Comments for Bible Q http://BibleQ.info Bible Questions Answered Tue, 22 May 2012 18:03:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on Why did Jesus call himself the “son of man”? by rossiegsanchez http://BibleQ.info/answer/2670/comment-page-1/#comment-2658 rossiegsanchez Tue, 22 May 2012 18:03:00 +0000 http://BibleQ.info/?p=2670#comment-2658 contrary to what many believe in the book of Joel 2:28 God says and i will pour out my spirit into all People, and your son and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams and young men will see visions. so yes they are still prophets on earth. have a blessed day contrary to what many believe in the book of Joel 2:28 God says and i will pour out my spirit into all People, and your son and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams and young men will see visions. so yes they are still prophets on earth.
have a blessed day

]]> Comment on Is it okay for Christians to eat pork and shellfish? by MARK http://BibleQ.info/answer/2267/comment-page-2/#comment-2657 MARK Thu, 17 May 2012 10:16:00 +0000 http://BibleQ.info/?p=2267#comment-2657 Most of the people on this forum are idiots!  Leviticus also tells us it is okay to have slaves as long as they are from a neighbouring country.  Also that people who work on the Sabbath should be put to the death.  Get a grip and don't live by a set of rules written over 2000 years a go! Times change and so will peoples interpretation of these old words.  Eat what you will but be a good person.  And seek forgiveness when you call a forum of people idiots. Amen Most of the people on this forum are idiots!  Leviticus also tells us it is okay to have slaves as long as they are from a neighbouring country.  Also that people who work on the Sabbath should be put to the death.  Get a grip and don’t live by a set of rules written over 2000 years a go! Times change and so will peoples interpretation of these old words.  Eat what you will but be a good person.  And seek forgiveness when you call a forum of people idiots. Amen

]]> Comment on Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)? by Russell Downs http://BibleQ.info/answer/5240/comment-page-1/#comment-2655 Russell Downs Mon, 14 May 2012 11:06:00 +0000 http://BibleQ.info/?p=5240#comment-2655 I agree, Ben, that the focus is local rather that global in chapter 2. i.e. the land rather than the whole earth. After all it does talk about a garden. But I don't see why it needs to be interpreted literally. I ask what would be the relevance of the formation of animals, birds and plants as local sudden miracles within a limited area, and the formation of Adam out of the ground, and then Eve out of Adam, if people and plants and animals already existed outside of the garden, as the evidence shows that they did. But yes, it is possible I suppose; I don't see any way that scientific knowledge could contradict that idea. However instead I see it as serious movie cartoon in words. I don't see it being intended to be taken literally any more than coyote chasing roadrunner; the difference is that instead intending to amuse, it is designed to instruct. I agree, Ben, that the focus is local rather that global in chapter 2. i.e. the land rather than the whole earth. After all it does talk about a garden. But I don’t see why it needs to be interpreted literally. I ask what would be the relevance of the formation of animals, birds and plants as local sudden miracles within a limited area, and the formation of Adam out of the ground, and then Eve out of Adam, if people and plants and animals already existed outside of the garden, as the evidence shows that they did. But yes, it is possible I suppose; I don’t see any way that scientific knowledge could contradict that idea. However instead I see it as serious movie cartoon in words. I don’t see it being intended to be taken literally any more than coyote chasing roadrunner; the difference is that instead intending to amuse, it is designed to instruct.

]]> Comment on Does our soul or spirit go to heaven? by Kenneth Rucker http://BibleQ.info/answer/23/comment-page-1/#comment-2654 Kenneth Rucker Sun, 13 May 2012 21:36:00 +0000 http://www.bibleq.info/wordpress/?p=23#comment-2654 To be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord. The very moment that we breathe our very last breath on earth, we will be ushered into the very presence of God. The Bible is very clear on this matter. Having no consious is refers to the dead body. Once the spirit and soul has left the physical body as it is being viewed by the individual after the person referred to has passed away. From the physical person point of view the physical body that is looked at is physically dead. But from the Lord's point of the view the person that has left the body is very much live in the presence of God, with only their soul and their spirit, waiting to be reunited with a brand new body. And this is only if they are truly saved.   To be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord. The very moment that we breathe our very last breath on earth, we will be ushered into the very presence of God. The Bible is very clear on this matter. Having no consious is refers to the dead body. Once the spirit and soul has left the physical body as it is being viewed by the individual after the person referred to has passed away. From the physical person point of view the physical body that is looked at is physically dead. But from the Lord’s point of the view the person that has left the body is very much live in the presence of God, with only their soul and their spirit, waiting to be reunited with a brand new body. And this is only if they are truly saved.  

]]> Comment on Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)? by Ben Harper http://BibleQ.info/answer/5240/comment-page-1/#comment-2653 Ben Harper Sat, 12 May 2012 18:12:00 +0000 http://BibleQ.info/?p=5240#comment-2653  "Evidence appears to support an old earth when other theories demand it to" Tyler you seem to believe that scientists believe the earth is old because of evolution. I would recommend that you double check the facts and look at the reasons why the earth is universally considered to be ancient amongst scientists. Geologists - long before Darwin -  and through studying the evidence, not embraced to explain other theories that were still yet to be developed, came to the conclusion that the earth was ancient. In fact modern radiometric dates agree with studies of the age of the sun, which the earth would form shortly after according to the models of planetary formation. Two reliable dating techniques give the same date for the age of the earth. It would be of a 'miracle' if these two seperate dating methods were useless and inaccurate yet came to same date for the age of the earth! Also to consider are five seperate radiometric dating methods all agree - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit This site makes the point as to seeing the same time on five different clocks and then feeling free to ignore it! I've personally always understood the focus of the "earth" in second chapter to be referring to a specific area of land. The Hebrew can be translated either earth or land and in the first chapter both instances are used. I don't accept that the account is non-literal. Thanks for the article Russell  and you make the point here are many non-literal accounts but in those instances it is very clear it is so. 'Visions of Daniel' or 'parables of Christ' are quite obviously not historical events. Adam and Eve are by New Testament writers clearly identified as real people, in no place that I am aware of in Scripture is any indication that this chapter is non-literal. Any contradiction can be resolved by understanding Genesis 1 referring to the heavens and earth and Genesis to a specific land instead of the whole earth.  ”Evidence appears to support an old earth when other theories demand it to”

Tyler you seem to believe that scientists believe the earth is old because of evolution. I would recommend that you double check the facts and look at the reasons why the earth is universally considered to be ancient amongst scientists.

Geologists – long before Darwin -  and through studying the evidence, not embraced to explain other theories that were still yet to be developed, came to the conclusion that the earth was ancient. In fact modern radiometric dates agree with studies of the age of the sun, which the earth would form shortly after according to the models of planetary formation.

Two reliable dating techniques give the same date for the age of the earth. It would be of a ‘miracle’ if these two seperate dating methods were useless and inaccurate yet came to same date for the age of the earth! Also to consider are five seperate radiometric dating methods all agree – http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit This site makes the point as to seeing the same time on five different
clocks and then feeling free to ignore it!

I’ve personally always understood the focus of the “earth” in second chapter to be referring to a specific area of land. The Hebrew can be translated either earth or land and in the first chapter both instances are used. I don’t accept that the account is non-literal.

Thanks for the article Russell  and you make the point here are many non-literal accounts but in those instances it is very clear it is so. ‘Visions of Daniel’ or ‘parables of Christ’ are quite obviously not historical events. Adam and Eve are by New Testament writers clearly identified as real people, in no place that I am aware of in Scripture is any indication that this chapter is non-literal. Any contradiction can be resolved by understanding Genesis 1 referring to the heavens and earth and Genesis to a specific land instead of the whole earth.

]]> Comment on How many promises are in the Bible? by Pan http://BibleQ.info/answer/650/comment-page-1/#comment-2650 Pan Sat, 12 May 2012 09:02:00 +0000 http://BibleQ.info/?p=650#comment-2650 when Goliath died, he fell foreward or backward? when Goliath died, he fell foreward or backward?

]]> Comment on Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)? by Russell Downs http://BibleQ.info/answer/5240/comment-page-1/#comment-2646 Russell Downs Thu, 10 May 2012 12:21:00 +0000 http://BibleQ.info/?p=5240#comment-2646 There is a very simple way, Tyler, of deciding between the two alternative hypotheses. I perceive the “sequential order” hypothesis of Gen 2 and 3 as being the more natural reading. You prefer an interpretation that allows a literal reading but assumes that the passage jumps around in time. However a literal reading contradicts known facts, so it cannot be correct. For example fossils of flowering plants have been found in the Cretaceous period which finished sometime between 65.2 and 65.8 million years ago. The end of the Cretaceous was the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs. How can we know this? It has been known since the early 19th century that flowering plants are in the Cretaceous layer because even then there were many examples of such fossils, and many more have been discovered since. The early geologists were not able to put a date on the period; they only realised that the rocks were “old (Miller, 1874). Actually Miller’s book is a very precious one to me. It was given to me when I was in my twenties by my grandfather in the 1970s, who in turn was given it by an old man in the early 20th century. Miller was a Christian geologist; his book was written just before he died. At that time the Christians (in my church at least) did not just listen to the science of the time; they were passionate about it. In the mid-20th century reliable methods of dating rocks were devised. These rely on the decay rate of some radioactive minerals. There is nothing startlingly new or controversial about this. The science has been very robust for a long time. I am aware that there has been some very naïve criticism of radiometric dating. The basic idea of radiometric dating is that if you know the original amount of radioactive material, the rate of decay, and the current amount of both “mother” and “daughter” material then it is fairly straightforward matter of calculating the age. The naïve criticisms challenge the assumptions that we know the original amounts of “mother” and “daughter” material, that we cannot be sure that there has not been pollution from external material, or that the rate of decay has changed over time. Without looking closely at the science these criticisms may sound persuading. However do we really think that highly intelligent people who have devoted their lives to the subject would not have thought of these things? In fact not only have they thought of them, but the methods they use test the assumptions of the initial amount of “mother” and “daughter” material, and in some cases are actually able to calculate what those amounts are. The methods used check for pollution from other materials; in many cases they find evidence that the mineral material has been corrupted and they therefore abandon that mineral sample. There is no evidence that the rate of decay can change by any more than a miniscule amount. However if the decay rate has previously been higher than it now is, then how much faster must it be to allow for a date of ~10,000 years? The answer is that if the decay rate was that high then the entire globe of the earth would have been completely obliterated, so high would the temperature be. Several different radiometric methods have been used with different radioactive material. They all reach very similar conclusions (Dalrymple, 1991). The Cretaceous period, and therefore flowering plants, is much older than 65 million years. Actually it is more like 130 or 140 million years. The Bible does not teach things that contradict known facts. The creation by God of flowering plants described in Gen 1 and 2 was over a long period of time. I could have looked at animals but I deliberately focussed on flowering plants in this discussion because it is the area that I am most familiar with; I have been studying this subject at Master’s level  in recent years. I can assure you that none of the scientists I have dealt with, including some Christian scientists, have any doubt at all that plants are very ancient. You might as well tell a fisherman that fish are mythical creatures as tell a botanist that plants are only 6,000 years old. References Dalrymple, G. B. (1991). The Age of the Earth. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Miller, H. (1874). The Testimony of the Rocks. Edinburgh: William P. Nimmo. There is a very simple way, Tyler, of deciding between the two alternative hypotheses. I perceive the “sequential order” hypothesis of Gen 2 and 3 as being the more natural reading. You prefer an interpretation that allows a literal reading but assumes that the passage jumps around in time. However a literal reading contradicts known facts, so it cannot be correct. For example fossils of flowering plants have been found in the Cretaceous period which finished sometime between 65.2 and 65.8 million years ago. The end of the Cretaceous was the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs. How can we know this? It has been known since the early 19th century that flowering plants are in the Cretaceous layer because even then there were many examples of such fossils, and many more have been discovered since. The early geologists were not able to put a date on the period; they only realised that the rocks were “old (Miller, 1874). Actually Miller’s book is a very precious one to me. It was given to me when I was in my twenties by my grandfather in the 1970s, who in turn was given it by an old man in the early 20th century. Miller was a Christian geologist; his book was written just before he died. At that time the Christians (in my church at least) did not just listen to the science of the time; they were passionate about it. In the mid-20th century reliable methods of dating rocks were devised. These rely on the decay rate of some radioactive minerals. There is nothing startlingly new or controversial about this. The science has been very robust for a long time. I am aware that there has been some very naïve criticism of radiometric dating. The basic idea of radiometric dating is that if you know the original amount of radioactive material, the rate of decay, and the current amount of both “mother” and “daughter” material then it is fairly straightforward matter of calculating the age. The naïve criticisms challenge the assumptions that we know the original amounts of “mother” and “daughter” material, that we cannot be sure that there has not been pollution from external material, or that the rate of decay has changed over time. Without looking closely at the science these criticisms may sound persuading. However do we really think that highly intelligent people who have devoted their lives to the subject would not have thought of these things? In fact not only have they thought of them, but the methods they use test the assumptions of the initial amount of “mother” and “daughter” material, and in some cases are actually able to calculate what those amounts are. The methods used check for pollution from other materials; in many cases they find evidence that the mineral material has been corrupted and they therefore abandon that mineral sample. There is no evidence that the rate of decay can change by any more than a miniscule amount. However if the decay rate has previously been higher than it now is, then how much faster must it be to allow for a date
of ~10,000 years? The answer is that if the decay rate was that high then the
entire globe of the earth would have been completely obliterated, so high would
the temperature be. Several different radiometric methods have been used with different radioactive material. They all reach very similar conclusions (Dalrymple, 1991). The Cretaceous period, and therefore flowering plants, is much older than 65 million years. Actually it is more like 130 or 140 million years. The Bible does not teach things that
contradict known facts. The creation by God of flowering plants described in Gen 1 and 2 was over a long period of time. I could have looked at animals but I deliberately focussed on flowering plants in this discussion because it is the area that I am most familiar with; I have been studying this subject at Master’s level  in recent years. I can assure you that none of the scientists I have dealt with, including some Christian scientists, have any doubt at all that plants are very ancient. You might as well tell a fisherman that fish are mythical creatures as tell a botanist that plants are only 6,000 years old.

References

Dalrymple, G. B. (1991). The Age of the Earth. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Miller, H. (1874). The Testimony of the Rocks. Edinburgh: William P. Nimmo.

]]> Comment on Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)? by Previous Convictions http://BibleQ.info/answer/5240/comment-page-1/#comment-2644 Previous Convictions Thu, 10 May 2012 02:32:00 +0000 http://BibleQ.info/?p=5240#comment-2644 How do you know Adam and Eve understood what death was? How do you know Adam and Eve understood what death was?

]]> Comment on Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)? by Tyler Carlisle http://BibleQ.info/answer/5240/comment-page-1/#comment-2642 Tyler Carlisle Wed, 09 May 2012 16:35:00 +0000 http://BibleQ.info/?p=5240#comment-2642 The conclusions are valid given the stance. One doesn't need to say that such a view excludes historical fact if the very idea is that the details of Genesis 1 and 2 aren't accurate. The idea that death was already present is not clear from Scripture. All that we see mentioned thus far is life and life abundant. Eve did seem to understand what the serpent was telling her, but what death did she understand? You said that sin led to the eternal death, not mere mortality. Do you think this is how she viewed it? Can we then say that Eve experienced eternal death for her action? The Bible doesn't say, but we know physical death occured. I think the best way to understand this is to look at the dialogue following the transgression. To Eve, God said He would multiply her pain in child-bearing. And to Adam, God said the ground would bring forth thorns, he would eat the plants of the field, he would have to work for his bread, and he would return to dust. If we assume a more naturalistic explanation of Genesis, then most of these realities would have already been present. Adam would have already eaten plants, he would have already had to sweat for bread, and he would have known he would return to dust. One point to make though. You appear to acknowledge Adam and Eve were present. This would be hard to reconcile with Brother Downs' view. Since it is not to be taken literally, we couldn't say this ever occured. In Christ, Tyler The conclusions are valid given the stance. One doesn’t need to say that such a view excludes historical fact if the very idea is that the details of Genesis 1 and 2 aren’t accurate.

The idea that death was already present is not clear from Scripture. All that we see mentioned thus far is life and life abundant. Eve did seem to understand what the serpent was telling her, but what death did she understand? You said that sin led to the eternal death, not mere mortality. Do you think this is how she viewed it? Can we then say that Eve experienced eternal death for her action? The Bible doesn’t say, but we know physical death occured.

I think the best way to understand this is to look at the dialogue following the transgression. To Eve, God said He would multiply her pain in child-bearing. And to Adam, God said the ground would bring forth thorns, he would eat the plants of the field, he would have to work for his bread, and he would return to dust.

If we assume a more naturalistic explanation of Genesis, then most of these realities would have already been present. Adam would have already eaten plants, he would have already had to sweat for bread, and he would have known he would return to dust.

One point to make though. You appear to acknowledge Adam and Eve were present. This would be hard to reconcile with Brother Downs’ view. Since it is not to be taken literally, we couldn’t say this ever occured.

In Christ,

Tyler

]]> Comment on Did it rain before the flood (Gen 2:5)? by Tyler Carlisle http://BibleQ.info/answer/5240/comment-page-1/#comment-2641 Tyler Carlisle Wed, 09 May 2012 15:55:00 +0000 http://BibleQ.info/?p=5240#comment-2641 I agree with your timeline except where you seem to close the door on certain ideas where the text makes no demand for it. Again, you are saying that there is no problem interpreting this as another chronological account. Between points (d) and (e) you allow no room for interpretation in light of Chapter 1. The two chapters logically support one another and haven't need to be divorced. In point (i) you make a clear assumption that this was the day for creation of these animals, not just their naming. The text does not say this. I can see why it might be read that way. Though, I believe a natural reading would understand the description provided in chapter 1 and wouldn't find warrant for introducing a new concept. Even if you read the verse as "God formed", it does not imply a necessity in rendering this as a same-day occurence. I have made my reply to the "evidences" in another comment to Brother Burke. I would be willing to discuss the claims in depth. I agree that if something doesn't make sense, we should seek to resolve it. Though I hold that Scripture provides the most reliable means of discernment as Inspired and Inerrant, and able to be trusted in a literal context. I do appreciate your sincerity, Mr. Downs. I am currently a Religion major and have enjoyed talking to those who have studied years beyond me. I hope my comments never appear as overly aggressive. It is a genuine pursuit of truth with love and respect for those I disagree with. Old earth or young earth, Christ unites us. In Him, Tyler I agree with your timeline except where you seem to close the door on certain ideas where the text makes no demand for it. Again, you are saying that there is no problem interpreting this as another chronological account. Between points (d) and (e) you allow no room for interpretation in light of Chapter 1. The two chapters logically support one another and haven’t need to be divorced. In point (i) you make a clear assumption that this was the day for creation of these animals, not just their naming. The text does not say this. I can see why it might be read that way. Though, I believe a natural reading would understand the description provided in chapter 1 and wouldn’t find warrant for introducing a new concept. Even if you read the verse as “God formed”, it does not imply a necessity in rendering this as a same-day occurence.

I have made my reply to the “evidences” in another comment to Brother Burke. I would be willing to discuss the claims in depth. I agree that if something doesn’t make sense, we should seek to resolve it. Though I hold that Scripture provides the most reliable means of discernment as Inspired and Inerrant, and able to be trusted in a literal context.

I do appreciate your sincerity, Mr. Downs. I am currently a Religion major and have enjoyed talking to those who have studied years beyond me. I hope my comments never appear as overly aggressive. It is a genuine pursuit of truth with love and respect for those I disagree with. Old earth or young earth, Christ unites us.

In Him,

Tyler

]]>