More specifically, we are gathering information which we Freepers have observed in nature that declares that God is or that shows His handiwork. The scope includes observations in Scripture which point to God as its author – and statements in Scripture which have been magnified to us by our observations of the physical realm (or vice versa).
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Romans 1:20
There are no “rights” or “wrongs” in personal observations – people of good conscience see things differently - and thus, discussion is helpful but arguments are pointless. We are asking Freepers to contribute their own, personal, moments of “standing in awe”.
To get the ball rolling, here are some observations made on the previous thread and from other threads relative to the research subject:
WHAT IS “ALL THAT THERE IS”
betty boop
FWIW, the way I read them (Psalms 19 and Romans 2) together: (1) It is evident that God sought man first; for He originally devised and constituted the nature of man such that man could enter into some kind of meaningful communication with Him in the first place. (2) Thus God uses, not only matter, but also spirit to achieve His plan for creation.
Also I think the sheer beauty and economy of the natural world, evolving over all these billions of years, all the while according to a given, very small set of natural laws that to this day are not exhaustively understood, points to an extra-dimensional source -- that is, to a source residing outside of 3+1D spacetime as we human beings normally experience/observe it.
So it appears that the source or creator of the universe cannot exist as just another property or phenomenon of the (3+1D) universe, any more than Mozart can be said to be a property or phenomenon of Don Giovanni.
And thus the completeness of human existence rests on "something" that can never be observed directly; but can be seen indirectly, through its effects. Usually via the medium of the human soul, by the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Alamo-Girl
In the strictest sense, nothing that we see as “real” in the physical realm truly exists as a physical “thing”. From one perspective, the physical realm altogether consists of four fields – strong and weak atomic force, electro-magnetism and gravity. But even more fundamental, all matter can simply be a manifestation of a higher dimensional vacuum, which is to say, geometry.
In general relativity, gravity should be seen as a warping of space/time. Where positive gravity exists (earth, moon, black holes, etc.) there is an indentation of the fabric of space/time and objects spiral downwards (or orbit). To become free from the indentation an "object" – such as a space ship – must achieve an escape velocity. But even light does not have sufficient escape velocity to leave a black hole.
Conversely, it is theorized that negative gravity is an “outdent” in the fabric of space/time. This would cause objects to move away from the outdent, an acceleration of the universe (which we observe, by the way) – and may lay at the root of the mysterious dark energy which is some 70% of the mass of the universe.
Of the four fields, gravity is by far the tiniest though it is cumulative in effect. It is theorized that gravity may actually not be smaller but rather be an inter-dimensional field, i.e. those indents/outdents may represent gravity between dimensions.
In the quantum field view of the physical realm, scientists are still searching for an explanation for ordinary matter. Their best hypothesis (the standard model) suggests there must be a Higgs field/boson – however, despite numerous attempts it has not been evidenced. Fermilab’s equipment has done all it can, it is now up to CERN to try and find it. If it is not found, then they will have to look for a new explanation for ordinary matter in field theory.
Even so, the Higgs field would only explain a small portion of the observed mass in the universe. As previously mentioned, most of it is the mysterious “dark energy” – and there is yet another type of mass, “dark matter” which is more prevalent than the regular matter which they are yet trying to prove with the Higgs field/boson.
For my part, I am much more drawn to the geometric solutions, geometric physics – which always has a counterpart, or duality in field theory. This is what Einstein sensed was true and established for gravity in his theories of special relativity and general relativity. He was trying to unify the field theories at the time of his death. Had he lived to this day, I believe he would be on the geometric physics platform because he always believed there must be a way to transmute the “base wood” of matter to the pure marble of geometry.
As to physical “things” – it is good to remember what Einstein said: reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
That is Scriptural:
The parallel to Scripture to hard to miss:
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. – Psalms 33:6
No discussion of the geometric physics – especially relativity (gravity) would be complete without mentioning the beginning. Special relativity plainly illustrates that space and time transform (Lorentz transformations). If you know space, you can figure time and vice versa. It is all relative. Space/time does not decouple - it only applies in the physical realm, i.e. after a "beginning".
In the fabric of space/time – at those deep indents of gravity, such as a black hole – time moves much slower than at space/time coordinates with lesser indentations. For instance, a week may pass on the event horizon of a black hole while 40 years elapse here on earth. Similarly, at what would be the space/time coordinates of the inception of this physical universe only 6 days have elapsed relative to 15 billion years at these space/time coordinates of earth.
Such is space/time and relativity. Following is from Einstein’s speech “My Credo” in 1932. He was always a seeker, a Jew – but I’m sure he is a Christian now:
The Scriptures speak of two different kinds of light. Light in the physical sense and much more importantly, God’s Light. So pulling all of this geometry together in Scripture:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. – John 1:1-5
To me, non-physical would entail that which is non-corporeal, non-spatial and non-temporal. A great many things fall in this category, including mathematical structures, emotions, pain, expectations to name a few.
Moreover, when I observe the unreasonable effectiveness of math, the geometry, the "lofty structure of all that there is" (as Einstein put it), the existence of successful communication in the universe and in biological systems - I am raptured in the Scriptures (Psalms 19:1 and Romans 1:20)
QUANTUM PHYSICS
betty boop
js1138: Is a quark a physical object? A photon? An electron? Do you believe these represent the end of our understanding of the physical?
These things may represent the beginning of our understanding of the physical; none of them seems to be exhaustively understood as yet. Also, the entire idea of a "physical object" probably needs to be rethought; for all such objects are such as they are because of their participation in universal fields (e.g., particle, gage, Higgs fields). That which is perceived to be "solid" may not actually be so; rather "solidity" may be but the surface presentation of a phenomenon that has a nature and causes that run deeper than we can see from our perch in 3+1D spacetime.
As to physical objects, all things are composed of matter. Matter's other "face" is energy. Here's a question for you: Is energy "physical?" By this I mean energy in contradistinction to force, which seems to be a physical property of objects.
Alamo-Girl
I’m so glad you [js1138] used these as examples.
It appears to me that the quantum world is addressed in different ways by three different disciplines. Quantum mechanics is non-relativistic and speaks to bosons, leptons, quarks, etc. I tend to think of particles as the messenger constructs or placemarkers in quantum field theory. To think of them as substantive would be misleading - after all, even ordinary matter under the standard model is not yet observed in laboratory conditions (Higgs field/boson).
When betty boop speaks to quantum physics, she usually approaches it from quantum field theory. The four fundamental fields are strong and weak atomic force, electromagnetism and gravity. There is much speculation about the existence of other fields which may help to explain phenomenon such as information content of the universe and biological systems, etc. She and I are both keenly interested in those subjects.
But the bottom line is that a field exists in all points of space/time, and the mechanism is wave function. IOW, “quantum field theory” is relativistic. Quantum chromodynamics is the quantum field theory for the strong atomic force. Electroweak theory is the quantum field theory for the unified forces of electromagnetism and the weak atomic force. Efforts continue to develop a quantum field theory for gravity – the tiniest of the fundamental forces (relatively speaking).
Which brings me to the third discipline, geometry, which is my personal favorite and which answers your question. All particles and all fields have the characteristic of dimensionality – space/time in our 4D block. That is why they are physical.
Fom my point of view, geometry is the most fundamental approach to physics even at the quantum level. Matter of all kinds can arise from a higher dimensional vacuum, and a higher dimensional shockwave (brane theory, ekprotic cosmology, etc.) can provoke a big bang. In sum, it is the geometry - the expansion of space/time which gives rise to the fields which then give rise to the messenger constructs/placemarkers (or particles).
INFORMATION IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Alamo-Girl
The issue goes to the root question, what is life? This is a question that biologists do not ask (strangely) – but is of considerable importance to physicists and mathematicians (Pattee, et al) who have been recently brought to the table.
IMHO, the best way to visualize the question is a thought experiment: Think about a live skin cell and a dead skin cell laying next to each other and contemplate the difference.
To fast forward through a lot of research on the subject, the consensus is that the difference is information, which Shannon defined (paraphrased) as “successful communication”. The dead skin cell is not communicating with itself or its environment. The live skin cell is.
This goes way beyond DNA (which is roughly the equivalent of a message and not a communication) and chemical activity, which is not a communication. There is an ongoing effort to explain any natural cause for the information content in biological systems (as well as in the universe).
"In spite of this dependence on the coordinate system the entropy concept is as important in the continuous case as the discrete case. This is due to the fact that the derived concepts of information rate and channel capacity depend on the difference of two entropies and this difference does not depend on the coordinate frame, each of the two terms being changed by the same amount."
--- Claude Shannon, A Mathematical Theory of Communication, Part III, section 20, number 3
Information is usually measured in bits per second or bits per molecular machine operation.
A Glossary for Molecular Information Theory and the Delila System
To get further into this particular subject, may I suggest a beginning point would be surfing for comments/debates by Hubert P. Yockey and Tom Schneider (above), the Chowder Society, H.H. Pattee.
I see the presence of information in the biological systems as one of those "trademarks" writ large in the natural world that God is. (Psalms 19:1 and Romans 1)
DNA is “message,” but not the source of information itself. Maybe it’s a kind of “decryption key.”
There is one thing the materialists or metaphysical naturalists have absolutely right. And that is that every existing thing – whether an inorganic or organic system – is made up of just one thing: matter.
The only problem is that, if everything is made up of just one thing, then how do discrete, highly articulated, self-symmetrical forms become possible in nature — such as we observe in the world around us? And the answer to that may be that information “tells” matter what to do, in order that it may realize particular existents in [3+1D space/time] nature.
Which of course begs the question as to the origin or source of the information that not only tells matter what to do, but gives the laws for the action of matter.
I think Attila Grandpierre [Konkoly Observatory, Hungarian Academy of Sciences] has got a good grip on this problem:
Elsewhere Grandpierre notes that DNA, as “sophisticated” and “complex” as it is, is really “information-poor” in itself. It needs something to “hook up to” in order to express its function. Otherwise, it is literally as good dead as alive. [DNA expresses the same “message” either way…which of course, A-G, invokes your “thought experiment” of the dead cell vis-à-vis the living cell.]
Alamo-Girl
For anyone interested in the significance of the geometry in combination with the information in biological systems: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
It is a fascinating article - the first peer-reviewed article by an intelligent design scientist I believe. It provides a summary of the field and raises both points (information in biological systems and the geometry involved).
THE MIND
betty boop
js1138: I would argue that pain and emotions do not exist independently of the physical body which experiences them.
And I would argue that pain and emotions, though they may have their source in bodily troubles, are not experienced as such by the body, but by the mind.
But I imagine this cuts no ice with you, js1138, for the simple reason that you make no distinction between body and mind, seeing the latter as mere epiphenomenon of the former. But this strikes me as a grostesque reductionism. For the mind often (usually) works independently of organic processes taking place in the physical body, most of which we are typically unaware of in any case. To that extent, indeed the mind "had a life of its own." And we can freely direct it to the objects we wish to think about, without having to get the body's "permission" first, so to speak.
marron: The limb is gone, but the nerve that serviced it is still there. The nerve ending where it was cut is still coiled in the end of the cut limb. The nerve ending may be transmitting, or the nerve itself may have a signal induced onto it by surrounding activity that the brain decodes as coming from the limb that isn't there anymore.
Dear marron, do you mean to suggest that the brain is here making a false report about the factual state of the system it governs? I.e., that the brain registers the severed limb as still attached, based on neuronal inputs? If this is the case, and mind or consciousness is merely the epiphenomenon of the brain, would mind be able to do anything other than confirm the brain’s false report?
If that is the case, then how can we – that is, you and I and all the other “epiphenomena” out there – form any kind of accurate picture of reality? How could science itself be possible under such conditions?
Thus we are merrily led into such conundrums to the extent we are persuaded by the materialist/mechanistic understanding of nature promulgated by the Cartesian/Newtonian worldview. It has become increasingly fashionable to regard the universe as having the nature of a clockwork: Once built, deterministic physical laws kick in and so the clock just keeps running along forever after without any further intervention needed. Somehow -- I can’t imagine why -- folks of materialist persuasion/imagination are content with this formulation of the ultimate questions.
The most salient thing the materialist seems to overlook in order to guarantee his contentment is one simple fact: Every single machine in the universe that we know about, or possibly could know about, is an artifact. Having said that, the other thing we know is that every artifact necessarily presumes an artificer — a creator, an artist, an architect, a poet, a scientist, et al.
But the question of “artificer” is the very thing that materialists want to leave out of the picture, the reason why they insist the brain, and not the mind, is “sovereign” when it comes to living beings. Thus the materialist position appears inherently self-contradictory. They want the artifact, but not the artificer by which the artifact is made possible in the first place.
The other really interesting thing that machines of all descriptions have in common is that they are really good at following the physical laws. But the reason they are able to do this presumably is because they have been designed, engineered, and tooled to achieve that outcome from “outside” themselves. Similarly, the very functions they are to execute are specified and supplied by an extra-systemic source; i.e., by their programmers.
Yet logically it appears that, when it comes to mechanistic systems, according to the “sovereign” brain/epiphenomenal mind model of metaphysical naturalism, it appears that it’s actually the epiphenomena – i.e., the “programmers” – that implicitly have been hoisted into first place regarding the actual design and function of the machine (whether the fact is explicitly recognized or not); and moreover probably, similarly (by analogical extension) the design and function of natural systems. Arguably, under such conditions, it would be the brain (and matter itself) that is the “epiphenomenon” of a greater principle of Nature.
In conclusion, we may define a material system as one that follows the laws of physics, whose behavior fits to the pathway computable from the physical laws on the basis of its initial and boundary conditions.
Alamo-Girl
We [js1138 and A-G] do disagree on whether the mind is an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. I say no, you say yes. But I consider that issue separate from qualia which (IMHO) more closely relates to a (non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal) mathematical structure or idea.
to betty boop on her reply to js1138: If I might add one other point - pain is relative. One person may shake off an event that immobilizes another. Likewise, one might feel pain without any physical cause at all - dread, loneliness, Kerry's loss, etc.
and wrt the missing limb scenario: Conversely is a psychosomatic illness, in which case the mind has created a false report of illness which is manifest in the body. Actual nerve ending may be involved in such an illness as well, but the sickness is in the mind.
In the missing limb scenario, if the mind is feeling an itch in a toe that is no longer there then the sensation is certainly false. The only physical means I could conjure to attribute such a phenomenon to the nerve endings at the point of the severed limb would be if those nerves (which is to say, all nerves) are holographic in mechanism. And I have never heard such a speculation.
UNREASONABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATH
Alamo-Girl
That all existents in four dimensions are actually mathematical structures in a higher dimension is the radical mathematical Platonism solution of the Level IV universe proposed by Max Tegmark. It is both the only closed multi-verse cosmology and also goes a long way to explain the unreasonable effectiveness of math. Why pi? Why Mandelbrot set?
The fact that math can resolve physics problems (e.g. calculus) is not surprising – but what is breathtaking is that new physics also fits off-the-shelf mathematics (e.g. Einstein’s being able to use Riemannian geometry to explain relativity).
There is also a duality that is built into nature to such an extent that the mathematics easily explains it. This unreasonable effectiveness of math is pervasive throughout nature. Geometric Physics – Cumrun Vafa
Long ago betty boop suggested that there may be more than one temporal dimension. I was compelled in the Spirit to this observation and pursued the notion with great interest. As it turns out, extra time dimensions would explain a host of physics problems – from non-locality at distance, superluminal events to Schrodinger’s cat. It would also greatly expand Tegmark’s Level IV universe! Cumrun Vafa is the leading physicist concerning extra temporal dimensions.
What all of this means to a Christian who has no particular interest in math or physics – is that cause/effect can be reversed to effect/cause. Time in our four dimensional block becomes a plane rather than a line from the perspective of an extra time dimension. Thus, both statements are true in four dimensions (three spatial, one temporal) – predestination and free will.
COSMOLOGY
betty boop
Newton v The Clockwork Universe by Jean Drew
Ironically this separation of God from the world is commonly credited to Sir Isaac Newton, the father of classical mechanics, whose ground-breaking work on the laws of motion and thermodynamics seemed to posit a purely mechanistic, deterministic, “clockwork universe” that was not dependent on God either for its creation or its maintenance.
The irony consists in the fact that this was not Newton’s view at all. In fact, the very reverse is the truth of the matter: Newton was a deeply religious man who regarded his scientific efforts as exploits in the discovery of the laws that God uses in the natural world. Moreover, Newton believed that his laws of motion implied the generation of conditions of increasing disorder in the world, such that God would have to intervene periodically to rectify it in order to save it and keep it going:
In his Opticks, Newton emphasized … that the order of nature becomes needful, in the course of time, of a renewal by God because as a result of the inertia of matter its irregularities increase.” [ibid., p. 63]
“Newton confronted with deep distrust the mechanical worldview of Descartes, which derived all change in the world alone from the mechanical mutual effects of the bodies. The Cartesian model of the world, in which the mutual play of mechanical powers was to explain the development from chaos to the ordered cosmos, seemed to him all too self-contained and self-sufficient so that it would not need any divine assistance or would even admit such.” [ibid., p. 60]
Newton rightly recognized that this tendency of the mechanical explanation of nature would inevitably lead to “a world independent from God.” For Newton, such a view would be an utter falsification of natural and divine reality both.
In his own time, Newton’s view that God continuously acts in the world was controversial. Certain leading philosophers, including Kant and Leibnitz, were offended by this view on the grounds that it implied God bungled the original creation. They argued that a perfect Creator cannot have failed to create a perfect creation. And if it’s “perfect,” then there’s no need for God to intervene. (The corollary being: For him to do so would be an acknowledgement or confession of his own imperfection.)
This despite the fact that God in Genesis speaks, not of having made a “perfect” creation, but only a “good” one. The worldview of Leibnitz reflects an early strain of Deism; that of Kant, the Calvinist theological view of God as utterly transcendent majesty.
But Newton didn’t see it either way. For Newton, God was both transcendent and immanent in the world. God created a universe in which he would be “God with his creatures” and Lord of Life forever. The supernatural and the natural had an on-going synergistic relation, and this is what maintained the natural world as a going concern, sustaining it in its evolution toward God’s eschatological goal for man and nature.
In other words, Newton believed God is constantly active in the history of salvation (of souls and world), and evolutionary process is one of his prime tools for accomplishing the divine purpose implicit in the creation event itself.
Yet by what means could God be “present with his creatures?” Newton gave his answer in the Scholium Generale, an addendum to the second edition of Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, his chief work on the mathematical principles of the philosophy of nature. The addendum endeavors to clarify the relationship of his doctrines of physics and his religious and philosophical views. Here Newton states that “God constitutes space and time through his eternity and omnipresence: ‘existendo semper et ubique, durationem et spatium constituit.’”
For Newton, God as immensitas constitutes absolute space – infinite and “empty” – and this absolute space is the sensorium Dei The great philosopher and mathematician Leibnitz strenuously objected to this conception, arguing that Newton’s divine sensorium effectively turned God into a “world soul,” and thus led to pantheism. Yet Newton had “explicitly emphasized … that God does not rule the universe as a world soul, but as the Lord of all things.” [ibid.]
What are we to make of this term, sensorium Dei – God’s sensorium? We probably should avoid the conclusion drawn by Leibnitz, who interpreted the term as indicating an organ of perception.
Newton might reply: God being eternally omniscient, he has absolutely no need of an organ of sense perception.
So what, then, did Newton mean by this term? Pannenberg writes that, for Newton, sensorium Dei refers “to the medium of the creation of things: just as the sensorium in our perception creates the pictures of things, God through space creates the things themselves.”
Thus Newton acknowledges a doctrine of creation understood as an on-going process, not just as a single start-up event – let alone a periodically recurring cycle of universal “booms” and “busts” as implied by the “eternal universe” model.
Newton] designates space as the effect of the presence of God with his creatures…. The expression sensorium … even when it is understood as the place of the production of its contents and not as the organ of their reception, cannot itself be a product of the perceiving individual,” whereas with God, space is at once a property and effect of the divine immensitas.
For Newton, the conception of infinite space is implicit in the idea of the omnipresence of God. But, as Pannenberg notes, “it is implicit in it in the way that it has no divisions: infinite space is indeed divisible but not divided, and the conception of division always presupposes space.”
At this point, it might occur to a scientifically-inclined Christian that sensorium Dei could well refer to an infinite, universal creative field, “originally empty” of all content, designed to be the matrix and carrier of all possibilities for our universe, and thus the locus where the “supernatural” [i.e., transcendent] and the “natural” [i.e., immanent] constantly meet.
One thinks of a primary universal vacuum field, whose characteristic associated particle is the photon – light -- which, having zero mass, is the “finest particle” yet known to man (noting that, on the Judeo-Christian view, God preeminently works with Light).
It has been speculated that, if an observer could stand outside of “normal” four-dimensional space-time and take a view from a fifth, “time-like” dimension, the singularity of the “big bang” would appear as a “shock wave” propagating in 4D space-time. If this were true, the shock wave would require a medium of propagation. Perhaps this medium is the universal vacuum field itself, the “ZPF” or zero-point field that extends throughout all of space, giving rise to all possibilities for our universe in every space direction and time dimension – which yet finds its source outside the space-time continuum that human beings commonly experience.
That is to say, the source is “extra-cosmic,” or transcendent. Its creative effect works within the empirical cosmos via the ZPF, which is hypothetically the sensorium Dei of the Immensitas….
Perhaps one day it will be shown that the intimate communication of divine and natural reality is facilitated by the primary universal vacuum field -- the intersection of time and the timeless, the creative source of our universe, the means of its sustenance and renewal over time, the source of the power of the human soul and mind to participate in divine reality, the paradigm of human genius, as well as the source of the continued physical existence of our planet and the universe.
It has been said that Life is the result of “successful communication.” Perhaps the ZPF, as suggested above, is the carrier of information (Logos, the singularity propagating in time); living creatures carry information also – DNA -- information that specifies what they are and how all their “parts” work together in synergy so as to give rise to and sustain their existence. It appears all living creatures have the capability of doing at least some kind of rudimentary information processing. That is, it seems they can “decode” and “read” instructions – perhaps via energy exchanges with the ZPF. When the creature is no longer able to access and process information, successful communication cannot take place, and so the creature dies.
By the way, I do not mean to suggest that information/energy exchanges with the primary universal vacuum field are necessarily consciously experienced events. Probably the reverse is the typical case. Yet we know that the human brain does most of its important work at unconscious levels: the governance of autonomic bodily functions, for instance, is a subconscious process.
Interestingly enough, it was Faraday who first articulated the field concept, and he apparently did so to refute Newton’s sensorium Dei. Apparently he wanted to get rid of the Immensitas altogether, and put Newton’s insight on a purely physical basis.
Yet in the end, it appears Faraday did not so much refute Newton, as lend credence to his basic insight.
Seven_0
As for the trinity, I see seven such trinities in Gen 1. In no way do I claim to have found them all (see my tag line) Some 30 years ago, I was introduced to the Numerical Structure of Scripture. It caught my interest then, and I have kept it in plain view ever since. It is one aspect of God’s word that I a well versed on. It is quite tedious, not for everyone, but the structure of scripture is much like the structure of nature. It is obvious to me that both have the same author.
(and light as “a type” in Scripture):
I Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
The fact that the speed of light is constant, gives us the basis for out entire system of measurement. It may not be obvious at first, but there is an apparent contradiction between saying that the speed of light is constant, and distance = velocity x time. Trying to reconcile this is how Einstein came up with his theory of relativity. Is there any wonder that there is confusion trying to understand the trinity? If you accept the theory, then mass, distance and time all become dependent on light
Consider the Dopler Shift. It basically says that the frequency of light can change depending an the relative speed between you and the light source If you were moving toward a light source, the frequency would seem to increase, yellow might appear to be green. If you went faster it might turn blue. If you were moving away from the source, it might look red. In fact, depending on your relative speed, any part of the spectrum could appear to be any other part of the spectrum. "I and the father are one."
Let’s go back to the trinity for now. As I have said before, the natural creation teaches the spiritual creation. Yes I see two (or more) creations, more on that later. We have a natural father which is how we under the spiritual father. By the things that are made. There is also a natural son and a spiritual son, but how can there be a natural spirit and a spiritual spirit.
Once again, the illustration of light will shed light. When we go out into the light, we are in the whole spectrum of light. We can feel the infrared and see the visible, father and son, but we are not aware of the ultraviolet, spirit, at all, though we can surely see and feel the effects later.
An example of this in scripture would be Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We quickly see the connection to the father and son, but what is the connection between Jacob and the Spirit? After looking at this for several years, I can finally explain why I have not figured it out.
I will speak to the two creations. We are created in Adam and we are created in Christ Jesus (Ep 2:10)
I suppose it is possible that God did both at the same time, but when you consider the typical aspect of the trinity, that is, the second part is associated with death, you should consider that Gen 1:2 speaks of the earth in a ruined condition, and a re-creation beginning with “Let there be light.”
F. W. Grant wrote the Numerical Bible more than a hundred years ago. Most of his works are out of print now. But they are public domain and are starting to show up on the net. I recently did a proof-read on his book “The Mysteries if the Kingdom of Heaven. ” Grant wrote a little introduction to the numerical structure, here is a link Introduction to the Numerical Structure
The neat thing about the numerical structure is that it did not get lost in the translation. Its easy to understand, tedious but easy.
The numerical structure if scripture: If we think of scripture and creation as having something in common, that is their author, it is not surprising that Grant wrote when he did. At that time the periodic table of the elements was being put together. At the atomic level, each element is associated with a number. Scientists were beginning to notice that some elements were missing and they started looking for them. They found that they could predict some of the properties, like melting point and boiling point, and use that to isolate some of the elements. They were quite resourceful and you wonder, considering today’s technology, how they accomplished as much as they did. It is amazing; with their crude measuring devices, how accurately they were able to measure the speed of light.
With this going on in the scientific world, we should expect the same kind of thing was be being sought in God’s word, and it was. Some symbols in God’s word are defined for us. You mentioned the waters in Rev 17:15, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. There are quite a few of these examples in scripture, but this is the exception, not the rule. Scripture dose not come right out and say the numbers have meaning. So, we can look at how God uses not only numbers, but also, all symbols, in scripture as well as in nature, and from there we discern some meaning. Of course there are questions here, but the myriad examples will build a good case. If you look at ten examples, it will gain your interest, if you look at one hundred examples, you begin to have confidence, but you don’t stop digging, where treasure abounds. God has given us a number of clues to get us started, like the acrostics, and we can be sure that it is profitable for doctrine.
The scripture divides into five pentateuchs, Five in scripture divides into 4+1, so there are four in the old testament and one in the new testament. Each of the pentateuchs further divides into 4+1 as do Paul's two pentateuchs.
Each pentateuch has the same basic structure. I will make a few comparisons for you since time is short. Once you see a few you will find they are endless, you can always find more. In fact it has turned out to be a wonderful mnemonic, as I have organized the scripture in my mind.
Compare Exodus with Acts, each is a number two. in the first you see the natural man leaving Egypt. in the second you see the spiritual man leaving the city, which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt.
Look at Deuteronomy and Revelation, each a number five. In the first you see the natural man about to recieve the Earthly inheritance, in the second, you see the spiritual man about to recieve the spiritual inheritance.
There is a parallel between "Ezra, Nehemiah, and Ester" and "Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi," all books of the captivity.
Below is a list of the numbers and some of the words are generally connected with the respective numbers. Notice that the smaller the number, the more general the meaning. Seven completes the series and eight starts new one(new week) . There are other numbers but this will get you started. Just a few observations here; the larger the number, the fewer times you will see it but is becomes more conspicuous. Seven is the most conspicuous, though it is used less. This will become obvious as we look at the outline if Scripture.
. 1 Exclusion of difference, sufficiency, power, omnipotence, independence, perpetual, eternal, identity, concord, peace, congruity, harmony, sovereignty, election, promise, grace, birth
2 Difference, division, addition, growth, increase, competent testimony, seconding, salvation, relationship, service, dependence, contradiction, seed, separation, death
3 Cubic measure, solidity, fullness, trinity, actuality, manifestation, sanctification, spirit, resurrection
4 Weakness, testing, trial, failure, experience, number of the creature
5 God in Government, responsibility,
6 Manifestation of evil, or of the enemy’s work, work day week
7 Perfection, completes the series,
8 New beginning,
This is a part of the outline by the numbers From Genesis. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is God’s signature on his work, every page! Even the translators of the “Word”, preserved it without even knowing that it was there. This is where we can eliminate the forgeries. We see the hole left at the end of the Old Testament, looking for a fifth Pentateuch, and not needing more. It is not so complicated that few can understand it. It is right there for all to see. It has been hiding in plain sight, and now, more than a hundred years after it was discovered, it is still a secret.
7 The Christ life developed in full “image” (37:2-50:26)
2 Separated from his brethren.(37:12-36)
2 Tamar’s deception.(38:12-23)
3 The manifestation. (38:24-30)
2 The assault of sin and the accusation.(39:7-12)
3 His exaltation in prison.(39:13-23)
3 A man in whom the spirit of life is.(41:1-52)
2 The Interpretation.(41:8-36)
3 Raised from the dungeon to the throne.(41:37-52)
2 His Brethren come for help.(42:1-5)
3 Manifested to themselves.(42:6-24)
4 Continued trial.(42:25-38)
2 Debating.(43:15-25)
3 With Joseph.(43:26-34)
4 New trial.(44:1-17)
5 Judah’s plea: the end reached at last.(44:18-34)
6 Joseph’s victory.(45:1-15)
7 The consummations.(45:16-28)
2 The increase of Jacob.(46:8-27)
3 Settling in the land.(46:28-47:12)
4 The land reduced under Pharaoh.(47:13-27)
2 The double portion of Joseph.(48:1-22)
2 Manasseh and Ephraim: spiritual increase.(48:8-20)
3 Joseph’s portion in the land.(48:21-22)
2 Confederacy and violence remedied by division.(49:5-7)
3 Judah’s exaltation: the spirit of praise.(49:8-12)
4 Israel turning to the Gentile world.(49:13)
5 Under the yolk on retribution.(49:14-15)
2 Conflict and deliverance.(49:19)
3 Enjoyment of their portion in the land.(49:20)
4 Practical condition.(49:21)
2 The Destruction of the enemies.(49:27)
2 Joseph with his brethren.(50:15-26)
2 A witness in death. Bearing about in the body of the dying Jesus. (50:21-26)
betty boop
Here's an interesting idea that seems to have some bearing on the Biblical references to God as Light. It's been suggested (by Popp, Grandpierre, others) that the communication of information to inorganic and organic systems in nature is facilitated by means of energetic particle exchanges with photons (light in its particle aspect) emitted by a primary universal vacuum field. Being primary and universal, this vacuum is not an existent of 3+1D spacetime; rather it seems to belong to the extra temporal dimension that you and I have discussed before, or at least to be mediated by it. Moreover, on this theory the primary universal vacuum is the "mother field" of which all the other universal fields of nature are the "daughters." So in effect, the primary universal vacuum would be the source of all material particles as well as the instructions (or communications) that "tell" matter how to arrange itself into discrete forms, living and non-living.
The huge difference between living and non-living existents is that the former are enormously more complex than the latter; i.e., they have infinitely great degrees of freedom as compared with, say, a single atom, which basically has only 3 degrees of freedom corresponding to the 3 spatial dimensions of our 4D world.
The other thing about living systems that makes them profoundly different from non-living systems is that living systems are capable of building up and storing negentropy -- which enables them to counter the setting up of thermodynamic equilibrium, or heat death, and thus enables their persistence as living beings.
Anyhoot, at bottom, all existing things "read" the information suitable to themselves contained in the primary vacuum via particle exchanges with virtual photons being constantly emitted from that field, according to the former's degrees of freedom. In the case of living beings, "suitability" of information may be controlled by DNA as a kind of template of the organism, a kind of "code key" that interprets the "communication" in terms relevant to the creation and maintenance of the living being.
This is the most cursory sketch of the issue, and I hope we might return to it soon. For now, suffice it to say that I see a very strong correspondance between the primary universal vacuum field and Sir Isaac Newton's concept of Absolute Space and the sensorium Dei, which is not any kind of attribute or feature of God, but simply the effect that arises from His Presence as "the Lord of Life with His creatures," as Newton put it. Thus God is not only Creator ("Let there be Light!") but also constant sustainer of everything that exists in the universe -- via photon emmissions "bleeding through" from the "beyond" of 4D spacetime, as mediated by the vacuum.
Another way to put ths is to say that the Creation was not just a "one-time-only event" confined to the beginning -- i.e., the Big Bang that blasted the Singularity into existence, created space, time, and matter (and presumably the laws by which they are governed), and thus began an evolutionary universe. Rather, creation is a constantly on-going process.
Alamo-Girl:
I believe your [Seven_0] first premise is that things in the natural world are “a type” of the heavenly and/or that events recorded in Scripture at the inception are precursors to actual fulfillment in the conclusion.
I find much with which to agree in this premise and would point to the ark on earth and in heaven, the temple on earth and in heaven, earthly Jerusalem v heavenly Jerusalem, prophecies being fulfilled in the short term as “a type” and then again in the future (e.g. Daniel v Revelation). Also, I see the Garden of Eden - which is described as if in the physical realm (Gen 2) - as a type for the actual Garden which is in heaven because both Genesis 2:9 and Revelation 2:7 place the tree of life in the center of the Garden of Eden (Gen) and also Paradise (Rev).
I would expand and extend the likelihood of such broad typing by pointing to the unreasonable effectiveness of math, Tegmark’s Level IV parallel universe cosmology, information in biological systems and geometric physics (off the top of my head).
But most significantly to our discussion on this [the previous] thread, there is the statement in Romans 5:12-19 and I Cor 15:21-22 that Adam is “a type” for Jesus Christ.
I agree with you [Seven_0] that God wants to reveal Himself, i.e. to have spiritual beings with whom he communes on a familial level. I believe that desire arose within God and thus, there was a beginning. IOW, God preexists the beginning, He is the uncaused cause and therefore the desire for a beginning can only arise from Himself.
When I look at the Scriptures as a whole, it reveals God’s purpose from the beginning and the end game, His new heaven and earth, His family. I further reasoned that God would have a method to reveal Himself to the spiritual creatures who would become members of His family. I reasoned that one cannot understand what good (a property of God) is or how important it is unless he could see it in contrast to what it is not (evil) – and thus God would show both to His beloved creatures in order to reveal Himself. The same approach would apply to truth v lie, life v. death, courage v. fear, love v. hate, health v sickness and so on.
I see the passage as speaking to the one and only beginning of both that which is spiritual and that which is physical (whether single universe, multi-verse, ekpyrotic, cyclic or imaginary time). I see God revealing His authority and dominion. ”All that there is” exists because of His will.
The word “light” in this passage is “a type” – i.e. the Scriptures describe light in both the spiritual sense and the physical sense. This illustrates the contrasting that I mentioned above, because God is Light (1 John 1:5) – Jesus is the light of man (John 1, 12:46) and the brightness of the Father’s glory (Hebrews 1:3). We are the children of light (Thess 5:5). Physical light is “a type” for Light (in the spiritual sense). You might find this interesting:
The peaks indicate harmonics in the sound waves that filled the early, dense universe. Until some 300,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe was so hot that matter and radiation were entangled in a kind of soup in which sound waves (pressure waves) could vibrate. The CMB is a relic of the moment when the universe had cooled enough so that photons could "decouple" from electrons, protons, and neutrons; then atoms formed and light went on its way.
In sum, I see Genesis 1:1-3 as the master key to discernment of the Creation account in Genesis, making it clear (for me anyway) that the story is unfolding in both the spiritual and the physical realms. With that understanding, there is no conflict between Genesis 2 and Genesis 1 or Day 3 v 4 and the light in verses 1-3 v Day 4.
If you want to know more of my views on these subjects, I’ve written a few articles. They are over a year old, though, and I do need to bring them up-to-date with new information. Here they are:
Evolution through the back door
