rjs310

Well it appears that you stole my thunder! :-) That's ok. I am glad you are spending time with this. The reason this is important and you don't see it here as much but people, including Christians do not believe in the history of Genesis and follow all the teachings of those who question Genesis as historical. They love to toss out the "contradictions" as evidence and use ANE and even early church fathers as evidence that Genesis should not be taken literally. I've held huge and lengthy debates with these people. So it's good to see you on your toes with this. They love to use ANE as evidence because they want to show how Genesis fits within the literature of the times and how the language used fits with the language of other ANE. But don't let them sway you.

I have had a number of debates with folks claiming that the creation account between Genesis 1&2 are different z this showing that Genesis can't be judge's as an historical account of creation. I have answers for them, but before I share I was wondering about your thoughts on the subject.

Well in the OT scriptures not much if anything is said about heaven or hell. The Hebrews understanding is lessened because if that. It was Jesus who first introduced a deeper understanding if both. And since he is God I trust his thoughts in the subject. The RCC did not invent or concoct hell. Jesus spoke of it himself and he's the one that gave the greatest descriptions of it. Even Revelations does not have a lot to say about it in comparison. So, we gleen what we know about hell from Jesus. At least most of it. I trust him and I trust what he had to say.

I think the question is problematic. You see athiests can always point to scripture and claim a higher morality than God has because God ordered the killing of babies in the OT. To judge morality is based upon judging on morality that we think is moral. God judges by righteousness. God demands obedience and holiness. Not morality. Now we can say that some of God's commands have some moral components to them, but others have nothing to do with morality but have to do with righteous obedience. The word morality is not a scriptural word nor a scriptural concept. Sinfulness is a scriptural concept, righteousness is a scriptural concept, repentance is a scriptural concept, but morality is not, because man often defines morality according to his thoughts and not God's thoughts. Some claim it is not moral that man should suffer the fires of hell based upon some finite actions on Earth. And certainly an argument could be made for that if we spoke strictly on a moral level. But we don't. We speak on a much different level and that being a level based upon the depravity and sinfulness of man and the rejection of Christ's sacrifice on the cross for our sin. So I personally do not participate in a morality conversation and a comparison of moralities, but always try and steer the conversation to righteousness, holiness, sin, repentance and Christ's death and resurrection.

I fully agree! You have brought up a couple of good points like #3 and #4. The other things I have brought up to no avail. Some if the people I've debated actually pull out the text books that state science doesn't prove anything. It's really nothing but a convenient scape goat. Especially where evolution is concerned. They do have a nice array of examples such as retro viruses and evolving alge that are used as evidence. It's pretty amazing really how they believe without any real testable and verifiable evidence.

I've had some serious debates with evolutionists and theistic evolutionists. One thing evolutionists love to point out is that evolution is different than abiogenesis which is the origination of life. Evolution only deals with what happened after life began. They only argue from the standpoint of evidence of evolution. They do not have to provide "proof" as science does not prove anything. Proof is for mathmatics not science. Theistic evolutionists fall back on evidence of science as well. Claiming the evidence shows that God used evolution as his method of making all there is. He created the original life and then set in.motion the evolutionary process. And as others have mentioned they have no scriptural evidence to support that. In order to make sense out of scripture they must then allegorize Genesis and use all kinds in interpretive gymnastics to accommodate their stance.

It's clear from the context of Genesis 1 that the light listed is a created light and not one shining from God. Take a look at all the creative statements that are made. The words "Let there be" or "Let..."are always followed by something coming into existence or being formed into something. Now also look at the end if those things. God also declares those things good. He saw that they were all good. Take a look at the light that God said should be there. The word let is a command from God for something to happen. In every circumstance God commands "let" and something happens that was not in the same state as before. God created light in this case for a purpose. He took the light and divided light from darkness for a reason. It was for day and night. And the evening and morning was a deliniation of time as stated by God himself. He called the evening and morning the first day. That first day came out if his creation of light and separating it from the dark. It's clear from the rest if chapter 1 that the verses all flow together and have the same make up. God speaks a command and something is created or made to happen. This not to say that God doesn't have light. God is light and in him there is no darkness. But the light in Genesis was created differently than God's light. That light was made to be separated from darkness so God could make day and night.

I'm not sure this question is really answerable. Only God know the condition of the person's heart and mind at the time. Suicide is a complicated matter and often contains things we don't really understand such as mental illness. Sometimes prescription drugs can bring about side effects that can cause this kind of reaction. I certainly am not going to cast aspersions on someone who has a mental illness or is under the influence of a side effect of a prescription drug etc. I will leave that up to the only righteous judge. He knows all the things we don't. That being said I sure would not support someone committing suicide and tell them that it is ok to do so. Committing suicide is like setting off a bomb strapped to your chest in the middle of a crowd. The explosion damages people all around you and it's the ones closest to you that take the worst damage. And since I do not know for sure how God will judge I would rather err on the side of caution.