17 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou ignored my questions above. Would you please respond to them?
There were multiple good choices to be had in the Garden. The center piece of the tree of the knowldege of good and evil was in answer to Satan's charge.
To only allow nothing but good still limits the free will to but one choice. Satan's charge required the real choice of blindly trusting God, or getting some knowledge for themselves.
Also, as Scribs said above, restricting a choice set is not the same as eliminating choice. This should be obvious by inspection. According to you, we all have free will, yet each of us here can think of a great many ways in which our choices are restricted.
17 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioDamn it, Nemesio. I was setting that up! Fundies can be very weasely. You have to be like an attorney and trap them while they are on the stand.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Prevention of evil would require lack of free will.
Are you saying that there is no free will in heaven? Or are people able to
do evil there?
Nemesio[/b]
Oh well, looks like he the questions confused him anyway.
17 Dec 05
Originally posted by telerionUnknown, scripturally we only know it occurred why when and how are
Yes, I had refreshed my memory of those exact verses before my post. The question No1 raises is whether the carnivores we see today became non-plant eaters as a result of the Curse or only after the Flood.
conjecture. My guess it started after the fall and the changes picked up
speed after the flood.
Kelly
18 Dec 05
Originally posted by telerionAfter the fall there were several things that took place right
I agree that the timing is indeterminate from the verses in Genesis.
[b]My guess it started after the fall and the changes picked up
speed after the flood.
Why do you guess this?[/b]
away, for one the earth was cursed, so I imagine plant life
more than likely no longer provided all they could at the
beginning as they diversified through genetic changes too.
Death entered into the equation after the fall, everything
that lived between the fall and flood lived longer, or at least
I believe they did because man’s life span were so much
longer. So with longer life spans changes within DNA would
be occurring, but I imagine when generations turned
around quicker the genetic changes would have
opportunity to occur more rapidly. This is of course is just
my thoughts on the matter.
Kelly
18 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayNo death before the fall?
After the fall there were several things that took place right
away, for one the earth was cursed, so I imagine plant life
more than likely no longer provided all they could at the
beginning as they diversified through genetic changes too.
Death entered into the equation after the fall, everything
that lived between the fall and flood lived longer, or ...[text shortened]...
opportunity to occur more rapidly. This is of course is just
my thoughts on the matter.
Kelly
Does that mean that the plants were still alive when they were being digested? Or are plants not alive?
18 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzTruth be told, and it will, if it weren't for Satan's objection to his sentence, man would have never entered the scene.
So basically, it was Satan that provided man the opportunity to exercise free will, even if god provided the actual ability. hmm, sounds like that Satan chap's been getting abit of a bum deal here...
18 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioFor whatever reason, a choice against God was the issue in the Garden.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Prevention of evil would require lack of free will.
Are you saying that there is no free will in heaven? Or are people able to
do evil there?
Nemesio[/b]
In the future, somehow the sin nature is done away with, and is no longer an inside agent of destruction. How? Don't know, and apparently, don't need to know, otherwise God would give us that information now.
18 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt's one thing to be happy, another to be ignorant, unless ingnorance is bliss in which case, be happy and stop looking.
For whatever reason, a choice against God was the issue in the Garden.
In the future, somehow the sin nature is done away with, and is no longer an inside agent of destruction. How? Don't know, and apparently, don't need to know, otherwise God would give us that information now.
18 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow obvious was Freaky's ignore of my questions?
For whatever reason, a choice against God was the issue in the Garden.
In the future, somehow the sin nature is done away with, and is no longer an inside agent of destruction. How? Don't know, and apparently, don't need to know, otherwise God would give us that information now.
Let me help you out Freak. Is a world more perfect without evil and without free will or with evil and free will.
18 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompAnd this page from the same site: http://www.earth-history.com/Sumer/sumer-flood-story.htm.
here's Noah's storm :
http://www.earth-history.com/Sumer/sumer-lament-eridug.htm
This may be the one Chaim Potok refers to in his Wanderings: History of the Jews; he claims there is just one Sumerian tablet about the flood, but he was writing in the late 70s:
“There is considerable archeological evidence not for one general flood but for vast local inundations in prehistoric times that could easily have remained in the memory of our species and been gathered into this one great devastating Flood.
“Only one Sumerian tablet has been found thus far dealing with this ancient Deluge, and it is badly damaged. It tells us that the great gods Anu, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursag fashioned the black-headed people, vegetation, animals….Then the gods talk of the Flood. The tablet is damaged at this point and we are not given the reason for the Flood. We are told that some of the gods wept over the coming devastation, and one of the gods took it upon himself to warn a pious king of the Deluge. The king built a boat. He sailed it seven days and seven nights….” (pp. 23-24)
I suspect that, as seems to be often the case in the Hebrew, the numbers may be more symbolical than actual measures of time duration.
EDIT: BTW, Welcome back!
18 Dec 05
Originally posted by vistesdThere seems to be a few more Sumerian tablets that refer to the flood on that page:
And this page from the same site: http://www.earth-history.com/Sumer/sumer-flood-story.htm.
This may be the one Chaim Potok refers to in his Wanderings: History of the Jews; he claims there is just one Sumerian tablet about the flood, but he was writing in the late 70s:
“There is considerable archeological evidence not for one general flood b ...[text shortened]... mbers may be more symbolical than actual measures of time duration.
EDIT: BTW, Welcome back!
http://www.earth-history.com/Sumer/sumer-eridu-genesis.htm
http://www.earth-history.com/Sumer/sumer-flood-story.htm
and that doesnt have the Sumerian King's List
Xiusudra wasn't the King of Eridug, at least I don't think he was. lol