Are Humans Free Moral Agents?

[miz3]

"miz3, you say your authority is the bible, right? But what IF the bible has the seeds of Satan in them along with the seeds of Jesus? (Matthew 13:24-30) If this is what caused the confusion that we see today, then why do you believe that following only the words of Jesus and the Law and the Prophets is a bad idea?"

Dr. Rich,

To be perfectly fair, you did say you had evidence, you did not say you had "proof" for you allegations. I did read your article and found it fascinating.

That's right I said "fascinating" but NOT fascinating in a 'positive' way.

I found your article full of huge gaps and enormous leaps in logic. I found it lacking completely in Scriptural evidence of any kind, shape, or form (I know, I know, you did cite Genesis a few times, and Revelation). What I mean is there was no connection between your wild assertions and coherent Biblical evidence. For example your assertion that their are TWO CREATIONS is not Biblical. Yet you make this assertion because you cannot figure out who Cain's wife is or where she came from. The fact that you do not know how to explain a statement in the Bible such as Cain's wife and where she might have come from does not give you license to "MAKE UP FACTS THAT IN YOUR WILD IMAGINATION" create what to you is an answer.

In addition, I found hard SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, totally lacking despite your references to some archeological finds. The fact that such finds are existent does not place them in the place you put them. I know, I know, these finds have been CARBON DATED ETC. ETC. I know the Scientific Community puts a tremendous stock in their ability to date items. These scientists base this Dating on the decay rates of Carbon and other elements as they have found them to be. However, no scientist of any kind, shape or form knows for dead certain that these rates of decay are indeed TRUTHFULLY CONSTANT over the periods they assert. Of course in our life times and under current conditions we test items and they appear to be accurate over 'say a thousand, or even five thousand years old. Since human records go back only over a short six to seven thousand years (a rough estimate give or take a little). Even if we expand it TEN THOUSAND YEARS such is a relatively SHORT TIME COMPARED TO THE NUMBERS THROWN AROUND BY SCIENCE!!!!!!!!

Given this short time how can we be confident that the pattern demonstrated would hold for the time periods asserted. Thus, it is an ASSUMPTION NOT A PROOF that the items so dated are in fact what they are purported to be.

For the moment let us assume that such dating methods are indeed correct. Genesis chapter one does not eliminate that at the time of EARTH'S CREATION there was not pre-existing material. Let me explain a possible scenario (NOT PROOF) that could explain things. At minimum my scenario is more plausible than your wild assertions.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Genesis 1:1-2.

It clearly states that in the "beginning" God did something. He created. What did God create, oh yea, Heaven and Earth. It does not say He completed His work immediately or that He did not put pre-existing material in place so that when He came to finishing things He would then work on the pre-existing material. How long such pre-existing material sat around no one would ever know. The step by step process outlined in the Genesis account lends credence to this theory. If this theory is true then the pre-existing material would be in everything, including human material. As such that material could indeed be millions of years but the use of that material to bring into existence the FINISHED PRODUCT (INCLUDING HUMAN LIFE) would make it look like the finished product was millions of years old when in fact the finished product was much younger. Only the material was aged.

To me such a scenario is much more plausible than anything I have seen from you or from Science.

As to my article concerning the debate between CREATION AND EVOLUTION I could put it on this website as a different subject. The article is about 7 pages when put in Word form. I don't know if the Administrators would allow that. If it is not a problem for the Forum I would not object to posting it.

Administrators what do you think?

[Dr. Rich]

miz3, Please check the name of the 'entity' that created in Gen. 1 thru Gen.2:3 and you will find the word "God". Now check the name of the 'entity' who did the creating after this and you will see it is "The Lord God". Notice that the Man was created outside of the garden before the garden was created? Notice that the Man was placed in the garden after it was created? Notice that God told the Man he could eat from any of the plants other than the tree of knowing good and evil and that Eve was not there?

Notice that after the Man was placed in the garden, that "The Lord God" formed every animal of the field (not the wild beasts) and every bird (different than Chapter one) for the garden (not the world)? Notice too that Adam named the animals before Eve was made from Adam? How long do you suppose this would take?

Why did "The Lord God" place the tree of knowing good and evil in the garden? Why a garden in the first place IF they were to multiply and fill the whole earth? How could the bloodline of Adam and Eve contain all of the races we see today? Was not their bloodline pure and of one type?

[Musicman1228]

miz3,

Your assertion that there is no proof for two creations in Genesis is just that, and assertion. You make the assumption that Genesis 2 is merely are retelling of Genesis 1. You should take note that the account of Genesis 1 ends in the first few verses of Genesis 2; why? Because the early Bible editors made it that way, deciding where the Chapter break should be based on their own preconceived understanding. THERE ARE NO CHAPTER BREAKS IN THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS, or their copies. It is up to the reader to decide where the end of the first part of creation ends and the second begins.

There is a CLEAR demarkation between the the account in what is now Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. If Adam wrote Genesis 1-5, as is proposed by well established Bible Scholars, then that information would have come down to Moses primarily via ORAL tradition. If God gave Moses this information during his 40 days on Mt. Sinai then that must be EXACTLY how God wanted the story told. Either way it is possible and even likely that Chapter 2 is a continuation of Chapter 1 as would happen in an oral tradition.

IF (ok, big IF) this is the case then the creation of Adam and the forming of Eve occurred AFTER the completion of the original creation week. This idea is also supported in Genesis 1 by the fact that what was created on the 6th day of Creation week was 'mankind' and not a single man. Why? Because the text in Genesis 1:27 says that 'God created mankind in His image, MALE and FEMALE'. In Gen. 2 God created Adam ALONE, and then some time later formed Eve OUT OF Adam. This suggest strongly to me that there were two distinct and separate creations, and IS supported by this particular reading of Scripture.

[John317]

....IF (ok, big IF) this is the case then the creation of Adam and the forming of Eve occurred AFTER the completion of the original creation week. This idea is also supported in Genesis 1 by the fact that what was created on the 6th day of Creation week was 'mankind' and not a single man. Why? Because the text in Genesis 1:27 says that 'God created mankind in His image, MALE and FEMALE'. In Gen. 2 God created Adam ALONE, and then some time later formed Eve OUT OF Adam. This suggest strongly to me that there were two distinct and separate creations, and IS supported by this particular reading of Scripture.

But your argument here is based on false information about the language.

Gen. 1: 17 does not say that God created "mankind." It actually says, literally, that God created "the man." It uses the same word as in Gen. 2: 7. It is the Hebrew noun, Adham, which is Strongs #120. In Gen. 2: 20, it refers to the first man, Adam; and in Gen. 5: 1 it refers to both the first man and to collective man. Hence,Adham may refer to generic man or to Adam as an individual. There's no difference in the word itself.

Genesis 1:27

So God created the man[He. Adham] in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

Genesis 2:7

then the Lord God formed the man [Heb. Adham] of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man [Heb. Adham] became a living creature.

Genesis 2:20

The man [Heb. Adham] gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam [Heb. Adham]there was not found a helper fit for him.

NOTE: the last line of Gen. 2: 20 could read, and in some translations does read, "But no helper suited to him was found for a man." (Like Gen. 1: 5, Gen. 2: 20 contains no definite article; otherwise, it would be "the man.")

Genesis 5:1

This is the book of the generations of Adam [Heb. Adham]. When God created man [Heb. Adham], he made him in the likeness of God.

While it's true that Gen. 1: 27 is in reference to mankind in the collective sense, yet we can't make this distinction on the basis of the word that is used. It means that God created mankind at that point because He created the first human being, who is the father of all mankind. In fact, the language shows that the verse is talking about both Adam as a man and about humanity as a whole. Both originated at that point.

Genesis 1 gives us a retelling of the story of the creation from an objective viewpoint, whereas Genesis 2 gives us the story from the subjective view of mankind, showing us details of how and why it happened the way it did. (Similarly we have two accounts of the giving of the law, in Ex. 20, and again, in Deut. 5.)

Notice that Gen. 1 contains no explanations, whereas Genesis 2 contains several of them, and goes into greater detail. It portrays God as making everything ready for mankind. In other words, Genesis 2 makes it clear that mankind is the main reason for the creation of the world. God had Adam and Eve and their children in mind when He created the earth.

[miz3]

To Dr. Rich and to others,

I agree with John317's explanation.

I would also like to make some further points as well.

1. Genesis chapter one and chapter two are not meant to be detailed accounts. If God were to give us every move He made at Creation it would fill volumes uncountable. It was not the purpose to be detailed. It was an extremely brief outline.

2. As a 'brief' outline, instead of even a detailed outline, it is bound to have unexplained gaps. A full detail would indeed fill in those gaps. God purposely gave only a brief outline. God does not owe us a complete detail. We are to accept Him by Faith!!!!!!!

3. The purpose of Genesis chapter one and chapter two is to state emphatically that God IS THE CREATOR. This way humans will know their ROOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!

4. It also tells humans that God is also the One who decides everything and that He rules the Universe. God is the ONLY SOURCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yet despite this humans in their arrogance tell God that this is not good enough. In our arrogance as humans we tell God since what You wanted written is not good enough:

1. We are not going to believe any of it.

2. We will believe only some parts of it that we like.

3. We will fill in the parts that you left out in a way that seems right to our fantasy minds.

Again, I say, SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

Just who do we think we humans are? Just amazing!

[John317]

...As to my article concerning the debate between CREATION AND EVOLUTION I could put it on this website as a different subject. The article is about 7 pages when put in Word form. I don't know if the Administrators would allow that. If it is not a problem for the Forum I would not object to posting it.

Administrators what do you think?

Sure, you could post it as 7 or more separate posts in the Origins thread. Might be an interesting discussion.

[John317]

....IF (ok, big IF) this is the case then the creation of Adam and the forming of Eve occurred AFTER the completion of the original creation week. This idea is also supported in Genesis 1 by the fact that what was created on the 6th day of Creation week was 'mankind' and not a single man. Why? Because the text in Genesis 1:27 says that 'God created mankind in His image, MALE and FEMALE'. In Gen. 2 God created Adam ALONE, and then some time later formed Eve OUT OF Adam. This suggest strongly to me that there were two distinct and separate creations, and IS supported by this particular reading of Scripture.

Gen. 1 is a brief summary of what happened. Gen. 2 is giving us more details. There's no contradiction between Gen. 1: 27 and Gen. 2.

Notice that Gen. 1: 26, 27 gives us no details at all of how God made Adam and Eve. It just simply says He made people on the sixth day. Then Gen. 2 comes back and explains that God did it by creating Adam out of the soil, and that God allowed Adam time to understand that he needed a mate.

There's absolutely no reason to jump to the wild conclusion that there were two different, separate creations of the human species. I don't find any evidence of that in the creation narratives.

[Dr. Rich]

miz3, what is such a shame? Are you suggesting that testing everything is a shame? Are you suggesting that we all should just have faith like you do?

I have a serious problem with your opinion just as Rush Limbough did--no one can argue facts with someone who's foundation of belief is built upon faith. It would be a waste of time for both.

Question: Why hasn't Jesus come already if all we need is faith and grace? Why is Jesus delaying His coming? (Matthew 25:5)

Why did God place Adam in a special garden instead of letting him be in the rest of the earth? Isn't that like placeing a goldfish in a bowl? Or homearrest? Or a bird in a cage? Please give me ONE good reason for this! Sounds like Adam was not given the room to be much of a "Free Moral Agent".

And then tell me how you can get all of the many different DNA races out of the same DNA and blood type? Tell me how long it would take for a pure white man's and woman's seed down line to produce a black human with completly different DNA? Fact is, it would never happen.

[miz3]

Dr. Rich,

Look for my post tomorrow in answer to your questions. It is too late for me now because I am tired.

It is never good to write when you are tapped out. See you tomorrow!

By the way John 317 I like your post #436622. Well spoken! I am so glad that you and I can at least agree on something.

[Dr. Rich]

John317 and miz3, Guess how many different kinds of animals God made? Do some research on this and come back here and tell us how long it would take YOU to name all of them! Or better yet, how long do you suppose it would take for you to recall all of their names right now?

Of course it would take longer than 24 hours--right? So it was impossible for Adam to name them in one day! And John, why did God place Adam is a special Garden? Was it to keep him from Satan? That sure didn't work!

[John317]

Are you suggesting that testing everything is a shame? Are you suggesting that we all should just have faith like you do?

Jesus spoke of the necessity of faith:

Matthew 9:29

Then he touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith be it done to you."

Matthew 15:28

Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly.

Matthew 8:26

And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?"

Didn't Jesus show that we are to have faith in God's word?

Luke 24:25

And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!"

NOTE: Jesus says here that are to have faith in all that the prophets have spoken.

We should test everything, but we are to test everything by what God has revealed. The Word of God is the measuring-stick of truth.

John 1:17

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

John 17:17

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

Matthew 4:3-4

And the tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread." [4] But he answered, "It is written,

" 'Man shall not live by bread alone,

but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.' "

John 18:37

Jesus answered, "....For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world— to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."

[Musicman1228]

miz3,

120 'adam aw-dawm' from 119; ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):

(27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Gen.1:27.

Who decides which definition to use in this verse? Ideally it would be the context that would decide the usage. Taking into account the coupling of the words 'male' and 'female' with the word 'them' the meaning is just as I described it; God made MANKIND (ie. the males and females of the human species) on the 6th day of Creation.

Unfortunately, it is not always context that decides which form of a word that will be used. Often, and actually too often, it is the bias and mind-set of the translator that overrules context, as in this case and in your mind.

I personally believe that the text reads 'mankind'. This puts a whole new meaning to the verse that is different from 'tradition'. For most Christians going against 'tradition' is a no-no, because independent thinking often produces results that tear down established belief and doctrine. There is a certain irony in this; didn't Jesus do exactly that when He was here on earth?

And if, as you say, my version is speculation, then your version is equally so.

[miz3]

miz3, what is such a shame? Are you suggesting that testing everything is a shame? Are you suggesting that we all should just have faith like you do?

I have a serious problem with your opinion just as Rush Limbough did--no one can argue facts with someone who's foundation of belief is built upon faith. It would be a waste of time for both.

Question: Why hasn't Jesus come already if all we need is faith and grace? Why is Jesus delaying His coming? (Matthew 25:5)

Why did God place Adam in a special garden instead of letting him be in the rest of the earth? Isn't that like placeing a goldfish in a bowl? Or homearrest? Or a bird in a cage? Please give me ONE good reason for this! Sounds like Adam was not given the room to be much of a "Free Moral Agent".

And then tell me how you can get all of the many different DNA races out of the same DNA and blood type? Tell me how long it would take for a pure white man's and woman's seed down line to produce a black human with completly different DNA? Fact is, it would never happen.

Dr. Rich,

I am not suggesting that you don't test everything. We are told to test things. However, we are NOT TOLD to engage in wild speculation, which is what you are doing. In the end we will have evidence of Truth but it requires a FAITH, not born of human devising but a FAITH born of God!!!!!!! True FAITH is not totally blind which is what you are asserting.

How did Rush Limbaugh get into this conversation? However, Rush, did not say what you are asserting. What he did say, and I paraphrase, is that it is impossible to argue with someone who has "blind faith" which is based on nothing but nothing. My FAITH is built on Godly Facts from the Bible. That is what Rush meant by his statement. If you are going to state Rush Limbaugh's position then, PLEASE, state it correctly.

As to why Jesus Christ has not returned yet? You will have to ask Him that because Jesus Christ states that no one knows the answer to this question but God. Take the matter up with God in prayer is my suggestion.

God placed Adam in the Garden because God wanted to. The Bible does not say Adam was restricted to just the Garden. He was told to care for it. Maybe God wanted to place Adam and Eve in a special home that He built just for them and nobody else. God can do what He wants regardless of what you or I many think. Yet you question God and His Authority at every turn. As a lawyer you should no better than to place facts not yet in evidence or facts that are never based on evidence.

As to the DNA you have to be kidding, right? Just in case you are not kidding, God is a God of power and a God who is unbounded. As such He can make anything to have the ability to do anything that God conceives He wants to do.

God built into Adam and Eve the whole spectrum of DNA possibilities. You are looking at this situation from a merely human and human scientific view and you forget to look at things from God's view. Such a perspective seems to be a constant problem with you which is why you ask the questions you do. As the Bible states, with man it is impossible but with God nothing is impossible. I believe Jesus Christ said those words in the part of the Bible you accept. How do you know Adam and Eve were "white"? You don't know that!!!! No one knows what their melanoma was like. The Bible is "silent" on this point. How do you know that when God scattered people at the Tower of Babel not only did he confound the language but God changed other things (like racial make up).

I ask you why then do you keep doubting God and what He does.

You also seem to be fixated on Adam's naming all the animals. The fact is Adam did. Whether it took less than 24 hours to do this under the conditions that are vastly and totally different from our circumstances today on this earth or not I don't know. The Bible states that Adam did it and that is all that is vital to know.

The fact that the statement does not fit your box based on the circumstances that exist today and based on your puny human brain (not an insult we have puny brains compared to those in the Sinless state and Sinless Environment) does not mean that such could not happen.

Come on Dr. Rich, you claim the Words of Jesus Christ are the only credible Words, yet you do not know what He said when he stated that all things are possible with God even if they are not possible with humans. I find this incredible. What an indictment of your methods and your views!!!!!!!!!!!!

You need to look more through the lens of God and less through the lens of humanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

-deleted-

[miz3]

rudywoofs,

I hope for better answers to my posts than that!!!!!!!!!!!

It is not shouting it is emphasis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Woody]

Quote:

I hope for better answers to my posts than that!!!!!!!!!!!

Here on the forum ... there are no guarantees of answers. But when one gets one ... it's nice to appreciate it rather than to critique it's quality. You may not like the answer ... but you did get answers. Wanting a particular answer does not mean you will get it. There are no two identical Christians on this forum.

[miz3]

Good point Woody.

[Woody]

Good point Woody.

It's good to have you here miz3.

BTW ... what does miz3 mean?

[miz3]

Woody,

Miz3 is just a name. It has no important significance. The person hiding behind this label is not important. He is a (yes a male person as opposed to a female person) humble, unimportant servant of the Lord God of Heaven. If it were not for God and Jesus Christ whom God sent this person called miz3 would not know anything at all. It is because of God and what He has done for me that I am able to speak with such great knowledge and understanding!!!!!!!

Once again in me God has shown that He can do the impossible!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Woody]

Cool. Appreciate hearing that miz3

Glad you are here.

[Dr. Rich]

miz3,

Isn't the pot calling the kettle black? And yes, you are yelling by doing this:!!!!!!!!!! I makes me want to refuse to even read it.

By the way, I asked you why Jesus delayed His coming, not WHEN He was going to come. Rev. 1:1 proves that Jesus knows when He is coming and gave this same information to His bondservants who are alive in the last generation. We call this the book of Revelation.

That brings up another point: Are the "bondservants" free moral agents?

[Dr. Rich]

Oh, and I never said anything about Adam being white. Where did you get this information?

But lets make this easy: Take a black man and woman today and have their offspring inter marry with one another only. Please tell me when one of their offspring would be white? Do you see the problem?

Yes, all things are possible, but God does not do something outside His own laws.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

It is because of God and what He has done for me that I am able to speak with such great knowledge and understanding!!!!!!!

[CoAspen]

Hi rudy!!!!

[miz3]

Yes, all things are possible, but God does not do something outside His own laws.

Yes, God does do things outside what we humans would consider God's laws.

1. Raising the dead! God stipulated that the sinner would die. Yet while on earth Jesus Christ raised a number of sinners to life.

2. God sent Jesus Christ to bear the penalty for my sins and yours so that we do not reap the consequences of our stuff. Yet God's Law, as Paul points out most frequently, and so do the Gospels, states most emphatically that the sinner will die for their sins. Yet the innocent Son of God was punished when He did no wrong. That is against the Law but God did it!

Since you hate my repeated !! I will not use them anymore in the way I have even though I wasn't meaning to shout it appears to others that I am shouting. I will use other things to show my emphasis instead. It is such a small matter for me to change on this point.