Posted on 03/08/2010 6:27:24 PM PST by TaraP
Job 40:15-24 Behemoth
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm There is one certainty about Job 40-41…they are not dinosaurs that lived 6,000 years ago. With the possibilities presented, I leave it up to the reader to decide for themselves what the correct answer is. We probably won’t know for certain until we get to heaven.
What do I believe? I lean toward the dinosaur theory. You may say, “How can Bible writers, such as David in Psalm 74, write about a dinosaur if it lived 65 million years ago?” This is simple. There were certainly dinosaur fossils available in Bible times.
They are in the rocks now, so they must have been in the rocks then. David, and others, probably saw these fossils, and wrote about them (see Paleontology Pioneers and Aboriginal Dinosaurs?
Do you agree with this theory?
God is very "hands-on". He demonstrates what He wants, He interacts with people.
Not to mention the fact that it was the entity which rested, and not the entity demonstrating resting. There’s a big difference between the two.
Really? How?
Because God rested on the 7th day.
How does one demonstrate resting without resting?
God didn’t act out all the commandments, did he?
If you read the Bible carefully, you will notice that God and Christ never did the same thing twice in the same way. There is always a different method. He is not limited to any particular method that you (or I) may be partial to.
He demonstrated our work week, so that when He dictated the Ten Commandments, He pointed back to that demonstration as an example--Exodus 20:8-11.
Yes, and that is the biggest problem I've had, regarding this issue. There is a serious dissonance in the message from each entity, making it very difficult for me to assume that both entities are the same.
I am not sure if we discussed this earlier, but I recall asking others how one could accommodate the views of the Old Testament which vividly conflict with those of the New.
The classic example would be that of God ordering men to slaughter children and infants, in 1 Samuel 15: 2-3.
I have never been able to reconcile with this. What is your reasoning on the same? Most explanations I've heard so far, are illogical or ethically absurd.
Before I go into my explanation, what have you heard about it? I don't want to explain what others have--or perhaps I can expand on theirs a little better.
No promises, but I'm willing to try.
Sure, I’ll look up that thread where we had a lengthy discussion, and post it to you, so that you can read and then let me know if you have any arguments better than what the others had posted.
And here it is!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2462160/posts?page=67#67
I’d be glad to hear your side of the argument.
Give me a little time to get my thoughts together on this. It may be kinda long.
Sure, no problem. And thank you!
This is difficult for our modern society to accept. Why should they kill children, infants, cattle, and the rest of the animals when they, personally, had committed no offense?
1Sa 15:2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 1Sa 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [fn] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
The history of the Amalekites was not a good one. Their opposition to Israel was probably the least of their offenses. As a nation, they were irrevocably lost. Their morality, honesty, and decency had all disappeared. Leaving any of them alive would be an affront to God--according to God.
I'm assuming that the killing of the adults is not the question here, and we can accept that as a fitting punishment for them.
Now--let's try to move our point of view quite a bit.
God is the Creator of everything and everyone. Everything everywhere is His to do with as He pleases and sees fit. If we can see creation in this way, things become a little easier to accept. As an example--An author writes a book. He creates the characters, the conflicts, the heroes and the villians. He decides which characters get to live, and which don't. We don't complain, because it's not our story. We may not like it, but we don't protest the validity of the decision on who dies and who lives.
God is our Author. We are characters in His story. To us, human life is precious--as it should be. However, He is not human--He is WAY above human--in every imaginable metric. Physical life, to God, is rather unimportant compared to the eternal spiritual life we all should strive for.
Given that attitude, destroying a civilization that has put itself in opposition to God's chosen people is rather natural. Heck, I do that all the time when I play Civilization 4.
Moses was born a Jew, but raised Egyptian. He did not know he was Jewish until much later--after he had accepted the Egyptian lifestyle and mores. As soon as he found out he was Jewish, his outlook towards the Egyptians changed, and he actually killed one. Do you not think the same thing would have happened with the Amalekite children and infants? God didn't even want their animals around as it would have been a reminder of them. Best to just wipe them from memory.
Another piont, also, is that this was a test for Saul, which he failed. Saul captured Agag, the king, and also the best of some of the livestock. Saul set himself up as knowing better than God. This was his major downfall as a person, and as a king. It's a backdrop for what happens later with David.
Thanks, but his was the same argument others made as well. I find it rather weak.
It is inherently immoral and unethical to murder children and infants, no matter what crimes their parents may have committed.
We wouldn’t want to apply the same to the modern situation now, would we? The whole theme contradicts the teachings of Jesus, in a most contrasting manner.
Thanks for taking the trouble, however. I appreciate it.
Why is it "inherently immoral"? Where do we get our sense of morality from? Note: I'm not necessarily disagreeing here, just trying to see where you are coming from.
We wouldn’t want to apply the same to the modern situation now, would we?
No--we wouldn't do the same today.
I don’t know, which is why I am trying to find the answers. Why do most people not go about murdering one-another? Something inside stops them.
That same inner aspect should find murdering infants just as despicable. Just my argument on this. What would you say?
We don’t do the same today, because they conflict our morality.
Correct. Man is made in God's image. That is more than just physical shape. It is His morality, His justice, and His mercy. His sense of right and wrong.
That same inner aspect should find murdering infants just as despicable. Just my argument on this. What would you say?
I totally agree. We are on the same side here. The question--I think--is "why"? Also, given that sense of being despicable, why did God order the genocide in 1 Samuel 15?
Given my previous answer, the follow-up to this will probably not seem very satisfactory to you.
Job 40-41. Both entire chapters. Read these with the following in the back of your mind: When disciplining small children, do you stop to explain all the intricacies of the reasoning of what they did was wrong? When teaching children right and wrong (very early on), do you explain all the reasons why something is right? Or do you just say "this is right" and wait until they can better understand the reasons before explanation is given?
I think that is our relationship with God. We are very small children, and any explanation God would give would be way above our heads, and we'd be unable to comprehend. I also think that He has no need to explain Himself. He is the Creator. He can do what He wants with His creation.
Well done sir, I am impressed that you kept at it as long as you did.
I’ll have to work this into my philosophy, but I am not optimistic, LOL!
Any time in the future, if you do find a good explanation, please do share!
When they start breaking down to worthless “points” like which way a tail sways (when previously they claimed it can coil like a snake!) you know you’ve won, but they are simply too stubborn to admit it.
Logic and reason - what I believe are two of the greatest gifts God gave to us - always prevail!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.