Australia's Unique Animals

don · 10-31-09 12:47 pm

That is a theological answer, not a scientific one. Try again. Sin is not defined by science, of course. The believer who accepts that a "sinless" and "everything good" world came about by the fiat of God has no scientific answer for the "red tooth and claw" state of nature today. Nonetheless, the believer declares that a change must have taken place. Then, as the message of Revelation 21 is considered, the pristine state of all goodness and light will be restored at the end of the conflict with sin. .

elaine · 10-31-09 1:02 pm

Don, I have no problem with those who want to use theology when discussing the Bible. However, when a term such as "sin" is used an explanation for all things unseemly in this earth as a scientific explanation that is insufficient to be called science. It is an ongoing and contuing problem with theologians who want it both ways: to use scientific methods but resorting to Bible terms for explanation.

bob_2 · 10-31-09 5:03 pm

John you exasperate me with your sarcastic talking snake. I suppose once in a while you love to talk about a talking bush from Moses time, eh? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh as our late fearless leader use to say!!!

bob_2 · 10-31-09 5:06 pm

If Adam and Eve actually ate the apple, and were "locked" out of the garden, Adam experienced it, would that not be science by it's very definition, man's observation. Better than a dino evolving from a slime pit, IMO. How scientific is that, that is chance, PURE CHANCE.

john8verse32 · 10-31-09 9:04 pm

I suppose once in a while you love to talk about a talking bush from Moses time, eh Bob...you're showing both your Canadian upbringing, eh? as well as your basic misunderstanding of the Old Test..... first of all, it was a BURNING BUSH.... not a talking bush. and 2nd of all, and the most troublesome, is the question of how much of this tale should be literally believed, based on "problems" within God's inerrant word!!! for example, here it says: (CEV) Exodus 3:1 One day, Moses was taking care of the sheep and goats of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian, and Moses decided to lead them across the desert to Sinai, the holy mountain. 2 There an angel of the LORD appeared to him from a burning bush. Moses saw that the bush was on fire, but it was not burning up. 3 "This is strange!" he said to himself. "I'll go over and see why the bush isn't burning up." 4 When the LORD saw Moses coming near the bush, he called him by name, and Moses answered, "Here I am." 5 God replied, "Don't come any closer. Take off your sandals -- the ground where you are standing is holy. OK...it sounds like an interesting story to tell your kids... and so far, there is no killing, tho at the end of the chapter God explains how he is going to help the Israelites to blackmail the Egyptians, "punish them", and tell the Israelites to steal their stuff on the way out!!! but other texts raise an interesting problem: who was Moses father in law? according to the above, it was Jethro. also the following texts confirm this. Exodus 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law. Exodus 4:18 And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father in law. Exodus 18:1 When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses' father in law.... Exodus 18:5 And Jethro Moses' father in law, came with his sons and his wife unto Moses ... but elsewhere, it is NOT Jethro....it is another guy named Hobab: Judges 4:11 Now Heber the Kenite, which as of the children of Hobab the father in law of Moses. Numbers 10:29 And Moses said unto Hobab ... Moses' father in law. you would think that if Moses wrote Numbers, he would know who his fil was, no? but even Exodus gives another guy, and it is alleged that Moses wrote this book too!!! but it gives even a third guy, Reuel!!!! Exodus 2:18-21 And when they came to Reuel their father, he said.... And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. but the father in law issue is not the only problem with this campfire tale.... who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush is the next issue, the failure to resolve which seems to compromise the entire tale as a literal event: Moses wrote Exodus, right? and he was the individual who claims to have heard the voice out of the bush...so we should believe this, right? it was God himself who spoke to Moses. Exodus 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. later, Mark quotes the Old Test, and agrees that it was God... Mark 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? but wait!!!!! another passage in Exodus, again, allegedly written by Moses, claims it was NOT God, but an angel who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush: Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. and Paul take us the same story, different from mark: Acts 7:35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send [to be] a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush. probably conclusion? since two different claims are made by two different books (Exodus and Numbers) allegedly written by Moses himself, it appears that both of those books could not have been authored by the same guy since they contain different versions. and Mark and Paul didn't pick that up. Is that what one should expect from a divinely inspired book by which we are to live or be BBQed by the God of the Hebrews? forget attacking evolution, Bob... forget attacking the age of the earth as explained by scientists, historians, archeologists, geologists, etc.... why not concentrate on getting the story straight behind your own belief? are we really expected to govern our journey thru life by the ancient stories and their confusing signposts? <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/2176.jpg" alt="">

don · 11-01-09 12:20 am

John, some of us believe that 3000+ years separate us from the time of Moses. This time lapse witnessed many cultural changes. The names for Moses' father-in-law are not that difficult to explain. First, Exodus 2 and 3 render both Reuel and Jethro; just mere verses apart. My basic assumption is that the writers were not fools. They included several names for a purpose; especially noted when they are really close together. Hobab seems to have been a son of Jethro. The angel of the LORD spoke for the LORD, thus the LORD spoke. Add to that, the "appearances" of God in the OT. Theologians refer to these as "Theophany". There are quite a few. Many Christians believe that the Son of God took on the "appearances" and the "angel of the LORD" was the Son. As is usaully the case, the oddities of the Bible are windows of opportunity to understand a vastly different ancient culture. Also, beware of certain sources. They don't think very deeply on the issues. An example is Numbers 10:29 Your source: Numbers 10:29, And Moses said unto Hobab ... Moses' father in law. The full passage:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:29 Then Moses said to Hobab the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses' father-in-law<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Before making fun of the supposed contradictions in the Bible, it seems wise to ask how the passages in question can be harmonized, or consistently understood, with the other statements.<ol><li>The term "father" is used in a broader sense than our modern usage. It can mean head of the clan. <LI>It is possible that a father and a son, or grandson can have the same name. That would get confusing. <LI>It is possible that the scribe made a mistake. This has happened with translations. One early King James Bible read "Thou shalt committ adultery." It became known for its error. <LI>It is possible that some nuance lost to us could explain the apparent inconsistency.</li></ol> (Message edited by Don on November 01, 2009)

john8verse32 · 11-01-09 1:13 am

It is possible that some nuance lost to us could explain the apparent inconsistency... and does this give us the right, even obligation, to tell others that our God will kill them painfully later unless they change their beliefs to what we tell them from our understanding of those inconsistencies and nuances? I repeat: are nuanced inconsistancies what one should expect from a divinely inspired book by which we are to live or be BBQed by the God of the Hebrews?

don · 11-01-09 8:33 am

to tell others that our God will kill them painfully later unless Let's examine what the Bible says about God causing pain "later". He does not "cause pain" because we get some information wrong. No, but if we "have hurt one of these little ones" then we can expect some dire consequences unless we repent. are nuanced inconsistancies what one should expect from a divinely inspired book by which we are to live Apparently so. How shall we live? Will we maintain a respect for people of ancient faith and ways and the God they report or will we mock and make fun because the nuances offend us? Because their belief of God offends us, which it does? Where will I lend my influence? These questions not only apply to the Hebrew and Christian canons but to all ancient "sacred" writings. (Message edited by Don on November 01, 2009)

john8verse32 · 11-01-09 10:34 am

Will we maintain a respect for people of ancient faith and ways and the God they report ??? ok... lets say we do respect that Hitlers massacre of millions of Jews was just his way to punish the people who killed Christ.... per Luther and Wagner.. lets say that Stalins massacre of millions of Russians was NOT religiously oriented, so we can respect him too. Along with Pol Pot. and the ancient Romans who massacred and pillaged around the med? to spread their religion? or just their influence and economy? lets respect them too. and the Greeks...fighting with Iranians over religion? or many islands and all of Turkey? we can understand that too....probably just people fighting with people over territory and influence and trade..... and when the Greeks worshiped at Delphi? breathing in all that ethylene in order to fortell the future? just their ignorance of chemistry, right... ....... but a lovingGod...deliberately trying to kill off the whole world, including innocent kids and animals just because He had become sorry he had made them....and because the beautiful women were hooking up with space aliens..... are we really to respect that? and the massacre of Egypts innocent firstborn kids..when torturing the Pharoah would have worked instead of killing those who could not influence him.... should we honor and bow down to such a god? or should we finally realize that the hebrews were just like many ancient people...and they exaggerated, borrowed, and concocted stories, including the Nuremberg excuse that their God made them do it. and their genetic relatives (because of all that amalgamating with their virgins) are still at it. still in God's name..... <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/2180.jpg" alt=""> isn't divorcing ourselves from the tyranny of the past the only way that one can free God from the violence and mayhem attributed to Him? including His final solution, as imagined by John the Rev, Dante and EGW? and get on with the values of Christianity? out with the old, in with the new???? <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/2181.jpg" alt="">

george · 11-01-09 12:15 pm

"Hurting little ones" didn't seem to bother God a whole lot in the OT. Even today, little ones are suffering parental abuse and being abducted by, what seems to be, an infestation of pedophile activity, especially in Florida for some reason. Throughout history, children have been abused and relegated to the status of property, right along with women, in a world of male domination - a Christian world of male domination. So don't bring up being kind to "little ones" as a hallmark of NT Christianity, at least in practice. I can no longer buy the claim that God was operating through "His people" of the OT. The OT people and cultures were EVOLVED out of their contemporary geographic region; and what ever they found expedient to do, they did, attributing their activities to the wishes of their God, which was their rallying cry. Individual voices might be heard objecting to one thing or another but, according to the NT, those "prophets" were not listened to and were even killed. Yes, the NT invites us to examine the OT as a basis for Christ's activities and mission, but that was a cultural invitation. No other people were expected to know what the OT history proclaimed; and the NT church, as it began, made it very clear that gentiles were not expected, even by the Jews, to become "Jews first" and then graduate to Christianity - but some segments of Christianity haven't got that yet. So, if we are to attribute current Christian activity of, (let's say) medical missionary work, to God's leading then we are going to have to admit that God has had a hand in the discovery of sciences that have permitted that benevolent work, and has not relegated us to, (let's say) 19th century medical knowledge, or perhaps even earlier "medical" practices of bleedings and exorcisms. It is much easier for me to think that God has communicated with man through the natural world, the seasons, the geology, innate behaviors, and most of all, the awe in the presence of all of nature, especially the heavens, than it is to think that God favored a small group of nomads and made them dominate their little world with His blessings above all other people, tribe or nation. Why would He do that? Would we do that with our own children - relegate some to failure and overwhelm others with blessings - all because we want to be worshiped? I would challenge anyone to spend some alone time on a mountain top (40 days and 40 nights perhaps); or sailing the vast oceans (but not anywhere near Somalia), and not come away with awe and respect to whatever forces made all this possible. Is that not worshiping God as creator? Do we have to have a mental picture of God, or a man called Jesus or an angel placing clay on a pottery wheel to come up with a fact-simile in order to properly relate to God and to worship Him? Does it really matter to GOD how we think He did it? Or is it enough that we know our place in this universe and try to live accordingly - with humility - something the Hebrews and most Christians have yet to learn to do?

elaine · 11-01-09 12:43 pm

Sirje, very eloquently written. If humans could only enlarge their views and not be bound by such narrow, tunnel vision, and see that God is so much greater than man has made him. Is it any wonder there are increasing numbers of atheists when presented with such a picture of God? Only masochists could love the one given by many Christians.

don · 11-01-09 4:26 pm

So don't bring up being kind to "little ones" as a hallmark of NT Christianity, at least in practice. I was referring to Jesus' statement found in the Gospels. Of course, His reported statements are the foundation of Christianity. How his followers behave (in their evil) is not the message of Jesus. .

george · 11-01-09 6:40 pm

You know Don, I have heard that cop out just once too many times. When the church is criticized for its less-than-stellar activities, I have heard defendants continuously say, "well the church is made up of individuals" etc. We, its member are the church; and we, Christians, make up the Christian message - positive or negative. The point is, that Christianity with all its positive influences on Western culture, does not have a good historical track record as a whole. So to say, that Christianity, or Christians have been concerned with the well fare of children is really not being honest. Jesus and the rest of the NT makes the point that "by their works you shall know them"; and "by their love" for each other they will be known. Christianity certainly hasn't made those characteristics its major selling point. The ads usually include some sort of threat, whether stated or implied. I am absolutely positive that God is way more gracious and benevolent than His ardent followers. Which begs the question - WHO ACTUALLY REPRESENTS CHRISTIANITY? - those who profess to be by membership; or, organizations that bear biblical names over their doors - or bombastic preachers yelling into a microphone on some platform - the workforce in some impressive looking building where people look like they're doing something important? Sorry - this is going way off the topic.

don · 11-01-09 7:50 pm

So to say, that Christianity, or Christians have been concerned with the well fare of children is really not being honest. I have not said any of this. Your attack should be directed at someone who says what is so offensive to you. How is it a cop out to go back to the reported words of Jesus; words which you still support, I presume? I repeat, Jesus makes it clear that justice will be meted out against those who mistreat children. We can point to the OT and its inadequate report of God; we can point to the church and its terrible evil deeds; but none of this nullifies the words of Jesus found in the Gospels. I believe that God accepts the blame placed on Him by those who read His prophets. I see Him as having broad shoulders and a protective attitude toward those who stood for Him with prophetic voice throughout the ages. Are we offended that God is described as He is in the Hebrew Bible? I believe that God understands our consternation. I don't see Him as judging us on what we think of Him but on how we treat each other. The written record of God is messed up. This is why we needed Jesus to live among us and help us get some of the distortions corrected. .

george · 11-01-09 8:18 pm

Don, This is the first time I have seen you acknowledge, "The written record of God is messed up." How far are you willing to go with this? Isn't this what our discussions have been about - whether or not to trust the OT depiction of creation and all the rest that goes with that - difference between science and ancient word pictures of creation? Maybe it's not the written record that's messed up as much as our ability to read it properly.

elaine · 11-01-09 8:44 pm

Don, can you further explain where and how the The written record of God is messed up.? Sirje and I have been saying that for some time: by canonizing and using the Hebrew Bible as the written Word of God, we have given it authority of teaching and instruction. How do you use it in your teaching if you agree that it is "messed up"?}

elaine · 11-01-09 9:26 pm

Another view of the "Word of God" by the LDS followers: The fundamentalists are perfectly justified in their position on polygamy, extreme patriarchy and racism. After all, if those were the "revealed word of God" back in the early days of the church, then who are the modern day leaders to deny that word of God today? Just because wicked governments :-) refuse to cooperate should be no reason to back away from the most important points of doctrine. If it was good enough for Daniel to not back down (resulting in being cast into the lions den) then it should be good enough for modern prophets to not back down, either. (Okay it's important for me to state that I'm simply pointing out the fundamentalist argument.* Is that not exactly what Fundamentalists of all religions, including Adventists believe? *From a book review of Under the Banner of Heaven.

don · 11-01-09 9:32 pm

can you further explain where and how the The written record of God is messed up.? For the Hebrew story, it is the best we have, but a veil remains over the eyes of those who read it. The veil is removed as we study of Jesus' life here on earth. I remain in favor of the Hebrew Bible used canonically. I do not think of the Bible as inerrant. The Hebrew Bible provides a continued source of spiritual inspiration and sacred history. Though it is "messed up" or "veiled" in its representation of God, it is God's Word presented in human thought and deserves our respect. .

elaine · 11-01-09 11:02 pm

"Respect" should not mean "obedience" to the commands given in the Hebrew Bible. All history must be evaluated by the agenda of the writer, as well as the conditions prevalent at the time of writing.

don · 11-01-09 11:39 pm

"Respect" should not mean "obedience" to the commands given in the Hebrew Bible. "Obedience" would be for those who believe. For the Christian, obedience is reserved for the "righteous requirements of the law". Most Christians understand that Hebraic ritual is not practiced by the Christian. Most Hebraic rituals find a spiritual fulfillment in Christ. All history must be evaluated by the agenda of the writer, as well as the conditions prevalent at the time of writing. Writers usually don't state their agendas and the time of writing is often heatedly debated. .

george · 11-02-09 5:33 am

Writers usually don't state their agendas and the time of writing is often heatedly debated. Isn't that what Biblical research is all about - to discern the agenda of the writer and place the writing within the context of time and place. Most (all) fundamentalist use of scripture ignores those elements, making the texts say whatever is expedient for any particular denomination. When reading Daniel, for example, we don't just read Daniel. We project everything to the current time and place and ignore the history and context. The time of writing is "heatedly debated" because history may not agree with interpretation.

don · 11-02-09 8:32 am

Isn't that what Biblical research is all about - to discern the agenda of the writer and place the writing within the context of time and place. Regarding agenda: if we mean the obvious force of the very writing, then agenda is discernable. But some historians propose an agenda based on their knowledge of the nature of humans to deceive or propagandize. These historian confuse their own hypotheses with the original writer's agenda. The time of writing is "heatedly debated" because history may not agree with interpretation. History is the product of data and interpretation. Historians interpret the data based on certain ways of looking at "the world". For example: one historian believes that the Bible has nothing to say about the facts of history; that it was all made up, these are called "minimalists". Other historians believe that the cananical writings should be accepted as historical evidence unless there is good reason to reject what they say. These historians are often called "maximalists". (The official definitons of these terms seem different than how I have found them used by historians. I stand willing to be corrected. Perhaps Jag could help with this; he has used the term "minimalist" in a past post.) Thus, the debate over time of authorship often reveals the debater's world view. Data is organized to support one's hypotheses which have been formulated out of one's world view. .

george · 11-02-09 10:29 am

These historian confuse their own hypotheses with the original writer's agenda. Data is organized to support one's hypotheses which have been formulated out of one's world view. Can't that be said about theological interpretation as well? Both groups are fallible when it come to interpretation, except historians are open to further research and correction and have less to loose. While it's true that the American Revolution reads differently in Britain than it does in the US, the provable facts of the war are not in dispute - as opposed to the fundamentalist stand on the biblical record. When a distortion is found it is assumed that given enough time, the truth, as it appears in the Bible, will be found. I actually agree with some of that, but regularity of dismissing contrary evidence doesn't give much hope for history and the Bible accounts to agree. Let's remember that Bible history was written by the Hebrews and they had no agenda?

elaine · 11-02-09 1:21 pm

In reading the Hebrew Bible we should constantly remind ourselves that it is THEIR story, and they wrote it mainly about themselves, and usually pictured all others as enemies. While they gave God the authority to bless and punish them, it is their view of their god and was not the prevailing views of gods in all the surrounding nations. Christians have chosen to believe the Hebrew story and reject all the others that disagree with the Bible stories. There were many religions, some also monotheistic, long before the Hebrew claim for original monotheism. While there is abundant evidence of much earlier Egyptian culture with the pyramids, written history, and more that was practiced millennia before the Hebrew religion, nevertheless, Christians have chosen that one view of history if it conflicts in any way with all the other world histories.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 10-31-09 12:47 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#27 10-31-09 1:02 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#28 10-31-09 5:03 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#29 10-31-09 5:06 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#30 10-31-09 9:04 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#31 11-01-09 12:20 am

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#32 11-01-09 1:13 am

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#33 11-01-09 8:33 am

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#34 11-01-09 10:34 am

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#35 11-01-09 12:15 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#36 11-01-09 12:43 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#37 11-01-09 4:26 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#38 11-01-09 6:40 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#39 11-01-09 7:50 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#40 11-01-09 8:18 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#41 11-01-09 8:44 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#42 11-01-09 9:26 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#43 11-01-09 9:32 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#44 11-01-09 11:02 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#45 11-01-09 11:39 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#46 11-02-09 5:33 am

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#47 11-02-09 8:32 am

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#48 11-02-09 10:29 am

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

#49 11-02-09 1:21 pm

Re: Australia&#39;s Unique Animals

Board footer

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals

Re: Australia's Unique Animals