Jump to content


Photo

Truel Agnostic


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
97 replies to this topic

#61 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 20 January 2011 - 08:23 AM

All I know is this - nothing is impossible for God and He's a loving Father who knows how to give what is good to His children.  There is no reason why an unlimited God cannot reunite people with their pets if He so chooses to do so.

View Post


When my kids or friends are worried that our eternal reward from our God will not be to their liking I remind them of this scripture: "You open your hand, and you satisfy the desire of every living thing." Psalm 145:16

This seems to fit in with this topic: "What is the price of two sparrows--one copper coin? But not a single sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it." Matthew 10:29

#62 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 20 January 2011 - 08:26 AM

Could you provide your understanding of Romans 8:18-23 also.

View Post

"the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay."

Wow. I have never seen it that way. That is why I use more than one translation.

Do you know that I also gained a deeper understanding when I was ministering to Spanish speaking people? Reading the Bible in Spanish put some new meaning on some verses that I was so used to hearing the same way all of the time.

#63 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 20 January 2011 - 09:15 AM

Hi Fred,

Count me as being among those who don't see it in Job 1:3, etc.

You must be seeing some deep allegory there.

Go ahead and spell it out for us. :)

Dave

#64 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 20 January 2011 - 11:47 AM

Hi Fred,

Count me as being among those who don't see it in Job 1:3, etc.

You must be seeing some deep allegory there.

Go ahead and spell it out for us.   ;)

Dave

View Post


No problem, sorry for being so coy, it's not as obvious in the text as I thought. Notice how God doubles all of Job's possessions at the end of Job. He ends up with double the number of animals than he had from the beginning. HOWEVER, he only was restored an EQUAL number of sons and daughters. Hmm. We know that humans exist eternally, so we can safely assume the sons and daughters who perished on earth are presumably (hopefully) in heaven. So he did indeed have double the number of offspring, it just so happens half are on earth, half are in heaven. The number of animals were also doubled, but only ON EARTH. Where are the original animals that perished? I submit this passage suggests they no longer exist. If they did, then this would be TRIPLE the number of animals.

I happen to agree with Dave, that we, in the image of God, also have three parts: body, soul, spirit, our own "trinity" if you will. Animals were not created in the image of God, and have no spirit. Once they die, they are gone. The example in Job supports this.

Performage, Romans 8 doesn't overturn this, it speaks to the creation curse, and to its restoration, but doesn't mean animals that once existed are part of this restoration.

In conclusion, this is the most important doctrine in the Bible, and anyone who disagrees is heading straight to the depths of hell! :)

Fred

#65 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 20 January 2011 - 12:51 PM

Nice conclusion. :)

http://www.bluelette...m?strongs=H7307

Ecclesiastes 3:19: For that which befalleth4745 the sons1121 of men120 befalleth4745 beasts929; even one thing259 befalleth4745 them: as the one dieth4194, so dieth4194 the other2088; yea, they have all one259 breath7307; so that a man120 hath no preeminence4195 above a beast929: for all [is] vanity1892.

Psa 146:4 His breath7307 goeth forth3318 , he returneth7725 to his earth127; in that very day3117 his thoughts6250 perish6 .

This indicates that the Hebrew word for spirit is the same for animals and men. So where again do we get the idea that men have a spirit and animals don't?

#66 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 20 January 2011 - 01:10 PM

So now I am trying to find uses of G4151 in the Septuagint, to see if it is always an equivalent of H7307.

Hi MamaElephant,

The Hebrew word for "soul" is nephesh or Strongs number H5315 as I have been referring to it .

H5315
נפשׁ
nephesh
neh'-fesh
From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental): - any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-] contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortality, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them (your) -selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.

The Greek word for "soul" is psuche, or G5590

G5590
ψυχή
psuchē
psoo-khay'
From G5594; breath, that is, (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only; thus distinguished on the one hand from G4151, which is the rational and immortal soul; and on the other from G2222, which is mere vitality, even of plants: these terms thus exactly correspond respectively to the Hebrew [H5315], [H7307] and [H2416]: - heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you.

The Hebrew for "spirit" is ruach or H7307.

H7307
רוּח
rûach
roo'-akh
From H7306; wind; by resemblance breath, that is, a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions): - air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit ([-ual]), tempest, X vain, ([whirl-]) wind (-y).

The greek word for "spirit" is pneuma or G4151

G4151
πνεῦμα
pneuma
pnyoo'-mah
From G4154; a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christ’s spirit, the Holy spirit: - ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind. Compare G5590

Now most importantly lets not for get the English definitions:
And
Now you will note that the definitions are very similar aren't they.  But there is one important difference.  The spirit (ruach and pneuma) always refer to the immaterial part of a living being.  Likewise the soul (nephesh and psuche) may refer to the immaterial part of a living being.  But it may also refer to the material part of a living being or the the entire living being.  Once you understand this, it changes everything.

Adam was a living soul.  His whole person, body and spirit was a soul.  His spirit inside his body was also his soul.  When he died, his spirit or soul left his body.  And his dead body could still be referred acurrately as his soul.  You will see that the Greek and Hebrew are in total agreement with this.

So I now look at it this way.  When I am alive I am a soul.  A combination of body and spirit.  When I die my spirit leaves.  My spirit is also my soul.  When I am buried, my soul is laid to rest (my body).  As a Christian, I am a body with two spirits.  The Holy spirit and my spirit.  When Jesus returns, I will ressurrect.  My body wil be reunited with an eternal spirit and I will be a complete person or soul once again. Just like Jesus in heaven now.  Praise Him, I hope this helps.

View Post



#67 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 24 January 2011 - 08:24 AM

No problem, sorry for being so coy, it's not as obvious in the text as I thought. Notice how God doubles all of Job's possessions at the end of Job. He ends up with double the number of animals than he had from the beginning. HOWEVER, he only was restored an EQUAL number of sons and daughters. Hmm. We know that humans exist eternally, so we can safely assume the sons and daughters who perished on earth are presumably (hopefully) in heaven. So he did indeed have double the number of offspring, it just so happens half are on earth, half are in heaven. The number of animals were also doubled, but only ON EARTH. Where are the original animals that perished? I submit this passage suggests they no longer exist. If they did, then this would be TRIPLE the number of animals.

View Post


That's quite an interpretation of this passage. I have some fossil bones that are below a layer called the KT boundary. Is it OK for me to interpret these as very old?

I happen to agree with Dave, that we, in the image of God, also have three parts: body, soul, spirit, our own "trinity" if you will. Animals were not created in the image of God, and have no spirit. Once they die, they are gone. The example in Job supports this.


The example in Job does no such thing. It's not even part of the discussion. It only supports your argument, because of your interpretation of it.

I too believe we are sort of a "trinity" as such. But to say that body/spirit/soul = image of God has no scriptural support at all.

to be continued because of quote limit....

#68 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 24 January 2011 - 08:39 AM

Performage, Romans 8 doesn't overturn this, it speaks to the creation curse, and to its restoration, but doesn't mean animals that once existed are part of this restoration.

View Post


Hmmm,

Let me cite the whole passage in context.....KJV (to stay in grace) ;)

Rom 8:1  There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2  For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:


Jesus was certainly in our likeness. He looked like us. But He was before Adam. And Adam was made in His/Their image.

Rom 8:4  That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5  For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6  For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.


The carnal mind is the same as the mind of the animal. It is a mind of the flesh that doesn't contemplate spiritual things.

Rom 8:7  Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8  So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.


Men and animals both cannot please God.

Rom 8:9  But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Rom 8:10  And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11  But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Rom 8:12  Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
Rom 8:13  For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
Rom 8:14  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Rom 8:15  For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Rom 8:16  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Rom 8:17  And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.


Note that we in Christ are children of God, not animals. Children are in the likeness of their parents. We are in the likeness of God. The creature is not. Nor is the creature adopted as a child.

Rom 8:18  For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.


We in Christ are to be glorified. That glorification is in our resurrection. We are ressurected in our bodies which are in the image of God. We are His childern. Jesus was His child. Jesus was in His image. We too are in His image. Not the animals.

Rom 8:19  For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.


Just those alive creatures? I think not.

Rom 8:20  For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Rom 8:21  Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.


The creature is to be delivered from the same bondage that the children of God are under. And the creature is to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Rom 8:22  For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Rom 8:23  And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.


The whole creation should be inclusive of all the creatures in the creation. Correct?
And look at which creatures in that creation. All of them. The whole. And look at the time frame. Until now. Looks complete to me. What say you?

The creation is "they". "They" groan just like we. They groan for the redemption of their bodies just like we. And they "shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. "




Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
Rom 8:25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Rom 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Rom 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
Rom 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Rom 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Rom 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Rom 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

#69 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 28 January 2011 - 01:14 AM

That's quite an interpretation of this passage. I have some fossil bones that are below a layer called the KT boundary. Is it OK for me to interpret these as very old?


Performedge, I can see you are so dogmatic on your view that your likely not going to see past the blinders you have on. My "interpretation" is actually very straightforward and simple, yet you offered NO rebuttal other than a poor strawman analogy. You offered NO explanation of why God would DOUBLE the animals, yet not Job's offspring, despite God saying he would give Job MORE than he had before. How do you explain this? Is it just COINCIDENCE? Is this a contradiction in the Bible? The best possible explanation is that God DID do as he said, He DID give Job MORE by providing him exactly DOUBLE the amount of offspring he had from the beginning, the first group alive and well in heaven. He DID exactly DOUBLE the animals, yet the doubling occurred on earth, implying that the previous animals that died are gone for good. This time, please try explaining the passage in a manner that makes sense instead of invoking a strawman diversion! If you have no explanation, then fine, it's OK to say so. If you can't grasp the point of what is going on, then simply answer this. Why did God say he would give Job more than he had before, yet the amount of offspring was equal to what he had at the beginning? The only way to possibly resolve this is to make the logical assumption that his previous offspring are alive in heaven. If God were to give you more, would you rather have more offspring (God's great gift to us, Psalms 127:3), or animals?

Let me be clear, I am not dogmatic on this as you are. When I'm asked what scripture says about animals in heaven, my answer is that the Bible does not directly answer this. I then refer them to the Job example as a decent but not definitive hint or clue that they are not in heaven. If anything is far-fetched is your interpretation that Romans 8 is scriptural evidence that animals are in heaven. The Bible simply does not speak to animal "salvation". Romans 8 wrt animals makes more sense in light of the millennium (see Isaiah 11:6-8), not animals in heaven, or for that matter (which you need to explain), animal hell. Where does animal hell fit into your interpretation of Romans 8? Are you an animal universalist? :lol: Are all past animals going to heaven with this restoration of the creation? Your logic basically becomes a non-sequitur.

Fred

#70 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 28 January 2011 - 07:24 AM

Performedge, I can see you are so dogmatic on your view that your likely not going to see past the blinders you have on. My "interpretation" is actually very straightforward and simple, yet you offered NO rebuttal other than a poor strawman analogy. You offered NO explanation of why God would DOUBLE the animals, yet not Job's offspring, despite God saying he would give Job MORE than he had before. How do  you explain this? Is it just COINCIDENCE? Is this a contradiction in the Bible? The best possible explanation is that God DID do as he said, He DID give Job MORE by providing him exactly DOUBLE the amount of offspring he had from the beginning, the first group alive and well in heaven. He DID exactly DOUBLE the animals, yet the doubling occurred on earth, implying that the previous animals that died are gone for good. This time, please try explaining the passage in a manner that makes sense instead of invoking a strawman diversion! If you have no explanation, then fine, it's OK to say so. If you can't grasp the point of what is going on, then simply answer this. Why did God say he would give Job more than he had before, yet the amount of offspring was equal to what he had at the beginning? The only way to possibly resolve this is to make the logical assumption that his previous offspring are alive in heaven. If God were to give you more, would you rather have more offspring (God's great gift to us, Psalms 127:3), or animals?

Let me be clear, I am not dogmatic on this as you are. When I'm asked what scripture says about animals in heaven, my answer is that the Bible does not directly answer this. I then refer them to the Job example as a decent but not definitive hint or clue that they are not in heaven. If anything is far-fetched is your interpretation that Romans 8 is scriptural evidence that animals are in heaven.  The Bible simply does not speak to animal "salvation".  Romans 8 wrt animals makes more sense in light of the millennium (see Isaiah 11:6-8), not animals in heaven, or for that matter (which you need to explain), animal hell. Where does animal hell fit into your interpretation of Romans 8? Are you an animal universalist? :lol: Are all past animals going to heaven with this restoration of the creation? Your logic basically becomes a non-sequitur.

Fred

View Post

Thank you for breaking it down further for us Fred. I agree that the Bible clearly talks many, many times (in the book of Job is one of them) of a resurrection for mankind, but it does not talk of a resurrection for animals.

#71 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 28 January 2011 - 08:14 AM

Performedge, I can see you are so dogmatic on your view that your likely not going to see past the blinders you have on.

View Post


Fred, I am surprised at such a comment from you. We may disagree on this subject, but all I have offered is my appologia on it. I haven't criticized you for not believing as I do. You offerred an interprtation of scripture as your appologia. I took note of that. I on the other hand I am offering scripture and what the scripture actually says either in the Hebrew/Greek or the KJV. If that is blind dogmatism then I'm all for it brother.

My "interpretation" is actually very straightforward and simple, yet you offered NO rebuttal other than a poor strawman analogy. You offered NO explanation of why God would DOUBLE the animals, yet not Job's offspring, despite God saying he would give Job MORE than he had before. How do  you explain this? Is it just COINCIDENCE? Is this a contradiction in the Bible? The best possible explanation is that God DID do as he said, He DID give Job MORE by providing him exactly DOUBLE the amount of offspring he had from the beginning, the first group alive and well in heaven. He DID exactly DOUBLE the animals, yet the doubling occurred on earth, implying that the previous animals that died are gone for good.


Well your interpretation is just that. It is your interpretation. What I do know for a fact is that the topic of discussion in Job has nothing to do with the doctrine of whether animals have or are souls or whether they will be redeemed in the end. The analogy I gave clearly upset you, because paleontologists interpret bones/fossils in dirt. We creos generally reject those interpretations. I rejected yours. That's all. It's not a strawman. But it is a parallel analogy.

If you really want a rebuttal explanation of this passage, it is quite simple. First, I don't see God partaking in dialogue with Job here. God is not making any promises to him despite your saying that God said He would give Job MORE than he had before. What we have in Job 42:12-13 is a historical record of what happened in Job's life after his trials.

Job 42:12 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.
Job 42:13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.

There is no contradiction in this passage. God did provide Job more than he had in the beginning. Double the animals and the same number of children is more. It's that simple.

For some reason only you in your interpretation are focussed on the doubling. And from that, you conclude various implications and doctrines about animal souls and their redemption. I would prefer a conservative approach to looking at what Job 42:12-13 actually says. That's why I said "That's quite an interpretation"

Now your mathematical doubling of the children by including those in heaven and those on earth may be true. But even then, it say nothing about whether animals have or are souls or whether they end up in heaven later also. So I personally think your explanation is extremely weak.

This time, please try explaining the passage in a manner that makes sense instead of invoking a strawman diversion! If you have no explanation, then fine, it's OK to say so. If you can't grasp the point of what is going on, then simply answer this. Why did God say he would give Job more than he had before, yet the amount of offspring was equal to what he had at the beginning? The only way to possibly resolve this is to make the logical assumption that his previous offspring are alive in heaven.


Please look at this passage again. God didn't say anything. It is a historical record much like the historical record of Genesis. Much like the historical record that uses the same Hebrew words for man (translated living soul) and animals (translated living creatures). Your "only" way to resolve this passage is because of a false dilemma about doubling which "only" you have created in your mind. It certainly does not exist in the text.

If God were to give you more, would you rather have more offspring (God's great gift to us, Psalms 127:3), or animals?


Animals are a part of my possessions. Wealth. I consider my children as my heritage and reward from God like the Psalmist says. My children are in my image. We are in His image. My dog is not in my image. Neither would be my sheep, my camels, or my oxen. Neither are they in His image. But they are definitly living nephesh. Just like you and I are.

Let me be clear, I am not dogmatic on this as you are.


You certainly appear to me to be domatic. I have only provided direct scripture which clearly addresses whether animals have or are souls, and whether they possibly will be glorified in the end. There is direct scripture here, unlike the totally inderect interpretation that you offer in Job. You have not once addressed the use of the same Hebrew words for Adam and all animals. I ask that you kindly address this. Now, my dogma is derived from the direct words of scripture. Now I may be wrong on this, but someone needs to address these words. Living nephesh for animals and man. That's all you need to address.

When I'm asked what scripture says about animals in heaven, my answer is that the Bible does not directly answer this.


I can agree on that. But the original question in this thread was whether or not animals had or are souls. Then that expanded to whether they would be in heaven.

Ikester wrote "The Bible does not say that Christ died on the cross to save the souls of animals, does it?"

Then I responded:
Well, I beleive it does. Not in the sense that they were sinning against God, but they were a part of God's curses on His creation.....then I quoted Romans 8.

I responded that animals are redeemed as all of God's creation is redeemed in the end. Except of course those who are made in His image and reject Him as their Father.

I then refer them to the Job example as a decent but not definitive hint or clue that they are not in heaven.


OK. Did I call that far-fetched? Did I say you had blinders on? I said it was "quite an interpretation" which it is.

If anything is far-fetched is your interpretation that Romans 8 is scriptural evidence that animals are in heaven.  The Bible simply does not speak to animal "salvation".  Romans 8 wrt animals makes more sense in light of the millennium (see Isaiah 11:6-8), not animals in heaven, or for that matter (which you need to explain), animal hell. Where does animal hell fit into your interpretation of Romans 8? Are you an animal universalist? :lol: Are all past animals going to heaven with this restoration of the creation? Your logic basically becomes a non-sequitur.


Why is it far-fetched? (are you being dogmatic?) I am just going on what the words say. Not what I think they say. You haven't yet addressed what Romans 8 says. Instead you hand waive it away claiming that "The Bible simply does not speak to animal "salvation". Well I have provided those verses for you which they do say.....

Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

and

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Now I ask that you address these far-fetched words of God.

And then you have the audacity to claim that Rom 8 makes sense in light of the milenium which isn't even mentioned in Isaiah? And you claim I make a non-sequitor regarding your strawmen about animal hell?

Fred, we can disagree, but I won't call you far fetched or blinded. But so far, I will say that you and Ikester have both been unwilling to address the living nephesh of animals and the actual words of Roman 8. So the ball is in your court.

#72 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 28 January 2011 - 08:35 AM

Fred, we can disagree, but I won't call you far fetched or blinded.  But so far, I will say that you and Ikester have both been unwilling to address the living nephesh of animals and the actual words of Roman 8.  So the ball is in your court.

View Post

Posted Image
Lets not forget ruach as well.

http://www.bluelette...m?strongs=H7307

Ecclesiastes 3:19: For that which befalleth4745 the sons1121 of men120 befalleth4745 beasts929; even one thing259 befalleth4745 them: as the one dieth4194, so dieth4194 the other2088; yea, they have all one259 breath7307; so that a man120 hath no preeminence4195 above a beast929: for all [is] vanity1892.

Psa 146:4 His breath7307 goeth forth3318 , he returneth7725 to his earth127; in that very day3117 his thoughts6250 perish6 .

This indicates that the Hebrew word for spirit is the same for animals and men. So where again do we get the idea that men have a spirit and animals don't?

View Post



#73 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 28 January 2011 - 08:43 AM

Posted Image
Lets not forget ruach as well.

View Post



Ditto

#74 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 28 January 2011 - 08:52 AM

Ditto

View Post

In a thread about what makes life, the general agreement is that all life becomes alive by virtue of God's spirit. I would like to see how this ties in to the discussion as well.

#75 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 28 January 2011 - 11:24 AM

In a thread about what makes life, the general agreement is that all life becomes alive by virtue of God's spirit. I would like to see how this ties in to the discussion as well.

View Post


OK MamaE.

I think the scriptures are quite clear that animal have the ruach of life. Spirit of life as you have identified. Therefore, they are a living soul. I wouldn't go so far as saying all life has a spirit. I think this is clear with all animals and man. But with plants it is different. There is no indication that plants have a spirit.

Are they alive? Yes, but not soulishly alive. A soulish creature looses it's life by loosing it's spirit. We call this dying. It is all related scientifically to the stopping of the breathing process which involves the miraculous delivery of O2 to every cell in the creature. O2 is the same element that decays the non living corpse.

Plants on the otherhand don't breathe. Death is a process of whithering, not a loss of breathing. So I think there is a distinction between plants and animals and man.

However, if you mean that all life is miraculously created by God or His Spirit or Jesus, then I would argue that all life becomes alive by virtue of God's Spirit.

#76 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 28 January 2011 - 03:32 PM

The one thing that separates Us from animals is being made in the image of God. It does not say anything about animals being made in the image of God, just that they were created by God. This image can be the spirit of God, something that we all share with God as Humans.

#77 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 28 January 2011 - 09:12 PM

The analogy I gave clearly upset you, because paleontologists interpret bones/fossils in dirt. We creos generally reject those interpretations. I rejected yours. That's all. It's not a strawman. But it is a parallel analogy.


I would say I was more willing to turn up the heat than being "upset". It was a poor analogy because anyone can say "that's just your interpretation". By itself it's a cop out. I suspect you just might have had a similar reaction if I had resorted to "that's just your interpretation" and used the same lame analogy in response to your interpretation of Romans 8.

First, I don't see God partaking in dialogue with Job here. God is not making any promises to him despite your saying that God said He would give Job MORE than he had before.


OK, maybe I am just cranky after getting over the flu, :lol: but you just straddled two more strawmen on me. :) Whether God 'dialogues' to Job, or whether God 'promises' to Job, has nothing to do with the point I am making. It's what God DID for Job, and the apparent inconsistency without the interpretation I offered.

I really don't mind that you think the argument is extremely weak, it could very well end up a coincidence (I just don't like to take too many things God does as coincidence). But that's part of my point. We can't be dogmatic on the eternal state of dogs! One of us is dogmatic on this, one of us isn't.

You certainly appear to me to be domatic. I have only provided direct scripture which clearly addresses whether animals have or are souls, and whether they possibly will be glorified in the end. There is direct scripture here,


LOL! Come on Performege, I'm the dogmatic one, yet I admit I don't know for sure, yet here you claim you have "direct" scripture with Romans 8? I've debated this and many topics over the years, and I've never encountered anyone who thinks Romans 8 is "direct" scriptural support for animal salvation. I'm going to close with the following, that I hope shows your non-sequitur. It's always telling to me when the hardest questions are avoided by your opponent in a debate, and you flat out avoided my questions that would demonstrate your non-sequitur. I'm going to have a pretend dialogue with you to save time, please correct and comment:

Fred: Do you agree that believers go to heaven, and un-believers to hell?

Performedge: Yes

Fred: Do you agree that in Romans 8, the children of God are those who are believers, and they will forever be freed from corruption?

Performedge: Yes

Fred: Do you agree that in Romans 8, those who are NOT children of God will NOT be freed from corruption?

Performedge: Yes

Fred: Do you therefore agree that in Romans 8, the restored creation will not include every human?

Performedge: Yes

Fred: What about every animal?

Performedge: Uh, der, uh. .. But our pets will be in heaven, Romans 8 says so!

Fred: What determines our salvation, according to the Bible?

Performedge: Belief and trust in Jesus Christ, that he died, was buried, and rose from the dead for our sins (the basic gospel as outlined in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

Fred: What determines animal salvation, according to the Bible?

Performedge: Uh, der, uh, Belief and trust in Jesus Christ, that he died, was buried, and rose from the dead for our sins (the basic gospel as outlined in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

Fred: I didn't realize animals were that smart. What evidence do you have that animals have this belief? Do they bark and howl and heal when you drive by church with them in the car? Please don't mistake their heads out the window panting for joy with the wind on their face, as worship.

Performedge: Uh, der, uh, all animals are going to heaven, Romans 8 says so!

:)

Fred

#78 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 28 January 2011 - 10:20 PM

Will We really be worried about our pets if We get to heaven? I agree that family pets serve a purpose for us on earth but what purpose will they serve in heaven? I think people think that heaven will be like the physical realm but thats a bad way to look at heaven IMO.

#79 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 28 January 2011 - 10:20 PM

I thought of a scripture that would pertain to the OP: Acts 24:15 "I have the same hope in God that these men have, that he will raise both the righteous and the unrighteous."

Would not someone who is truly agnostic... due to lack of knowledge or lack of understanding be included in this scripture and therefore have a different hope than that of an animal?

I enjoyed seeing more on this scripture and similar verses here: http://bible.cc/acts/24-15.htm

#80 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 29 January 2011 - 11:59 AM

I would say I was more willing to turn up the heat than being "upset". It was a poor analogy because anyone can say "that's just your interpretation". By itself it's a cop out. I suspect you just might have had a similar reaction if I had resorted to "that's just your interpretation" and used the same lame analogy in response to your interpretation of Romans 8.

View Post


Well thank you. It has been warmer here in SC this weekend. I appreciate the heat. :)

I agree with you that just saying ""that's just your interpretation". By itself it's a cop out." But that is not what I meant.

If you didn't understand me, I will clarify it for you. 100% of your argument from Job is about your words. Not the words of the scripture. There is 0% in Job about whether animals have or are a soul. There is 0% in Job about whether animals will be in heaven or not. That's why most in this forum had no clue what you were talking about when you mentioned these passages in Job to support your argument.

In contrast. I and others have presented multiple scriptures that clearly indicate from the actual scriptural words that animals have spririts, and animals are or have souls just like Adam. You have yet to address any of them of them. Likewise, I presented the passage in Romans 8 which within the words themselves appears to promise a restoration of creatures at the time of our restoration. They are in parallel within the text. You still have yet to address the text of the scriptures. I don't have a problem with you believing as you do. I do not question your salvation as others have questioned mine, so I am thouroughly confused about accusation of dogmatism here.

OK, maybe I am just cranky after getting over the flu,  :)  but you just straddled two more strawmen on me. :) Whether God 'dialogues' to Job,


Again, I am confused about your claims of me creating strawmen. A strawman is a deceptive distortion of your argument. I did no such thing. That was your argument in your own words. In fact, that is what I am dicussing with you about your interpretation. I don't have a problem with the scriptures (God's word) that you presented in Job. I have a disagreement with your words about those scriptures.

or whether God 'promises' to Job, has nothing to do with the point I am making.


Well maybe I missed your point on both of these matters, but in your own words it was part of your point. Here they are again

You offered NO explanation of why God would DOUBLE the animals, yet not Job's offspring, despite God saying he would give Job MORE than he had before. How do  you explain this? Is it just COINCIDENCE? Is this a contradiction in the Bible? The best possible explanation is that God DID do as he said, He DID give Job MORE by providing him exactly DOUBLE the amount of offspring he had from the beginning, the first group alive and well in heaven. He DID exactly DOUBLE the animals, yet the doubling occurred on earth, implying that the previous animals that died are gone for good.



It's what God DID for Job, and the apparent inconsistency without the interpretation I offered.


Well maybe you missed my point. There is no inconsistency if God didn't "say" or "promise" anything. Job 42:12-13 is a record of what God did. How can that be inconsistent in any way? It is only your argument about what God "says" or "promises" that any incosistency becomes apparent. Again I will state it clearly for you. There is no incosistency in the text of scripture. There is only an inconsistency about your words regarding the scripture.

I really don't mind that you think the argument is extremely weak, it could very well end up a coincidence (I just don't like to take too many things God does as coincidence). But that's part of my point. We can't be dogmatic on the eternal state of dogs! One of us is dogmatic on this, one of us isn't.


False. We are having a discussion on an interesting topic for bible students. Not once have you or I required that our arguments are infallible or must be believed by anyone. We simply have argued. Appologia. You have given your defense of your belief, and I have given my defense for my belief. We disagree. That's all. However, some have made this a salvation issue. Not I. Those that do are dogmatic. I think you should restrain the use of this false claim unless you can support it with my words. Sincerely.


LOL! Come on Performege, I'm the dogmatic one, yet I admit I don't know for sure, yet here you claim you have "direct" scripture with Romans 8? I've debated this and many topics over the years, and I've never encountered anyone who thinks Romans 8 is "direct" scriptural support for animal salvation.


I was just throwing your own derogatory words back on you. I doesn't feel good does it? Especially when you use them falsely. Please forgive me. Dogmatism is demanding a beleif. I have not done that, as you falsely accuse me. I have argued my beliefs, and I think that is the purpose of this forum. So far I have been accused of having pagan thoughts, treading on loosing my salvation for "erring" from the truth, being "far-fetched", having "blinders on" and now dogmatism. Fred, will you please look at my posts and show me where I have used any inflamatory statements like this, or have forced my beliefs on anyone? Now I have argued, and given a rational defense of my position. So far, you and the others who take an opposing position have not once addressed the scriptures which do directly address the topic at hand. Maybe that's the reason for all of the emotional descriptions being used.

to be continued...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users