Curse of the bowels

[Rich]

"New opinions are always suspect, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common." -John Locke

For several weeks I have been pondering some things about the creation story and the rebellion story reported in God’s Word. Some may be familiar with the Storys. God called everything into existence: Time, Space and Matter. The implication is everything was made for man’s benefit. Man apparently was created as a toy or pet or play thing for God. At the end of the creation week, God observed everything He had made, “and behold it was very good.”

There was no death, but some pain (this will be addressed later). God does not consider plants to have life as animals have life. Everything alive was to eat plants and herbs and seeds. The first instructions from God to man was “Be fruitful and fill the earth.” Later he told man to be good kids and don’t eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil or He would kill them, albeit slowly. But, He would surely kill them. The Hebrew, which is the language used, says something like “dying, you will surely die.”

Now, gentle reader, tell me if you had the choice to be able to live life at the same physical pleasure level as you did when you were in your twenties, and could do so without the need to urinate and defecate, would that be very good? If everything worked fine, that would be very good. Everyone knows if we don’t void and eliminate on a regular basis we will become sick and eventually die. I’m sure most of us here have heard the joke about different parts of the body wanting to be the boss. When the anus does not function, everything ceases.

I contend the original created living organisms were created to use the plant material in a completely efficient manner. Everything worked correctly so there was no over eating. The impulse to stop eating would over ride the desire to consume more than required to sustain a very good life. Everything eaten was completely turned into either energy or heat. Maybe some smart person will tell me they are interchangeable.

But like most kids, they disobeyed God. Yep. They ate from The tree. God was furious. He asked the man about it and he deferred to the woman. God asked her and she blamed to the snake. Some know that God cursed the snake a little. He cursed the woman a little more. Here’s where the pain comes in. If one multiplies one times zero, he gets zero. Simple. But if one multiplies one times two, one gets two. That is not greatly multiplied. So if one multiplies one times ten then one is greatly multiplying. God told the woman, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth.” He changed her DNA and body to accommodate the added organs necessary to eliminate the toxins he just cursed her with. This caused her more pain.

Then He addressed the man changing his DNA and body and all "higher" living organisms bodies and DNA's like He did to the woman. Not only that, since he was His crowning jewel of creation, God cursed everything on account of him. Stars began to explode in novas and super novas. Plants’ DNA were change so they grew thorns and stickers.

Entropy was introduced.

[AK-49]

I am not a bible scholar but I don't see a conflict between evolution and creation. In my opinion evolution is a natural law much the same as gravity. The fact that living things can evolute and have the ability to adapt to changing conditions is a positive thing and not a negative thing. Do you know what the definition of evolution is? I believe in God and I also know that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. The fossil record is indisputatable. It takes more genius to create something that can improve over time as compared to create something that remains the same and stagnates.

[Waidmann]

Rich,

That's an interesting theory you have there. What you're suggesting is a re-creation following the Fall. The Scriptures are silent as far as that is concerned, so I'm not inclined to add that much detail. The Westminster Confession says "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." (Chapter I, Section 6)

Since the Scriptures say nothing about a second creation in which both mankind's DNA is modified at the germ level and his body likewise fiat changed by the addition of organs, orifices and nerve systems, my inclination is to see a more simple explanation of the events you are attempting to explain.

Man was not created as God's "toy, plaything or pet". Man was created a little lower than the angels, and crowned with glory and honor. The death spoken of in Genesis 2-3 refers to a spiritual death, not a physical death. To suggest that upon eating of the forbidden fruit, God began "killing him, albeit slowly", requires a pretty dramatic twisting of the Scripture--something I'm not particularly comfortable with. God said, "The day in which you eat it, you shall surely die". He didn't say "the day in which you eat, you will become mortal, and 900 years later you will die".

Too many mental gynmastics for me. I prefer the simple explanation.

Man, who was already mortal, sinned. He died spritually the moment he dis-obeyed God. Just like God said. Simple. No re-creation, no addition to Scripture, no tortured logic.

Waidmann

(Seems to me we've had this discussion before.)

[Rich]

AK-49,

The definition of evolution is to change with an increase in order with new information. It has never been observed. Evolution is ABOSLUTELY contrary to God's Word. You need to do a LOT more reading before you come back to this discussion. Even Steven J. Gould said the idea that mutations generate new information is effectively dead. No informed person would accuse him of supporting even intelligent design; much less Biblical creation.

If evolution has been going on for millions of years, then what are we going to expect when everything returns to the original creation? That death will start over. God calls death the last enemy.

Consider:
"All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one of man, and another flesh of beast and another flesh of birds and another of fish." 1 Corinthians 15:39

At least ten times in the First Chapter God told the animals to reproduce after their kind.

In the science of paleontology the fossils are in a totally chaotic jumble. There are fossils of every kind of creature, including man, found in every layer of the geological layers. Even in the Precambrian layer human artifacts have been discovered. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.

In the science of geology some part of every stratum is laying on Precambrian granite.

In archeology the further back in time we go past the dark ages, the more advanced the civilizations were. Modern man has no idea how the great pyramid was made. Modern man has no idea how the stone walls of Southern Mexico and Central America were made and moved into place.


Waidmann,

You said we had this discussion before. That is impossible since I came up with this theory a few weeks ago. I have not been posting here for months.

You are errecting a strawman with your "second creation". No offence intended.

You apparently missed something in Scripture. God told Adam because he sinned the earth would bring forth thorns and thistles. Why, if they were already there, would God say that. If you check the Hebrew, you will discover the "dying, you will surely die" is what It says. Are you saying that Adam and Eve had no forgivness since they were spiritually dead?

If it was only spiritual death, why did God kill an animal to make skins for them? The plant covering would have been good enough. God tells us "By one man's sin death entered the world." Do you want me to believe death and disease were going on prior to Adam's sin? God called that "very good"? What kind of God would create death and disease? That's worse than calling man a pet.

[AK-49]

Rich, No sense in arguing with you but for those interested in knowing. Chimp dna is 96% the same as human dna

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

Human Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

Once again I don't have a problem with evolution, I see no conflict with believing in God and accepting evolution as a law of nature. Whether or not you accept evolution or not it has nothing to do with salvation. Each to his own.

[Waidmann]

Rich,

When you're postulating that mankind's entire digestive track was re-designed to eliminate solid waste and blood purification system was redesigned to allow the elimination of toxins via urination, that sounds like a re-creation to me. You can call it what you want. It's not supported by Scripture.

We've certainly discussed the "dying, thou shalt die" phraseology before. I have two questions for you about that.

Question 1:

If the repetition of the verb structure suggests a process rather than placing emphasis on the verb in question and suggesting certainty, then please suggest how we should understand the following verses:

Genesis 20:7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die (literally, "dying, thou shalt die"), thou, and all that thine.

Genesis 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised (literally, "must be circumcised to be circumcised" or "circumcising, he shalt be circumcised") among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Genesis 30:16 And Jacob came out of the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee (literally, "I hired you to hire you" or "hiring you, I hired you") with my son's mandrakes. And he lay with her that night.

This is only three examples. There are a dozen more I could have used. Please use the same logic to interpret these verses for us.

Point two:

Why doesn't any translation say anything other than "thou shalt surely die"? Surely, if there was a suggestion that this verse might be suggesting a process that begins with the first mention of the verb (in this case, "dying"), and then continues over time to an ultimate conclusions 900 years later ("...thou shalt die"), some Hebrew language expert would have mentioned it as a possible translation. Don't you think? How could they all be so...ignorant?



You apparently missed something in Scripture. God told Adam because he sinned the earth would bring forth thorns and thistles. Why, if they were already there, would God say that.

You apparently missed that fact that God did not say the earth would bring forth thorns and thistles for the first time ever. What God did say was along the line of "Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee", a statement that proved true since Adam was promply removed from the garden into "the real world"--the world of thistles and thorns.


If it was only spiritual death, why did God kill an animal to make skins for them?

How about as a foreshadow of Christ's attoning death? "Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin"


Do you want me to believe death and disease were going on prior to Adam's sin?

Depends on what you mean. Adam and Eve were the only two humans at that time, so there hadn't been time for them to age and die. And I'm assuming that human sicknesses weren't evident at that time. So, no--death and disease were not going on prior to Adam's sin. However, if you mean were Adam and Eve immortal prior to Adam's sin, I would suggest they were not. I actually picture Moses' death as the archtype of what would have happened had Adam not sinned. But that is clearly my opinion. If you mean were other things dying, I think they certainly were. Outside the Garden I'm pretty sure that lions were killing and eating gazelles, for example. I don't know how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden prior to the fall, but if they lived in there longer than 10 years, I'm sure they witnessed the birth and death of several generations of guinnea pigs (for example, assuming there were guinnea pigs in the Garden).


What kind of God would create death and disease?

What kind of God would create Hell as a place of eternal conscious torment? You do believe in Hell, don't you? Just for fun, read C.S. Lewis' book, "The Problem With Pain".

Anyhow, 'nuff said on this one. Time for others to post if they will.

Waidmann

[AK-49]

Waidmann, why do you even entertain such nonsense as "curse of the bowels"... I dont think such acult nonsense has a place here.

[Rich]

AK-49,

Did you know humans and bananas share 50% of the same DNA. The difference between the chip and a human is 4%; according to you. Some say less, some say more. We will go with the 4%. The information contained in those 4% is equilivant to 250 large books of small print with 500 pages each. Which pages do you want to do without?

Chemicals of life have 20 letters like the English language has 26 letters. Just as the same letters are used over and over to type out this message, the same letters are used by God in life. God is clever, isn't He!

Waidmann,

I just came back to the house. I will digest your post and respond tomorrow, if the Lord wills.

[Indy]

AK-49,

Did you know humans and bananas share 50% of the same DNA.

No one can win an argument with Rich (Ringman) because, right or wrong, he really does his homework.

Nobody ever gets their mind dchanged by arguments like this anyway.

[Rich]

Waidmann,

You say there is no Scripture to support re-designing the digestive track. I say there is None to contradict it. God did infact curse the animal kingdom. Remember he cursed the snake "more than all the cattle, and more tha every best of the field" so that the snake would have to crawl on its belly.

I dont remember discussing "dying, you will surely die." But I feel busted with your supporting Scriptures. Thanks for the heads up on these. I will fall back on my old friend ignorant predjudice and hold on to my belief. I bet you do the same at times.:)

What makes you think the earth was already sprouting thorns and thistles? I don't see anything to suggest they were there.

Upon what do you base your assumptions that guinnea pigs were dying? What Scripture do you appeal to to have lions eating gazelles. Don't you remember God said that everything alive would eat plants? I will quote,

"'Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, every green plant for food."

You ask what kind of God would create Hell as a place of eternal conscious torment. For me that is very simple: An Infinite God. He tells us He created Hell for the Devil and his minions. When people choose to follow Satan consciously or by default God sends them to Hell. You see God is not infinite from neutral to nice. He is Infinte. Therefore when He does something we perceive as bad, He is terrible. You don't like it when someone you love blantantly rejects a gift from you. How much more would an Infinite being be offended. He gave His only begotten Son so that who ever beleives on Him should not perish, but have ever lasting life.

Thanks for suggesting the book. I have read some of his works and they are very stimulating.

[AK-49]

Indy, and I can recognize BS when I see it. Why anyone would believe that cult crap is beyond me. Common sense can go along ways in sorting out the good from the bad.

[Waidmann]

Gentlemen (Indy and AK-49),

Remember, there are always two totally separate audiences for every post. There is the person to whom you are responding, and there are the other readers who are reading and lurking.

You are probably correct when you suggest that Rich's mind isn't changed by anything anyone posts. However, he does raise some points that probably could profit by clarification (like that "dying, thou shalt die" Hebrew verbiage. That can be confusing until one realizes that it is common, Hebrew phraseology used to denote certaintly. Rich could end up confusing someone else with his interpretation of what that phrase means.).

Plus, it is always possible that at some point, if, or perhaps, when the house of cards falls in, he will remember this and not walk away from the faith, as did our friend Stonewall. Stonewall, you may recall, lost his confidence that the literal, historical, fundamentalist faith he grew up with stood the test of logic. He walked away from the Faith, rather that try to wrestle with a different understanding. I hope he will return some day.

Anyhow, that's why I'm engaging Rich.

Waidmann

[Waidmann]

Rich,

Indy and AK are correct. This has gone on long enough. You need to make up your mind on a few things. Either we can interpret what we want if the Scriptures are silent (like you and your redesigned digestive track) or we can't (like me believing that conditions outside the Garden were quite different from things inside the Garden). What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm using what I believe is common sense. You're being goofy. Remember, if you're the first to ever think of an idea, after close to 2,000 years of Christianity and close to 2,500 hundred years before that of Judiasm, there's probably a good reason. And it probably ain't that yours is the most brilliant mind that ever graced the planet.

Take care.

Waidmann