Creation

[enoob57]

I am most thankful to God Who has given me the assurance  of His Word here in this darkness... to have something so objective as written material to the very jot an tittle of purposed communication:

From Adam Clark’s commentary    

Matthew 5:18

 

[For verily I say unto you, Till heaven] In the very commencement of his ministry, Jesus Christ teaches the instability of all visible things. "The heaven which you see, and which is so glorious, and the earth which you inhabit and love, shall pass away; for the things which are seen are temporal, ‎proskaira‎, are for a time; but the things which are not seen are eternal ‎aioonia‎, ever-during," 2 Cor 4:18. And the word of the Lord endureth forever.

[One jot or one tittle] One yod (y ‎y‎), the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. One tittle or point, ‎keraia‎, either meaning those points which serve for vowels in this language, if they then existed; or the seraphs, or points of certain letters, such as resh (r ‎r‎), or daleth (d ‎d‎), he (h ‎h‎), or cheth (ch) (as the change of any of these into the other would make a most essential alteration in the sense, or, as the rabbis say, destroy the world.) Or our Lord may refer to the little ornaments which certain letters assume on their tops, which cause them to appear like small branches. The following letters only can assume coronal apices, tsadiy (x ‎ts‎) - gimel (g ‎g‎) - zayin (z ‎z‎) - nun (n ‎n‎) - teth (f ‎T‎) - `ayin (u ‎±‎) - shin (v ‎sh‎). These, with the coronal apices, often appear in MSS.

That this saying, one jot or one tittle, is a proverbial mode of expression among the Jews, and that it expressed the meaning given to it above, is amply proved by the extracts in Lightfoot and Schoettgen. The reader will not be displeased to find a few of them here, if he can bear with the allegorical and strongly figurative language of the rabbis.

"The book of Deuteronomy came and prostrated itself before the Lord, and said: 'O Lord of the world thou hast written in me thy law; but now, a Testament defective in some parts is defective in all. Behold, Solomon endeavours to root the letter yod out of me.' (In this text, Deut 17:17. ‎Lo° ‎‎yarbeh‎, ‎naashiym‎, he shall not multiply wives.) The holy blessed God answered, 'Solomon and a thousand such as he shall perish, but the least word shall not perish out of thee.'"

In Shir Hashtrim Rabba, are these words: "Should all the inhabitants of the earth gather together, in order to whiten one feather of a crow, they could not succeed: so, if all the inhabitants of the earth should unite to abolish one yod (y ‎y‎), which is the smallest letter in the whole law, they should not be able to effect it."

In Vayikra Rabba, s. 19, it is said: "Should any person in the words of Deut 6:4, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is ‎°echaad‎, ONE Lord, change the daleth (d ‎d‎) into a resh (r ‎r‎), he would ruin the world." (Because, in that case, the word ‎°acheer‎, would signify a strange or false God.)

"Should anyone, in the words of Ex 34:14, Thou shalt worship no OTHER, ‎°acheer‎, God, change resh (r ‎r‎) into daleth (d ‎d‎), he would ruin the world." (Because the command would then run, Thou shalt not worship the ONLY or true God.)

"Should anyone in the words of Lev 22:32, Neither shall ye PROFANE ‎t­chal­luw‎, my holy name, change cheth (ch) into he (h ‎h‎), he would ruin the world." (Because the sense of the commandment would then be, Neither shall ye PRAISE my holy name.)

"Should anyone, in the words of Ps 150:6, Let everything that hath breath PRAISE, ‎t­haleel‎, the Lord, change he (h ‎h‎) into cheth (ch), he would ruin the world." (Because the command would then run, Let everything, that hath breath PROFANE the Lord.)

"Should anyone, in the words of Jer 5:10 (Jer 5:12), They lied AGAINST the Lord, ‎be-Yahweh‎, change beth (b ‎b‎) into kaph (k ‎k‎), he would ruin the world." (For then the words would run, They lied LIKE the Lord.)

"Should anyone, in the words of Hos 5:7, They have dealt treacherously, ‎be-Yahweh‎, AGAINST the Lord, change beth (b ‎b‎) into kaph (k ‎k‎), he would ruin the world." (For then the words would run, They have dealt treacherously LIKE the Lord.)

"Should anyone, in the words of 1 Sam 2:2, There is none holy AS the Lord, change kaph (k ‎k‎) into beth (b ‎b‎), he would ruin the world." (For then the words would mean, There is no holiness IN the Lord.)

These examples fully prove that the ‎mia ‎‎keraia ‎of our Lord, refers to the apices, points, or corners, that distinguish beth (b ‎b‎) from kaph (k ‎k‎); cheth (ch) from he (h ‎h‎); and resh (r ‎r‎) from daleth (d ‎d‎). For the reader will at once perceive, how easily a kaph (k ‎k‎) may be turned into a beth (b ‎b‎); a he (h ‎h‎) into a cheth (ch); and a resh (r ‎r‎) into a daleth (d ‎d‎? and he will also see of what infinite consequence it is to write and print such letters correctly.

[Till all be fulfilled.] Or, accomplished. Though all earth and hell should join together to hinder the accomplishment of the great designs of the Most High, yet it shall all be in vain-even the sense of a single letter shall not be lost. The words of God, which point out his designs, are as unchangeable as his nature itself. Every sinner, who perseveres in his iniquity, shall surely be punished with separation from God and the glory of his power; and every soul that turns to God, through Christ, shall as surely be saved, as that Jesus himself hath died.

 Clarke's Commentary

Not to hold it in the utmost care of interpretation the ruin of many...

[siegi91]

On 11/14/2018 at 11:38 PM, one.opinion said:

You will find that most of the active participants here believe in a very literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I'm one of the few that believes that God's creation reveals abundant evidence supporting an ancient earth and evolution of life. Although I believe that God created through evolution, I do not believe in evolution as an explanation for life all by itself. 

These are the main theological points that I derive from Genesis 1-3:

* God is the one and only Creator.

* God sustains all He has created.

* God made mankind specially, and as a culmination of His creative work.

* God imbued mankind with the ability to commune with Him.

* Mankind chose their own way, instead of God's, and brought sin into the world.

* We are now all sinners and are in need of a Savior in order to re-establish that connection with God.

* God promised that the Savior would come.

Although these theological points differ very little (if at all) from someone that believes in an earth about 6,000 years old, many participants here tell me that I don't believe in God or the Bible since I believe in a more figurative interpretation of those chapters. I think the fact that our theological points are so similar indicates that our view of the creation timeline is of secondary importance, but again, that is not a common view here.

When you say "with the ability to commune with him", do you include all humanity? Including all the people who never heard of the Bible and such?

And how can you believe that a benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God with a clear target in mind would go through an amoral, wasteful and mechanical test'n'trial process that leaves a huge trail of failed attempts on the way (i.e. 99% of all species are extinct), and is predicated on destroying the weak? That does not look, prima facie, to be suitable to a perfect God. Or a God, a third thereof seems to give a lot of value to compassion.

I have the impression you try to get your cake and eat it too. Ergo, to salvage your belief in the biblical God while keeping scientifically hip.

I don't think it is logically possible without excruciating cognitive dissonances.

 

 Siegi

 

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by siegi91

[one.opinion]

21 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

When you say "with the ability to commune with him", do you include all humanity? Including all the people who never heard of the Bible and such?

Yes, when mankind was initially imbued with a spiritual aspect, there was the ability to commune with God. Sin has since broken that relationship and restoration of that relationship now requires faith in Jesus Christ.

27 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

And how can you believe that a benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God with a clear target in mind would go through an amoral, wasteful and mechanical test'n'trial process

There are some things I am very willing to admit that I don’t have answers to. I also do not know why God created mankind with the capability to sin, knowing to damage, hurt, and devastation it would cause - including the incarnation and sacrificial death of Jesus. However, evidence leads me to believe in both of these.

30 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

That does not look, prima facie, to be suitable to a perfect God.

Again, the same issue is present. Why would a perfect and holy God create with the potential (and inevitable entry) for sin? These are good questions, I’d be happy to talk with you more.

33 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

I have the impression you try to get your cake and eat it too. Ergo, to salvage your belief in the biblical God while keeping scientifically hip.

Hundreds of years ago, Francis Bacon wrote about the two Books of God - the Book of His Word, and the Book of His Works. I believe both contain truth and ignoring either one is in error.

44 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

I don't think it is logically possible without excruciating cognitive dissonances.

I do it quite comfortably, but I appreciate your concern! ?

[one.opinion]

@siegi91, I should also extend a challenge of my own. Why do you reject the existence of God, knowing as much as you do about the incredible order, precision, and logic that operates in the realm of Physics? To me, the awe-inspiring physical world is strongly suggestive of a higher Person as the cause of it.

[siegi91]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Yes, when mankind was initially imbued with a spiritual aspect, there was the ability to commune with God. Sin has since broken that relationship and restoration of that relationship now requires faith in Jesus Christ.

There are some things I am very willing to admit that I don’t have answers to. I also do not know why God created mankind with the capability to sin, knowing to damage, hurt, and devastation it would cause - including the incarnation and sacrificial death of Jesus. However, evidence leads me to believe in both of these.

Again, the same issue is present. Why would a perfect and holy God create with the potential (and inevitable entry) for sin? These are good questions, I’d be happy to talk with you more.

Hundreds of years ago, Francis Bacon wrote about the two Books of God - the Book of His Word, and the Book of His Works. I believe both contain truth and ignoring either one is in error.

I do it quite comfortably, but I appreciate your concern! ?

How on earth do you use the quote feature? I feel so stupid by not finding it.

"Yes, when mankind was initially imbued with a spiritual aspect, there was the ability to commune with God. Sin has since broken that relationship and restoration of that relationship now requires faith in Jesus Christ."

Initially? When did that happen in your opinion in the entangled history of human evolution, assuming you accept the current state of the evidence? Do you think it applies to Neanderthalers and such?

"There are some things I am very willing to admit that I don’t have answers to. I also do not know why God created mankind with the capability to sin, knowing to damage, hurt, and devastation it would cause - including the incarnation and sacrificial death of Jesus. However, evidence leads me to believe in both of these."

Well, yes, me too. And I understand why you do not know why God created mankind with the capability to sin. I mean, we have so many natural barriers against things that might damage our health, for instance the natural disgust we feel for eating decaying biological material, that it is not clear why we have no similar barriers for things involving our much more important eternal destiny. 

"Again, the same issue is present. Why would a perfect and holy God create with the potential (and inevitable entry) for sin? These are good questions, I’d be happy to talk with you more."

Me too. But I have to warn you. I am a physicist. As such, I like to simplify things. And if letting falling a premise simplify things, then I tend to adios the premise in favor of the simplification. No matter how emotionally linked to that premise I was.

"Hundreds of years ago, Francis Bacon wrote about the two Books of God - the Book of His Word, and the Book of His Works. I believe both contain truth and ignoring either one is in error."

Ok, I have no idea of any of them, so I must take your word for it.

"I do it quite comfortably, but I appreciate your concern! "

Cool. 

 siegi

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by siegi91

[Guest shiloh357]

13 hours ago, siegi91 said:

When you say "with the ability to commune with him", do you include all humanity? Including all the people who never heard of the Bible and such?

And how can you believe that a benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God with a clear target in mind would go through an amoral, wasteful and mechanical test'n'trial process that leaves a huge trail of failed attempts on the way (i.e. 99% of all species are extinct), and is predicated on destroying the weak? That does not look, prima facie, to be suitable to a perfect God. Or a God, a third thereof seems to give a lot of value to compassion.

I have the impression you try to get your cake and eat it too. Ergo, to salvage your belief in the biblical God while keeping scientifically hip.

I don't think it is logically possible without excruciating cognitive dissonances.

 

 Siegi

 

 

This post illustrates why I have always maintained that Atheists are more honest about the obvious problems that exist between Evolution  and the Bible than Christians.

[one.opinion]

18 hours ago, siegi91 said:

How on earth do you use the quote feature? I feel so stupid by not finding it.

Another great question, but possibly if less metaphysical importance ?

If you highlight text, the option to quote should pop up automatically. Sometimes, the feature doesn’t work quite right on the phone, however.

[one.opinion]

18 hours ago, siegi91 said:

Initially? When did that happen in your opinion in the entangled history of human evolution, assuming you accept the current state of the evidence? 

In my opinion, the Biblical references to Adam and Eve are sufficiently clear for me to believe they were historic people. I believe that at some point after God imbued them with a spirit, they chose to follow their own wisdom instead of His. I further believe that this choice brought the effects of sin into the world and spread the effects over all of humanity.

19 hours ago, siegi91 said:

I am a physicist. As such, I like to simplify things. And if letting falling a premise simplify things, then I tend to adios the premise in favor of the simplification.

Which do you believe is the “simpler” explanation for the universe - it came to be, with all of the required physical constants, on its own, or that Someone actually created the universe?

19 hours ago, siegi91 said:

Ok, I have no idea of any of them, so I must take your word for it.

Of course, I wouldn’t expect an atheist to know the Bible intimately, but I am guessing you know it better than most atheists. The Book of His Works that Bacon referred to is the natural world we can see all around us. He believed it was important to be aware of both the Bible and the natural world. And you know quite a bit about that!

[siegi91]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Another great question, but possibly if less metaphysical importance ?

If you highlight text, the option to quote should pop up automatically. Sometimes, the feature doesn’t work quite right on the phone, however.

Of course it has metaphysical relevance.

How are your going to understand my metaphysical gems, if I mess up this thing?

siegi :)

 

[siegi91]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

 

Quote

In my opinion, the Biblical references to Adam and Eve are sufficiently clear for me to believe they were historic people. I believe that at some point after God imbued them with a spirit, they chose to follow their own wisdom instead of His. I further believe that this choice brought the effects of sin into the world and spread the effects over all of humanity.

 

So, despite accepting evolution and such, you believe that there were at a certain point in time, two individuals representing homo sapiens that had no homo sapiens parents. Or with parents that, for some reasons, did not deserve to have an immortal soul. Or where they Sahelanthropuses? What do you think?

I am sure you realize that this idea makes no sense in the framework of human evolution. At least according to current evidence. But then I would like to ask what method you use to select what counts for evidence an what not.

 

Quote

 

 

Quote

Which do you believe is the “simpler” explanation for the universe - it came to be, with all of the required physical constants, on its own, or that Someone actually created the universe?

If I had that solution, my face would be on all papers in the world. You seem to address here fine tuning. Is that so? I would be thrilled to debate that with you.

 

Of course, I wouldn’t expect an atheist to know the Bible intimately, but I am guessing you know it better than most atheists. The Book of His Works that Bacon referred to is the natural world we can see all around us. He believed it was important to be aware of both the Bible and the natural world. And you know quite a bit about that!

Well, according to some polls, atheists know more about religion than religious people. Some even go so far to say that they became atheists only when they seriously started reading the Bible. That is not valid for me. I am actually an ignoramus for what concerns Christianity, even though I am learning a lot here. 

But I am a cosmologist, and you seem to indicate that I should know the Bible before I could write some theory of the Universe down.

Is that so?

 

 siegi

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by siegi91