yahweh evolved from a polytheistic system, and other gods were eliminated of folded into what Yahweh was described as being. That your idea of god is old is irrelevant. It's not as if old ideas are superior because they are old. The Bible is problematic in numerous ways, and it is weak as a form of evidence. It can't be read and interpreted at face value by rational minds. So as it is there are no Gods known to exist, and whatever you believe is irrelevant to your claims.

Given the above, I am not debating which religion...you are here debating a Christian world view...otherwise you would be on a different forum I suppose wouldn't you?

In spite of the above, an atheist has no religion. So even if it was a Hindu posing the same question...it would still deny the validy of the claim there are flaws in Pascals wager.

But there are flaws, and as I noted to accept the emotional appeal of fear in pascal's wager the person has to be guilible and accept Christian concepts as true, or at least likely true. Objectively the wager does not work. It does not work on secure and balanced minds.

The question is not, the world is complex and many outcomes are possible...the religious world view is rather specific...if you do not participate, you cannot reap the rewards. That I think is universal across all religions just like the lottery, is it not?

Not everyone wants the rewards. The rewards are more about tribalism and emotional security than what the dogma promises. Religions are geographical because they are social phenomenon that are adopted and spread to new generations. The young learn to be religious like those around them, so that is why we see people born in India are Hindu, and people in the Middle East are Muslim. If you were raised around Boston you are probably going to be Catholic. The reward of joining the prevalent religion is the social cohesion.

Do Christians really believe in hell? Some don't. More conservative Christians do, and they are confident anyone they don't approve of will end up there.

So again,
please directly answer the wager. In terms of your lifes experience, which would you genuinely choose given the specifications outlined (treat this as a simple equation rather than seeking truth or error...just answer the equation)

In the event I am wrong what do I lose?

In the event you are wrong, what then happens to you according to the Christian scriptures?

I already answered this. I can't believe any of the scenario of salvation is valid. It's absurd. If I am wrong then I won;t have to spend time in heaven with an incompenet and foolish God. I will be in hell on my own intellectual integrity with others who have integrity.

And let's note, this is pascal's wager, he isn't God. He presented the scenario based on what he learned from his Christian experience. What makes these concepts true as taught in Christianity? Nothing. No facts, no coherent explanation. It's not believable. It's even immoral.

What if the Christian scriptures are right? Given the very strong historical evidence that supports at least the characters illustrated in the Bible as having really existed and, the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Codex Sinaiticus showing conclusively that the bible transcript has not changed in thousands of years... so it being a "con" is highly improbable, isnt that worth something to you?

The evidence goes against a literal interpretation of the Bible IF you DON'T make religious assumptions. Reason requires examining facts and data objectively and without special, biased assumptions. Let's note there is no "Christian scriptures" that is correct. There are thousands of sects under the umbrella of Christianity that interpret the Bible differently, and they can't all be right. So before you ask me to consider whether the "Christian scriptures" is right tell all the many diverse Christian sects to get together and decide what the "truth" is.

And you keep referencing the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are not originals. They are copies of texts that just happened to be preserved and discovered. It helped set the date of the lineage of the Old Testament. None of the original texts survive, and what was passed on into Jewish tradition was due to copies being made. Nothing suggests the texts are true at face value. Even Jews don't interpret it literally. Ancient people typically wrote in embellished forms, and copied each other over time. The Noah flood myth is certainly a retelling of the Gilgamesh legend.

So if one is to use the lottery illustration, why don't you play the lottery on this one, what have you got to lose exactly?

Still trying to sell me on accepting your religious scenario with an emotional appeal? This makes you look desperate. I will be convinced with a valid argument via facts. That is the flaw, your wager has no facts, just a threat that requires assuming the threat is genuine.

if your simple answer to this is nothing more than "its a flawed pascals wager", I don't see the point in you even being here...and yet here you are debating this very question! The fact you're here suggests to me it is meaningful enough to have your interest!

First of all, you didn't cite pascal's wager, I just recognized the form of your challenge as being the same thing. Second, there are many obvious flaws with the wager as I pointed out, and as any rational thinker can explain, as I did in my response. You offered no rebuttal to what I said, you only wrote a long complaint that makes many errors of thought, as I pointed out in my criticisms above. Explain why we should assume Christian concepts are true.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is only one way to approach the Bible, and that is how we approach any other issue as intellectual beings: rationally* and via facts. This means to drop all cultural assumptions,

It is a very good point, is it acceptable to the Hellenist Paulians aka " Christians", any of their 45000+ denominations , please? Right?

Regards
I am an Ahmadiyya peaceful Muslim

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I am sorry, but you cannot claim that the Bible stories are true. They are just not totally wrong. And the Hittites were a major force for a while so there very likely would have been a history of them from several sources. The Hebrews could have got their stories from Babylonia and put their own spin on it. We know that the Hittites were a real people. There are multiple independent sources that confirm this. We cannot go from there and claim that the Bible is right. The Bible may be right.



Where did I say that? You need to drop the black and white fallacies. There are parts of it that archaeologists are very sure did not happen. There are stories like the Flood myth that have been refuted hundreds of times over. Some of the Bible bein wrong does not mean that all of it is wrong just as some of the Bible being right does not mean that all of it is right.



If I recall correctly Isaiah was written at different times. Some of it was the work of Isaiah, but some of it is thought to be history written as if it were prophecy. And what we find in the Bible is that the more modern a story is the more reliable it tends to be. But once again some of it being wrong does not mean that all of it is wrong.



That only tells us that there was little corruption of those scrolls. Judaism was an active established religion. It would have attracted trained scries and the people with the talent to be reliable scribes. The New Testament in its earliest days did not have those. The New Testament Gospels and other sources have to rely on what would have been amateurs at times. It would be more likely to have errors as part of it than the Dead Sea scrolls.


And oncer again, Judaism was an established religion with well trained scribes at that time. Christianity, not so much.

I am sorry, but you cannot claim that the Bible stories are true. They are just not totally wrong. And the Hittites were a major force for a while so there very likely would have been a history of them from several sources. The Hebrews could have got their stories from Babylonia and put their own spin on it. We know that the Hittites were a real people. There are multiple independent sources that confirm this. We cannot go from there and claim that the Bible is right. The Bible may be right.

Where did I say that? You need to drop the black and white fallacies. There are parts of it that archaeologists are very sure did not happen. There are stories like the Flood myth that have been refuted hundreds of times over. Some of the Bible bein wrong does not mean that all of it is wrong just as some of the Bible being right does not mean that all of it is right.

If I recall correctly Isaiah was written at different times. Some of it was the work of Isaiah, but some of it is thought to be history written as if it were prophecy. And what we find in the Bible is that the more modern a story is the more reliable it tends to be. But once again some of it being wrong does not mean that all of it is wrong.

That only tells us that there was little corruption of those scrolls. Judaism was an active established religion. It would have attracted trained scries and the people with the talent to be reliable scribes. The New Testament in its earliest days did not have those. The New Testament Gospels and other sources have to rely on what would have been amateurs at times. It would be more likely to have errors as part of it than the Dead Sea scrolls.

And once again, Judaism was an established religion with well trained scribes at that time. Christianity, not so much.

I will answer all of this as one response...

Your first two paragraphs above contradict each other...i will ignore those.

you make mention of black and white fallacies...you do not understand the concept of biblical theology and how consistency across it pages are crucial in that theology. The bible is not a book where anyone who follows it may claim parts are inspired and parts are not! The reason why we know the bible is authentic is because of that consistency and its record of regional history. The fact that it contained the only evidence of some civilizations until rather recently is a testament to its accuracy . Despite the nonsense you wrote about the Hittites...you forget that secular historians used that very evidence to claim the Bible was false...until of course archeologists in 1834 stumbled upon proof the civilization really existed...add to this the 1846 finding of an obelisk showing king Jehu bowing before the Assyrian king Shalmanaser III...how the tune changed at this point!

The statement, the flood is not true as has been proven by science, is simply base upond a theory there is no God! This idea that the only scientist with any credibility is one that denies God is not a balanced opinion. Your statement that YEC scholars such as Behee, Myer, Wise, Snelling, Hacket, White, Jeanson...are crackpots is a bit shortsighted and severely undermines your credibility. I think you would do better to research these guys and then simply outline the parts of their research where you believe they are wrong. Calling a person a crackpot simply because they have a different worldview isn't particularly intelligent when its clear your have little understanding of that worldview (and i can tell from your poor theology you have limited knowledge of the Bible or even the arguments in favour of its historicity and authenticity).

Your point about the Isaiah scroll

The scroll of Isaiah has been dated to approx 300 years B.C. It simply doesn't matter if it was written over 1 decade or 10 of them or, whether or not different scribes wrote it. Isaiah contains prophesies regarding the coming of the Messiah. The scroll found in the Dead Sea region in Qumram Cave 1 in 1946, is clearly dated long before Jesus existed. It also does not explain how it is that an oral tradition managed to maintain the falsehood for 2000 years without any reference back to the original lie upon which it is based? How could writers manage to ensure that there were no Chinese Whispers over 2000 years given they had no bush telegraph and came from areas with no collaboration with which to ensure consistency in the fabrication (I really do not think you grasp the importance of this concept). The lack of Chinese Whispers even down to the wording of the passages is absolutely miraculous. Today its easy for use to ensure consistency when writing a fabrication...we have instant access to online sources and fellow conspirators to manage it and ensure its consistency...however this was not the case 2000-3000 years ago. Most of these people no only didn't know each other, they fundamentally disagreed with each other's traditions..and yet the bible has remained the same for more than 2000 years anyway!

Actually whilst we are at this point. Would you affirm your knowledge of the model used to explain our existence...please go back and demonstrate for me from proven literature, where the energy and matter came from for the Big Bang and also, what started it?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I already answered this. I can't believe any of the scenario of salvation is valid. It's absurd. If I am wrong then I won;t have to spend time in heaven with an incompenet and foolish God. I will be in hell on my own intellectual integrity with others who have integrity.

that is not answering the wager. I am reading a statement that seems to state it cant even consider the wager. I ask you, if you work for a living seeking to earn money, if you ever look at the "jone's next door to ascertain you place in the community...if you brush your teeth in the morning, try to exercise, don't smoke, wash yourself and your car, then you are definitely making choices that fulfill the fundamentals of pascals wager. This means that where you are going in life absolutely matters to you.

You need to simply and very honestly answer the wager!

It pains me to say this, but I have yet to come across an atheist who is able to answer it...they always dodge the inevitable bullet by bailing out (as you are attempting to do with your response above). See I can answer the wager, I have no fear of the consequences of my answer.

It is ignorant, as it assumes Christian dogma is likely true and a person should gamble on an outcome most favorable due to fear, not reason. Oddly the wager, and your challenege, both exist as an exercise because your God isn't known to exist, and Christian dogma has no authority. It had authority back when the Catholic church had power, and when the Church of England endorsed the King, but the Enlightenment realized the weakness in religious authority and decided secular rule of law is superior, and they were correct. Western civilization has flourished under secular law in ways that theocracies do not allow.

and yet the worldview responsible for the abolition of slavery was Christianity. You did know this right? I think you are confusing the secular view of fundamentalism with its actual charge of "loving thy neighbour". It was never a biblical claim for the church to exercise the power over the people in the way in which catholicism has done in the past (sorry Catholics...but it had to be said to make this point. the churches past history wasn't a good example of Christian love). That was not Christianity as illustrated by Christ. He spoke out against this when he called the Jewish leadership a brood of vipers!

 

[F1fan]

that is not answering the wager. I am reading a statement that seems to state it cant even consider the wager. I ask you, if you work for a living seeking to earn money, if you ever look at the "jone's next door to ascertain you place in the community...if you brush your teeth in the morning, try to exercise, don't smoke, wash yourself and your car, then you are definitely making choices that fulfill the fundamentals of pascals wager. This means that where you are going in life absolutely matters to you.

I have answered twice. You don't like my answer. And I don't see any connection between my hygene and sport as related to pascal's wager in any way. The wgare presents a hypothetical that lacks facts. It's aim is to exploit our fear so that we agree with dogma that will reward us IN CASE the hypotheitical is true.

You need to simply and very honestly answer the wager!

I have. I wouldn't accept the wager and will take my chances. If I end up in hell then I am there due to the skills I have as a thinker, and as an emotionally stable person that doesn't give in to coersion.

The real question is why that defiance and integrity would land me in hell.

It pains me to say this, but I have yet to come across an atheist who is able to answer it...they always dodge the inevitable bullet by bailing out (as you are attempting to do with your response above). See I can answer the wager, I have no fear of the consequences of my answer.

Sounds like you expect atheists to answer as if they were Christian. The reason we aren't Christian and susceptible to coersion via threats of hell is because we don't make crucual religious assumptions. We don't make these assumptions because they have no basis in reality.

and yet the worldview responsible for the abolition of slavery was Christianity. You did know this right?

Hahaha, and the slavers were Christian too. My question is why otherwise decent Christians were slavers in the first place. And Christians worked in Nazi concentration camps, as I noted earlier today. The obvious answer: Christianity doesn't offer a sound moral influence. Abolition of slavery in the USA was a liberal movement. Christians were on both sides, so irrelevant.

I think you are confusing the secular view of fundamentalism with its actual charge of "loving thy neighbour". It was never a biblical claim for the church to exercise the power over the people in the way in which catholicism has done in the past (sorry Catholics...but it had to be said to make this point. the churches past history wasn't a good example of Christian love). That was not Christianity as illustrated by Christ. He spoke out against this when he called the Jewish leadership a brood of vipers!

I'd like to see more "love thy neighbor" among people who claim to be Christian. As it is it is a mixed bag. Good people tend to make good Christians and bad people tend to make bad hristians. Christianity doesn't make bad people good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will answer all of this as one response...

Your first two paragraphs above contradict each other...i will ignore those.

Sorry, but they don't. What part did you not understand?

you make mention of black and white fallacies...you do not understand the concept of biblical theology and how consistency across it pages are crucial in that theology. The bible is not a book where anyone who follows it may claim parts are inspired and parts are not! The reason why we know the bible is authentic is because of that consistency and its record of regional history. The fact that it contained the only evidence of some civilizations until rather recently is a testament to its accuracy . Despite the nonsense you wrote about the Hittites...you forget that secular historians used that very evidence to claim the Bible was false...until of course archeologists in 1834 stumbled upon proof the civilization really existed...add to this the 1846 finding of an obelisk showing king Jehu bowing before the Assyrian king Shalmanaser III...how the tune changed at this point![/quote[

No, that is not "theology". What you are appealing to is apologetics, or in other words "Lying For Jesus". The Bible is full of self contradictions. And please. I didn ot write any nonesen. If you do not understand something the correct thing to do is to ask questions. You appear to be refusing to understand how an established religion could copy something, while a n upstart would have difficulty in doing the same. Perhaps you should not be so ambitious in your posts. Break it down to a point at a time and then you will likely understand more easily.. And don't put down "Christian dogma" . You have your own dogma.

The statement, the flood is not true as has been proven by science, is simply base upond a theory there is no God! This idea that the only scientist with any credibility is one that denies God is not a balanced opinion. Your statement that YEC scholars such as Behee, Myer, Wise, Snelling, Hacket, White, Jeanson...are crackpots is a bit shortsighted and severely undermines your credibility. I think you would do better to research these guys and then simply outline the parts of their research where you believe they are wrong. Calling a person a crackpot simply because they have a different worldview isn't particularly intelligent when its clear your have little understanding of that worldview (and i can tell from your poor theology you have limited knowledge of the Bible or even the arguments in favour of its historicity and authenticity).

Nope, you are wrong in all aspects. Also be careful when you use the word "theory". A scientific theory is if anything higher than a scientific law. Scientific theories have superseded scientific laws. And the flood was first refuted by early Christian geologists. There is no assumption that God does not exist. If you base your faith on myths such as the flood then your faith is easily refutable. Also the name of the man is Behe, not Behee. He not only knows that there was no flood. He also knows that man is the product of evolution. Snelling is an obvious liar, perhaps seriously mentally ill. He has to know that he is wrong. He was a real geologist and then started to spout obvious lies for AiG. Meyer is not even a scientist. Once again, pick a topic that you want to discuss and we can go over it.

Your point about the Isaiah scroll

The scroll of Isaiah has been dated to approx 300 years B.C. It simply doesn't matter if it was written over 1 decade or 10 of them or, whether or not different scribes wrote it. Isaiah contains prophesies regarding the coming of the Messiah. The scroll found in the Dead Sea region in Qumram Cave 1 in 1946, is clearly dated long before Jesus existed. It also does not explain how it is that an oral tradition managed to maintain the falsehood for 2000 years without any reference back to the original lie upon which it is based? How could writers manage to ensure that there were no Chinese Whispers over 2000 years given they had no bush telegraph and came from areas with no collaboration with which to ensure consistency in the fabrication (I really do not think you grasp the importance of this concept). The lack of Chinese Whispers even down to the wording of the passages is absolutely miraculous. Today its easy for use to ensure consistency when writing a fabrication...we have instant access to online sources and fellow conspirators to manage it and ensure its consistency...however this was not the case 2000-3000 years ago. Most of these people no only didn't know each other, they fundamentally disagreed with each other's traditions..and yet the bible has remained the same for more than 2000 years anyway!

Actually whilst we are at this point. Would you affirm your knowledge of the model used to explain our existence...please go back and demonstrate for me from proven literature, where the energy and matter came from for the Big Bang and also, what started it?

No, the Isaiah scroll has not been dated to that age. There were two separate dating method used on it. Radiocarbon dating puts it at 356 to 103 BCE. That is not "apporx 300 years B.C." worse yet using paleogeographic/scribal dating (something that I know absolutely nothing about) it has been dated to 150 to 100 BCE.

Isaiah Scroll - Wikipedia

The intersection of those two would give what would seem to be to be the most likely date so between 103 and 150 BCE. And I am amazed. The Hebrew religion was well recorded after the Babylonian captivity. It was not relying on oral tradition then They had an organization and trained scribes. And now I see that source of your confusion. The early Christian beliefs were oral tradition. The first Gospel was not written until well over a generation after Jesus died. The rest of them were two to three generations after Jesus died or more. The early Christian church was based upon oral tradition. There is no way to be sure of what really happened. Just take a look at Luke and how his nativity story failed. He has what appears to be a ten year pregnancy for Mary.

You get sooooooo much wrong when you try to treat the whole Bible as being literally true. No wonder your posts seem to jump all over the place.

 

[Brian2]

Hi Brian, agree with your point about EG White and Adventism. Traditionally the more conservative Adventists tended to get a bit carried away preaching gloom and doom unless EG White was followed exactly according to her writings. That is unfortunate because she is published as having said that is not the way her writings were to be taken. She never called herself a prophet either BTW. She did believe she had a message to deliver and a ministry to preach...but she never claimed to be a prophet as far as I recall.

You comment about YEC and the gospel is an interesting one and here is something that probably should shed some light on the more recent "explaining away" of this dilemma that TEists face on the topic.

Please note the 4th commandment (in particular the part I have highlighted in bold)

8Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work—neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant or livestock, nor the foreigner within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
​

Now here is the interesting part about that section of the 4th commandment...and my response to you here is kinda in the form of a self answering question. The idea being that people really think about this observation...

In all of bible history, has there ever been a time when individuals in the bible who worshipped God did not worship weekly?
In all of the history of the early Christian church, is there any evidence to suggest that those Christians did not worship weekly?
In the entire period of the reformation, is there any evidence to suggest that any of those in the Christian church did not worship weekly?
In our modern Christian churches, is there any evidence to suggest that these denominations don't believe that one should engage in worship weekly?

After considering the above questions, how then does one reconcile the idea that the 4th commandment referred to a day in history that may have been thousands of years?

Do you see the enormous theological problem that TEists face with this issue. Even if they claim the books of Moses are nothing but an allegory, how can they possibly ignore the fact that every single character in Jewish and Christian religious history has always kept a weekly day of worship...which is entirely consistent with the idea that Exodus 20:11 is a single weekly day. Are we honestly going to attempt to explain this away by now claiming we worship every 7 thousand years? Which day would be the next sabbath I should worship on and, in which year would I do it?

I know the next claim and answer to the above would be, "oh we worship God every day". Yeah right, but they still only go to church on Sundays don't they...so my point remains! In any case, there are significant theological problems with the "every day is a sabbath day" claim. It simply isn't biblical...the bible very specifically demonstrates over and over again that there is but one sabbath day that God himself set apart from all other days as a special day of worship. It is the ONLY day he Sanctified for His Sabbath...there is no other (I don't even need to reference this...all Christians already know this and its easy to research for oneself)

Since the law (not before as far as we know) the Jews have had the weekly Sabbath and I suppose the week is built around the creation story. Christians also gathered once a week, but I don't think it was ever a day where rest was enforced as in Israel.
Yet all this does not tell us that the 7 days of creation and rest in Gen 1 were 24 hour days.

 

[paarsurrey]

#47 by friend AdamjEdgar, Religion: SDA , What could the Pre Fall of Man biocycle looked like?

I really am not trying to be mean here but honestly...what you are doing is a bit problematic and might not be the best approach to this question...

A large number of Jews are clearly still waiting for their Messiah and of course this would seem to mean the New Testament Gospel has no relevance to them. Having said that, I am not sure its a good idea to engage in a Christian discussion on this topic in that manner. Messianic Jews are far better equipped to deal with this [New Testament inspiration] issue.

It appears to me that perhaps you are of the Jewish faith and not Messianic. Would it not be better for you to simply stick with the facts that are relevant to your faith and not argue points you cannot make a case for or against (such as denying New Testament authenticity). Whether Jews choose to accept reality or not, documented religious history of God's people has moved on from the 5 books of the Tora and the 24 books of the Tanakh...we have just a wee bit more of the story now, and what he have in the New Testament has strangely enough, remained consistent with those early writings/books you claim as authoritative!

If you wish to argue the councils of Nicea (325), Rome (382), Trent (1546), and the Westminster Confession of faith in 1647...perhaps start another thread I do not need to argue those points here.

We know for a fact he [Jesus] really existed. Even well known atheist scholars admit and indeed even advocate that historical truth. We know on the balance of probabilities he was killed on a cross by order of Roman regional governor Pontius Pilate, at the demand of the Jews, during the reign of Herod Antipas. Given that and the above information, it is simply pointless to go down this rabbit warren with the argument "did God inspire/write Revelation 21".

" A large number of Jews are clearly still waiting for their Messiah "

Yes, the Israelites aka Jews were waiting and still wait for their Moshiach, a human being, not a Hellenist-Paulian (dying, rising, atoning, ascending) deity, which is , it transpires, a creation of Hellenist-Paul via a fake vision and has nothing to do with (Jesus) Yeshua*- the Israelite Messiah, please, right?

Regards
I am an Ahmadiyya peaceful Muslim
_____________________
* who did not die a cursed death on the Cross as per many clues very much in the Gospels itself, please, right?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I will respond to this post as it basically sums up the ones before from a number of other respondents.

Let me give a great example of a well-known "former Christian" regarding the claim atheists know bible theology. The truth and facts are, they do not. I am not going to argue this point because in reality, the mere consequence of poor theology and lack of genuine biblical understanding finds it consequences in agnosticism and atheism.

Now back to Bart Erhman...Bart was a Christian (Baptist if memory serves correctly...however this isn't really important). When I listen to Bart's claims over the years, it appears to me that he lost his faith because he found it difficult to reconcile the idea that God allows us to have free choice and we may write his words accordingly. Bart in modern times demands imperfection in the bible and since it does not display (for want of a better phrase) absolute inerrancy, he claims there must be no God. Add to this the moral high ground where a loving God directs characters in the Old Testament to barbarically kill entire races of people (seemingly innocent women, and children, included), and finally how one can explain the evil against young children in current times...and obviously, Bart cannot believe in God anymore!

In taking note of some of Bart's original Christian doctrinal beliefs, and when I view it from my position as a Seventh-Day Adventist, I'm sorry but I can see exactly why Bart stumbled and fell. His foundation in Christianity was deeply flawed beyond that of just the issues with his denominational problems. Most Christian scholars who debate Bart really feel for him, they almost universally agree that he is really nitpicking at issues in the Bible that in reality, do not actually have any impact on biblical theology at all (despite his claims to the contrary). They have, in numerous debates, demolished his arguments against biblical truth so often its pointless even trying to reference all of the times this has happened (it's easy to find for yourself anyway)...instead, I will simply cite that it [Bart's theological error] is, on the balance of probabilities, proven fact! He is theologically wrong period!

Now, this isn't an earbash against Bart...that is not my intention. The point is, Bart is a non-believer who absolutely believes Jesus of the Bible really existed. He has written extensively about it and without a doubt in an expert on the historical Jesus (even though he does not believe Jesus was God).

Ok, so now that we dispense with the "the bible is a myth"...that is a non-argument easily proven false...back to the point about creation and the New Testament.

I note a respondant who is Hindu...

may suggest that since your religious faith has its roots dating back to only about 500 AD...that really doesn't have much supporting history to explain the origins of man. To my thinking, this might be why you have a problem with the idea of a creator God in the first place? Christianity builds upon 4500 years B.C of Judaism...it has extensive historical heritage. I think most scholars make the claim the isarelite culture and subsequent Christian story is the oldest historical oral and written references in the world.

For our Jewish friend here who responded...might I suggest you research Messianic Judaism . You need to get with the modern times on this one as have some of your compatriots that now recognize the Messiah you have been waiting for over a period of 6 thousand years actually really did minister and die between approx AD 27 and 31. Your culture simply missed the point of the prophecies in Isaiah for example about him. You also did not adequately interpret the prophecies in the book of Daniel which gave a very accurate timeline of when he would come (you ignored the wise men (Maggi) who understood the prophecies well enough to actually go looking for Christ's birth in/or around 4-2BC. I do not think it worrysome to accept He was killed by His own people. The fact is, the plan of salvation always proposed the Messiah would die for his own creation. God died for sinners not the sinless!

The debate about whether or not one should read Genesis literally or allegorically is really a side issue. It has been put to not only theological scholars but also literary experts (many of whom are not even religious) and both parties have conclusively proven the book of Genesis (and indeed all the books of Moses) cannot be read as allegories. They are historical narratives in the way in which they are written. From a theological perspective, they cannot be an allegory either as this actually causes huge (and I mean huge) theological issues with the entire Christian religious belief and in the authenticity of the bible writings themselves. Not least the major problem that if one says the creation story and the fall of man is an allegory, then how does one reconcile a "spiritual death" with the physical death that our Messiah endured on our behalf in order to pay the penalty for sin? ("wages of sin are death")

If Christ didn't need to die a physical death...what was the point of the entire plan of salvation as outlined in Genesis chapter 3? It becomes completely pointless, thus rendering the rest of the Bible unnecessary. Christ isn't our savior...if Christ isn't a savior...what is the point of being Christian exactly?

This also invalidates almost the entire writings of the apostle Paul. Nothing he writes is relevant when ones turns Genesis chapter 1,2&3 into an allegory! Im not going to go into the sanctuary...that is an even bigger problem because it completely destroys any relationship between us modern Christians (spiritual Israel) and taking the gospel to the Gentiles. This means no gentile can be saved...we are all lost.

Ok enough of the above...back to the O.P

Please focus on the following:

When Adam and Eve were placed in the garden of Eden, there was no sin.
How might the Biocycle in a sinless world actually function? Consider:

1. termites eat trees,
2. plant leaves fall off and rot thus fertilizing other plants,
3. lions ate grass,
4. did humans and animals poop,
5. no sun or moon to shed light on the world as the new Jerusalem will be the only source of all light and there will be no night...
6. any other relevant things you can think of related to a sinless Biocycle in the new earth.

The point of this is to bring it to the attention of Christians that we need to adequately explain the problems non Christians have with what is a naive view of a sinless (before the fall) vs sinful (after the fall) Biocycle.

I'm not sure how you expect an answer to a question that's just impossible...at best you have guess work.
Why can't it be a supernatural explanation? I mean Adam and Eve literally walked with God. Heaven was on earth at least in the garden.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure how you expect an answer to a question that's just impossible...at best you have guess work.
Why can't it be a supernatural explanation? I mean Adam and Eve literally walked with God. Heaven was on earth at least in the garden.

Some supernatural claims can be tested if one has enough information.

 

[Valjean]

I'm not sure how you expect an answer to a question that's just impossible...at best you have guess work.
Why can't it be a supernatural explanation? I mean Adam and Eve literally walked with God. Heaven was on earth at least in the garden.

The supernatural has never been objectively documented. There are plenty of anecdotal claims and hearsay, but nothing repeatable or measurable. Historically, claims of supernatural phenomena: earthquakes, tides, seasons, day and night, disease, &c. have later been found to have natural explanations.

Adam and Eve walking with God? What real evidence do we have for any of that? It's a folk tale.

So: Supernatural? -- Never objectively documented. No empirical evidence.
Adam and Eve? -- No evidence. A fantastical claim that violates known physical and biological processes.
God? -- No evidence. No need for such a phenomenon to account for the observed world.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The supernatural has never been objectively documented. There are plenty of anecdotal claims and hearsay, but nothing repeatable or measurable. Historically, claims of supernatural phenomena: earthquakes, tides, seasons, day and night, disease, &c. have later been found to have natural explanations.

Adam and Eve walking with God? What real evidence do we have for any of that? It's a folk tale.

So: Supernatural? -- Never objectively documented. No empirical evidence.
Adam and Eve? -- No evidence. A fantastical claim that violates known physical and biological processes.
God? -- No evidence. No need for such a phenomenon to account for the observed world.

Says the person who believes everything came from nothing.