Chaos - True or False?

[gdemoss]

22 minutes ago, Kan said:

I guess you are thinking of Christ as the water of Life. If that is true, as we believe, then the universe is upheld by the power of life, then why would not the universe be upheld by the waters of life? 

So the first things that Jesus made would be something that represents the waters of life, and something which represents the Father of light as well. And then following those elements we find the earth coming into existence on the third day, by these combinations, divisions and settings, which is what He does with the light and waters. So our water H2O and light are products of the super waters and the super light, which are invisible products of the Word of the Lord, who is as above, the water and light of life.

How do you conclude there to be super waters and super light?  This appears to be an imagination to me.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

1 hour ago, Kan said:

That's right and even for us, there is no such thing as a perfect chaos, because if it has any consistencies, such as being chaotic continuously, then that consistency makes it an order after its own kind. A perfect chaos can only be something which counts and even reduces the observer to nothing, while at the same time elevates the observer to omnipotence.

I have just dug a hole for myself.  

But that condition, in italics, describes something significant, and gives us the reason the waters or the deep existed in the first place. I am reluctant to go there without you arriving at the same conclusion, after a few things have been talked about. We are getting there. I just don't want to spoil anyone's discovery of it from the Bible.

I don't see the logical progression of your thoughts.  The sentence in italics is illogical and baseless.  Somehow in your mind you are relating water to creation.  Are you an evolutionist?  According to the Theory of Evolution, all life came from water.  I reject that notion.  Life came from earth (soil) and God's breath which breathed life into it.

[Kan]

On 5/25/2016 at 10:27 PM, gdemoss said:

How do you conclude there to be super waters and super light?  This appears to be an imagination to me.

Well, if we just take the literal meaning, it doesn't always add up, for instance, they seem to have existed before our world appears. And according to the Psalms and Job and a few other references, they are found in outer space, and mentioned in ways which show something else, that is not natural.

Have you got access to a Young's concordance? It will give you a good idea of how the term waters, darkness, the deep etc are used throughout the Bible, especially the Old Testament.

About the light, we know that the Word of God is light, and God causes "the light to shine out of the darkness" as said by a disciple, showing that God's light of salvation is the same light which shines into our hearts. That is supernatural, and achieved by the power of the life giving Spirit of God, the same Spirit which moved upon the waters in the beginning. This light is by the Living Word of God, it is not natural. If we could see this light, God would not have needed to make the sun.

But I see what you mean, because on the other hand, if we take the meaning of waters and light to be supernatural only, then it does not add up either. The Bible does not support the super idea right throughout the Genesis account.

However there is a third position, where we don't get contradiction from either interpretation, and that is if we know that there is a seamless connection between the Word of God, the invisible powers of creation, and the visible powers or our material world, then Genesis is a progression from the Supernatural to the natural, and the super never ceases, but underlies the natural. So we understand nature to be maintained by the supernatural, namely the invisible powers as created and governed by the Word.

So when it says in Genesis "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life" we don't assume evolution here, or a natural process, despite the fact that God has made the ocean waters to nurture its life. But we know that God used the water to make fish and birds, just like He used the earth to make animals and man. It is the supernatural work of God using the natural elements He also created.

So the invisible powers that Jesus created are also natural, and the only thing which is really supernatural is the Word itself, which according to Jesus is the power of life.

[Kan]

On 5/25/2016 at 11:47 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I don't see the logical progression of your thoughts.  The sentence in italics is illogical and baseless.  Somehow in your mind you are relating water to creation.  Are you an evolutionist?  According to the Theory of Evolution, all life came from water.  I reject that notion.  Life came from earth (soil) and God's breath which breathed life into it.

Just forget the italics for the time being. It's too hard for me to handle at the moment.

If the waters in Genesis are the natural oceans, then we could see why the theory of life emerging from water is appealing, because it contains an element of truth to it.

We find that in the creation of the fish and birds that water rather than earth, was used to make them, and if not, then to nurture ocean life, which could hardly be said about most birds. 

I too reject the madness of evolution. 

Many creation stories, myths and legends, talk about life, form and materials coming from the spiritual, and from water, chaos, darkness, etc. 

From here many have said that this supports evolution, and we can see why, but doesn't it rather echo the Bible?

The essential teaching of Creation is that the things we see are not made from things which we can see. So if we say that the waters in the beginning, before the spoken creative Word of God, are natural water, then we we are saying that the things we see are made from things we see, a direct rejection of the first principle.

Creation is the supernatural bringing about the natural, evolution is the natural begetting the natural.

If we take the "waters" "the face of the deep" etc as supernatural or spiritual elements, which can only be dealt with by the infinite Spirit of God, then it agrees with the Bible concept of creation. But if not, then creation is indebted to a pre existing material. In other words God is not making something out of nothing, which is a denial of the spiritual principle.

The fact is, we can be saved although we have absolutely nothing to offer God, that is His creative prerogative and privilege as far as He is concerned.

So here with these other teachings about creation, we have the introduction of a false gospel, where our natural goodness is used by God for a greater good, the very teaching of the devil. The Bible makes it plain that the spiritual, creates, feeds, and transforms the natural, in creation and in salvation.

 

[post]

13 hours ago, Kan said:

when it says in Genesis "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life" we don't assume evolution here, or a natural process

why not? 

because you assume 'evolution' = godless 'abiogenesis' ? 
that's a very common, but not an accurate tautology. evolution has to do with how life which already exists changes, assuming it already exists. it has nothing whatsoever to do with origin. 
but if man was made out of dust -- isn't that 'abiogenesis' by definition anyway? life out of inanimate matter ? and yet the life was not in the man until God breathed into him. so here's the difference between what we know is the truth and what some speculate about - there is no life in matter until it goes into him out of the mouth of God. all life proceeds from His mouth, at His word and by His breath. 

and again, because i've stated it previously - in re: the topic -- man was made from dust, which is a sort of 'chaotic' pile of earthly material which was subsequently brought into incredible order and design. this is exactly the process that scripture tells us God used to create: from what human understanding would call disorder, into what we can easily perceive as ordered - there is no reason however to believe that just because we cannot understand order in the sand of the seashore or the hair on our head, that God Himself, whose understanding is infinite, does not ordain it and order it just as it is, seeing it perfectly as He desires it to be according to His pleasure. 
 

what is a 'natural process' ? does it carry some implication that God's hand can't be in it, or that He did not ordain it ? 

i have the impression that God Himself having created the natural world, all the things that the natural world does is according to His own design -- so 'natural processes' are His processes. in that case why would i assume that He did not bring about life according to His very own 'natural processes' ? 
i guess you're not using this word the way i am, or you're not understanding it to be His own process (?).

but "the earth is the LORD's and everything in it" -- the earth's processes are His too. all things were created by Him and through Him and for Him, whether things on heaven or earth, or kings or dominions or powers -- or processes. 
 

 

as far as what we can know directly from what Genesis says, it's a giant blank. all we know is that by His word the waters abundantly brought forth moving creatures that have life. the details of how that came to be are left entirely to our imagination and what we can glean from observation and inspection, right? 

[post]

in re: "waters" 

suppose for a moment that you are either Moses or Adam or whoever related to Moses the story of Genesis - that you are writing the account of creation in a way that should remain understandable for thousands of years to come, comprehensible by the most intelligent and perceptive of men and also the simplest of children, meaning to relate deep truth and incredibly complex and wonderful phenomena in the simplest of terms so that anyone who reads it, for thousands of years to come, regardless of how languages change, can easily grasp the basic idea of what you are relating.

you're not writing a thousand-page textbook that requires hundreds of hours of prerequisite study just to be able to read with the most basic understanding and merest comprehension of the vocabulary, for thousands of PHD's to extract post-doctoral research from for thousands of years that cannot be understood without a lifetime of devoted study; you're only going to write a few paragraphs that even a person who has no education whatsoever can understand. your purpose isn't to write exquisite detail but to state the truth of how the cosmos came to be in the most brief, basic and approachable way.

and suppose again for a moment that you have to describe something like plasma clouds or quark soup or a super-fluid of nebulous elementary particles and things halfway between energy and matter that even 6,000 years from the time you write it down, mankind will barely have words for. 

keeping in mind your purpose and audience, is there a better Aramaic word to use to express this than "waters" ? 

just a thought. 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

19 hours ago, Kan said:

Well, if we just take the literal meaning, it doesn't always add up, for instance, they seem to have existed before our world appears. And according to the Psalms and Job and a few other references, they are found in outer space, and mentioned in ways which show something else, that is not natural.

Have you got access to a Young's concordance? It will give you a good idea of how the term waters, darkness, the deep etc are used throughout the Bible, especially the Old Testament.

About the light, we know that the Word of God is light, and God causes "the light to shine out of the darkness" as said by a disciple, showing that God's light of salvation is the same light which shines into our hearts. That is supernatural, and achieved by the power of the life giving Spirit of God, the same Spirit which moved upon the waters in the beginning. This light is by the Living Word of God, it is not natural. If we could see this light, God would not have needed to make the sun.

But I see what you mean, because on the other hand, if we take the meaning of waters and light to be supernatural only, then it does not add up either. The Bible does not support the super idea right throughout the Genesis account.

However there is a third position, where we don't get contradiction from either interpretation, and that is if we know that there is a seamless connection between the Word of God, the invisible powers of creation, and the visible powers or our material world, then Genesis is a progression from the Supernatural to the natural, and the super never ceases, but underlies the natural. So we understand nature to be maintained by the supernatural, namely the invisible powers as created and governed by the Word.

So when it says in Genesis "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life" we don't assume evolution here, or a natural process, despite the fact that God has made the ocean waters to nurture its life. But we know that God used the water to make fish and birds, just like He used the earth to make animals and man. It is the supernatural work of God using the natural elements He also created.

So the invisible powers that Jesus created are also natural, and the only thing which is really supernatural is the Word itself, which according to Jesus is the power of life.

Back up a bit.  Are you talking about the waters in Genesis 1:2, or are you talking about the waters in Genesis 1:6?  Where does the darkness come from since God is light?  Doesn't darkness indicate God is not present there?

[Kan]

5 hours ago, post said:

why not? 

because you assume 'evolution' = godless 'abiogenesis' ? 
that's a very common, but not an accurate tautology. evolution has to do with how life which already exists changes, assuming it already exists. it has nothing whatsoever to do with origin. 
but if man was made out of dust -- isn't that 'abiogenesis' by definition anyway? life out of inanimate matter ? and yet the life was not in the man until God breathed into him. so here's the difference between what we know is the truth and what some speculate about - there is no life in matter until it goes into him out of the mouth of God. all life proceeds from His mouth, at His word and by His breath. 

and again, because i've stated it previously - in re: the topic -- man was made from dust, which is a sort of 'chaotic' pile of earthly material which was subsequently brought into incredible order and design. this is exactly the process that scripture tells us God used to create: from what human understanding would call disorder, into what we can easily perceive as ordered - there is no reason however to believe that just because we cannot understand order in the sand of the seashore or the hair on our head, that God Himself, whose understanding is infinite, does not ordain it and order it just as it is, seeing it perfectly as He desires it to be according to His pleasure. 
 

what is a 'natural process' ? does it carry some implication that God's hand can't be in it, or that He did not ordain it ? 

i have the impression that God Himself having created the natural world, all the things that the natural world does is according to His own design -- so 'natural processes' are His processes. in that case why would i assume that He did not bring about life according to His very own 'natural processes' ? 
i guess you're not using this word the way i am, or you're not understanding it to be His own process (?).

but "the earth is the LORD's and everything in it" -- the earth's processes are His too. all things were created by Him and through Him and for Him, whether things on heaven or earth, or kings or dominions or powers -- or processes. 
 

 

as far as what we can know directly from what Genesis says, it's a giant blank. all we know is that by His word the waters abundantly brought forth moving creatures that have life. the details of how that came to be are left entirely to our imagination and what we can glean from observation and inspection, right? 

By natural process I refer to the notion that nature exists by its own merit, without an Intelligent Creator.

[post]

8 minutes ago, Kan said:

By natural process I refer to the notion that nature exists by its own merit, without an Intelligent Creator.

that leaves the methods the Creator uses, has used and will use broadly open-ended -- & no reason to describe any of them as 'unnatural' 

He can just as easily teach and reveal His wisdom & glory through miraculous doings as He can through the commonplace; Solomon had plenty to say just from what he observed every day, and Jesus used all kinds of normal, 'natural' events to teach in parable. 

i don't think it diminishes the hand of God in anything just because its workings can be somehow comprehended. 

anyhow, back to what you were saying, about the ocean teeming with life at His command, the only reason i see to utterly reject any explanation of this that doesn't involve the absolutely miraculous is to believe that it literally happened in a matter of seconds. 
that's entirely possible - this is God's work, and He can do as He pleases. but isn't the whole basis of such a view of it, the understanding of a 'yom' in Genesis to be a literal 24-hour period ? 
i'm not rejecting that by any means, but i don't see a reason to be dogmatic about YEC/OEC either way. there's plenty of weight to the argument that deceit is not in His character, so why should the universe appear to be so old? and there's plenty of weight to the argument that the text plainly says 'yom' so maybe it just plainly means 'yom.' 

where was post when any of this happened? where was Kan? 

some people base their entire testimony and witness on this subject, and seem to completely forget about Christ. that's a shame IMHO. 




what were we talking about again . . ? 
chaos ? 'void' ? water ? quark-gluon soup ? lol.

[Kan]

14 hours ago, post said:

in re: "waters" 

suppose for a moment that you are either Moses or Adam or whoever related to Moses the story of Genesis - that you are writing the account of creation in a way that should remain understandable for thousands of years to come, comprehensible by the most intelligent and perceptive of men and also the simplest of children, meaning to relate deep truth and incredibly complex and wonderful phenomena in the simplest of terms so that anyone who reads it, for thousands of years to come, regardless of how languages change, can easily grasp the basic idea of what you are relating.

you're not writing a thousand-page textbook that requires hundreds of hours of prerequisite study just to be able to read with the most basic understanding and merest comprehension of the vocabulary, for thousands of PHD's to extract post-doctoral research from for thousands of years that cannot be understood without a lifetime of devoted study; you're only going to write a few paragraphs that even a person who has no education whatsoever can understand. your purpose isn't to write exquisite detail but to state the truth of how the cosmos came to be in the most brief, basic and approachable way.

and suppose again for a moment that you have to describe something like plasma clouds or quark soup or a super-fluid of nebulous elementary particles and things halfway between energy and matter that even 6,000 years from the time you write it down, mankind will barely have words for. 

keeping in mind your purpose and audience, is there a better Aramaic word to use to express this than "waters" ? 

just a thought. 

There isn't a better description of what Moses was informed about, but in those days it was still possible to come into contact with people who knew about the invisible forces in nature as Paul said in Romans 1:20, (referring to the antediluvians as an example). these all used the term waters. In Ancient Egypt, the Mayans, and many cultures which used these forces to mine and transport stones weighing up to 2000 tons over hundreds of miles, the symbol of a wave, usually doubled, was that of this force called the waters, The symbol for light was usually a straight vertical line. And if we knew what these forces were and how they interact with matter, we would find the names given in the Bible perfect.

In one place, they are called thick darkness or highly viscous, but at the same time also clouds and air, as if they cannot be felt by matter. The Chinese simply called it wind-water.