Sheniy

Thou hast piqued my interest. Care to elaborate? I would like to understand your perspective better.

 

===================================================================

 

 

Well that's a very very long story.....very very short version:

 

 (snip)

 

Hope that helps Thou

I get the sense that maybe I've offended you some how?  If so, I am truly sorry. 

Thank you for sharing.  Your testimony seems a bit vague, and I'm guessing that's intentional.  I am still curious, but I won't pry if you don't want to share any further.

The parts that were clear to me, I can relate to.  I was force-fed untruths (unintentionally, I believe) that I am still sorting out to this day.    I understand the search for truth.  I understand the desire to know the Word of God as it was intended by Him.  In that area, I believe we are on the same path.

However, I believe there are some things that we will not know absolutely until Christ returns.  We should search for truth, but we won't know everything. (I believe this statement is supported biblically).  We can debate about them until we are red-faced and out of breath, but there are some areas that just aren't absolutely clear.  But they aren't absolutely relevant, either.  In fact, the bible discourages these kind of dissensions and encourages us to live in peace with one another.  Even if we disagree.

I was part of a church once (not RCC) that required belief in a certain 'major' doctrine.  Their theology was convincing.   Other christians were leaning more on their understanding of the "natural world" instead of trusting God's Word, and this was WRONG.  Anyone who didn't believe the plain reading of the text wasn't believing the bible, and therefore weren't "true" christians.    I believed these teachings whole-heartedly, and I would preach it to my other christian family members who believed differently.  Someone pulled me aside and showed me an alternate view of the text, one that required a symbolic or representative look at the subject instead of literal.  I didn't dare question scripture, and my religious mind was shouting "BLASPHEMY!", but I trusted this person, so I considered what she said.  She was able to support it in other areas of the bible.  I came to realize that my church and pastors were wrong, which was a huge leap for me.  I see how they twist the word to mean what they believe.  Not intentionally, I'm sure but compared to the rest of Christian theology, it's just a minor part, and the unnecessary division it causes in the Body of Christ is more damaging than it's worth.

  In case you were wondering, this doctrine is (I believe) commonly accepted as not literal.  And it has nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

Be wary of some of the teachings of the RCC, but don't throw out the wheat with the chaff.

 

Please spare me your "Generalized" Cliche type advice.   This specific topic advice is Tantamount to Richard Simmons helping Tiger Woods on his backswing.  Did it ever occur to you that I may have some "Background" in this Genre?  Maybe?  And not just the "Being Raised" in it, type of Background?

Thou hast piqued my interest. Care to elaborate? I would like to understand your perspective better.

 

 

====================================================================

 

I am really trying to understand your logic, Enoch.

 

Can't explain it any simpler than I already have.  Go back up and read it slowly

I read it. It doesn't match your actions. Please explain.

Thus Biblical interpretation yielded to the sciences.

 Baloney.

The Bible always yields to science and chases after secular morality....the bible was written for men who did not understand the things we do today.  It will always be playing catch-up...I think God planned it that way.

More baloney from a little man who doesn't know beans about the Bible.

Shiloh, that was mean.

Jerry, what do you mean when you say the bible chases after secular morality? Can you give me some examples?

No.  I don't get it.  Why would you spend all that time examining blueberry pie.  I would just eat it. *shrug*

 

What you say you do and what you actually do don't match up.

 

St Augustine taught us many good things, but you disagree with his alternate interpretation of Genesis 6.  Therefore your reaction is to .  

 

Chuck Missler has taught us many good things.  But he has an alternate interpretation of Genesis 3.

 

 

Are you going to when faced with Chuck Missler's teachings, as well?  

 

Seems a bit reactionary to me.  Especially when both alternate interpretations are really not all that big a deal. (I disagree with your interpretation of "big deal")

 

I think you secretly agree with Dr Missler's interpretation, but can't admit it because it would be BLASPHEMY (according to Shiloh).  You like Dr Missler ( so do I. He's awesome).  But you can't accept my post on Augustine, because he disagrees with you, so you tear him down. 

 

But, again.  You missed the point of the quote entirely, so bashing Augustine is just a strawman.

 

 

=================================================================================

 

 

Even after I explain it to you rather simply....you just continue unabated right on the same path 

I am really trying to understand your logic, Enoch.

Are you saying we can reject all of your previous posts which include any comments or teachings by Chuck Missler?

That is what I understand of your actions in this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

==================================================================

 

 

How is that a biggie?

 

Lets see off the Top of my head, You'll be @ a Loss when trying to explain:

 

1.  The Reason/Rationale for the Flood

 

2.  The Majority of the OT. (Including but not limited to):  The Desert Wonderings, Deuteronomy 7:1-5 (more on this in a minute).

 

3.  The Majority of End Time Prophecy.

 

 

Can you tell me, If your of the "Sethite" View....what is your answer to New Christians or Seasoned Christians when this question is posed, and it will be posed I assure you: 

 

Why did GOD instruct the Hebrews to KILL ALL (Including Women/Children) of these tribes.  See Deuteronomy 7:1-5

 

And you best have an answer..... and not just some Whimsical Answer!

 

 

It's just a different perspective of Genesis 6.

 

It's just a different Perspective????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

So the Bible is Open to Everyone's "Perspective"?? That's GREAT!!......we are now be able to ascertain Absolute Truth Together with everyone's "Perspective" 

 

That's Almost Like getting everyone's "Perspective" on  2 + 2 = 4

 

 

But this guy contributed to the theology of the Trinity and original sin, among other things.

 

So He proposed what is Plainly Written in the WORD of GOD.   kudos!

 

 

Or maybe you're dodging on purpose?

 

Yes, I'm scared.

 

 

If you wish to be consistent, you must also throw out all teachings of Chuck Missler, since he doesn't interpret the serpent in Genesis as literal. (gasp!)

 

What's making me gasp is the prospect that you actually thought this through before posting it.

 

Let me try to explain this to you:  I don't follow anybody.....Only the WORD of GOD!!!!  In my wonderings, I come across various people of Science, Scripture, Model Airplane Construction et al.

 

I then Listen to what they have to say....because I follow this, in Steps:

 

(Proverbs 18:13) "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

 

and then this

 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

 

I put EACH and EVERY: Idea, Postulate, Claim, et al  THROUGH MY OWN PERSONAL CRUCIBLE (which is Obsessively Comprehensive^{1000000000000000000000------>}) then and only then do they past muster.  It's like a Berean mind set (See ACTS)

 

 

If by chance this Individual or organization has a Postulate/Claim/Idea.....Regardless whether they like or believe in Blueberry Pie, 3 Toed Gnomes, or the Bangles.....I employ a LASER LIKE FOCUS on just THAT CLAIM and tear it apart 6 ways from Sunday to Verify/Validate and measure Veracity.

 

I don't get distracted by the Background Noise, Pretty Colors, or the Dazzling Light Show....while they attempt to Slip in the Backdoor and defile my Family's HONOR!!!!!

 

 

If it passes Muster....then I go to the NEXT CLAIM.  SEE THE STEPS???  I don't follow anything BLINDLY....even if the first 1000 Postulates turn out to be correct the 1001 Postulate......

 

GETS THE SAME TREATMENT!!!!

 

 

Are WE Tracking Sheniy??

 

No.  I don't get it.  Why would you spend all that time examining blueberry pie.  I would just eat it. *shrug*

What you say you do and what you actually do don't match up.

St Augustine taught us many good things, but you disagree with his alternate interpretation of Genesis 6.  Therefore your reaction is to .  

Chuck Missler has taught us many good things.  But he has an alternate interpretation of Genesis 3.

Are you going to when faced with Chuck Missler's teachings, as well?  

Seems a bit reactionary to me.  Especially when both alternate interpretations are really not all that big a deal. (I disagree with your interpretation of "big deal")

I think you secretly agree with Dr Missler's interpretation, but can't admit it because it would be BLASPHEMY (according to Shiloh).  You like Dr Missler ( so do I. He's awesome).  But you can't accept my post on Augustine, because he disagrees with you, so you tear him down. 

But, again.  You missed the point of the quote entirely, so bashing Augustine is just a strawman.

 

Again, false dichotomy.  Current scientific consensus is that the universe came from a point of singularity, and the universe is expanding.  This makes this argument moot.

Hello Jerry.

 

I don't exactly adhere to all of Enoch's assumptions. Actually he and I disagree and a lot.  But I am a Christian.

 

I've always wondered about this: if the universe came from a point of singularity, and (philosophically speaking) there is a cause/effect relationship behind every event, when and why did the universe begin to expand?  There is no creator to "start anything". What got point 0 to point 0.oooo1?  It is already begging the question to say that a unit (however small) of matter just existed.  But then to say that this "exploded" begs the question, "Why at that point in time?"  Why not later?  Why not before?  For one like myself raised on philosophy the answer is "there is none".  It all goes back to Aristotle's Prime Mover (although Christianized, and not as Aquinas supposed).

 

clb

 

Hey, Jerry

I am also curious to see how you respond to clb's post above.

 

Enoch, once more, let’s return to the point.  You said that the Church held to geocentricism for so long because they weren’t reading the text closely.  My point is that, no matter how close you read the texts, you will never see heliocentricism.  That is all.  The Bible does not clearly teach heliocentricism.  At the time, the Church was well-advised to believe in geocentricism and nothing in the Bible contradicted that view.  And they were wrong.  Heliocentricism is right, and therefore passages that once supported geocentricism now had to be taken metaphorically.  Thus Biblical interpretation yielded to the sciences.  Your issue is (and always will be) that there can be no human component in the making of Scripture.  There is only ONE AUTHOR: the humans were just pens.  This is not only wrong historically and exegetically but also theologically.  When God redeemed Man he came as a Man.  When God wrote Scripture, He writes through men.

 

 

===================================================================================

 

 

You said that the Church held to geocentricism for so long because they weren’t reading the text closely.

 

 

Well sorta.  I'm saying the "church" (RCC), in your Genre, is actually not The Body of Christ.

You're Equivocating (Rather Fallaciously):  RCC = Christianity. ^{100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000----------------------------------->} 

 

 

 

Don't presume to know the minds of those who lived centuries ago, Enoch.  The institution of the RCC may be evil/corrupted, but that doesn't mean that every person involved in it was evil/corrupted.     Be wary of some of the teachings of the RCC, but don't throw out the wheat with the chaff.  That particular judgment is God's job. 

There are member's of the body of Christ in the RCC.  I know several. 

We are making valid points here, and you're dodging them.

 

 

 

He also Propagated the "Sethite" View of Genesis 6.  Red Flags abound 

 

 

Didn't you say above that just because a person is wrong on one thing doesn't mean that he is wrong on everything else?  Once more Enoch, consistency.

 

 

 

==================================================================

 

Yes I surely did, and we all make mistakes..........HOWEVER, This is a BIGGIE!!!!!!!!!   And not his only one.

 

How is that a biggie?  It's just a different perspective of Genesis 6.  I was raised to believe that perspective, and dismissed it easily when I heard the angel version.  It wasn't a big deal.  He's not, like, starting a new religion or something.  It really doesn't impact any salvation issues.

If he was saying Jesus isn't God or something, yeah I'd agree with you.  But this guy contributed to the theology of the Trinity and original sin, among other things.  Those ARE big theological doctrines.  You gonna throw them out, as well?

Besides, you missed the point of the quote entirely.  Or maybe you're dodging on purpose?

If you wish to be consistent, you must also throw out all teachings of Chuck Missler, since he doesn't interpret the serpent in Genesis as literal. (gasp!)

 

Today a similar situation is advised by many within the Church:

 

What Church?

 

I am guessing he is referring to a part of the body of Christ. What church would he be referring to? Your question seems to indicate that you believe that those who disagree with YEC aren't truly Christian. I hope I'm wrong.

 

(Once more, I labor to say, your contention is that if we read the texts carefully we will see that it teaches heliocentricism.

 

My contention is ....it doesn't teach either way.  It's not a Science Book.

 

You like quotes, right? From important people? Here's a couple.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [1 Tim 1:7]."

I'm guessing you don't agree.

Okay. Here's one that you might agree with more.

"we have to contend against those who, making an evil use of physical science, minutely scrutinize the Sacred Book in order to detect the writers in a mistake, and to take occasion to vilify its contents. . . ."

Sound about right? This quote here in orange was from Pope Leo XIII in the late 19th century regarding the new heliocentric model.  Yep.  Part of that RCC you love so much.  I'm pretty sure you've said something like this before.

That first quote was from 415 AD by St Augustine of Hippo (for those who don't know, he's kind of a big deal in Christian history and influenced much of the theology we believe today, including original sin and the Trinity). That's a long time before the theory of evolution.  That's a long time before the heliocentric model, as well.  The science Augustine is referring to is the controversial (at the time) geocentric model. 

  So questioning the word for word literal interpretation of Genesis is not even kind of a new thing.  Augustine didn't believe in an old universe.  They didn't know enough about the universe to consider it (stars were still just sparkles attached to the back of the sky or something).  Augustine believed that God created the universe in an instant, and that the seven day creation was to be interpreted as a literary structure instead of literal word for word 7 days.  If he had lived today, he likely would have had no problem with an old cosmos.

Food for thought.

How is it not right?  It's the literal interpretation of the word that is backed up by Jesus Himself!  He speaks of the flood as a real thing.  His genealogy goes all the way back to Adam!  The 7-day creation event is held up throughout the entire bible.  You only challenge it now because atheistic scientists with an agenda to disprove God and keep getting their funding to support an ideal that ruins people's faith.

What we're discussing here is the minor details. A literal seven day creation is not really necessary in the Christian faith, IMHO. A young cosmos is also not necessary. Is it possible? Of course. An old universe is also possible (and doesn't contradict Genesis, despite what some here say). Another possibility is that we're all inside something like the Matrix and God just booted up the program. Bam! Instant universe. And Jesus is The One! (I really like this theory, actually )

I think the only one here who wishes to disprove the bible is Jerry (although I could be wrong).

ever hear of Nephilim? where do you think fallen angels came from?

yes we have been visited by visitors from outer space.. and they corrupted the genetic make up of mankind so God wipped it all clean. Noah was still pure human so God kept him and some of the pure animals.

I've heard this theory before. You've seen Chuck Missler's alien videos?

The thing that I find interesting with this theory is how much aliens have been integrated into our culture. It was laughable decades ago, but more and more people are accepting the possibility of extraterrestrial life. So many people really wish that aliens would visit and impart their wisdom or make their lives more interesting or take them away in their time-traveling phone box ( ). It is still mostly "conspiracy theory", but that seems to be changing quickly.

If this is the "great deception" and a wise alien (nephilim or fallen angel) suddenly showed up with great knowledge and superpowers, how many people on the planet right now would follow him?

Wow, this was way OT. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

Yeah I just don't get why they can't accept there is more than one way to interpret the evidence!  years.

No, the problem is science lets the evidence tell the story, while creation science is telling the evidence what it is saying.

 

Much of modern "science" is people taking the evidence and making up their own story. They have their story, now they do exactly what creationists do and fit the evidence to match their story.

If we could filter out all scientific speculation and bias (aka man's opinion) and just look at just the facts and evidence, modern science would look much different.

Actually, I was an atheist and evolutionist until I was 19 when I became a Christian.  I realized that everything I believed and studied before didn't match up with what I read in the bible, so I started to study alternatives.  The more I looked at it, the more I felt kinda dumb.  I'm not calling anyone who accepts evolution as dumb...just sharing that I felt dumb for ever thinking the universe and everything within could've ever come to be by itself without the help of a Creator.  And if an all-powerful Creator Being exists, as I believe He does, He shared with us how He did it.  And He could've done it by speaking everything into existence in a process that scientists would say took millions and millions of years.  That's the only way they can come up with those kinds of figures...because it would take millions (or billions) of years to happen on their own without God.  But I now don't believe it could've happened at all without God and that changes everything.

Awesome testimony.

Time is relative, right?  And God exists outside of time.  God created time.  Therefore, He could have created the universe in a way that took billions of years, or ten minutes, or a nanosecond. 

But yeah. I agree with you that it couldn't have happened without God.

Here is I believe a summary of the situation in this thread.  Both 6dayers (by which I mean those who claim Genesis 1-3 is an historical narrative teaching a literal 6 24 hour process) and those who believe the 6 days were a literary device have obstacles before them.  The latter must reckon with the Waw consecutive—a grammatical device which outside of Genesis (and a few psalms; and in Job if Job is not to be taken as history)

(snip for length)

  I...uh...what?!  The book of Job isn't history?

...Seriously?  I always just assumed...

  I have a question, though.  What you seem to be saying (and I don't disagree), is that Moses told the Israelites "the story of where we come from", aka Genesis, using a bit of creative license to teach theology as well.  Isn't that sort of the same as an historical narrative?  Isn't an historical narrative just a story of historical events?  He was saying, "hey, guys!  You know those vast, impressive temples for those other gods?  Well, our God gets a capital G, and HIS temple is the whole freaking world!  He totally PWNS!"  (In my example, Moses uses internet slang.  I...read too many web comics...) 

Anyway, he was less concerned with specific details and more with getting the point across.  It can still be historical (i.e. God made everything, Adam is a real person, etc). It can still be the seedbed of christian theology, the foundation of the truths that we live by, but it is a story.

 I've heard other people say that Christianity copied pagan religions, and some of it really is nonsense. But...maybe there are some similarities (divinely inspired!) in order for us to bring the Gospel to the people in those religions.  Why not?

Side note:

   Moses using the pagan culture at the time to make a point is similar IMHO to Paul doing the same with the Unknown God in Athens (Acts 17).  In verse 23 he says "I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship".  He studied their religion to find a way to share the Gospel with them.  Instead of pointing to the false idols, saying, "Y'all are just plain wrong," he starts with what they know and believe, and he works from there.

In the atheistic worldview, they've reluctantly accepted that the universe had a beginning with the big bang, but they can't explain how it started or why.  (we can!)  Some are reluctantly conceding that life on this planet couldn't have started accidentally.  There must have been an intelligent hand in there somewhere.  Their answer?  Probably aliens. 

So...instead of telling them how and why they are wrong, why can't we do as Paul did and say, "Hey, you know that unknown intelligence you're looking for?  Let me tell you about Him."

Just a thought.

I prefer juice.  

I also heard that bottled water was just filtered tap water.  They just slap a "pure" label on it and charge you $1 for the bottle.  If I get bottled water, I only buy it for the convenience of it as a to-go option, but the tap water in my area is pretty good, so I guess I shouldn't complain.  If I lived somewhere else, I might drink more bottled water.

I've never really liked the taste of bottled water.  Not sure why. I don't like the taste of any water for that matter.  It makes me gag.  Unless I'm really hot and sweaty, then I crave it.  Only if it's ice cold.  But the best water I've ever had was when I lived in Oregon. It was water straight out of the Cascade Mountains and it was delicious!  I gobbled that stuff up.

 

I've been trying to drink more water lately, so my trick is to drink it through a straw.  Somehow, it helps me be able to drink it.

I am exactly the same way.  I get funny looks when I say I don't like the taste of water.

I kinda want to go to Oregon and try the water now. lol

Introvert.  I forget to speak out loud, sometimes.  I think I'd rather just observe.
 
 
 
Had a funny conversation with my very extroverted cousin some years ago.  She hates sitting in silence, so she asked me what was on my mind.  Of course, that derailed whatever complicated thought train my mind was riding on, so I just said "nothing".  She nodded as if she accepted the answer, but after a moment of silence, she asked if there was actually nothing on my mind.  Like I was just sitting there in silence with nothing going on in my head.  Her introverted fiance (at the time) would say the same thing, and she was...concerned.  lol 

They've been married ten years now (wow...has it been that long?!), and they have sort of rubbed off on each other.  She's mellowed out a bit and he's more open.
 

Excellent thread, nebula. I understand where you're coming from, having a similar experience in a church as a kid.   This was a church who's view of the bible was Sola Scriptura, "Scriptures alone". They were positive that they had all the answers, and they used this as a reason to tear down other denominations and believers.

 There was a pastor there who was more interested in indoctrinating us with this particular brand of christianity than actually teaching about God. "This is how we're right," he'd teach, "and this is how everyone else is wrong." I learned from him how to bash people over the head with the "truth".

Matthew 23:15 ""Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are."

I realized later that I was being indoctrinated (and manipulated) specifically because my mom was questioning a particular doctrine that they hold very dearly. They were using me to get to her. She was just a mother and housewife and never went to bible college, but she was more devoted to the Word and the actual Truth than using the bible to defend a doctrine. She showed me where they were wrong and how they were manipulating scripture to "prove" their point.

Looking back, I don't see any love or God in those teachings from my pastor.  They didn't bring me closer to Jesus, but caused division in the body of Christ.

 
I haven't seen this passage quoted yet, but maybe I missed it. It seems appropriate.

1 Corinthians 13:1-8 "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away."

And, I was reading through your posts....I think we were mis-communicating.  What would you like me to explain regarding the Nebular Hypothesis?

Definitely miscommunicating! Glad we can agree on something. lol

Okay. Can you explain how the Nebular Hypothesis contradicts with my speculation of Genesis on page 1 of this thread? I did read through your other (Nebular) thread and I think I got the gist of it. You brought it up when contradicting my post, and I was just hoping for some clarification. It's not a huge deal, though.

I realize that I did sort of go off on a weird and imaginative tangent, and I'm sorry for going OT, but that's how my brain works. lol

 

=============================================================================================

 

I should have posted in a different thread.

 

Try the Generalization Thread

Nah. I should have posted in nebula's creation theory thread. Too bad it's closed now.

Tired of dividing already divided quotes, so I'm posting my reply in blue.

Um...anything. Provide any real actual proof (not mere evidence or conspiracy theory or speculation) that I am wrong and I will change my view.

 

What Like Dandelions?  We've talked about "Specifics" before if I recall, No? 

 

Bring Specifics Sheniy.

*************

I am referring to my original post, which you seemed to have issue with (but now you don't?).

What do dandelions have to do with anything?

******************

 

 

I just don't think it goes against the bible to see that creative force as mega-explosive.

 

I do.  Because it's not there

 

****************

I have shown where it is possible. If you don't wish to see it, that's fine.   I'm not going to twist your arm.

I agree there is some speculation, but there's nothing wrong with that.

****************

 

I don't know. You brought it up as contradictory. Shouldn't you provide the specifics? lol

 

OF WHAT??   Were getting into "ridiculous" Sheniy

****************

I agree.

After my original post you mentioned something about quasi-nebula something, but you didn't explain how it contradicted. I was just trying to understand why you even brought it up.

****************

 

You already stated my post was in line with the word (see above). If it isn't in line with the Word,

 

  If I see any, you'll most likely hear from me 

 

***********************

I did hear from you. You pointed out several contradictions which either I explained (and you have since agreed with...I think?), or I ignored because they were completely irrelevant to my original post.

***********************

and as long as it doesn't change any already established vital christian doctrines, which it doesn't...where's the issue?

 

I've pointed out the discrepancies with the Big Bang Official Theory and The WORD of GOD quite specifically.  The balls in your court whether to accept or reject.  I'm not gonna twist your arm.

I don't even know why I bother. You don't seem to even listen.

I should have posted in a different thread.

I am limited in my quote boxes, so I had to combine some.
 

 

I believe our disagreement comes from our own personal, fallible interpretations of the written text. If you can show me proof beyond doubt that I am wrong, I am more than willing to change my view. I just haven't seen that proof yet.

 
What Specifically?
 

I don't think that everything in the evolutionary theory ultimately rejects God.

 
I do.  But again, you have to provide Specific Examples of some of the "Everything" you're referring too.

 

Answer to first question: Um...anything. Provide any real actual proof (not mere evidence or conspiracy theory or speculation) that I am wrong and I will change my view. It still might not be your view. I might just alter my view to accommodate your proof...if you have any.
Second answer: I did provide a specific example. The big Bang. I reject the "there is no God and it just happened on its own" part, but yeah.


 

 

The base component of the big bang theory is that the universe has a beginning and that it came from practically nothing, which I believe is very much in line with the bible.

 
Yes. Conceptually they're more or less the same.  The "devil" so to speak, is in the details. 

 

Note that in my very speculative (I do not deny it) example, the sun is made after the vegetation, on the "fourth day", along with the moon and the rest of the planets.

 
This lines up with The WORD but it doesn't line up with the Big Bang

 

See...I already said I reject the evolutionary take on the big bang. I reject the parts that require that God doesn't exist. The rest (universe has a beginning and it exploded into existence), I consider as possible and in line with the bible, as I have shown.
I don't see where the problem is.


 

 

if not a rapid expansion from nothing, then how did the universe happen? I'm not asking who: we both know it's God. I'm asking how He did it. Specifically. Where did the stars and galaxies and planets and nebulae come from?

 
 
The Earth First.  Don't know "HOW" other than HE Spoke it.  As for where it "Matter" came from....pure conjecture from me:  From Nothing

 

 

The plain Word of God seems to indicate that the heavens were created first, or at least at the same time (Gen 1:1). *shrug* That's what it seems like to me.

As for the rest, I agree. He spoke and it came from nothing. I just don't think it goes against the bible to see that creative force as mega-explosive.

 

 

I did read your other thread on nebula something or other (I'm not a scientist, so much of it went over my head), but I don't see how it contradicts any of what I wrote here. Can you give me a specific example? Preferably in layman's terms?

 
Please post the Specific Issue and I'll try and explain it.

 

I don't know. You brought it up as contradictory. Shouldn't you provide the specifics? lol


 

 

Creativity requires imagination.  There is nothing wrong with using this God-given ability.

 
No there isn't.  But it depends on where it is being applied.  It should not be applied to Imagining other "scenarios" that are in direct contradiction to The WORD.
 

I wasn't there, so I can't know the details for sure.

 
IMHO, there is enough there in Genesis to understand the basic framework and to rule out "Concocted" scenarios.

What I won't do is tell you that you must agree with my speculations.  That wouldn't be fair to you.

 
Agreement with me has nothing to do with it IMHO, Are you IN-Line with The WORD is the question..... that needs to be asked of One-Self.  If I fall out Of-Line with The WORD, I would expect you to correct me quickly.

 

1. You already stated my post was in line with the word (see above). If it isn't in line with the Word, please show me where, in my post specifically. And please don't just attack other general evolutionary theories, as I already said I reject most parts of them.

2. If the specifics aren't exactly included in the bible and I'm doing a bit of speculating (which I've admitted to), where is the problem? As long as I'm not forcing my own speculation down your throat and demanding it be accepted as THE ONLY TRUTH, which I'm not, and as long as it doesn't change any already established vital christian doctrines, which it doesn't...where's the issue?

It is interesting that Bible scholars too can view with different interpretations.

 

Well there is no 'Private" interpretation....

 

(2 Peter 1:20) "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

 

And please don't say this only speaks to 'Prophecy".  That is too say..."there are no Private interpretations of Prophecy but many of Scripture"

 

There is only ONE TRUE interpretation of THE WORD....That's the PLAIN WORD OF GOD.

That verse in context is clearly referring to a prophet's revelation of prophecy. It's saying that the promises of God that we hope in (the prophecies of His return) were given by God and not made up by humans.

If you suggest it means something else, aren't you adding your own interpretation to the text?

Just saying...

Hi, Enoch.

I know we seem to disagree a lot, but I do respect your knowledge and understanding on the subject, and your adherence to the Word, and your love for the truth. I share the same love and respect for the Word of God, and I in no way want to go against it. I do believe it is 100% inspired (read: God-breathed). I believe our disagreement comes from our own personal, fallible interpretations of the written text. If you can show me proof beyond doubt that I am wrong, I am more than willing to change my view. I just haven't seen that proof yet.

Another thing I want to clarify (which I have explained elsewhere in this forum): I reject the evolutionary take on the big bang. I reject wholeheartedly any part of the evolutionary theory that doesn't allow for the possibility of God. Having said that, I don't think that everything in the evolutionary theory ultimately rejects God. The base component of the big bang theory is that the universe has a beginning and that it came from practically nothing, which I believe is very much in line with the bible.
 

Sheniy you're a sweetheart.  I will attempt to tread as lightly as possible
 

I still don't understand why christians can't believe that the universe exploded into existence.

 
Well firstly, you would have to show.....IN SCRIPTURE, where this explosion is?

 

 
I thought I gave a decent example here that provides the possibility of an explosion.
 

"'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' I found a technical translation of Genesis that reduces each word down to it's original root, which is interesting. The word for "created" came from a word that means "to fatten". To expand from something small..."


It is by no means proof, but it allows for the possibility of a rapidly expanding universe at the very beginning.

My question for you is this: if not a rapid expansion from nothing, then how did the universe happen? I'm not asking who: we both know it's God. I'm asking how He did it. Specifically. Where did the stars and galaxies and planets and nebulae come from?

 

We could go into the Tenets of The Big Bang but lets just stick with the BIG Kahuna contradiction with GOD'S WORD.  The Big Bang has the SUN before the Earth.  Subtle difference but Huge Ramifications and a Direct Contradiction of the GOD'S WORD.  Then it goes into Quasi Nebular Hypothesis Scenarios.....See Specific Topic in this Forum just posted Monday.

Again, I thought I covered this in my post here:
 

"This new life needs sustenance, so He steps back from the earth into the space surrounding it, collects the nearby gasses into a ball, and lights them on fire. He regulates the temperature of this new star, and sets the earth into a particular orbit around it, giving the planet a spin so every corner is exposed to the life-giving heat and energy."


Note that in my very speculative (I do not deny it) example, the sun is made after the vegetation, on the "fourth day", along with the moon and the rest of the planets. The rest of the cosmos also becomes visible at this time.  In fact, I did include the events of all seven days of creation in order, starting with light and ending with rest in paradise.

I did read your other thread on nebula something or other (I'm not a scientist, so much of it went over my head), but I don't see how it contradicts any of what I wrote here. Can you give me a specific example? Preferably in layman's terms?

 

This a a TextBook example of people using science as their Hermeneutic Filter.

 
The heavens declare the glory of God. When those christian scientists in the past observed the world and realized it wasn't flat or it wasn't the center of the universe, they changed their worldview to fit with this observation. Their view of the universe expanded, and so did their view of God.

I don't see how this is any different.

It only becomes a danger if I use science to replace God or change the fundamental Truths that we live by, which I am clearly not doing.

 

Note we didn't touch on:  First there was nothing....... and then it exploded 

 
Mystifying, isn't it? Astounding. All that power and glory in just a single thought? Amazing.  
 
The very idea of it makes me tremble in awe.

You believe God created the universe out of nothing, right?  Ex Nihilo and all that.  Correct me if I'm wrong.
 

 

 

"Let light be,"

 
Yes but with the Big Bang Scenario......"Light" would have already been!! .....The Explosion.   See It?

 

verse 2: "and darkness was over the surface..." <--- referring to the earth

verse 3: "And God said 'Let there be light,' and there was light."

The earth was shrouded in darkness. The bible doesn't refer to there being darkness absolutely everywhere.

My post accounts for this, as well.

 

 

I sort of imagine....and.....And that is how I imagine it.

 
This is the Problem Sheniy....... "Imagine".  There is enough "Light" in Scripture to summarily dismiss this rather easily.  Couple that with the Inherent basic science and logic contradictions the theory has with how vigorously and dogmatic this nonsense is defended; well; the writing is.... as they say (Or as Daniel says), on the Wall.

 

We were created in the image of the Creator.  This is where our creativity comes from.  Creativity requires imagination.  There is nothing wrong with using this God-given ability.

I have a vivid imagination, and God uses it to help me see Him better.  However, like I said, it is just my own speculation on the way God created everything.  I wasn't there, so I can't know the details for sure.  I like speculating and wondering and imagining in order to try and wrap my limited human mind around the vast awesomeness that is God.  It is, IMHO, a form of worship.

What I won't do is tell you that you must agree with my speculations.  That wouldn't be fair to you.

I think this is one of the first threads I posted in when I joined this site last month, but my view of Genesis 1 was very limited. I spent most of my life seeing the first chapter of the bible as just an account of creation that must (MUST) be accepted as word-for-word-literal, so I never allowed myself to look deeper. I've since rejected the need to see it as such (not that I can't view it as literal, but it's no longer a necessity).
I had recently stumbled onto the idea that the specific 7 day creation week was meant to parallel the 7 day jewish work week (which I posted here last month). Since then, seeing the different ideas of people here and really diving into the Word, Genesis has exploded with new meaning. Like a big bang. haha.

 

My belief is that God is telling His people, "This is how I turned the darkness into a new dawning!" more so than "Look at what I can do in 24 hours!"

Here is why.
 
While the last interpretation may give you a sense of the bigness of God, it also makes Him seem, well, "out there", unapproachable. The first gives a sense of the nearness of God, like the gentle hands caressing an injured bird an healing its wings. Instead of God's magnificence being the "big power", His magnificence is being the healer, the deliverer, the restorer - like we see Jesus when He walked this earth.

When darkness is surrounding me and my life is in chaos, I don't need the Great Cosmic Being who created a septillion stars and innumerably more planets in 24 hours, I need the God who is attached to my chaos, darkness, and void, and will bring me into His light, make order of the chaos, and bring new life out of the void.
 
 
Knowing God for His power did not make the people fall in love with Him. In fact, they kept disrespecting His power time and time again (grumbling, complaining, disobeying).
 
So what would be the most likely scenario of what was in His heart - another description of His power, or a description of His love, healing, and deliverance, traits that would more likely draw His people to love Him?

 
 
In Genesis 1:2, the Spirit of God moved over the earth.  This is the Strong's definition for the word "moved".  The Spirit of God moved over the earth like an eagle broods over or cherishes her young. There was love and tenderness, not just creative power.

I still don't understand why christians can't believe that the universe exploded into existence.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." I found a technical translation of Genesis that reduces each word down to it's original root, which is interesting. The word for "created" came from a word that means "to fatten". To expand from something small...

I sort of imagine God creating the world like an artist working on a piece of artwork (it clearly is that, at least).

An idea forms in His mind, and this reality begins with a spark of thought. BANG. The explosion isn't entirely chaotic as He guides it, shapes it, like a potter working with clay. I can see Him really getting into it, getting his hands dirty with cosmic space stuff, swirling the galaxies with his finger (anthropomorphically speaking ). He leans back, closes one eye for perspective, then adds a dash of Pleiades to the glittering Cosmos.

   Then he looks around for it...there. Buried in masses of swirling space debris and dust, it hangs in space. This tiny rock, formless and empty and dark, but full of His purpose. He hovers over the surface like a protective parent, inspecting the depths and dark places, pushing away bits of asteroid and space rock that threaten to destroy this tiny world. This is where His creation truly begins, and His grand plan echoes through time.

   "Let light be," He says, and a nearby rock bursts into flame as it approaches, its light flares and flickers above the earth's surface, burning away the darkness. The waters glisten blue-black as the light grows brighter, and He catches the blazing comet before it crashes into the sea. He holds it over the world like a torch, then nods in satisfaction.
    He moves the waters, separating them, creating the atmosphere for life to exist. The lower waters recede as land appears. This is the first time His creation comes out of the water, clean and new, but it will not be the last, and He smiles. He touches the earth, pulling out the elements in the dirt and forming them into complex mechanisms that house the blueprints for an even greater, more complex, self-replicating machine. He plants the seed into the ground and it dies, then a greater life springs forth. This is the first time in this creation that life comes from a death, but it won't be the last. He smiles, and life fills the earth with a vibrant green, life in many different flavors and kinds.
This new life needs sustenance, so He steps back from the earth into the space surrounding it, collects the nearby gasses into a ball, and lights them on fire. He regulates the temperature of this new star, and sets the earth into a particular orbit around it, giving the planet a spin so every corner is exposed to the life-giving heat and energy.  The comet He was holding He launches into space, setting it on a trajectory that will bring it back to light up the sky again someday. He sweeps up the dust surrounding the planet like a curtain being pulled away, and the distant stars and galaxies can now cast their light upon the earth. He forms the dust into a ball and hangs it nearby to reflect the light of the sun on the dark side of the planet. He cleans up the rest of the solar system in this way, adding several more bright spots to the night sky, and sets them in orbit around the sun. He examines His handiwork from the perspective of the earth, and is satisfied.
He then reaches into the sea and pulls out some clay.  Again, using the elements of the earth, he creates a tiny mechanism encoded with self-replicating life. Some of these, he throws into the sea, others he tosses into the sky. They grow into more life, different from the plants and trees, but still connected by the stuff of the earth they were made from. The variations in this life are numerous, from the luminescent jellyfish and the playful dolphins to the joyful songbirds and the colorful hummingbirds zipping from flower to flower. He shapes some more life out of the earth and places them on land, and they grow into graceful felines and creeping lizards and a myriad of other animal. He smiles again; His work here is almost done.

   He reaches for the earth again and pulls out some more clay. This particular piece is special. He forms it like the creatures he made before; the same encoded life, the same biological format, with a few differences in appearance and function. But the biggest difference, the one thing that sets apart this creature of dirt from all the rest is when He breathes into it His own breath of Life. This Life, this spirit, is more true, more real, than the mechanical life on the earth. It is an aspect of Himself that now resides inside this dirt man, who is now an image, an earthly "copy" of Himself. The dirt man awakens and recognizes his Creator, and the Creator smiles. It is nearly finished, but it is not good for this man to be alone.
He causes the man to fall asleep, then He takes a portion of the man's flesh from his side and forms a partner, a bride.  Now it is finished. This is the first time in this creation that this happens, but will not be the last. 

  His creation is complete. The man and woman awaken and become one again. The Creator places them together in the paradise He made for them, and He dwells among them. And He decides that this is very, very good.

  And that is how I imagine it. 

"Light itself is a very weird creature and not very much is known."

 

Intelligent statement.  Realizing how little we know of creation is a necessary realization in order to have real understanding.  It reminds me of the end of Job, where instead of giving a direct explanation to Job, YHWH tells Job how little Job knows.

 

"Where where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?"

 

We were not there & had no way of making observations.  But that doesn't stop man from speculating.  The problem comes especially when one forgets he is speculating & starts dogmatizing like he was there.

TRUTH!