No death before sin, sin after Adam

a reply to: Raggedyman

Where does it say death to all men only, cant find it?

This is what I am referring to when you say "I was talking about death in the world, earth."; you are thinking also about the death of animals. You are trying to force your interpretation of the text into the text (which clearly isn't speaking about the death of animals but the sin and death of humans). Then you don't want to think about why one can tell the verse is only speaking about the sin and death of humans as if it has to spell it out even more than it already has. Common sense is supposed to do the rest but that is being interfered with in your brain by certain teachers who have hammered home the idea/philosophy in your mind that this verse is also referring to the death of animals.

That idea you have to let go of so you can think about what I said in my first comment, which already says enough to understand this point. Being aware of 2 Timothy 4:3,4 might help (trust in the wrong sources can be devastating to the mind and common sense). What is described in 2 timothy 4:3,4 is involved with why you want to cling to this idea that that verse is also speaking about the death of animals without considering what I pointed out in my first comment, why you can tell right away that the verse you quoted is speaking of the sin and death of humans and nothing else. Perhaps this is a good time to read the verse again if you can clear your mind of some preconceived notions, pay close attention to where it says:

...death spread to all men...

And then I suggest doing some self-reflection as to why you didn't see that the first time (with my clues, you can try my thread on ATS as well for more clues regarding 2 Timothy 4:3,4). Others are welcome to do so as well if they also noticed this peculiar phenomenon of quoting something but not really registering what's being quoted because of prior teachings. Rather than going for 'so what, it doesn't say only', in your mind(s) or out loud.

Oh, I'm sorry for blurting out what I blurted out before, I should have been much more tactful with the way I tried to make you aware of that. I was just in a bit of a rush because you were commenting fast (somehow that gave me the feeling I had to respond faster as well, I dunno why).

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Raggedyman
no I am not a gnostic and I do not deny "the Father" and God of Jesus Christ. I love talking about him and praising his work and mighty name unlike certain other people who much rather try to confuse people about that name while sometimes expressing their adherence to what some people refer to as "KJ-Onlyism" (I'm not talking about you).

Psalms 83:18 (King James Version):

That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

My mistake, just confused your anti trinity stance.
Lots of gnostics around here abouts

a reply to: Raggedyman
easy to recognize someone's stance when they are the ones that bring up Psalms 83:18 from the KJV isn't it?

Never seen anyone favoring the KJV bring up Psalms 83:18 out of the blue. Well, I didn't bring it up out of the blue but I was thinking of something else. Or should I say KJB as in King James Bible? I can never make up my mind cause I see both terms and abbreviations being used for the same bible translation.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Raggedyman
easy to recognize someone's stance when they are the ones that bring up Psalms 83:18 from the KJV isn't it?

Never seen anyone favoring the KJV bring up Psalms 83:18 out of the blue. Well, I didn't bring it up out of the blue but I was thinking of something else. Or should I say KJB as in King James Bible? I can never make up my mind cause I see both terms and abbreviations being used for the same bible translation.

I don't favor the kjv, just typed in the verse to get the verse number and book. The kjv came up and I copied and pasted it
I am not kjv only, don't mind most, I mostly read esv, though I am not a calvinist, go figure.

Don't read to much in to it, it was just a question

a reply to: Raggedyman

nah, I wasn't talking about you favoring the KJV, I actually thought you quoted Romans 5:12 from the NASB or NAS 1977 or something, trying to match your quotation on the biblehub website. And now checking whether you quoted Genesis 3:17-19 from the KJV cause your comment confused me, it seems to be from the NIV.

You probably got 2 different translations for each search, not important.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Raggedyman

If animals cannot sin, their death is not related to the verse you are bringing up. Animals lived and died long before humans were created. Old fossils of them are to be expected.

Yes but how old? Scientists thought you can't carbon date dinosaur fossils because they are under the presumption that dinosaurs were hundreds of millions of years old so very few even tried, yet those who tried got consistent numbers ranging from 4,000-40,000 years old:

Carbon-dating Dinosaurs

If this were true, then this means humans walked with dinosaurs:

Dinosaur Depictions

Here is a depiction of a creature from the Beowulf Epic:

"Grendel's swift hard claws
snatched at the first Geat
He came to, ripped him apart, cut
His body to bits with powerful jaws,
Drank the blood from his veins and bolted
Him down, hands and feet; death
And Grendel's great teeth came together,
Snapping life shut."

"but their weapons
Could not hurt him,
the sharpest and hardest iron
Could not scratch at Grendel's skin"

“The fiend reached for him with his claw, but he grasped it with set purpose, and threw his weight on Grendel’s arm.”

In the story, Grendel had a mother, and therefore was a normal biological creature. He was bipedal with claws and hard skin and his powerful jaws could devour humans. Ring any bells? (I'm thinking T-rex, although it could be an allosaurus). The word "Dragon" is mentioned 25 times in the Old Testament, this is because "Dinosaur" was not a word until 1850, so anything prior to that would've been referred to as a dragon, or been given a unique name such as beowulf, behemoth, or leviathan.

a reply to: Raggedyman
Reconciling the two isn't necessary. One is based on observable evidence, and the other is based on hearsay.

a reply to: cooperton
Focus on the twist or intentional misinterpretation of Romans 5:12 by those teaching YEC (and involuntary misunderstanding by those who haven't noticed because of what is described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 and other places in the bible). It's much easier in assisting in what I encouraged Tzarchasm to do on the thread about "The Primary Axiom...":

Of course, this is all meant as an encouragement, of course you have some work to do to find out that the above I'm saying is true.

Step 1:

care about truth (and not just believe or think that you do)

Step 2:

think about a way to determin if someone talking to you or trying to tell you something cares about what is true/factual/absolute/certain or not (there are some easy ways to recognize if someone cares about that which is absolute, which lies at the very heart of the pursuit of knowledge, a familiarity with facts...there's more to that definition for knowledge)

Knowledge

Ignore my emphasis on the word "absolute" there, that was meant specificly for the agnostic philosophical naturalists ('Pontius Pilatus-copiers', I hope no one considers that a negative label, I'll only use it once for you for clarity as to what type of thinking I'm talking about) of which some are referring to themselves as atheists sometimes as well.

To remind them that science/knowledge is ALL ABOUT that which is true/factual/absolute. Otherwise, it's not science/knowledge (about realities). Speculations, maybe-so stories and just-so stories that are either referred to as hypotheses or scientific theory is not science. Inconclusive best guesses (as perceived by the biased guesser), are also, not science ("probably", "maybe", "possibly", etc.).

Quick quote from one of Phantom423's proposed articles of science in the other thread I mentioned and then I'll stop going off-topic:

Our new research revealed that the gene probably originated from bacteria...

That's not to say that if they phrase that differently and remove the "probably" that it makes the claim more true/certain/conclusive. But this allows them to not have to prove the claim conclusively if called out on there being no logical reasonable evidence for this claim (that which they use as so-called "evidence" doesn't work logically which shows when discussed in more detail with clear language devoid of distracting technical jargon as much as possible).

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: cooperton
Focus on the twist or intentional misinterpretation of Romans 5:12 by those teaching YEC (and involuntary misunderstanding by those who haven't noticed because of what is described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 and other places in the bible). It's much easier in assisting in what I encouraged Tzarchasm to do on the thread about "The Primary Axiom...":

Of course, this is all meant as an encouragement, of course you have some work to do to find out that the above I'm saying is true.

Step 1:

care about truth (and not just believe or think that you do)

Step 2:

think about a way to determin if someone talking to you or trying to tell you something cares about what is true/factual/absolute/certain or not (there are some easy ways to recognize if someone cares about that which is absolute, which lies at the very heart of the pursuit of knowledge, a familiarity with facts...there's more to that definition for knowledge)

Knowledge

Ignore my emphasis on the word "absolute" there, that was meant specificly for the agnostic philosophical naturalists ('Pontius Pilatus-copiers', I hope no one considers that a negative label, I'll only use it once for you for clarity as to what type of thinking I'm talking about) of which some are referring to themselves as atheists sometimes as well.

To remind them that science/knowledge is ALL ABOUT that which is true/factual/absolute. Otherwise, it's not science/knowledge (about realities). Speculations, maybe-so stories and just-so stories that are either referred to as hypotheses or scientific theory is not science. Inconclusive best guesses (as perceived by the biased guesser), are also, not science ("probably", "maybe", "possibly", etc.).

I appreciate what you say, and I do strongly believe we should not be bias in our own search, because the truth will be revealed eventually. The secularist agenda has made it difficult for anyone to question the contemporary scientific dogma, despite the abundance of evidence that contradicts its integral axioms.

Surely carbon-dating is not accurate. We see examples where freshly dead organisms are carbon-dated at 2,000 years old. But, it does tell us one thing for sure. If there is detectable C-14 in an uncontaminated fossil, there is no way that it is millions of years old. Yet, we consistently find C-14 in dinosaur remains, coal, and diamonds, indicating they are in the thousand year range:

Carbon-dating dinosaurs, coal, and diamonds

originally posted by: whereislogic




Oh, and the Hugh Ross types that claim that humans have been evolving or around much longer than 6000 years ago may also somewhat interfere with your thinking.

Humans have been around for 6000-6050 years (unlike all the fraudulant stories presented by anthropologists regarding this point).
Animals have been around much longer.

Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock: Dolan DNA Learning Center, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.

Sweet quote mine there. I particularly enjoyed how you left out the subsequent paragraph which states:

No one thinks that's the case, but at what point should models switch from one mtDNA time zone to the other? "I'm worried that people who are looking at very recent events, such as the peopling of Europe, are ignoring this problem," says Laurent Excoffier, a population geneticist at the University of Geneva. Indeed, the mysterious and sudden expansion of modern humans into Europe and other parts of the globe, which other genetic evidence puts at about 40,000 years ago, may actually have happened 10,000 to 20,000 years ago--around the time of agriculture, says Excoffier. And mtDNA studies now date the peopling of the Americas at 34,000 years ago, even though the oldest noncontroversial archaeological sites are 12,500 years old. Recalibrating the mtDNA clock would narrow the difference (Science, 28 February 1997, p. 1256).

Nothing says intellectual honesty like quote mining and using 20+ year old data to mock solid science!

originally posted by: peter vlar

Nothing says intellectual honesty like quote mining and using 20+ year old data to mock solid science!

No anthropologist can maintain his career while supporting notions of the young earth. The secularist agenda is a ravenous beast that allows no questioning. I hope you can keep an open mind and search through the empirical non-bias data, Peter.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

Nothing says intellectual honesty like quote mining and using 20+ year old data to mock solid science!

No anthropologist can maintain his career while supporting notions of the young earth. The secularist agenda is a ravenous beast that allows no questioning. I hope you can keep an open mind and search through the empirical non-bias data, Peter.

30 years ago the same argument was made regarding "Clocis First". In the end, the evidence was what mattered and Clovis First is regarded as an anachronism. Likewise, in the late 90's I was mocked and openly derided for my position regarding Pleistocene admixture. Today the data proves that this is true. There is no secular agenda. There is only the requirement to show clear evidence that is demonstrably repeatable. YEC doesn't, at least based on the evidence currently presented, demonstrate this at all.

originally posted by: peter vlar

30 years ago the same argument was made regarding "Clocis First". In the end, the evidence was what mattered and Clovis First is regarded as an anachronism. Likewise, in the late 90's I was mocked and openly derided for my position regarding Pleistocene admixture. Today the data proves that this is true. There is no secular agenda. There is only the requirement to show clear evidence that is demonstrably repeatable. YEC doesn't, at least based on the evidence currently presented, demonstrate this at all.

I know you and I have discussed this many times before... But any remains which a C-14 reading demonstrates an approximate, for example, 35,000 year old specimen, these remains surely have C-14 in them, correct?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Genesis 17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

Who's "he"? You assume it's your God. How do you know it's not a computer terminal operated by an alien developing computer games?

It's a serious question. How do you know who "he" is?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

30 years ago the same argument was made regarding "Clocis First". In the end, the evidence was what mattered and Clovis First is regarded as an anachronism. Likewise, in the late 90's I was mocked and openly derided for my position regarding Pleistocene admixture. Today the data proves that this is true. There is no secular agenda. There is only the requirement to show clear evidence that is demonstrably repeatable. YEC doesn't, at least based on the evidence currently presented, demonstrate this at all.

I know you and I have discussed this many times before... But any remains which a C-14 reading demonstrates an approximate, for example, 35,000 year old specimen, these remains surely have C-14 in them, correct?

You don't need C14 to verify age. There are at least six other spectroscopic techniques to do this. I'm sure this is supported in the literature. C14 serves a limited purpose in dating fossils. Also, if the specimen is < 35,000 yrs, it doesn't necessarily mean it has C14. Bone may or may not have C14.

originally posted by: cooperton


I know you and I have discussed this many times before... But any remains which a C-14 reading demonstrates an approximate, for example, 35,000 year old specimen, these remains surely have C-14 in them, correct?

Any remains? No. Organic material yes with the exception of freshwater snails and mollusks living under very specific geological conditions fed by an aquifer filtered through carbonaceous limestone. Fossils contain no organic material and have been completely permineralized. Additionally, 14C dating is calibrated against other methods like dendrochromology and the margins of error are constantly checked and updated. It's also important to note that 14c is never the sole determining factor for an ascribed date. On top of all that, there is a newer method of dating 14c using mass spectrometry that is far more accurate as it counts the individual carbonated nitrogen atoms and can give a date up to 100ka as opposed to the 50-60 KA max under the older method used.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Why would I or anyone else need to reconcile bible verses with my beliefs or knowledge of science? Can you prove the bible is anything more than man made bedtime stories for children? I have no reason to logically believe the bible, so it becomes irrelevant what the scriptures say. I'm agnostic myself, but I'd imagine somebody that believes in both creation and evolution would understand that faith in god is more important than faith in an ancient storybook written by humans.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well either the fossils have been planted by the devil.

Or

There has always been death since life began. Since the beginning of life there has been death. All living things consume other living things. Life and death.

a reply to: whereislogic

Oh boy. Humans have only been around 6,000 years. But animals have been around much longer.

And your putting young earth theory down.

And all the scientists and anthropologists are lying. Right because they are all part of a conspiracy. Spreading propoganda.

But anything the JW promote isn't propoganda. No they have a monopoly on truth. Hahaha.

Where is logic because it seems you lost it.

God's time and our idea of time are two completely different rationales.