Isn't that Just Your Interpretation?



 Religions > Atheism > Isn't that Just Your Interpretation?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 2 of 3

1

 

2

 

3

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Sexual Chocolate"
Date: 18 May 2007 12:29:34 PM
Object: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation?
Isn't that Just Your Interpretation?
Atheist: Okay, I went back and read this entire book just like you
asked, but I don't think you've made the case that Christianity is
true.
Christian: Why not?
Atheist: Because it's just your interpretation.
Christian: Of course it's my interpretation, but that doesn't mean my
interpretation is wrong.
Atheist: I say it is wrong!
Christian: Is that just your interpretation?
Atheist: So you're turning the tables on me.
Christian: Yes. All conclusions involve making an interpretation,
including yours. And in order for you to know that my interpretation
(Christianity) is objectively wrong, you would have to know what is
objectively right. So what is that right interpretation?
Atheist: There are no objective interpretations.
Christian: Forgive me for doing this again, but is that an objective
interpretation?
Atheist: Stop that!
Christian: Stop what, being logical? I'm just using the Road Runner
tactic from chapter 1. When you say something that's self-defeating, I
feel compelled to point it out. So how can you make the objective
interpretation that there are no objective interpretations?
Atheist: Okay, so maybe there are objective interpretations.
Christian: Yes, there are. While you may interpret the evidence and
conclude that Christianity is false, I may do the same and conclude
it's true. But since opposites cannot both be true, one of us must be
right, and the other one must be wrong. So who is right?
Atheist: I am.
Christian: Why?
Atheist: I just think I'm right.
Christian: But that's just an assertion. You must give evidence rather
than just make assertions. In this book, we didn't make assertions that
Christianity is true-we gave evidence every step of the way, from the
question of truth all the way to the inspiration of the Bible. What
evidence do you have that atheism is true?
Atheist: Evil and science.
Christian: That's not positive evidence for atheism but merely
perceived obstacles to belief in Christianity. As we have seen, the
existence of evil doesn't disprove God (appendix 1), and scientific
discoveries actually support the Christian worldview (chapters 3-6).
Atheist: But if Christianity is true, it excludes too many people.
After all, millions of people are not Christians.
Christian: That doesn't determine whether Christianity is true or not.
After all, truth is not determined by how many people believe it. Truth
is discovered by looking at the evidence. Is your interpretation (that
Christianity is false) necessarily wrong because it excludes millions
of Christians? Atheist: No.
Christian: Neither is mine, then. Besides, as we saw when we talked
about evil, Christianity doesn't exclude people-people exclude
themselves from Christianity. Everyone knows that God exists. But
because we all have free will, some people choose to suppress that
knowledge so that they can follow their own desires. Paul talks about
that in Romans chapter 1.
Atheist: Maybe so, but I find your conclusion extremely judgmental.
And you know, you ought not judge!
Christian: Forgive me again, but if we ought not judge, then why are
you judging me for judging?
Atheist: What's the matter, Mister Holy-you'd rather play logic games
than believe what Jesus said?
Christian: It's not a mere game but an observation about the way
things really are. It's self-defeating to tell me, "You ought not
judge" when that's a judgment itself. Furthermore, you are making a
judgment when you say Christianity is not true!
Atheist: Okay, but what about my second point. Don't you believe what
Jesus said?
Christian: Why are you quoting the Bible? Do you believe it's true
now?
Atheist: No, but you do. So why don't you believe what Jesus said?
Christian: I do. The problem is you don't know what he said. Jesus did
not tell us not to judge. He simply told us not to judge
hypocritically. He said, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For
in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the
measure you use, it will be measured to you" (Matt. 7:1-2). He then
went on to say, "Take the plank out of your own eye, and then your will
see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." In other
words, when you judge, don't judge hypocritically. The Bible also
commands us to make judgments when it tells us to "test everything" (1
Thess. 5:21), and not to "believe every spirit" (1 John 4:1) but to
believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life (John 3:16).
Atheist: Are you done?
Christian: No. There's one more point: it would be impossible to live
very long if you didn't judge good from evil. You make hundreds of
vital decisions every day that can either hurt you or help you. When
you make those decisions you are making judgments!
Atheist: Alright, I see that everyone makes judgments. And you are
making judgments by interpreting the Bible the way you do. Who's to say
that your interpretation is right?
Christian: You need to look at the context of the passage to discover
the objective meaning.
Atheist: If objective interpretations are possible, then why are there
so many different interpretations of the Bible?
Christian: Why do so many people get their math sums wrong? Is there
no right answer to arithmetic problems?
Atheist: Language is different. I think that there are many
interpretations of a sentence or a Bible verse that are true. That's
why you get so many denominations.
Christian: So you are saying that sentences can be interpreted in only
one way.
Atheist: No! . Didn't you hear what I just said? I said exactly the
opposite is true. There are many valid interpretations.
Christian: If there are many valid interpretations, then why did you
just correct me for misinterpreting what you said?
Atheist: I did?
Christian: Yes, you just told me that I misunderstood you. In effect,
you said that my interpretation was wrong! Why did you do that if there
are many valid interpretations?
Atheist: Because I knew what I meant, and it should have been obvious
to you.
Christian: You're right. So let me ask you this: why is it that when
you make a statement, you expect others to know what you mean, but when
God makes a statement in the Bible, you give yourself the option of
pouring any meaning you want into it?
Atheist: Okay, so maybe there are objective interpretations. But if
there are, then why are there so many denominations?
Christian: For the same reason there are a lot of non-Christians. It's
not because the truth is not perceived, it's because the truth is not
received. In other words, we believe our own traditions and desires
over the Word of God. Jesus spoke forcefully against doing this
(Matthew 15; 23).
Atheist: Alright. I'm going to come clean with you.
Christian: It's about time!
Atheist: The real problem I have with Christianity is that it leads to
intolerance. You Christians all think you have the truth! Christian:
Haven't you noticed that everyone thinks they have the truth? Those who
say Christianity is false think they have that truth. Even those who
say every religion is true think that's the truth!
Atheist: Okay, okay, you're right. I think atheism is true. But I'm
not intolerant like most Christians!
Christian: Even if Christians are intolerant, that wouldn't mean
Christianity is false.
Atheist: I realize that, but it's still a practical problem.
Christian: How so?
Atheist: Because people who think they have the truth want to impose
that truth on others.
Christian: Do you mean politically?
Atheist: Yes.
Christian: I've got news for you: everyone involved in
politics-including every non-Christian-is trying to impose what he or
she thinks is the truth. So what's your point?
Atheist: My point is that Christians want to take away the rights of
people!
Christian: Actually, Christianity is one of the few worldviews that
can justify absolute human rights because it affirms that those rights
are given to us by God. As our founders recognized, governments aren't
meant to give or take away rights: governments are meant to secure
rights that the people already possess. That's what we affirmed in our
Declaration of Independence.
Atheist: But what about tolerance?
Christian: Christianity is one of the few worldviews that not only
offers but champions religious tolerance. Since God doesn't force
anyone to believe (in fact the purpose of this life is to make a free
choice), most Christians recognize that government shouldn't try to
force belief either.
Atheist: But during the Crusades, some Christians obviously thought
differently!
Christian: They may have called themselves Christians, but they
certainly were not following the teachings of Christ. Jesus never
condoned such conduct.
Atheist: I think a completely secular government is the most tolerant
of all. After all, there is religious freedom in secular countries in
Europe.
Christian: Those countries do exist, but most of them are living off
the remnants of the Christian worldview from previous generations. How
much religious freedom is there in a self-declared atheistic country
such as China, or how much was there in the former Soviet Union? Not
much. And if you go to most Muslim countries today, you'll also find
very little religious freedom. Last I checked, churches are not allowed
in Saudi Arabia, and most other Muslim countries treat Christians as
second-class citizens.
Atheist: That may be true for religious tolerance, but most Christians
are not very tolerant about certain moral issues.
Christian: Do you think tolerance is an absolute moral obligation?
Atheist: You're trying to connect moral obligations with God again,
aren't you?
Christian: There is no other connection. As we saw in chapter 7, there
are no moral obligations or moral rights if there is no God. So why
should anyone be tolerant if there is no moral obligation to be
tolerant?
Atheist: Because it's the right thing to do.
Christian: That's just another assertion. As an atheist, you have no
way to justify why anyone should be tolerant.
Atheist: Maybe not. But as a Christian, you do. So why don't you
believe that we ought to be tolerant?
Christian: Actually, the supreme moral obligation is love-not
tolerance. Tolerance says, "Hold your nose and put up with others."
Love says, "Reach out and help others."
Atheist: Why can't you be tolerant and loving?
Christian: You can, but sometimes love requires you to be intolerant.
For example, wouldn't it be unloving to tolerate murder, rape, theft,
or racism?
Atheist: I suppose so.
Christian: Good, but we're getting a little off the subject. The focus
of Christianity is spiritual, not social salvation. While Christians
certainly have social obligations, Christ came to free us from our
sins, not to free us from "the Romans."
Atheist: You wouldn't know that by the behavior of some Christians
today.
Christian: You mean you don't like their biblical views on moral
issues like abortion and homosexuality?
Atheist: Yes.
Christian: So?
Atheist: What do you mean, so? Those issues are important to me!
Christian: Are those issues so important to you that you're willing to
give up truth itself in order to keep them?
Atheist: What are you talking about?
Christian: The issue is truth, not what you find politically or
personally attractive. Do you think you ought to believe what's true?
Atheist: Of course. Every reasonable person would say yes to that!
Christian: So if Christianity is true, you ought to believe it
regardless of the impact you think it might have on politics, moral
issues, or any other facet of your life.
Atheist: That's hard to do.
Christian: Maybe. But it's a lot harder in the long run to believe
error. Christ said, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny
himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save
his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.
What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet
forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?" Do
you really want to exchange your eternal soul for temporal political
positions or personal preferences?
Atheist: If Christianity is true, that's the choice I have to make.
Christian: Yes. And God wants you to choose him. But he loves you so
much that he'll respect either choice you make. Just remember that
either choice you make will have consequences here and in eternity. And
that's not just my interpretation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Geisler, N. L., & Turek, F. (2004). I don't have enough
faith to be an atheist (402). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway
Books.
.

User: "Pangur Ban"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 20 May 2007 10:10:09 AM
Cunning Stunt opined :

On Sun, 20 May 2007 08:04:11 -0600, Pangur Ban <Whistleblower@att.net>
wrote:

St. Jackanapes expounded:

In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Robibnikoff said...


"Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_H20@hotmail.com> wrote
snip


The Problem of Evil: Why Does God Allow Evil and Suffering
in the World?


What god?


You guys are getting trolled by John Loiodice, Christian spammer who has
expanded his garbage posting into A.A.
Here are a few of his sock-puppet names:
Melchizedek
Tracii Hyatt
In The Pink
Sexual Chocolate
Pelvic Elbow
Berry Jackoffkowski
She's So Fat
St. Jockofgrapes
Free Gift
Nope!
Jack Vulva
"e" <0@john@14-6.info>
-1
0
BoliviaMan
Cleaver
dirt clod
Ed
Liver Jack Brotheranapes" <jo_231lj@pigsville.com>
oldwetdog@john-14-6.com
Peppy
PHAP
pumparrotworld
Puppetworld
U Liken It Yet!
Wet Spot
Joy Oink
Dead Liver Oinkinapes
Larey Jockokisski
Feather Kiss *****


I just learned recently what a sock-puppet is. Now I have a
question... does John L. have to pay for the names he uses? My ISP
offers five other "names". Does having so many sock puppets get
expensive?

Pang - wondering why someone would waste the money :-?

Oh, He'll "PAY" for it alright...
(insert evil laugh here)
:|

--
De inimico non loquaris sed cogites.
.

User: "quibbler"

Title: Re: No, Melchy, you haven't "solved" the Problem of Evil 18 May 2007 11:01:33 PM
In article <Hd2dnRx2qftjh9PbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
traciig_H20@hotmail.com says...


The Problem of Evil: Why Does God Allow Evil and Suffering
in the World?

Again, you're proving that you just don't get it. Your stupid little
video isn't going to resolve the "problem of evil". It's not that kind
of a "problem". Like the "problem of induction" or the "mind-body
problem", these are not single issues with an entirely clear-cut answer.
They are considerations of complex philosophical systems. If you really
had an approach which addressed many of the questions entailed in the
problem of evil in a reasonable way then this would be news to the
present philosophical community. But I know that they are just secretly
conspiring to stifle ChristInsanity and that's why they haven't accepted
your moronic answers.


Video Series - Media Player [384 kbps] ~2.5 hours

Now you're just proving that you're Melchy. Why do you feel it necessary
to pose as other people?
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 19 May 2007 09:21:15 PM
On Fri, 18 May 2007 18:30:30 -0400, Tracii Guns Hyatt wrote:

The Problem of Evil: Why Does God Allow Evil and Suffering
in the World?

Because he gets his kicks from watching people suffer...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
User: "St. Jackanapes"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 20 May 2007 12:26:34 AM
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Mark K. Bilbo said...

On Fri, 18 May 2007 18:30:30 -0400, Tracii Guns Hyatt wrote:

The Problem of Evil: Why Does God Allow Evil and Suffering
in the World?


Because he gets his kicks from watching people suffer...


You guys are getting trolled by John Loiodice, Christian spammer who has
expanded his garbage posting into A.A.
Here are a few of his sock-puppet names:
Melchizedek
Tracii Hyatt
In The Pink
Sexual Chocolate
Pelvic Elbow
Berry Jackoffkowski
She's So Fat
St. Jockofgrapes
Free Gift
Nope!
Jack Vulva
"e" <0@john@14-6.info>
-1
0
BoliviaMan
Cleaver
dirt clod
Ed
Liver Jack Brotheranapes" <jo_231lj@pigsville.com>
oldwetdog@john-14-6.com
Peppy
PHAP
pumparrotworld
Puppetworld
U Liken It Yet!
Wet Spot
Joy Oink
Dead Liver Oinkinapes
Larey Jockokisski
Feather Kiss *****
--
St. Jackanapes ~ Bearer of The One True Liver ~
Ordained Minister & Holy Saint of The Universal Life Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSITE: http://www.jackanapes.ws | FORUM: http://www.voy.com/20630
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SAY GOODBYE TO JERRY FALLWELL: http://www.jackanapes.ws/jerry.html
"Thou hast the keys of Paradise, oh just, subtle, and mighty opium!"
-Thomas De Quincey
.

User: "Don Martin"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 20 May 2007 08:24:34 AM
On Sat, 19 May 2007 21:21:15 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:

On Fri, 18 May 2007 18:30:30 -0400, Tracii Guns Hyatt wrote:

The Problem of Evil: Why Does God Allow Evil and Suffering
in the World?


Because he gets his kicks from watching people suffer...

It's His favorite masturbatory fantasy. (Hey, if you only get laid
once in an eternity . . . . )
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.


User: "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 18 May 2007 04:55:57 PM
On May 18, 10:30 pm, "Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"quibbler" <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:MPG.20b7b91cb3fdef34989f5e@news.readfreenews.net...

In article <464de1e0$0$24670$9a6e1...@news.newshosting.com>,
sexualchocolatelj...@hotmail.com says...

Isn't that Just Your Interpretation?


Geisler's little straw men have nothing to do with atheism and everything
to do with his cowardice in the face of real arguments. It's theists who
assert their interpretations are correct based upon blind faith. Yes,
everyone interprets things, but theists refuse to accept
reasonable standards of evidence and argumentation. It's theists who are
the ultimate relativists, because they will redefine anything in order to
keep claiming they are "right", no matter how many times they are shown
that their arguments are actually wrong.


Atheist: Evil and science.


Christian: That's not positive evidence for atheism but merely
perceived obstacles to belief in Christianity. As we have seen, the
existence of evil doesn't disprove God (appendix 1),


It shows that if there is any such god that it is likely not an omni-
benevolent one. Also, without even consulting my copy of Geisler and
Turek, it's not credible for him to claim that he has resolved the
problem of evil in a mere appendix to his book. Since he has not
resolved the problem, he can't say whether it's decisive about the
existence of an omnibenevolent deity.


and scientific
discoveries actually support the Christian worldview (chapters 3-6)


Depending upon how hard you squint at things like the fossil record.


Christian: Everyone knows that God exists. But
because we all have free will, some people choose to suppress that
knowledge


This has to be one of the most ridiculous claims of ChristInsanity. You
see, everyone knows how to speak French. It's just that some people
choose to "suppress" this knowledge because they don't want to sound all
snooty. Do we likewise suppress knowledge that Santa Claus is real in
order to misbehave? Where is the actual evidence, rather than the mere
blathering of fictional psychopaths like Paul, that we all "know" there
is a god, even though we don't consciously recognize it.


<Remaining one-trick-pony idiocy of Geisler snipped>


The Problem of Evil: Why Does God Allow Evil and Suffering
in the World?

Description:
- If God exists, why is there evil in the world?
- What is evil?
- Where did evil come from?
- Why doesn't God intervene and stop all evil?
- Why does God allow the innocent to suffer?
- How can physical evils such as earthquakes,
tornadoes and cancer be explained?
- Could God have made a better world than the one
we live in?
- Is there a good reason for the existence of hell
on which even some atheists would agree?
- What about those who have never heard the Gospel?

Video Series - Media Player [384 kbps] ~2.5 hours

- in the Guest Area => http://bibleweb.info/

Where's the petrol?
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 18 May 2007 12:36:04 PM
On Fri, 18 May 2007 13:29:34 -0400, "Sexual Chocolate"
<sexualchocolatelj213@hotmail.com> wrote:
[a few hundred lines of Christian play-acting ***** deleted]
What is it with you in-your-face idiots?
Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?
.
User: "Tracii Guns Hyatt"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 18 May 2007 04:36:20 PM
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:ltor435ge43kkbu5b9j80nth84hokkjvfd@4ax.com...

On Fri, 18 May 2007 13:29:34 -0400, "Sexual Chocolate"
<sexualchocolatelj213@hotmail.com> wrote:

[a few hundred lines of Christian play-acting ***** deleted]

What is it with you in-your-face idiots?

Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?

Lost people without a clue.
.
User: "Robibnikoff"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 19 May 2007 04:43:09 AM
"Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_H20@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:P4ednWi4QsTBgdPbnZ2dnUVZ_sGqnZ2d@giganews.com...


"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ltor435ge43kkbu5b9j80nth84hokkjvfd@4ax.com...

On Fri, 18 May 2007 13:29:34 -0400, "Sexual Chocolate"
<sexualchocolatelj213@hotmail.com> wrote:

[a few hundred lines of Christian play-acting ***** deleted]

What is it with you in-your-face idiots?

Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


Lost people without a clue.

Ah hah, so can we surmise that all christians are obnoxious assholes just
because that's what you are?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 18 May 2007 05:35:48 PM
On Fri, 18 May 2007 17:36:20 -0400, "Tracii Guns Hyatt"
<traciig_H20@hotmail.com> wrote:


"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:ltor435ge43kkbu5b9j80nth84hokkjvfd@4ax.com...

On Fri, 18 May 2007 13:29:34 -0400, "Sexual Chocolate"
<sexualchocolatelj213@hotmail.com> wrote:

[a few hundred lines of Christian play-acting ***** deleted]

What is it with you in-your-face idiots?

Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


Lost people without a clue.

Do you get your jollies by lying about us to our faces?
.

User: "Kelsey Bjarnason"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 22 May 2007 05:56:08 PM
On Fri, 18 May 2007 17:36:20 -0400, Tracii Guns Hyatt wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:ltor435ge43kkbu5b9j80nth84hokkjvfd@4ax.com...

On Fri, 18 May 2007 13:29:34 -0400, "Sexual Chocolate"
<sexualchocolatelj213@hotmail.com> wrote:

[a few hundred lines of Christian play-acting ***** deleted]

What is it with you in-your-face idiots?

Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


Lost people without a clue.

Other way around; many - possibly most - of us are atheists precisely
because we do have a clue. Several, in fact.
--
My mother was pro-choice.
.

User: "Syd M."

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 18 May 2007 05:15:49 PM
On May 18, 5:36 pm, "Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <c...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:ltor435ge43kkbu5b9j80nth84hokkjvfd@4ax.com...

On Fri, 18 May 2007 13:29:34 -0400, "Sexual Chocolate"
<sexualchocolatelj...@hotmail.com> wrote:


[a few hundred lines of Christian play-acting ***** deleted]


What is it with you in-your-face idiots?


Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


Lost people without a clue.

No.
PDW
.


User: "Parallax"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 18 May 2007 04:34:43 PM

Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?

What is an Atheist?
.
User: "Tracii Guns Hyatt"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 18 May 2007 04:41:47 PM
"Parallax" <parallax@xallarap.net> wrote in message news:pan.2007.05.18.21.34.43.647598@xallarap.net...


Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


What is an Atheist?

A Lost person without a clue that will swear by it!
Creation and Its Purpose
THE CREATOR
No defense is given concerning the existence of God. The record
concerning Him is simply, "In the beginning God." The existence of God is
assumed. He reveals Himself as Elohim, which is related to the name El,
having a root meaning of "power" or "fear." It suggests "God's greatness
or superiority over all other gods."?1 The name Elohim identifies God as
"the subject of all divine activity revealed to man and as the object of all
true reverence and fear for men."?2 It emphasizes His sovereignty (Gen.
24:3; Isa. 37:16; 54:5); His role as Judge (Ps. 50:6; 58:11; 75:7); His
majesty or glory (Isa. 40:28; 65:16); His role as the Savior God (Gen.
17:8; 26:24; 28:13); and His intimacy with His people (Gen. 48:15; Ps.
4:1; Jer. 23:23).
While God presents Himself as a transcendent God, He is also immanent,
seeking fellowship with man. He recognizes the creation of man as very
good (Gen. 1:31); He creates man in His own image and likeness that He
may have a relationship with man and that man may rule over the earth
(Gen. 1:26); He speaks with man (Gen. 1:28-30); He creates an
environment especially for man (Gen. 1:3-25, 29-30); He tests man's
loyalty (Gen. 2:16-17); He seeks man (Gen. 3:9).
THE CREATION OF THE WORLD
"In the beginning" describes the time of God's creation. This is not myth; it
is an historical event. Genesis 1:1 gives the principal statement with three
circumstantial clauses following in v. 2, suggesting there is no gap between
1:1 and 1:2. The word created (Heb. bara) suggests God created ex nihilo,
"out of nothing." It was not a refashioning of previous materials (cf. Rom.
4:17; Heb. 11:3). The days of creation are referred to as "it was evening
and it was morning," suggesting twenty-four hour days. The statements
"second day," "third day," also demand twenty-four hour days.?3 The
creation account is a denial of any form of evolution-atheistic, theistic, or
threshhold. If man is the product of an evolutionary process then man is not
morally accountable to God; if, however, God directly created man, then
man is accountable to God and was also created that he might walk in
holiness for fellowship with God.
But what was the purpose of creation? Without question the greatness, the
immensity, the magnitude of creation was to bring glory to God.?4
CREATION OF MAN
Man's creation was special and unique. Man was created on the last day,
the climax of God's creation; at the conclusion of man's creation, God
noted, "it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). Man is not the product of evolution
but the direct creation of God (Gen. 1:27; 2:7; 5:1; Deut. 4:32). Genesis
1:27 gives the general statement; Genesis 2:7 provides additional details of
the same account. It is also important to note that Christ acknowledged
that God directly created man (Matt. 19:4). God also created the individual
species (Gen. 1:27). What is particularly significant, however, is that God
created man in His own image and likeness. This does not refer to bodily
form, since God is spirit (John 4:24), but a spiritual, natural, and moral
likeness. In his spiritual likeness, man as a regenerated being may have
fellowship with God (Eph. 2:1, 5); in his natural likeness, man has intellect,
emotions, and will to know and commune with God; in his moral likeness,
man may know and obey the precepts of God.
RESPONSIBILITY OF MAN
God's purpose in creating man is stated in Genesis 1:26, "let them rule."
God placed man in the garden to rule over His creation. Adam was God's
mediator, placed on earth to dispense His will on earth. Man's destiny as
God's mediator is further seen in Psalm 8:6-7, "Thou dost make him to
rule over the works of thy hands; Thou has put all things under his feet, All
sheep and oxen, And also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens,
and the fish of the sea, whatever passes through the paths of the seas." As
God's mediator, Adam was to exercise authority over all creation-plant
and animal life. Adam was to rule over God's creation.
God placed man in a perfect environment and gave him a test. Man was
permitted to eat of any tree of the garden but not from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17). Should he do so, death would
result. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was to develop man
spiritually; not to have knowledge is a sign of immaturity (Deut. 1:39).
God's purpose was that man should attain to a knowledge of good and evil
through not eating of the fruit. In this way man would glorify God-and
man would rule over God's kingdom on earth in its unfallen estate. But man
disobeyed God and attained to the knowledge of good and evil-the
wrong way.?5
Fall and Judgment
THE TEMPTATION AND SIN
God placed man in the garden and gave man the opportunity to obey Him
and lead the human race into eternal blessing (he could have been
confirmed in righteousness by eating from the tree of life). It was a test
concerning Adam's loyalty and obedience to God.
The solicitation to sin came to Eve through the serpent. The fact that the
serpent could tempt Eve suggests evil was present (although man had not
yet sinned). It must forever remain a riddle as to where sin came from; it is
one of the mysteries of life. Although it was the serpent speaking, it was
Satan who engineered the temptation. It was possible because he was
"crafty" ("clever," Matt. 10:16). The serpent opposed the glory of God
and sought to disrupt man's fellowship with God and man's rule over
God's creation. Satan, through the serpent, raised doubt about God's
word (Gen. 3:1); he lied by saying that man would not die (Gen. 3:4),
expressing it in strongest terms, "You surely shall not die!"?6 Eve
submitted to the temptation, sinning in the manner common to the human
race: through the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of
life (cf. 1 John 2:16). Adam also participated in the sin; although Eve was
deceived (1 Tim. 2:14), Adam realized what he was doing, hence, the
greater judgment. For this reason Adam is constituted the first sinner (Rom.
5:12-21).
JUDGMENT
Adam and Eve now came to a knowledge of good and evil but not in the
manner they should have. Immediately the world around them looked
different; they recognized their nakedness, something they had not
previously considered (Gen. 3:7). Their minds had become defiled,
hindering fellowship with God.
God called for Adam, the mediator of His truth, to accountability (Gen.
3:9). Adam as head of the human race was being held responsible. God
first pronounced judgment upon the serpent and Satan who was the power
behind the serpent (Gen. 3:14-15). Because the serpent sought to exalt
himself he would be abased, crawling on his belly, eating the dust in his
path. Genesis 3:15 should be understood as referring to Satan. Although he
would have a minor victory, the seed of the woman (Christ) would deal
Satan a death blow. God also judged the woman; she would have pain in
childbirth (Gen. 3:16) and desire for her husband?7 who would rule over
her. The judgment on Adam meant he would work hard; the ground would
resist him.?8 The tragic news awaited Adam: death would occur. Adam
and Eve died both physically and spiritually.
Promise of Redemption
In Genesis 3:15 God announced the enmity that would come between
Satan and mankind. This is the protevangelium, the first announcement of
the gospel in Scripture. Satan would be dealt a destructive, head crushing
blow. This is a reference to Christ's victory over Satan at the cross (Col.
2:14-15; Heb. 2:14) when Christ would render Satan powerless, enabling
man to be forever restored to fellowship with God, making possible man's
ultimate rule. Satan would have a minor victory ("you shall bruise him on
the heel" ), suggesting the death of Christ; however, that very death would
spell Satan's defeat.
Although Adam and Eve had sinned, incurring death, God moved to
resolve man's dilemma by pointing to a future Savior who would eliminate
death, restore believing man to fellowship with God, and consummate
history with Messiah's reign on earth to restore all that Adam had lost.
Even though Adam lost considerable authority in his kingdom rule as God's
mediator, Genesis 3:15 looks to the future when the Messianic kingdom
will be inaugurated, restoring all that Adam lost.
Summary
Several things should be noted regarding God's revelation in the Edenic
era. (1) God revealed Himself as omnipotent and sovereign in the creation
of the universe and world. (2) God is holy, demanding obedience for
fellowship with Himself. (3) God is a God of grace, as manifest through the
promise of a Savior. (4) Man is the apex of God's creation, created in the
image and likeness of God for fellowship with God and for rule over God's
creation. (5) Man is a responsible creature, answerable to a holy God.
Man is constituted a sinner through the sin of Adam. (6) God initiates His
redemptive program by promising a Savior to Adam and Eve. The promise
anticipates Messiah's ultimate triumph over Satan, providing the basis for
the restored kingdom.
For Further Study On The Edenic Era
* William Dyrness. Themes in Old Testament Theology. Exeter:
Paternoster, 1979.
** E. W. Hengstenberg. Christology of the Old Testament. Reprint. Grand
Rapids: Kregel, 1970. pp. 13-24.
** Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Toward an Old Testament Theology. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1978. pp. 71-79.
* Geerhardus Vos. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948. pp. 27-44.
[1]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1. Jack B. Scott, "El" in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2
vols., edited by R. Laird Harris et al. (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 1:42.
2 2. Ibid., 1:44.
3 3. Whenever the numeral appears with the Hebrew word yom (day) it
demands a twentyfour hour day. See also the excellent study by Weston
W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian &
Reformed, 1976).
4 4. Erich Sauer, The Dawn of World Redemption (Exeter: Paternoster,
1964), pp. 25-29.
5 5. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old
Testament, 25 vols. (Reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 1:84-86.
6 6. The Hebrew construction is an infinitive absolute which expresses
emphasis when it immediately precedes the verb.
7 7. The meaning of desire (Heb. shuq, "violent craving") is difficult to
determine since it is only used three times in the Old Testament (Gen. 3:16;
4:7; Song 7:10). It may have reference to sexual desire as in Song of
Solomon 7:10 or desire to be under his rule or perhaps desire to rule over
him.
8 8. The word describing Adam's toil (Heb. yizabon, Gen. 3:17) also
describes Eve's pain in childbirth (Gen. 3:16).
[1]Enns, P. P. (1997, c1989). The Moody handbook of theology (39).
Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.
--
"Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your
pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot
and turn to attack you." (Matthew 7:6 RSV)
.. The Total Collapse (Death) Of Atheism
http://76.162.173.93/uit/coa/
.. Marx/Lennon (Liberal Socialism)
http://76.162.173.93/uit/mls/
.. Cosmic Humanist Worldview
http://76.162.173.93/uit/chw/chw.wmv
.. Secular Humanist Worldview
http://76.162.173.93/uit/shw/shw.wmv
.. Biblical Christian Worldview
http://76.162.173.93/uit/bcw/bcw.wmv
.. The Perfect Stranger
http://76.162.173.93/misc/tps/
.
User: "Robibnikoff"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 19 May 2007 04:42:17 AM
"Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_H20@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1_SdnfePNpQ-gNPbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@giganews.com...


"Parallax" <parallax@xallarap.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.05.18.21.34.43.647598@xallarap.net...


Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


What is an Atheist?


A Lost person without a clue that will swear by it!

I think someone's ISP needs to receive a complaint.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
User: "John Baker"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 19 May 2007 07:30:48 AM
On Sat, 19 May 2007 05:42:17 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:


"Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_H20@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1_SdnfePNpQ-gNPbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@giganews.com...


"Parallax" <parallax@xallarap.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.05.18.21.34.43.647598@xallarap.net...


Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


What is an Atheist?


A Lost person without a clue that will swear by it!


I think someone's ISP needs to receive a complaint.

I think someone's ISP needs to receive a whole bunch of complaints.
There was a time when a.a was notorious for getting trolls shitcanned.
The smart ones stayed away and the dumb ones lost their accounts. We
need to get back to those good old days. <G>
.
User: "Sexual Chocolate"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 19 May 2007 09:50:10 AM
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message news:q7rt431rhm97smpan6uinble0nf1cmtf9q@4ax.com...

On Sat, 19 May 2007 05:42:17 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:


"Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_H20@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1_SdnfePNpQ-gNPbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@giganews.com...


"Parallax" <parallax@xallarap.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.05.18.21.34.43.647598@xallarap.net...


Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


What is an Atheist?


A Lost person without a clue that will swear by it!


I think someone's ISP needs to receive a complaint.


I think someone's ISP needs to receive a whole bunch of complaints.

There was a time when a.a was notorious for getting trolls shitcanned.
The smart ones stayed away and the dumb ones lost their accounts. We
need to get back to those good old days. <G>

Sounds like the atheists are cry babies, and cannot defend
for themselves attitude, huh. Wawawawawawa, or is it
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - like a frustrated GOAT!
Try to deal with a simple post by either turning it OFF,
or NOT reading IT, or debating IT, use atheists profess to
be oh so smart and so able to "win" debates, (but not without
vulgarity, huh), but the reality is U have to isolate UR selves
to remain atheists, or start the "pull in the shirt" tactics and
cry baby to get help, when all you have to do is to PLONK or
block content you feel is not to UR liking. Atheists are very
weak when you separate them from their flock, huh. (-:
.
User: "Ego Sum Nemo"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 20 May 2007 09:33:46 PM
On May 19, 10:50 am, "Sexual Chocolate" <sc_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"John Baker" <n...@bizniz.net> wrote in messagenews:q7rt431rhm97smpan6uinble0nf1cmtf9q@4ax.com...

On Sat, 19 May 2007 05:42:17 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:


"Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1_SdnfePNpQ-gNPbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@giganews.com...


"Parallax" <paral...@xallarap.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.05.18.21.34.43.647598@xallarap.net...


Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


What is an Atheist?


A Lost person without a clue that will swear by it!


I think someone's ISP needs to receive a complaint.


I think someone's ISP needs to receive a whole bunch of complaints.


There was a time when a.a was notorious for getting trolls shitcanned.
The smart ones stayed away and the dumb ones lost their accounts. We
need to get back to those good old days. <G>


Sounds like the atheists are cry babies, and cannot defend
for themselves attitude, huh. Wawawawawawa, or is it

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - like a frustrated GOAT!

Try to deal with a simple post by either turning it OFF,
or NOT reading IT, or debating IT, use atheists profess to
be oh so smart and so able to "win" debates, (but not without
vulgarity, huh), but the reality is U have to isolate UR selves
to remain atheists, or start the "pull in the shirt" tactics and
cry baby to get help, when all you have to do is to PLONK or
block content you feel is not to UR liking. Atheists are very
weak when you separate them from their flock, huh. (-:- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is rich coing from the same John Loiodice that runs from anyone
who tries to debate his religious spams. A guy named Brad tried to
debate your articles for a month, and instead of defending your
articles, you spent your time chasing Deborah Defanstano, asking her
for dates. You're a liar, a fake, and a proven Net Kook. No one takes
you seriously. You're a laughingstock of all the newsgrouops that you
spam. And when people PLONK you, they're blocking SPAM. You have no
intention to reply to anyone who should try and debate you. Newsgroups
are for DEBATING. People go to WEBSITES for the readaing of long
articles. You are a sad little spammer, nothing more, Melty.
.

User: "Al Klein"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 19 May 2007 05:57:06 PM
On Sat, 19 May 2007 10:50:10 -0400, "Sexual Chocolate"
<sc_230@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sounds like the atheists are cry babies, and cannot defend
for themselves attitude, huh. Wawawawawawa, or is it

Sounds like someone likes standing in front of a loaded 16 inch gun
giving the one-finger salute, and then complaining when he gets his
head blown off.
Also sounds as if someone needs a mini-Darwin award.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 19 May 2007 09:06:38 PM
On Sat, 19 May 2007 11:50:10 -0400, Sexual Chocolate wrote:


"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message news:q7rt431rhm97smpan6uinble0nf1cmtf9q@4ax.com...

On Sat, 19 May 2007 05:42:17 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:


"Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_H20@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1_SdnfePNpQ-gNPbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@giganews.com...


"Parallax" <parallax@xallarap.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.05.18.21.34.43.647598@xallarap.net...


Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


What is an Atheist?


A Lost person without a clue that will swear by it!


I think someone's ISP needs to receive a complaint.


I think someone's ISP needs to receive a whole bunch of complaints.

There was a time when a.a was notorious for getting trolls shitcanned.
The smart ones stayed away and the dumb ones lost their accounts. We
need to get back to those good old days. <G>


Sounds like the atheists are cry babies, and cannot defend
for themselves attitude, huh. Wawawawawawa, or is it

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - like a frustrated GOAT!

Try to deal with a simple post by either turning it OFF,
or NOT reading IT, or debating IT, use atheists profess to
be oh so smart and so able to "win" debates, (but not without
vulgarity, huh), but the reality is U have to isolate UR selves
to remain atheists, or start the "pull in the shirt" tactics and
cry baby to get help, when all you have to do is to PLONK or
block content you feel is not to UR liking. Atheists are very
weak when you separate them from their flock, huh. (-:

Translation: "I like breaking the rules dammit!"
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
User: "Ego Sum Nemo"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 20 May 2007 09:41:26 PM
On May 19, 10:06 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:

On Sat, 19 May 2007 11:50:10 -0400, Sexual Chocolate wrote:

"John Baker" <n...@bizniz.net> wrote in messagenews:q7rt431rhm97smpan6uinble0nf1cmtf9q@4ax.com...

On Sat, 19 May 2007 05:42:17 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:


"Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1_SdnfePNpQ-gNPbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@giganews.com...


"Parallax" <paral...@xallarap.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.05.18.21.34.43.647598@xallarap.net...


Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


What is an Atheist?


A Lost person without a clue that will swear by it!


I think someone's ISP needs to receive a complaint.


I think someone's ISP needs to receive a whole bunch of complaints.


There was a time when a.a was notorious for getting trolls shitcanned.
The smart ones stayed away and the dumb ones lost their accounts. We
need to get back to those good old days. <G>


Sounds like the atheists are cry babies, and cannot defend
for themselves attitude, huh. Wawawawawawa, or is it


BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - like a frustrated GOAT!


Try to deal with a simple post by either turning it OFF,
or NOT reading IT, or debating IT, use atheists profess to
be oh so smart and so able to "win" debates, (but not without
vulgarity, huh), but the reality is U have to isolate UR selves
to remain atheists, or start the "pull in the shirt" tactics and
cry baby to get help, when all you have to do is to PLONK or
block content you feel is not to UR liking. Atheists are very
weak when you separate them from their flock, huh. (-:


Translation: "I like breaking the rules dammit!"

No, it means that "the Big Bad Atheists over in alt.flame.jesus.christ
won't play with me anymore and they all put me in thier Bozo Bins."
The frustrated goat is named John "Melty" Loiodice, Christian
Propagandist.
.
User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 21 May 2007 08:17:50 AM
On Sun, 20 May 2007 20:41:26 -0700, Ego Sum Nemo wrote:

On May 19, 10:06 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:

On Sat, 19 May 2007 11:50:10 -0400, Sexual Chocolate wrote:

"John Baker" <n...@bizniz.net> wrote in messagenews:q7rt431rhm97smpan6uinble0nf1cmtf9q@4ax.com...

On Sat, 19 May 2007 05:42:17 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:


"Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1_SdnfePNpQ-gNPbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@giganews.com...


"Parallax" <paral...@xallarap.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.05.18.21.34.43.647598@xallarap.net...


Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


What is an Atheist?


A Lost person without a clue that will swear by it!


I think someone's ISP needs to receive a complaint.


I think someone's ISP needs to receive a whole bunch of complaints.


There was a time when a.a was notorious for getting trolls shitcanned.
The smart ones stayed away and the dumb ones lost their accounts. We
need to get back to those good old days. <G>


Sounds like the atheists are cry babies, and cannot defend
for themselves attitude, huh. Wawawawawawa, or is it


BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - like a frustrated GOAT!


Try to deal with a simple post by either turning it OFF,
or NOT reading IT, or debating IT, use atheists profess to
be oh so smart and so able to "win" debates, (but not without
vulgarity, huh), but the reality is U have to isolate UR selves
to remain atheists, or start the "pull in the shirt" tactics and
cry baby to get help, when all you have to do is to PLONK or
block content you feel is not to UR liking. Atheists are very
weak when you separate them from their flock, huh. (-:


Translation: "I like breaking the rules dammit!"


No, it means that "the Big Bad Atheists over in alt.flame.jesus.christ
won't play with me anymore and they all put me in thier Bozo Bins."
The frustrated goat is named John "Melty" Loiodice, Christian
Propagandist.

I wonder where in the New Testament it says, "Go unto all the Usenet and
have flame wars"?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.






User: "raven1"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 19 May 2007 03:08:54 AM
On Fri, 18 May 2007 17:41:47 -0400, "Tracii Guns Hyatt"
<traciig_H20@hotmail.com> wrote:


"Parallax" <parallax@xallarap.net> wrote in message news:pan.2007.05.18.21.34.43.647598@xallarap.net...


Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


What is an Atheist?


A Lost person without a clue that will swear by it!

That's nice, now can you give us one good reason to believe that
*anything* stated below is true, or are you just talking out of your
*****...?

Creation and Its Purpose

THE CREATOR

No defense is given concerning the existence of God. The record
concerning Him is simply, "In the beginning God." The existence of God is
assumed. He reveals Himself as Elohim, which is related to the name El,
having a root meaning of "power" or "fear." It suggests "God's greatness
or superiority over all other gods."?1 The name Elohim identifies God as
"the subject of all divine activity revealed to man and as the object of all
true reverence and fear for men."?2 It emphasizes His sovereignty (Gen.
24:3; Isa. 37:16; 54:5); His role as Judge (Ps. 50:6; 58:11; 75:7); His
majesty or glory (Isa. 40:28; 65:16); His role as the Savior God (Gen.
17:8; 26:24; 28:13); and His intimacy with His people (Gen. 48:15; Ps.
4:1; Jer. 23:23).

While God presents Himself as a transcendent God, He is also immanent,
seeking fellowship with man. He recognizes the creation of man as very
good (Gen. 1:31); He creates man in His own image and likeness that He
may have a relationship with man and that man may rule over the earth
(Gen. 1:26); He speaks with man (Gen. 1:28-30); He creates an
environment especially for man (Gen. 1:3-25, 29-30); He tests man's
loyalty (Gen. 2:16-17); He seeks man (Gen. 3:9).

THE CREATION OF THE WORLD

"In the beginning" describes the time of God's creation. This is not myth; it
is an historical event. Genesis 1:1 gives the principal statement with three
circumstantial clauses following in v. 2, suggesting there is no gap between
1:1 and 1:2. The word created (Heb. bara) suggests God created ex nihilo,
"out of nothing." It was not a refashioning of previous materials (cf. Rom.
4:17; Heb. 11:3). The days of creation are referred to as "it was evening
and it was morning," suggesting twenty-four hour days. The statements
"second day," "third day," also demand twenty-four hour days.?3 The
creation account is a denial of any form of evolution-atheistic, theistic, or
threshhold. If man is the product of an evolutionary process then man is not
morally accountable to God; if, however, God directly created man, then
man is accountable to God and was also created that he might walk in
holiness for fellowship with God.

But what was the purpose of creation? Without question the greatness, the
immensity, the magnitude of creation was to bring glory to God.?4

CREATION OF MAN

Man's creation was special and unique. Man was created on the last day,
the climax of God's creation; at the conclusion of man's creation, God
noted, "it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). Man is not the product of evolution
but the direct creation of God (Gen. 1:27; 2:7; 5:1; Deut. 4:32). Genesis
1:27 gives the general statement; Genesis 2:7 provides additional details of
the same account. It is also important to note that Christ acknowledged
that God directly created man (Matt. 19:4). God also created the individual
species (Gen. 1:27). What is particularly significant, however, is that God
created man in His own image and likeness. This does not refer to bodily
form, since God is spirit (John 4:24), but a spiritual, natural, and moral
likeness. In his spiritual likeness, man as a regenerated being may have
fellowship with God (Eph. 2:1, 5); in his natural likeness, man has intellect,
emotions, and will to know and commune with God; in his moral likeness,
man may know and obey the precepts of God.

RESPONSIBILITY OF MAN

God's purpose in creating man is stated in Genesis 1:26, "let them rule."
God placed man in the garden to rule over His creation. Adam was God's
mediator, placed on earth to dispense His will on earth. Man's destiny as
God's mediator is further seen in Psalm 8:6-7, "Thou dost make him to
rule over the works of thy hands; Thou has put all things under his feet, All
sheep and oxen, And also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens,
and the fish of the sea, whatever passes through the paths of the seas." As
God's mediator, Adam was to exercise authority over all creation-plant
and animal life. Adam was to rule over God's creation.

God placed man in a perfect environment and gave him a test. Man was
permitted to eat of any tree of the garden but not from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17). Should he do so, death would
result. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was to develop man
spiritually; not to have knowledge is a sign of immaturity (Deut. 1:39).
God's purpose was that man should attain to a knowledge of good and evil
through not eating of the fruit. In this way man would glorify God-and
man would rule over God's kingdom on earth in its unfallen estate. But man
disobeyed God and attained to the knowledge of good and evil-the
wrong way.?5

Fall and Judgment

THE TEMPTATION AND SIN

God placed man in the garden and gave man the opportunity to obey Him
and lead the human race into eternal blessing (he could have been
confirmed in righteousness by eating from the tree of life). It was a test
concerning Adam's loyalty and obedience to God.

The solicitation to sin came to Eve through the serpent. The fact that the
serpent could tempt Eve suggests evil was present (although man had not
yet sinned). It must forever remain a riddle as to where sin came from; it is
one of the mysteries of life. Although it was the serpent speaking, it was
Satan who engineered the temptation. It was possible because he was
"crafty" ("clever," Matt. 10:16). The serpent opposed the glory of God
and sought to disrupt man's fellowship with God and man's rule over
God's creation. Satan, through the serpent, raised doubt about God's
word (Gen. 3:1); he lied by saying that man would not die (Gen. 3:4),
expressing it in strongest terms, "You surely shall not die!"?6 Eve
submitted to the temptation, sinning in the manner common to the human
race: through the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of
life (cf. 1 John 2:16). Adam also participated in the sin; although Eve was
deceived (1 Tim. 2:14), Adam realized what he was doing, hence, the
greater judgment. For this reason Adam is constituted the first sinner (Rom.
5:12-21).

JUDGMENT

Adam and Eve now came to a knowledge of good and evil but not in the
manner they should have. Immediately the world around them looked
different; they recognized their nakedness, something they had not
previously considered (Gen. 3:7). Their minds had become defiled,
hindering fellowship with God.

God called for Adam, the mediator of His truth, to accountability (Gen.
3:9). Adam as head of the human race was being held responsible. God
first pronounced judgment upon the serpent and Satan who was the power
behind the serpent (Gen. 3:14-15). Because the serpent sought to exalt
himself he would be abased, crawling on his belly, eating the dust in his
path. Genesis 3:15 should be understood as referring to Satan. Although he
would have a minor victory, the seed of the woman (Christ) would deal
Satan a death blow. God also judged the woman; she would have pain in
childbirth (Gen. 3:16) and desire for her husband?7 who would rule over
her. The judgment on Adam meant he would work hard; the ground would
resist him.?8 The tragic news awaited Adam: death would occur. Adam
and Eve died both physically and spiritually.

Promise of Redemption

In Genesis 3:15 God announced the enmity that would come between
Satan and mankind. This is the protevangelium, the first announcement of
the gospel in Scripture. Satan would be dealt a destructive, head crushing
blow. This is a reference to Christ's victory over Satan at the cross (Col.
2:14-15; Heb. 2:14) when Christ would render Satan powerless, enabling
man to be forever restored to fellowship with God, making possible man's
ultimate rule. Satan would have a minor victory ("you shall bruise him on
the heel" ), suggesting the death of Christ; however, that very death would
spell Satan's defeat.

Although Adam and Eve had sinned, incurring death, God moved to
resolve man's dilemma by pointing to a future Savior who would eliminate
death, restore believing man to fellowship with God, and consummate
history with Messiah's reign on earth to restore all that Adam had lost.

Even though Adam lost considerable authority in his kingdom rule as God's
mediator, Genesis 3:15 looks to the future when the Messianic kingdom
will be inaugurated, restoring all that Adam lost.

Summary

Several things should be noted regarding God's revelation in the Edenic
era. (1) God revealed Himself as omnipotent and sovereign in the creation
of the universe and world. (2) God is holy, demanding obedience for
fellowship with Himself. (3) God is a God of grace, as manifest through the
promise of a Savior. (4) Man is the apex of God's creation, created in the
image and likeness of God for fellowship with God and for rule over God's
creation. (5) Man is a responsible creature, answerable to a holy God.
Man is constituted a sinner through the sin of Adam. (6) God initiates His
redemptive program by promising a Savior to Adam and Eve. The promise
anticipates Messiah's ultimate triumph over Satan, providing the basis for
the restored kingdom.

For Further Study On The Edenic Era

* William Dyrness. Themes in Old Testament Theology. Exeter:
Paternoster, 1979.

** E. W. Hengstenberg. Christology of the Old Testament. Reprint. Grand
Rapids: Kregel, 1970. pp. 13-24.

** Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Toward an Old Testament Theology. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1978. pp. 71-79.

* Geerhardus Vos. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948. pp. 27-44.

[1]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 1. Jack B. Scott, "El" in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2
vols., edited by R. Laird Harris et al. (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 1:42.

2 2. Ibid., 1:44.

3 3. Whenever the numeral appears with the Hebrew word yom (day) it
demands a twentyfour hour day. See also the excellent study by Weston
W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian &
Reformed, 1976).

4 4. Erich Sauer, The Dawn of World Redemption (Exeter: Paternoster,
1964), pp. 25-29.

5 5. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old
Testament, 25 vols. (Reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 1:84-86.

6 6. The Hebrew construction is an infinitive absolute which expresses
emphasis when it immediately precedes the verb.

7 7. The meaning of desire (Heb. shuq, "violent craving") is difficult to
determine since it is only used three times in the Old Testament (Gen. 3:16;
4:7; Song 7:10). It may have reference to sexual desire as in Song of
Solomon 7:10 or desire to be under his rule or perhaps desire to rule over
him.

8 8. The word describing Adam's toil (Heb. yizabon, Gen. 3:17) also
describes Eve's pain in childbirth (Gen. 3:16).

[1]Enns, P. P. (1997, c1989). The Moody handbook of theology (39).
Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.

--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 18 May 2007 05:33:14 PM
On Fri, 18 May 2007 17:41:47 -0400, "Tracii Guns Hyatt"
<traciig_H20@hotmail.com> wrote:


"Parallax" <parallax@xallarap.net> wrote in message news:pan.2007.05.18.21.34.43.647598@xallarap.net...


Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


What is an Atheist?


A Lost person without a clue that will swear by it!

Creation and Its Purpose

THE CREATOR

What "
THE CREATOR", brainwashed moron?

No defense is given concerning the existence of God.

Then you have nothing to say on the subject, brainwashed moron.

The record
concerning Him is simply,

What "The record", brainwashed moron?

"In the beginning God."

You meant to say "your creation myths", brainwashed moron.

The existence of God is
assumed.

Only in the myths and legends of somebody else's religion, brainwashed
moron.

He reveals Himself as Elohim,

Only in the myths and legends of somebody else's religion, brainwashed
moron.

which is related to the name El,
having a root meaning of "power" or "fear." It suggests "God's greatness
or superiority over all other gods."?1 The name Elohim identifies God as
"the subject of all divine activity revealed to man and as the object of all
true reverence and fear for men."?2 It emphasizes His sovereignty (Gen.
24:3; Isa. 37:16; 54:5); His role as Judge (Ps. 50:6; 58:11; 75:7); His
majesty or glory (Isa. 40:28; 65:16); His role as the Savior God (Gen.
17:8; 26:24; 28:13); and His intimacy with His people (Gen. 48:15; Ps.
4:1; Jer. 23:23).

None of which has any relevance outside your religion, brainwashed
moron.

While God presents Himself as a transcendent God, He is also immanent,
seeking fellowship with man. He recognizes the creation of man as very
good (Gen. 1:31); He creates man in His own image and likeness that He
may have a relationship with man and that man may rule over the earth
(Gen. 1:26); He speaks with man (Gen. 1:28-30); He creates an
environment especially for man (Gen. 1:3-25, 29-30); He tests man's
loyalty (Gen. 2:16-17); He seeks man (Gen. 3:9).

Prove this, brainwashed moron.

THE CREATION OF THE WORLD

"In the beginning" describes the time of God's creation. This is not myth; it

No, liar. It is your religion's creation myth.

is an historical event.

Liar.
Rest of this moron's in-your-face rudeness and stupidity snipped.
.

User: "Parallax"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 18 May 2007 04:51:14 PM
On Fri, 18 May 2007 17:41:47 -0400, Tracii Guns Hyatt wrote:


Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


What is an Atheist?


A Lost person without a clue that will swear by it!

<snip>
Yeah, I've read a lot of that before, but... shouldn't you prove the
validity of the Bible before using it as reference? If I wrote a note
claiming that I could fly, there would have to be some validation before
it was accepted, right?
.
User: "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 18 May 2007 04:57:51 PM
On May 18, 10:51 pm, Parallax <paral...@xallarap.net> wrote:

On Fri, 18 May 2007 17:41:47 -0400, Tracii Guns Hyatt wrote:

Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


What is an Atheist?


A Lost person without a clue that will swear by it!


<snip>

Yeah, I've read a lot of that before, but... shouldn't you prove the
validity of the Bible before using it as reference? If I wrote a note
claiming that I could fly, there would have to be some validation before
it was accepted, right?

There was proof, but the dog ate it.
.
User: "Al Klein"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 18 May 2007 07:44:16 PM
On 18 May 2007 14:57:51 -0700, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist
minister" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:

On May 18, 10:51 pm, Parallax <paral...@xallarap.net> wrote:

On Fri, 18 May 2007 17:41:47 -0400, Tracii Guns Hyatt wrote:

Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


What is an Atheist?


A Lost person without a clue that will swear by it!


<snip>

Yeah, I've read a lot of that before, but... shouldn't you prove the
validity of the Bible before using it as reference? If I wrote a note
claiming that I could fly, there would have to be some validation before
it was accepted, right?


There was proof, but the dog ate it.

No she didn't, she posted it about 15 minutes before you posted this.
.




User: "Syd M."

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 18 May 2007 05:14:26 PM
On May 18, 5:34 pm, Parallax <paral...@xallarap.net> wrote:

Why don't you find out what an atheist actually is?


What is an Atheist?

Someone who doesn't believe in god(s)?
That would be my guess.
PDW
.



User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 19 May 2007 09:20:34 PM
On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:29:34 -0400, Sexual Chocolate wrote:

Isn't that Just Your Interpretation?

Are you aware you're making no sense at all?
(My guess is "no")
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
User: "Michael Gray"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 19 May 2007 11:40:23 PM
On Sat, 19 May 2007 21:20:34 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2007.05.20.02.20.33.467186@com.mkbilbo>

On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:29:34 -0400, Sexual Chocolate wrote:

Isn't that Just Your Interpretation?


Are you aware you're making no sense at all?

(My guess is "no")

Men in the grip of tertiary syphillus rarely do.
--
.


User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus"

Title: Re: Isn't that Just Your Interpretation? 19 May 2007 09:19:17 PM
On May 18, 10:29 am, "Sexual Chocolate"
<sexualchocolatelj...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Isn't that Just Your Interpretation?

Atheist: Okay, I went back and read this entire book just like you
asked, but I don't think you've made the case that Christianity is
true.

Christian: Why not?

Atheist: Because it's just your interpretation.

Sorry, you've got it wrong right here. The actual response is,
"because ancient tales of virgin births, miraculous healings, and god-
men rising from the dead are only believed by small children, the
developmentally disabled, and terminally deluded adults."
Since you've made a hash of it from the get-go the rest can be
dismissed.
.


  Page 2 of 3

1

 

2