Still Alive

15 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

While the ancients may not have seen things that way, the Bible doesn't teach cosmology.  We do learn in Job that He hangs the earth upon nothing.  There are many things hinted at in the Bible which didn't make sense to those living then, but with our current knowledge makes perfect sense.  

Science can teach us many things, but it can teach us nothing about God.  It makes assumption about the creation which it can never prove.  One of these assumptions is that the earth is millions of years old.  This presupposes millions of years of death before the existence of Adam, but we learn in Romans that through Adam's sin, death came into the world.  Prior to Adam's sin, nothing died.  With science, this makes no sense.  With God, it all makes perfect sense.

2 Thessalonians chapter 2:

9 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Though I agree with the general position you hold there, I disagree with one part. You mention death coming into the world after Adam. And I agree. But I believe the word, "world", could also be discussing the age the bible is talking about. The one that started about 6,000 years ago. But if there were any ages before that, it may not apply. 

That's one of the things I'm talking about. I find that often people don't differ on what the bible says, but differ on interpretation. Since world doesn't necessarily mean "earth", it is possible that "world" in the verse you brought up, death came into THIS world/age through Adam's sin. And as far as we are concerned, that is the only world that matters, from a biblical perspective. 

In fact, I think a lot of what the bible tells us about the past and future may need an implied suffix, "as far as humans on this planet in this age are concerned."

And, most importantly, everything I said above is, IMO, outside the scope of what the bible addresses, so it's really speculation. That is, what happened before He put man on this planet.

By the way, it is argued that this is how the writers of our earliest Bible scripture viewed the earth. It would color the language they used. It's why I must constantly remind myself the bible is not a science book. That is not its function. None of it contains decipherable 24th century science.

In the vein of "science is about how and religion is about why", and understanding from where we get our book of Genesis, I'm pretty unprejudiced about how old the earth is, how Adam and Eve actually came about, the creation of the "heavens and earth", and tend to trust actual scientific discovery.

After all, we're looking at pretty old translations from very old translations of mostly, if not literally, dead language. I personally interpret the phrase "the earth" as "the surface of the earth". Or even "the age of man". 

And I find it interesting that scientific discovery has convinced most of us that we are on a sphere orbiting the sun, which is travelling at a high rate of speed through a galaxy of quite a few other disparate "suns", yet many of us try to literally interpret the translated words of these ancient texts and therefore refuse to accept equally compelling evidence that the earth is a heck of a lot older than 6,000 years.

But I'm not saying it is or isn't 6,000 years old. I'm saying the bible leaves room for both opinions and neither prevents me from living under the Grace of God and the salvation and atonement brought through Jesus death and resurrection.

One might as well get wrapped around the axle about this age old question: Which is better - Ford or Chevy. 

So, the bottom line, at least for me, is that I am fascinated by science and it's fun to discover how creation works. But WHY we are here is the higher pursuit. And in that one word is the entire message of Christ and the history of mankind as presented in the library of books and letters spanning many centuries, languages and many diverse authors that we call "the Bible". It's a great teaching tool. But regarding the secondary* issues, it leaves room for all sorts of interpretation, even among experts in the ancient and not-so-ancient languages from which it comes. 

So by all means, study it, but as one scholar told me, the more a person knows and understands about the bible's message on secondary subjects, the less confident they are in their opinion on such subjects. It could be racked up as a Dunning Kruger thing.

*secondary issues, from here: Primary and Secondary Issues

The primary purpose of scripture is to make clear the way of salvation, therefore I believe primary beliefs are those vital to the doctrine of salvation – they are gospel issues. Gospel issues include: credal beliefs (covering the nature of God, the person and work of Christ etc.); the normative divine inspiration of Scripture without which we would not know of salvation; the explicit moral law taught in Scripture (Jesus upheld the ten commandments and their implications.  The Pauline epistles and others specify sins which will, if persisted in, prevent a person entering the kingdom).  I would also include clear issues of justice. 

I define a secondary issue as one on which numerous Christians, with an equally high view of Scripture, interpret the Bible differently, giving full weight to the traditional interpretation and using sound hermeneutical (interpretative) principles. I believe it is sinful to divide the church, or divide from the church, over secondary issues.

We need to be objective about secondary issues. Any of us can subjectively elevate our favourite secondary issue into a primary issue or a shibboleth by which we judge other people’s orthodoxy. But, as we have seen, the purpose of scripture is salvation and primary beliefs are those vital to the doctrine of salvation – they are gospel issues. I am not saying these secondary issues are unimportant, but I am saying that because they are not gospel issues they are not primary.

I just happened on this thread when I logged in today. As I read through a lot of posts, this came to mind:

Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

1 Timothy 6:4
he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,

1 Timothy 3:3
not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.

2 Timothy 2:14
Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.

2 Timothy 2:24
The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,

Romans 16:17
Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.

Romans 13:13
Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy.

Proverbs 20:3
Keeping away from strife is an honor for a man,
But any fool will quarrel.

Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Avoid-Quarrels

Coffee story:

1973. I worked at an aircraft propeller manufacture and maintenance shop in Kent, WA. I worked the swing shift (4 to midnight). After work, we all went to Denny's to discuss our upcoming union contract for about 3 hours. I had seven or eight cups of coffee and went home (still lived with my parents). I simply could not sleep. 

Well, my 1954 Chevy station wagon's lifters had been making some racket over the past few weeks so I decided it was a good time to adjust them. 

The comical part is that I believe that car had hydraulic lifters. 

blatant incompetence

I'm living in "Atlas Shrugged".

18 hours ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

In your Sig? Sorry but I didn't know what that means.

My signature. The stuff that appears below all my posts. (look below)

17 minutes ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

So do you believe in annihilationism? That there is no Hell and people who don't go to Heaven will simply cease to exist?

Yes. It's all covered in detail in the link in my sig.

1 hour ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

I was thinking about this recently. The Old Testament doesn't mention Hell. It mentions sheol and Hades, yet not the fire and brimstone Hell. I know that there are only 2 destinations after death, Heaven and Hell. But if we were warned in the New Testament about Hell, WHY would the Jews in the Old Testament be warned about it? It kinda seems cosmically unfair NOT to warn them about such a terrible place. Is it possible the Jews get a pass for not being warned or told about this possible destination? Just looking for opinions and if you have scripture, please post it. 

Regarding the bolded: Jesus did not talk about two destinations. He talked about whether you are alive or dead. It's very clear in John 3:16 among other places. That's why it says do not fear him that can kill the body, but Him that can kill the body AND soul in Gehenna. Gehenna is used as an analogy. The listeners of the day know exactly what Jesus was talking about. We've kind of distorted it over the centuries.

Eternity is not about geography. It's about condition.

The personality of God is pretty clear in the OT. He eliminates His enemies. Any torture they receive is strictly in this life. That's why I really DO believe a lot of people suffer "hell on earth", but they will know peace after this body ends. Well, actually they won't know anything at all after the resurrection and they are "ended" for good.

20 hours ago, Ghostdog said:

since God used adams rib to create eve does it mean all men are missing a rib? and can we get it back plz

I tried once, and she was NOT happy. There was a lot of blood, too.

Actual study is what prevented me from gouging my eye out. Whew! Close one!

?

I'm bowing out of this one. I used to argue this ad nausium in the early 2000's. I finally realized I was guilty of this:

I was on threads that were thousands of posts long. Not any more. 

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

See my response above.  Look at the graph of over a half-century of storms.   Severe storms are much more frequent in the last 20 years.   As predicted.  If you thought about it, it would be obvious.   Hurricanes are heat engines.    The more heat in the oceans, the stronger the hurricane.

See the data.   No point in denial, now.

Yes, the data It all depends on your source:

This is also interesting. from here:https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/u-s-major-landfalling-hurricanes-down-50-since-the-1930s/

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And hence more severe storms, which is what we are now seeing on the Gulf coast.   Hurricanes run off moisture and heat.   Both of which are rising due to warming.

Nature pretty much seeks the most efficient flow of things.    Constructal law, and so on.

One of the comedic things about the global warming alarmists was when, A good while back, they warned that storms were gonna get worse - yet the exact opposite happened. Eventually we got into a "more stormy" period, and eventually we'll get back to a less stormy period. The whole thing is cyclical. That is all we're seeing It's all we've ever seen. We didn't cause the little ice age, etc. And we're not causing the current cycles. Enjoy the nice weather, prepare for the storms, and continue to live your life, knowing that if you live to be 100 you will see your local climate go through some minor changes. We're coming out of a very long ice age as I type this.

I just keep thinking of the phrase, "correlation does not equal causation." And there really has not been that much correlation anyway. 

This site is very helpful: https://realclimatescience.com

He's been pointed by AGW alarmists to the point that he has to put an "are you human" question up before you enter the site. Apparently he's over the target. 

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No.  For example in the western United States it will be drier.    In North Africa it will be wetter because the cool dry winds out of Asia are being disrupted.

In the western U.S. cropland will tend to become pasture.    Pasture will become semi-arid.   Semi-arid will become deserts.   A big part of that is that warmer climate means less snowpack in the mountains (snow line goes to higher altitudes) and that means less water available in spring and summer.

The continental self is under water.   The coastline will change a bit.   Some places a lot.   Sorry, Florida.

 

A warmer planet will cause the oceans to evaporate. It's pretty simple. Sure, there are subtle complications, but ultimately, when you increase the temperature where there is a body of water, the water will evaporate more. Oh, and that can cause cloud cover, which will also have a cooling effect. It's a pretty well designed system.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

There will be winners and losers.  Canada, Northern Africa, and Siberia will probably be more livable.   The American West and the Gulf coast will be more challenging, with worse droughts and stronger storms.

I don't see that as a good thing.   But then, I live in America.

 

Well, a warmer planet is a wetter planet, so it may be that we have new rainforests where we used to have deserts. The good news is that, just as in the past 10,000 years, the changes are gradual and mankind can adjust. Well, except for that mini-ice age and medieval warm period. But even then, we did pretty much ok. And tech today is far superior. There was no HVAC back then and not much insulation was used in buildings.

But I really feel for those people that lived on what we now call the continental shelf. 

On 3/12/2024 at 10:31 PM, RV_Wizard said:

They predicted the population bomb, also, a global famine by 1975, a new ice age before the 21st century begins, oceans dead by 1974, acid rain depleting the supply of fish, sea levels covering countries by 2008, no more snow anywhere by 2000, the polar ice cap completely melting by 2018 and many other spectacular events that never happened.  In fact, every two years there's a new eco-threat that's going to kill us unless we sacrifice more of our freedoms.

Yep. Meanwhile, in central Kentucky, where I live, we're having unseasonably warm weather and us deniers are seriously enjoying it. I got a ton of work done on my property. 

But the scaredy cats that believe everything the global warming utterly unqualified mouthpieces tell them, e.g. Greta and Bill Nye, are living in terrible fear. But nothing you say to them can help. I'm 70. I've lived through all sorts of extra cold and extra warm periods even in that short time span. 

All that said, I'd love to see the CO2 roughly double. Imagine wine country in Siberia and millions of acres of citrus in what was the sahara desert! 

How about luxury hotels in Antarctica? A guy can dream.

On 3/9/2024 at 10:58 AM, Not me said:

1 Corinthians 2:10 (NKJV)
But God has revealed [them] to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.

       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The deep things of God, how can one know when one has or is entering into the deep things of God…?

There can only be one answer to this inquiry and that is to the degree one sees, enters into and walks in righteousness, to that degree has one entered into the deep things of God…. 

For righteousness is the deepest depths of God, as one search’s deeper into God, one sees and walks in righteousness the more, and the more deeper will that one’s experience of God be…

For this is our salvation in Christ, that we, the believing soul might walk in righteousness…. God has opened the door, those that by faith find it will be pillars in the house of God…. For Christ did die and took all to death with Him, those that are willing to enter into His death with Him by faith and deny all of themselves will experience God as God would have them experience Him…. Then the scripture that says ‘according to the power that works within us’ takes its proper place and all becomes second to that power of that new life growing in one….

For the just shall live by faith are not just by and by words that mean something, but not quite exactly clear, but are an exacting path forward to all that will venture to embrace their death in Christ by faith….  Then faith, then trusting God becomes one’s all, and then most assuredly the just shall live by faith becomes a living reality and those words also take their proper place…..

Be blessed all that would walk in righteousness and enter into the deep things of God….

A fellow follower of His, Not me 

When I think of the "deep things of God", I think of all the quadrillions of exoplanets that almost certainly exist in the cosmos. And all those billions of galaxies that exist, while the writers of the bible could not even imagine such a thing as a galaxy. 

It's why, when I see the "cosmos" in any way discussed in the bible, I see it as the writers would have seen it: The earth and sky as they knew it. i.e. all such comments can have an implied "as far as you are concerned" message to those of us on this particular planet. i.e. regarding this physical creation, the bible is about the inhabitants of earth and our relationship with our Creator.

It's why I believe the bible leaves plenty of room for sentient beings, created by God, on quintillions of planets throughout the cosmos, but as far as we are concerned, this is the one that matters. And the laws of physics, created by God, precludes any of these races of beings from ever coming into contact with each other. I could even go as far as to imagine that each one of us has, as our domain, the particular galaxy in which we reside. i.e. one inhabited planet per galaxy surrounded by a "yard" that is the galaxy.

I'm not saying any of the above is true. I'm saying I suspect there are plenty of "deep things of God" that we've not even considered. And it "could be" something like the above. But as far as we're concerned, he created us to be the caretakers of THIS planet, as a place where he could commune with man, governed locally by those who accept the free gift of redemption through the blood of Christ, who dies for those on THIS planet.

And what else are we currently as clueless of as ancient man was of Galaxies?

On 12/10/2023 at 1:48 AM, Thewhitedove said:

As some of you may have read, I have a colleague who I work very closely with. She has a lot of mental health problems and is terrible at her job. The more I get to know her, the more I see that she is manipulative and unpredictable. Because of her mental health problems, management are restricted on how they can legally deal with her. Her presence negatively impacts our entire department and she wreaks havoc wherever she goes. 

She cannot be trusted with the simplest of tasks and is bringing me down so much. I now cannot bear that sight of her and being in her company so much is making me physically unwell. The Lord Jesua said that if your hand causes you to sin, then cut it off. Being in this woman's presence is turning me into a bitter, horrible, miserable person and I'm losing my grip on who I am. 

If she stays in our department, she will go from coworker to coworker, dragging them down and continuing her toxic influence. Everyone wants her to leave. 

I have been praying so hard about this situation, for me to change, but I believe that God has revealed to be that she needs to be taken out of our team to protect everyone in it. 

Please, please pray with me that this person will leave our team as soon as possible. I have to work with her for another 6 months and don't think I can do it. I am going to end up very unwell or else leave the job, and I am good at what I do and take pride in my work.

This woman should not be doing the job and needs to go ASAP. 

Please God, hear me. 

Manager is a coward. She should be fired. Following the appropriate protocols, of course.

On 2/16/2024 at 7:33 AM, Starise said:

Not much discussion here on them or if there is, they are all seen as an enemy.

What are your thoughts on those innocent caught in this war and forced to relocate? Is the feeling "oh well"?

Do you see them all as the enemy? 

Personally I can't see it that way.

To me, a "Palistinian" is like a "flatlander". It describes where they live, not who they are. There is no Palestine. And the area that some see as "having been palestine" includes Jordan. 

The problem in Gaza is not Palestinians. It's Muslims. I see the folks that live there kinda like people saw Germans in WWII. The Nazi's may have been the true enemy, but the "enemy" was Germany. Same thing with Gaza. Sure, just like in Nazi Germany a lot of "innocents" will be killed by our side, but that is why war is a thing to be avoided. 

In a democracy you not only get the government you want. You get the government you deserve, as places like California and New York are swiftly discovering (and the whole US, for that matter).

Remember in Dr. Zhivago, when the government took their large manion and turned it into an apartment building of sorts? Yeah, I've said for two decades that I feel like I'm living in Dr. Zhivago, but without the love triangle.

32 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Just curious if you misinterpreted Scott Free's use of Enlightenment as I read that as referring to the period of the so-called Enlightenment, the shift to philosophical naturalism from which modern scientific inquiry developed (not sure if that is phrased well), generally referred to as Modernity.

He is correct (and something I have said numerous times as well) that YEC is viewing the Biblical narrative through Modernity because it is seeking natural evidence of the Biblical stories like Creation and the Flood. It is why they must commit to explaining incredible tectonic activity occurring in a couple thousand years, and explaining current speciation from (poorly defined) created "kinds", among other issues.

(I am not ascribing the above paragraph to you specifically, but this is what the major creationist organizations are suggesting)

I'm a creationist, but I don't adhere to  YEC. Frankly, I think that the "age of man" is 6,000 years, but on a very old planet. I compare it to an oil painting on a canvas that has had several paintings on it, each one covered with whitewash and a new painting applied. And if you peal back the layers you will see remnants of previous paintings. 

Or, in the case of the earth the remnant of previous ages. Stuff like Neanderthal man, dinosaurs, etc. All of which were created by God, but the bible is silent on the issue because that's not the subject matter it is focused on. 

I'm not saying that IS what happened. Rather, I'm saying it could be what happened, or something like it. It's easy to speculate on subjects on which the bible is silent. It's why I don't use the bible to help me decide which brand of car to buy, or which breakfast cereal, or brown vs white eggs to buy.

Frankly, I think adhering to YEC because it's "what the bible teaches" is like believing the earth is the actual physical center of the universe because it's "what the bible teaches". 

i.e. it isn't. Rather, it is what some interpret the bible to say, while others interpret it to be saying something else. There are places in english translations where the word "forever" is used, even though the event was actually for a limited period, and sometimes a very short period. the bible uses figures of speech just like we do today. You know, like someone saying, "I had to wait in line forever." Same with "In the beginning", "the whole earth", etc. 

6 minutes ago, FJK said:

It goes on to say The heaven and The earth, that is what it was the beginning of.

FWIW, The heaven and The earth is pretty much all inclusive, can you think of anything that would not be or is not a part of it?

Yes. anything outside the earth's atmosphere. I see it as the beginning of the age of man. Which is roughly 6,000 years. I think of the heavens as the atmosphere and the earth as the surface of the earth. Who knows how many "beginnings" there were before that one. As far as we're concerned, that is the only one the bible is trying to discuss. Just my opinion, of course. 

Frankly, whenever I hear that someone "may have" done a certain thing, I always mentally add, "or may not have", to remain unbiased. I do something similar with verses in the bible about creation with the phrase "as far as we're concerned". That is, the "whole earth" or "all of creation" may really just mean a limited area, but "as far as the reader to which the verse is written" is concerned, it is all of creation. 

The bible does not speak of the full universe including the quadrillions of galaxies, other than to say God is our creator and, as far as we're concerned, he is the creator of everything. 

i.e. as far as I'm concerned, God is the author of everything and creator of everything. But that leaves room for dinosaurs millions of years ago, life on other worlds in other galaxies, etc. And for the sentient ones, "as far as they are concerned", their planet is the center of the universe. 

God is pretty big.😉😎

A fun question: We've all seen that first line in the bible, but I like to disect it further. It starts with, "In the beginning...". So, my question is, "the beginning of what"?