hippias

For the ecord, evolution wasn't the argument. Rather it was the existence of God. Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. What do you have to say with regards to this? Oh, I am sure that such a witty student wouldn't mention evolution for nothing! I liked best how the witty student showed the absurdity of the nutty professor's scientific method by asking if anyone has ever seen the professor's brain. How the crowd cheered! Everyone knows: when a crowd cheers there is no mistake possible any longer - the cheer decides it. Thus there is absolutely no way imaginable to find out whether a particular person has a brain or not. Super. As for your question: It is true that science can't explain everything, maybe even nothing. Nor does anyone have to acknowledge science. IMO this has nothing to do with Christianity in particular.

It is truly inspiring how this nutty professor loses the argument in this made up dialogue. No doubt: if all people would inform themselves about evolution by reading imagined dialogues instead of biology textbooks, its acceptance would drop considerably.

Hippias, I do believe you are misreading the Scripture: Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar-- the LORD of hosts is his name: "If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever." The verse says, "the fixed order," not their fixed position. The "fixed order" the Lord speaks of is the sun giving light by day and the moon and stars giving light for night. So this has nothing to do with stars moving or changing or dying or whatever. Likewise, the sun being covered by the moon for a few moments does not change this set order. to claim otherwise would be like claiming a battery dying violati the warranty of an item to run for a set period of time. Nebula, I didn't bring up this biblical passage, but since it was on the tablet I argued that it might be understood in the way I described. What precise "order" is meant here is not so obvious. Both Jesus's birth and death are accompanied by unusual astromonical phenomena - if one likes, these might be understood as an interuption of the usual "order". Where is the scriptual evidence that a 3 hour eclipse - which entails not less than that earth and moon completely changed their motion around the sun - is not the cessation of "order" referred to in the psalm? And especially the condition of the sun giving light during daytimes has been violated in a highly miraculous manner in that particular eclipse - if it could be even called so. Furthermore: By what evidence do you know that the present "order" of the universe is the same as at the time of writing? We learn from the OT that occassionally the sun stood still: And the sun stood still and the moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hastened not to go down for about a whole day. (Joshua 10:13) The sun and moon stood still in their habitation; at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of Thy glittering spear. (Hab. 3:11) These passages were commonly, and not surprisingly, understood as the sun (and moon) revolving around the earth and not the earth around the sun but today we know that the latter the case. So, if one would be inclined to do so, one could argue that we have scriptual evidence here that the order of the world indeed changed. I am not saying this in order to claim that it is so but that this particular passage is not sufficient to decide my question about the everlastingness.

Giving live birth (vivipary) has nothing to do with navels. There are a lot of reptiles (snakes etc.) that give live birth: their young grow up in eggs, which eggs are not lain. The embryos of dinosaurs, as birds and reptiles, live on the yolk of their egg to which they are of course connected through some sort of umbilical chord. After leaving their eggs these animals have "navels" too but these almost heal out completely and become therefore invisible. Hence vivipar dinosaurs don't have navels either (at least not on account of their giving live birth).

In Genesis 17 the land of Canaan is specified, this particular land was promised as everlasting possession. If now you equate "Canaan= all nations" then it is completely out of question that the promise of possession - let alone everlasting! - could be regarded as fulfilled. In the times of Jesus the seed of Abraham, however interpreted, did absolutely not possess all nations! By the way, Galatians 3:29 also speaks clearly against the equation "seed of Abraham= Jesus"? The covenant altered, circumcision taken out but Jesus being installed as the only way towards God. To me it seems the covenant did not last for ever?

I find this a very strange reply? Are you saying that a lack of faith by JTC resulted in the Sandy destruction? Haha, hardly! I was wondering since he complained about the hardships that were brought about him by the natural disaster why he had not prayed for help and protection - in the best case not only for himself but for all endangered people. Since Christian believers can remove mountains I thought this would be a quite obvious thing to do, and useful too. I mean John gave the nailing up of the door a bit of a miraculous air but what is this if he still has still wet feet, freezes, people being hurt or even dead, if he had been able for instance to remove a mountain and build a dyke around the city - or anyone else in the Christian world.

The 'Seed' is the fulfillment. God has indeed blessed us through the 'Seed' of Abraham. I'm not following what you are referring to by your second statement concerning land robbed by the Romans. Are you talking about the Jews of today, the people of Israel today? The Jews of today, in my opinion again, are different than the Jews of the OT times. You see, as far as I can understand, when God made the covenant with the twelve tribes of Israel, this old covenant people, the covenant contained both blessings and curses. The condition of staying in the land He was giving was upon whether they obeyed His laws of the Mosaic covenant. How can the Israel of today obey a covenant that no longer is in place - Matthew 5:17-18 (unless of course you believe it is, in which case where is the priesthood, the temple sacrifice and atonement for the people). It is not needed because God has met it fully in Christ Jesus! Another point, return to the land was also conditional upon obedience to the covenant. How can this be today? Some, possibly the majority of the nation of Israel today are secular or atheistic/agnostic. How can that be obedient? How can you obey a covenant in which so much of it can no longer be obeyed because the sufficient means of the priesthood, sacrifices, building, etc are no longer in existence? Another point, has not God fulfilled every land promise He made to OT Israel? I believe He has (Joshua 21:43-45) Joshua 21:43-45 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 43 So the Lord gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. 44 The Lord gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the Lord handed all their enemies over to them. 45 Not one of all the Lord’s good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled. How do you trace the lineage of the current Israel back to the OT? Were not the genealogies lost in the destruction of the city and temple? If not where are these records? These 1st century peoples were scattered across the whole Roman world of their day. How do we know which today are descendents of OT Israel? Peter I was talking about the land that was referred to in the Gen 17: the land of Canaan that was promised to Abraham and his seed as an everlasting possession. Since the land of the Jews was taken by the Romans when Jesus was on earth this part of the covenent can hardly be regarded as fulfilled, since the possession wasn't everlasting. I know about the interpretation of the word "seed" as Jesus but in my opinion it makes no sense - for a start in what sense should Jesus have the land as an everlasting possession?! And you see that God refers very obviously to Abrahams descendants in Gen. 17:7-14. Every male (in their generations!) had to be circumcised not only Jesus, e.g. Just look at the uses of the word in the Bible: 8 And God spoke unto Noah and to his sons with him, saying, 9 “And I, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your seed after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you — of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you, from all that go out of the ark to every beast of the earth. (Gen. 9:8-10) 15 for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it and to thy seed for ever. 16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. 17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it, for I will give it unto thee.” (Gen. 13:15-7) Would it make sense to say "And I will make thy Jesus as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy Jesus also be numbered."? “But thou, Israel, art My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend. (Is. 41:8) Jacob= Jesus? Ye that fear the LORD, praise Him! All ye the seed of Jacob, glorify Him; and fear Him, all ye the seed of Israel. (Psalm 22:23) 16 And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, 17 “Speak unto Aaron, saying, ‘Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations who hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. (Lev. 21:16-7) "Jesus" who hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer etc.? In all these instances it would hardly make sense if "seed" means "Jesus", though the word being not doubt in singular. So why should this replacement be valid in other instances? Finally: You say the covenant is no longer in place, hence it can't be called "everlasting". That is all I am wondering about. The question you araised I can not answer but the more it is doubtful that the covenant can be called everlasting.

Oops! My pity was meant for you, John, of course! I am surprised about your response: Why does my comment seem to you immature? Because I didn't know that you claim that some of God's words are to be taken literal and some not? Is there scriptual evidence for such a claim? As far as I know we have God's word that His word is not subject to personal interpretation. Also Jesus said: “Verily I say unto you, if ye have faith and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, ‘Be thou removed and be thou cast into the sea,’ it shall be done. And all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” (Matt. 21:21-2) Since most people were dry and comfy when the disaster struck your place, it seems a bit exaggerated to say that it means the end of times. So I really don't see why you have doubts that a believer should be able to remove a mountain in order to build a protective wall around your city, if Jesus promises that you shall receive whatever you ask for in prayer. Now that so many people here have prayed for you, you no longer ought to be in need of builders, electricians, nurses etc. anymore. Be that as it may: What parts of God's word do you say should be taken literal and which not? How do you distinguish the two? By the way: Another good example for the power of Christian prayer and its approbiateness in storms is is no doubt this: But as they sailed, He fell asleep. And there came down a storm of wind on the lake, and they were filling with water and were in jeopardy. And they came to Him and awoke Him, saying, “Master, Master, we perish!” Then He arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water; and they ceased, and there was a calm. And He said unto them, “Where is your faith?” And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, “What manner of man is this? For He commandeth even the winds and the water, and they obey Him!” (Luke (8:22-5) Or is this not to be taken literal, too?

Hello Peter, I am very sorry for you that you are in such a plight. Weren't you praying for protection and deliverance? You can move mountains but instead of throwing the material into the sea you could have used it to erect a dyke to protect the whole city. That would have helped a lot of people, I guess.

Hello Tinky, I don't quite understand your probability argument: Do you try to figure out the likelihood of forming a human-being by atoms on a random path? I don't think that anyone would suggest that this is the way life came into existence. There are laws of nature that govern the behaviour of particles etc. and these laws may very well drive atoms and molecules into certain shapes. The probality of forming a nice and regular soduim-chloride crystal by accident is almost zero, yet it happens every day and you could produce nice ones at home if you like, because the laws nature make them possible and even prefer this regular and symmetric appearance of sodium-chloride under certain conditions. Life MAY have developped in a similar way, from low to higher complexity - with or without a good portion of luck. But no one would seriously suggest that an approbiate mixture of atoms happened to come together at the right spot so that they bound and thus built a life-form. You have to take the laws of nature into account which prefer some developments before others. No one would seriously expect an impact of a comet forming a city. But no one wonders that they form nice and circular shaped holes in the ground.

Many thanks, Peter! Some things I do understand better now, yet in some respects I can't see the relevance to my problem: In Genesis we are told: 7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. 8 And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” 9 And God said unto Abraham, “Thou shalt keep My covenant, therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10 This is My covenant which ye shall keep between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every manchild among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant between Me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every manchild in your generations, he that is born in the house or bought with money from any stranger who is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house and he that is bought with thy money must be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.” (17:7-14) None of your quotes seem to refer specifically to this verse - but I may be wrong. This covenant is termed everlasting. Yet it was changed: E.g. the necessity for circumcision was ruled out. Furthermore God's promise to be Abraham's and his descendants's godhead has turned out to be untrue, because Jews neglect the veracity of the New Testament, so a pious Jew who by definition does not believe in Jesus does not have the same God as Christians do. Therefore the term everlasting is not approbriate. And what do you mean by that God has fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant? God has promised land which was robbed by the Romans then, with respect to fruitfulness we can be sure to assume that today there are more Jews than around Jesus's times. Only the promise that God will be the Jews's god forever EXPIRED then because of John 14:6.

And thanks to God's providence only about 25%-50% of all embryos are miscarried (e.g. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm )- only imagine how high that number would be if it would be a natural evolved process instead of a divinely guided one! Also the awesomely low Infant Mortality Rates in say Africa would be totally inexplicable if it were not for divinty and marvellousness of the human body which makes it impregnable against disease and accidents.

So let me get this right. You are saying that there are two Gods, or the Jews have no God? No. Or I don't know: That is why I started this thread. In Genesis 17 God promised Abraham to be his and his descendants God forever (Gen. 17:8) . I don't know how this can be reconciled with the new covenant made by Jesus.

Bu your position isn't even supported in the New Testament. Jesus is speaking to His enemies among the Jewish leadership. He is not condemning all of the Jews. But none of that says that God is no longer the God of the Jews. That is a claim that you are trying to assign to the NT, not a statement that the NT ever says. Jesus was lamenting how His people had rejected Him, but keep in mind that In Romans 9, 10 and 11, this was a partial hardening that took place to make room for the Gentiles to be included in the Kingdom of God. So this is not about God rejecting them as His people. Well fortunately, for the truth, God doesn't see it your way and does not hold to how you think things should be. God is faithful to us even when we mess up and mess up big. Your approach casts doubt on the faithfulness of God in keeping His promises to Israel. Would you like to be faithful to you when you mess up, and disobey, or would you like God to cease being your God when you need Him the most??? I find it rather strange that some people expect God to condemn the Jews when they mess up, are the same people calling on God's mercy when it comes to their own sin. shilo and all: I can't spend much time on this discussion and try to respond later: Apparently it depends on what one thinks it means that God is the god of someone: if it is entirely irrelevant for God being the god of a people if they believe in Him and how they worship then you are right of course, that God can be still considered the Jews god. I am not arguing that God rejected the Jews: I just don't understand in what respect the Abramaic covenant could possibly considered valid if God made a new covenant through Jesus which pious Jews deny and don't regard. I am very well aware that Jesus did not curse all Jews in Matthew but gave you a scriptual example why it is hard to understand for me why God should be considered the god of ALL of Abraham's off-spring - no doubt the Parisee's mentioned did have a common belief that was shared more or less by most of the contemporary Jews, and not to forget: The Pharisaism became the dominant school of judaism! Furthermore, Jesus says: "21 “Not every one that saith unto Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father who is in Heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that Day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name have cast out devils, and in Thy name done many wonderful works?’ 23 And then will I profess unto them, ‘I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.’" (Matthew 7:21-3) How is God the god of the many of Abraham's seed adressed here? I just don't see it. Furthermore, in the covenant from Genesis 17, God says that circumcision is the token of the covenant, in particular: And the uncircumcised manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant. (Gen. 17:14) That condition of circumcision is definitely annihilated in the New Testament (Galatians 5, and here are not only a select few enemies adressed), hence the conditions and promises of God did alter in course of time. Which to my understanding makes the approbiateness of the words "everlasting" hard to understand. It is very simple: Jesus says: I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me. (John 14:6) Jews deny the veracity of this statement. How can thus the Christian God be the god of Jews?

@ Golden Eagle you are right: Shilo made an interesting observation that made me digress a bit but I think it is relevant for the original question. You are quoting mostly verses from the OLD testament in order to find an answer to my question, yet I think it should be NEW testament that will shed a light on the covenant. When I read for example Jesus cursing the scribes and Pharisees: e.g. "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men, for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in " (Matthew 23:13) and "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers! How can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (33), ending with Jesus lamenting: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39 For I say unto you, ye shall not see Me henceforth till ye shall say, ‘Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord!’” (37-39) I really don't see in what respect God should be the godhead of the people adresses in these verses. To me Jesus clearly says: If you don't change your ways you shall be damned. And that does not seem at all what God promised Abraham and his descendants in Genesis.