Not even Christians believe the *edit* of creation

[YoursTrue]

The scientific theory of evolution is a theory of the origin of species. It is not a theory of the origin of life. At present there is no scientific theory of the origin of life. There are scientific hypotheses about it, some of which are being actively investigated. But as of right now there is no such theory. (If you're puzzled by the distinction I've drawn between a scientific theory and a hypothesis, you might want to consider what I said about that in this post: Not even Christians believe the *edit* of creation)

Will there ever be a theory of the origin of life? I'd be willing to bet money on it, but I think it's likely to take many more decades. I, for one, would want to see evidence of life on another planet, or moon, before I'd be willing to say that we have a comprehensive understanding about the mechanisms that give rise to life. Specifically I'd want to see evidence for the inevitability of life.

So given that, what is your alternative narrative for the origin of species?

First of all, I do not agree that species can cross boundaries, the extended meaning that a species of fish (which I do not see scientists have named ..) evolved in the rather long run to humans. I believe that God created living beings according to their kind. I know the scientific terms may not agree with the biblical definitions. Beyond that I know that animals can interbreed up to a point. As for the origin of life, again, I do not believe scientists will be able to explain it as it physically happened.

 

[DavidSMoore]

As for the origin of life, again, I do not believe scientists will be able to explain it as it physically happened.

I agree that science has not explained how life originated, but I have every confidence that one day it will.

First of all, I do not agree that species can cross boundaries, the extended meaning that a species of fish (which I do not see scientists have named ..) evolved in the rather long run to humans. I believe that God created living beings according to their kind. I know the scientific terms may not agree with the biblical definitions. Beyond that I know that animals can interbreed up to a point.

In my view you lost that part of the debate 400 years ago. At that time the cutting edge topic of scientific discourse was the motions of the planets. The prevailing theory (and it was a scientific theory) was the Ptolemaic theory. That theory held that the Earth is fixed and immobile at the center of the universe and that the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the stars all revolve around the Earth. A key component of that theory concerned the power that caused the heavenly objects to move. That power, according to Ptolemy was the hand of God.

In 1543 Nicolaus Copernicus released his book for publication in the very last year of his life. In that book he offered a completely different explanation for the motions of the planets. Copernicus said that it is the Sun that is at the center of the universe, and that the Earth and the other planets all revolve around the Sun. He attributed the motions of the stars to an apparent motion due to the rotation of the Earth about an axis.

Copernicus didn't have enough hard physical data to resoundingly make his case. But Johannes Kepler read his book and made it his life's mission to prove that Copernicus was right. But he actually wanted to do much more than that-- he wanted to prove that God is not involved in causing the heavenly objects to move:

My goal is to show that the heavenly machine is not a kind of divine living being but similar to a clockwork in so far as almost all the manifold motions are taken care of by one single absolutely simple magnetic bodily force, as in a clockwork all motion is taken care of by a simple weight.
(Kepler, Max Casper, pg. 136)

And he did it! He did it by proving that everything that Ptolemy had said about the movement of the planets was wrong. Ptolemy said that the planets move in circular paths with circular epicycles. Kepler said that the planets move in elliptical paths with no epicycles. Ptolemy said that the planets move with uniform circular motion, by which he meant that they move with constant angular velocity throughout their circular paths. Kepler showed that the planets speed up and slow down throughout their elliptical paths. And finally Kepler showed that the Sun is at one of the two foci of each planet's elliptical path. The Sun, Kepler said, provides the motive power that causes the planets to move-- not the hand of God.

Since that time science has endeavored to explain natural phenomena in terms of natural processes alone-- no God. And it has been phenomenally successful in so doing. Today, for example, we know that we don't need God to explain hurricanes, as hurricanes are due to temperature and pressure differentials in the atmosphere and the seas. We don't need God to explain lightning, as we now know that lightning is due to voltage differentials between the atmosphere and the Earth. We don't need God to explain earthquakes, as earthquakes are due to the movements of gargantuous tectonic plates far below ground. Natural phenomena are best explained by natural processes alone. Life is just another natural phenomena; why should we need God to explain it?

 

[YoursTrue]

I agree that science has not explained how life originated, but I have every confidence that one day it will.

I do not think that science will discover how life originated by physical means.

In my view you lost that part of the debate 400 years ago. At that time the cutting edge topic of scientific discourse was the motions of the planets. The prevailing theory (and it was a scientific theory) was the Ptolemaic theory. That theory held that the Earth is fixed and immobile at the center of the universe and that the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the stars all revolve around the Earth. A key component of that theory concerned the power that caused the heavenly objects to move. That power, according to Ptolemy was the hand of God.

In 1543 Nicolaus Copernicus released his book for publication in the very last year of his life. In that book he offered a completely different explanation for the motions of the planets. Copernicus said that it is the Sun that is at the center of the universe, and that the Earth and the other planets all revolve around the Sun. He attributed the motions of the stars to an apparent motion due to the rotation of the Earth about an axis.

Copernicus didn't have enough hard physical data to resoundingly make his case. But Johannes Kepler read his book and made it his life's mission to prove that Copernicus was right. But he actually wanted to do much more than that-- he wanted to prove that God is not involved in causing the heavenly objects to move:

And he did it! He did it by proving that everything that Ptolemy had said about the movement of the planets was wrong. Ptolemy said that the planets move in circular paths with circular epicycles. Kepler said that the planets move in elliptical paths with no epicycles. Ptolemy said that the planets move with uniform circular motion, by which he meant that they move with constant angular velocity throughout their circular paths. Kepler showed that the planets speed up and slow down throughout their elliptical paths. And finally Kepler showed that the Sun is at one of the two foci of each planet's elliptical path. The Sun, Kepler said, provides the motive power that causes the planets to move-- not the hand of God.

Since that time science has endeavored to explain natural phenomena in terms of natural processes alone-- no God. And it has been phenomenally successful in so doing. Today, for example, we know that we don't need God to explain hurricanes, as hurricanes are due to temperature and pressure differentials in the atmosphere and the seas. We don't need God to explain lightning, as we now know that lightning is due to voltage differentials between the atmosphere and the Earth. We don't need God to explain earthquakes, as earthquakes are due to the movements of gargantuous tectonic plates far below ground. Natural phenomena are best explained by natural processes alone. Life is just another natural phenomena; why should we need God to explain it?

God does not have to explain certain things as if He writes all the details in a science textbook. There are some things, imo, that are so extraordinary that they defy imagination as to how it happened. And I think they always will. For instance, the migratory pattern of birds.

 

[DavidSMoore]

God does not have to explain certain things as if He writes all the details in a science textbook. There are some things, imo, that are so extraordinary that they defy imagination as to how it happened. And I think they always will. For instance, the migratory pattern of birds.

Your initial objection to the scientific theory of evolution was that species cannot "cross boundaries." The migratory habits of birds may be interesting, but they don't disprove the fundamental claim of evolution, which is that all life forms on Earth today are descended from one or a few different types of single celled organisms-- the theory of common descent.

To speak of humans specifically, we know that there was a time about 2 million years ago when Smilodon ("saber-tooth cat") existed, but no modern humans existed.
We know there was a time before that, about 65 million years ago, when Tyrannosaurus Rex roamed the Earth, but there were no Smilodons.
We know there was a time before that, about 228 million years ago, when early dinosaurs like Herrerasaurus existed, but there were no Tyrannosaurs.
We know there was a time before that, about 365 million years ago, when the first four legged animals like Aconthostega crawled up out of the swamps onto land, but there were no dinosaurs.
We know that there was a time before that, about 410 million years ago when scale covered fish like Phlebolepis swam in the seas, but there were no four legged creatures walking on land.
We know that there was a time before that, roughly 550 million years ago, when there were complex organisms living in the seas, but there were no fish.
And we know that there was a time before that, stretching from roughly 1 billion years ago to the time of the very first life forms on Earth of about 3.5 billion years ago, when the only forms of life were single celled creatures.

That's a 3.5 billion year history of massive changes to the planet wide gene pool. And it's a history that says that all living species today were descended from single celled organisms.

If your explanation is that God micromanaged all of that change, then I would ask, did God also implement the following mass extinction events that wiped out thousands of species, never to be seen again? Here's a list:

Years ago	Event
445 - 443 million	Late Ordovician Extinction (Himantian event). Gondwanaland was covered in ice for 1 million years. 85% of all species and 30% of all families of animals went extinct due to plunging temperatures.
372 - 370 million	Late Devonian Extinction part 1 (Kellwasser event). 19% of marine families and 50% of marine genera were wiped out. The cause of this event is still debated.
358 - 357 million	Late Devonian Extinction part 2 (Hangenberg event). 97% of vertebrate species were wiped out, including all of the placoderms (armor plated fishes) and sarcopterygians (lobe-finned fishes).
252 million	Permian Extinction. Up to 95% of all species were wiped out. The lava flows that resulted in the Siberian Traps produced immense amounts of poisonous gasses, as well as massive amounts of carbon dioxide and acid rain with a PH of 2. Global temperatures averaged about 97 degrees F.
201 million	Late Triassic Extinction. 22% of marine families, 53% of genera, and 76 - 84% of marine species went extinct. Many terrestrial plants and animals also went extinct. The Central Atlantic Magmatic Province indicates that about 11 million square kilometers of lava were belched forth at this time.
65 million	Late Cretaceous Extinction. A comet smashed into the Yucatan peninsula and wiped out 30% of all animal families, including all of the dinosaurs except birds.

That doesn't look like the grand design of a loving God. It looks like a random collection of massive calamities that smashed into the planet's ecosystems and caused the annihilation of literally thousands of entire species, not just individuals.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your initial objection to the scientific theory of evolution was that species cannot "cross boundaries." The migratory habits of birds may be interesting, but they don't disprove the fundamental claim of evolution, which is that all life forms on Earth today are descended from one or a few different types of single celled organisms-- the theory of common descent.

It is hard to believe that the instinctive migratory patterns of birds is there by the process of evolution. That's how I look at it now since I've been questioning the verification of the theory of evolution, as if all life began from an unknowable start which scientists call abiogenesis and then went on from there. No, I no longer believe it as posited according to the theory.

To speak of humans specifically, we know that there was a time about 2 million years ago when Smilodon ("saber-tooth cat") existed, but no modern humans existed.
We know there was a time before that, about 65 million years ago, when Tyrannosaurus Rex roamed the Earth, but there were no Smilodons.
We know there was a time before that, about 228 million years ago, when early dinosaurs like Herrerasaurus existed, but there were no Tyrannosaurs.
We know there was a time before that, about 365 million years ago, when the first four legged animals like Aconthostega crawled up out of the swamps onto land, but there were no dinosaurs.
We know that there was a time before that, about 410 million years ago when scale covered fish like Phlebolepis swam in the seas, but there were no four legged creatures walking on land.
We know that there was a time before that, roughly 550 million years ago, when there were complex organisms living in the seas, but there were no fish.
And we know that there was a time before that, stretching from roughly 1 billion years ago to the time of the very first life forms on Earth of about 3.5 billion years ago, when the only forms of life were single celled creatures.

That's a 3.5 billion year history of massive changes to the planet wide gene pool. And it's a history that says that all living species today were descended from single celled organisms.

If your explanation is that God micromanaged all of that change, then I would ask, did God also implement the following mass extinction events that wiped out thousands of species, never to be seen again? Here's a list:

I surely do not know if God micromanaged all of the events above. I am sure He was aware of what was happening. In other words, I have no idea now why or exactly how it happened. Other than God allowed it. I can't say He decided to knock out the dinosaurs, but it's possible. And quite frankly, likely. But in other words--I don't know.

Years ago	Event
445 - 443 million	Late Ordovician Extinction (Himantian event). Gondwanaland was covered in ice for 1 million years. 85% of all species and 30% of all families of animals went extinct due to plunging temperatures.
372 - 370 million	Late Devonian Extinction part 1 (Kellwasser event). 19% of marine families and 50% of marine genera were wiped out. The cause of this event is still debated.
358 - 357 million	Late Devonian Extinction part 2 (Hangenberg event). 97% of vertebrate species were wiped out, including all of the placoderms (armor plated fishes) and sarcopterygians (lobe-finned fishes).
252 million	Permian Extinction. Up to 95% of all species were wiped out. The lava flows that resulted in the Siberian Traps produced immense amounts of poisonous gasses, as well as massive amounts of carbon dioxide and acid rain with a PH of 2. Global temperatures averaged about 97 degrees F.
201 million	Late Triassic Extinction. 22% of marine families, 53% of genera, and 76 - 84% of marine species went extinct. Many terrestrial plants and animals also went extinct. The Central Atlantic Magmatic Province indicates that about 11 million square kilometers of lava were belched forth at this time.
65 million	Late Cretaceous Extinction. A comet smashed into the Yucatan peninsula and wiped out 30% of all animal families, including all of the dinosaurs except birds.

That doesn't look like the grand design of a loving God. It looks like a random collection of massive calamities that smashed into the planet's ecosystems and caused the annihilation of literally thousands of entire species, not just individuals.

I do not believe humans are animals. I realize many people think we are animals of the ape variety stemming somewhat from fish. That in itself requires a different discussion, since I also believe that animals were not created to live forever. The Bible says humans were.

 

[DavidSMoore]

I do not believe humans are animals. I realize many people think we are animals of the ape variety stemming somewhat from fish. That in itself requires a different discussion, since I also believe that animals were not created to live forever. The Bible says humans were.

Nope. What the Bible actually says is that God threw Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden to prevent them from having eternal life:

Then the LORD God said, "See, the humans have become like one of us, knowing good and evil, and now they might reach out and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever"-- therefore the LORD God sent them forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which they were taken.
(Genesis 3:22-23, NRSVue)

The reason why Adam and Eve had eternal life while living in the garden of Eden was because they were able to eat the fruit of the tree of life. It wasn't because God "made" them to have eternal life.

Maybe you should have a look at this: The Messiah

 

[Kenny]

Nope. What the Bible actually says is that God threw Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden to prevent them from having eternal life:

Not quite complete… It was to make sure he didn’t live an eternal life separated from God. The covenant of Gen 3:15 was God’s way to make sure there can be eternal life but without separation.

The reason why Adam and Eve had eternal life while living in the garden of Eden was because they were able to eat the fruit of the tree of life. It wasn't because God "made" them to have eternal life.

OK… that can be an interpretation. It isn’t explained so we are relegated to our personal interpretation. Quite possible

Maybe you should have a look at this: The Messiah

Some good and some not as far as I understand scriptures. But that is about a different post

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope. What the Bible actually says is that God threw Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden to prevent them from having eternal life:

I understand. And it is true that the tree of life was evidently within their reach. So when they did what God told them not to do (otherwise they would die...) yes, He banished them from the Garden and they could not return.
So now before we go any further I have a question for you: When the serpent spoke to Eve (however he did it), wouldn't you say that he intimated that God was withholding something from her that she should have? He also made reference to the idea that God was lying.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not quite complete… It was to make sure he didn’t live an eternal life separated from God. The covenant of Gen 3:15 was God’s way to make sure there can be eternal life but without separation.

Good points, Kenny. Thanks.

 

[DavidSMoore]

Not quite complete… It was to make sure he didn’t live an eternal life separated from God. The covenant of Gen 3:15 was God’s way to make sure there can be eternal life but without separation.

Here's a covenant from the Bible:

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, “As for me, I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the domestic animals, and every animal of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark. I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
(Genesis 9:8-11, NRSVue)

Note the use of the word "covenant." The word "covenant" appears nowhere in Genesis 3. Genesis 3:15-21 doesn't read like a covenant. To me it reads like a curse:

And to the man he said,
"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'
cursed is the ground because of you;
in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
(enesis 3:17, NRSVue)

I don't understand how you were able to read it as a covenant.

Let's talk about the things that God did not give to Adam and Eve when he booted them out of the garden of Eden:

• He said nothing about eternal life. If he had a plan for Adam and Eve to live an eternal life in union with God, he said nothing about when that would happen, or how. In fact, God didn't say one word about eternal life until four THOUSAND years later, through the mouth of Jesus.
• He didn't give them any rules by which to live. If God granted to Adam and Eve the opportunity to earn an eternal life in his company, he didn't tell them what they had to do to earn eternity. He just threw them out and left them on their own.

So I don't get why you think God was planning for Adam and Eve to live in union with him. It appears to me that you are imposing a Christian eschatology on pre-Christian writings. That, as I see it, is a common fault in the way Christians read the Old Testament.

 

[Kenny]

Here's a covenant from the Bible:



Note the use of the word "covenant." The word "covenant" appears nowhere in Genesis 3. Genesis 3:15-21 doesn't read like a covenant. To me it reads like a curse:



I don't understand how you were able to read it as a covenant.

Let's talk about the things that God did not give to Adam and Eve when he booted them out of the garden of Eden:

• He said nothing about eternal life. If he had a plan for Adam and Eve to live an eternal life in union with God, he said nothing about when that would happen, or how. In fact, God didn't say one word about eternal life until four THOUSAND years later, through the mouth of Jesus.
• He didn't give them any rules by which to live. If God granted to Adam and Eve the opportunity to earn an eternal life in his company, he didn't tell them what they had to do to earn eternity. He just threw them out and left them on their own.

So I don't get why you think God was planning for Adam and Eve to live in union with him. It appears to me that you are imposing a Christian eschatology on pre-Christian writings. That, as I see it, is a common fault in the way Christians read the Old Testament.

Perhaps you don’t understand Covenant.

Covenant is a binding agreement where words are spoken and the strongest of these covenants is when there is a shedding of blood. If I am not mistaken, even our Jewish brothers believe it is a messianic promise.

The covenant is found in Gen 3:15 with a prophetic utterance of God’s answer to sin:

Genesis 3:15 New King James Version 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”

The shedding of blood is found here when God killed an animal or animals to make clothing:

verse 21 Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. (replacing Adam’s efforts to hide his sin behind fig leaves - verse 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.)

What is the significance?

There really isn’t a “seed of a woman” - seed comes from a man. The “Seed” is actually speaking of Jesus being birthed through a woman without the “seed of man”. There is no other reference of a “seed of a woman”. A seed - not seeds of many but of one. Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.

The bruising speaks of death. Satan will bruise his heal (or cause death to come to Jesus) but he will bruise Satan’s head (destroy his power of spiritual sin and death). He sealed it with the shedding of blood and covering mankind with a temporal covering of a blood covenant until He could cloth us with His robe of righteousness.

The Jonathon Targum says it this way:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed of thy son, and the seed of her sons; and it shall be when the sons of the woman keep the commandments of the law, they will be prepared to smite thee upon thy head; but when they forsake the commandments of the law, thou wilt be ready to wound them in their heel. Nevertheless for them there shall be a medicine, but for thee there will be no medicine; and they shall make a remedy for the heel in the days of the King Meshiha.

The Bible doesn’t write down everything God said - there wouldn’t be enough space to write it all. But somewhere Abel learned about the shedding of blood and the offering of a lamb which represents the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.

Jesus cursed the fig tree (Adam’s attempt to humanly take care or cover sin) - God had the better way, the shedding of blood.

So we have words from God, a promise, a blood covenant that was fulfilled in Jesus. You don’t have to use the word “covenant” for there to be one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Here's a covenant from the Bible:



Note the use of the word "covenant." The word "covenant" appears nowhere in Genesis 3. Genesis 3:15-21 doesn't read like a covenant. To me it reads like a curse:



I don't understand how you were able to read it as a covenant.

Let's talk about the things that God did not give to Adam and Eve when he booted them out of the garden of Eden:

• He said nothing about eternal life. If he had a plan for Adam and Eve to live an eternal life in union with God, he said nothing about when that would happen, or how. In fact, God didn't say one word about eternal life until four THOUSAND years later, through the mouth of Jesus.
• He didn't give them any rules by which to live. If God granted to Adam and Eve the opportunity to earn an eternal life in his company, he didn't tell them what they had to do to earn eternity. He just threw them out and left them on their own.

So I don't get why you think God was planning for Adam and Eve to live in union with him. It appears to me that you are imposing a Christian eschatology on pre-Christian writings. That, as I see it, is a common fault in the way Christians read the Old Testament.

Ok I see your point here. Adam was cast out of the Garden of Eden where the tree of life was. He could not attain to everlasting life. He was banned from that Garden and eventually he died.

 

[DavidSMoore]

Perhaps you don’t understand Covenant.

Covenant is a binding agreement where words are spoken and the strongest of these covenants is when there is a shedding of blood. If I am not mistaken, even our Jewish brothers believe it is a messianic promise.

The covenant is found in Gen 3:15 with a prophetic utterance of God’s answer to sin:

Genesis 3:15 New King James Version 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”

The shedding of blood is found here when God killed an animal or animals to make clothing:

verse 21 Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. (replacing Adam’s efforts to hide his sin behind fig leaves - verse 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.)

I don't read Genesis 3:15-21 as an agreement. I read it as an edict. God didn't negotiate with Adam and Eve and then agree to the terms of a contract. He simply denounced their actions and threw them out of the garden of Eden. You're trying-- very hard-- to make a condemnation sound like some sort of legal contract, and I just don't see it that way.

The Bible doesn’t write down everything God said - there wouldn’t be enough space to write it all. But somewhere Abel learned about the shedding of blood and the offering of a lamb which represents the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.

I'm not falling for that one. It's not as though God neglected to mention, as he threw Adam and Eve out of the garden, that he likes eggs for breakfast. What God neglected to mention was anything related to the New Testament vision of the end of time: the resurrection of the dead, a last judgment of the living and the dead, and the reward of eternal life in paradise for those who pass that judgment. And it wasn't just Adam and Eve who were affected by God's lapse. It was the billions of people who lived all around the world before the time of Jesus. We have clear, evident proof that no one in the Western Hemisphere, for one very significant example, ever heard about any of that. Or about the "shedding of blood and the offering of a lamb." Why would anyone living in Australia, say, in the Third Millennium BCE have interpreted a lamb as being representative of the Lamb of God?

You are doing everything you can to avoid having to answer a very simple question:

What did God expect the billions of people who lived all around the world before the time of Jesus to do if they wished to be saved?​

I see no evidence in the Old Testament that God made any effort to explain it to those billions of people. And I offer what I consider to be a very simple explanation: The Old Testament authors (with the exception of the author of the Book of Daniel) didn't believe in the New Testament vision of the end of time. As I see it, that's simple, clear, consistent with the written text, and it doesn't rely on highly nuanced definitions of words like "covenant."

Jesus cursed the fig tree (Adam’s attempt to humanly take care or cover sin) - God had the better way, the shedding of blood.

If you're thinking of Matthew 21, here's what it says:

In the morning, when he returned to the city, he was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the side of the road, he went to it and found nothing at all on it but leaves. Then he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” And the fig tree withered at once. (Matthew 21:18-19, NRSVue)

The stated reason why Jesus cursed the tree wasn't because it was a fig tree. It was because Jesus was hungry and the tree had no fruit. You're making connections where there are none.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't read Genesis 3:15-21 as an agreement. I read it as an edict. God didn't negotiate with Adam and Eve and then agree to the terms of a contract. He simply denounced their actions and threw them out of the garden of Eden. You're trying-- very hard-- to make a condemnation sound like some sort of legal contract, and I just don't see it that way.

I don't think that God said to Adam, "OK, I see you did what I told you not to do. I gave you the opportunity to stay in that paradise garden and do things that would engage you. OK, I take back what I said and so I'll give you the opportunity to live without dying but in the meantime I'm going to make life really hard for you..."

 

[Kenny]

I don't read Genesis 3:15-21 as an agreement. I read it as an edict. God didn't negotiate with Adam and Eve and then agree to the terms of a contract. He simply denounced their actions and threw them out of the garden of Eden. You're trying-- very hard-- to make a condemnation sound like some sort of legal contract, and I just don't see it that way.

You remind me of a parable in Matt 25:

24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

If you read the two previous people, he was more than generous and good. The man with one talent viewed him as a hard man—which was a false perspective.

God is love yet you see him as harsh. So you view things as harsh.

God saved Adam from being eternally separated but you view it as harsh. God provided redemption but you see it as condemnation. You almost sound like the thief who blames the judge for the consequences even when, in reality, Adam produced his own consequences and God ultimately said, “I will provide a way for complete restoration”.

But you have a free will and can view God as harsh and uncaring because of whatever eyeglasses of experience you view Him through.

I'm not falling for that one. It's not as though God neglected to mention, as he threw Adam and Eve out of the garden, that he likes eggs for breakfast. What God neglected to mention was anything related to the New Testament vision of the end of time: the resurrection of the dead, a last judgment of the living and the dead, and the reward of eternal life in paradise for those who pass that judgment. And it wasn't just Adam and Eve who were affected by God's lapse. It was the billions of people who lived all around the world before the time of Jesus. We have clear, evident proof that no one in the Western Hemisphere, for one very significant example, ever heard about any of that. Or about the "shedding of blood and the offering of a lamb."

See above

Why would anyone living in Australia, say, in the Third Millennium BCE have interpreted a lamb as being representative of the Lamb of God?

Why not?

You are doing everything you can to avoid having to answer a very simple question:

What did God expect the billions of people who lived all around the world before the time of Jesus to do if they wished to be saved?​

There was a holding place called Paradise to await redemption.

I see no evidence in the Old Testament that God made any effort to explain it to those billions of people. And I offer what I consider to be a very simple explanation: The Old Testament authors (with the exception of the author of the Book of Daniel) didn't believe in the New Testament vision of the end of time. As I see it, that's simple, clear, consistent with the written text, and it doesn't rely on highly nuanced definitions of words like "covenant."

Maybe you aren’t looking hard enough? Try Psalms 103

If you're thinking of Matthew 21, here's what it says:



The stated reason why Jesus cursed the tree wasn't because it was a fig tree. It was because Jesus was hungry and the tree had no fruit. You're making connections where there are none.

Yes… that is your viewpoint since you see God as senseless. Jesus had other things in mind… like you and me and salvation that isn’t by works but by grace.

But thank you for the interaction.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't read Genesis 3:15-21 as an agreement. I read it as an edict. God didn't negotiate with Adam and Eve and then agree to the terms of a contract. He simply denounced their actions and threw them out of the garden of Eden. You're trying-- very hard-- to make a condemnation sound like some sort of legal contract, and I just don't see it that way.



I'm not falling for that one. It's not as though God neglected to mention, as he threw Adam and Eve out of the garden, that he likes eggs for breakfast. What God neglected to mention was anything related to the New Testament vision of the end of time: the resurrection of the dead, a last judgment of the living and the dead, and the reward of eternal life in paradise for those who pass that judgment. And it wasn't just Adam and Eve who were affected by God's lapse. It was the billions of people who lived all around the world before the time of Jesus. We have clear, evident proof that no one in the Western Hemisphere, for one very significant example, ever heard about any of that. Or about the "shedding of blood and the offering of a lamb." Why would anyone living in Australia, say, in the Third Millennium BCE have interpreted a lamb as being representative of the Lamb of God?

You are doing everything you can to avoid having to answer a very simple question:

What did God expect the billions of people who lived all around the world before the time of Jesus to do if they wished to be saved?​

Jesus was sent to the Jews. As we see here (and other places), religion has had a stronghold on mankind for a very long time. And obviously all the different religions were not all about Israel.

 

[DavidSMoore]

You remind me of a parable in Matt 25:

24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

If you read the two previous people, he was more than generous and good. The man with one talent viewed him as a hard man—which was a false perspective.

God is love yet you see him as harsh. So you view things as harsh.

See this post: A God of love and mercy

God saved Adam from being eternally separated

That's what I dispute. I see no evidence anywhere in the Old Testament that God gave Adam and Eve any promise whatsoever to be saved or to be reunited with God in any sense. You twisted the meaning of Genesis 3:15-21 to imply that God had negotiated some sort of contract with Adam and Eve in which he spelled out to them what the terms and conditions for their salvation were. It wasn't an agreement, it was an edict, and there was nothing in what God actually said that told Adam and Eve what he expected them to do.

Why not?

Because humans living in Australia in about 3000 BCE would have heard nothing whatsoever about the Bible, or Yahweh, or the Ten Commandments, or Jesus, or the Beatitudes, or the martyrdom of Jesus. So they would have had no frame of reference within which to even imagine what the phrase "Lamb of God" is supposed to represent. And why would such persons have thought they needed to be "saved" anyway? Your overly terse reply is not an answer.

Maybe you aren’t looking hard enough? Try Psalms 103

It's a nice psalm, but what does it prove? It mentions Moses, and it says:

But the steadfast love of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting
on those who fear him,
and his righteousness to children's children,
to those who keep his covenant
and remember to do his commandments.
(Psalm 103:17-18, NRSVue)

The many commandments of the law were given to Moses thousands of years after the deaths of Adam and Eve. How were they supposed to know what God had commanded?

But while we're studying the book of Psalms, maybe you missed this passage from Psalm 88:

For my soul is full of troubles,
and my life draws near to Sheol.
I am counted among those who go down to the Pit;
I am like those who have no help,
like those forsaken among the dead,
like the slain that lie in the grave,
like those whom you remember no more,
for they are cut off from your hand.
(Psalm 88:3-5, NRSVue)

If God no longer remembers the dead then he can't forgive their sins. If the dead are cut off from God's hand then he can't resurrect them.

There is much else in the Old Testament that supports the idea that the Old Testament authors, with the exception of the author of the book of Daniel, did not believe in the New Testament vision of the resurrection of the dead, the last judgment, eternal life, and the reward of paradise for those who pass that judgment. It's not just me saying that-- it's the assessment of the scholarly community:

The final chapter of this part of Daniel, chapter 12, contains the Hebrew Bible's first and only unequivocal statement concerning reward and punishment after death.
(The Oxford History of the Biblical World, pg. 341)

Christian orthodoxy maintains that the Old Testament authors predicted the coming of Jesus specifically. But they didn't believe in his message about the end of time, they didn't believe in anything he said about the forgiveness of sins, they didn't believe in his morality, and they expected that at the end of time everyone on Earth would be converted to Judaism, not Christianity. So why would they have predicted the coming of Jesus? It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's what I dispute. I see no evidence anywhere in the Old Testament that God gave Adam and Eve any promise whatsoever to be saved or to be reunited with God in any sense. You twisted the meaning of Genesis 3:15-21 to imply that God had negotiated some sort of contract with Adam and Eve in which he spelled out to them what the terms and conditions for their salvation were. It wasn't an agreement, it was an edict, and there was nothing in what God actually said that told Adam and Eve what he expected them to

There is nothing I read to indicate that God repaired or mended the rift that occurred between Him and Adam.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is nothing I read to indicate that God repaired or mended the rift that occurred between Him and Adam.

@DavidSMoore Personally, I mean. But of course it went further. A somewhat short while later Jehovah decided the whole human population was no good, except for Noah. They all came from Adam...yet Noah appeared to be righteous from God's standpoint.
Genesis 6 - "The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord."