Posted on 07/28/2013 3:57:08 PM PDT by spirited irish
Yes and it also says that the Earth was created before the sun and the moon.
Scripture please?
Hosepipe that is not faith as the bible defines it.
The bible does not define faith..
An apostle or two did make mention of it.. according to them.. other bible lore writers didn’t..
but thats their opinion..
I accept you are who you imply you might be by faith..
Which is an honest correspondent here..
Many scientists accept, what they think they know, by faith in another scientists findings..
Sometimes with proof sometimes not.. but just a theory..
You know... by faith..
***
Oh I beg to differ. The Bible defines faith as “the substance of that which is hoped for” and “the evidence of things not seen”. It also says we should walk by faith and not by sight. I think that is pretty clearly a definition. The first definition clearly says that faith is a wish. The second very clearly and unequivocally says that belief itself is evidence. The third tells us that our beliefs are more real than the information brought to us by our senses. That is pure and unadulterated Subjectivism.
You whole conversation here has been subjective... so far..
Not that I reject it all... just much(some) of it..
You seem to be new to some of these issues..
Have you learned anything yet?..
Look it up yourself. It is right there in the first account of creation. I don’t care to haggle over interpretations. That is another huge red flag for me and the final nail in the coffin for the bible as the word of god. If it were it would be clear and understandable and would not need to be interpreted by the very beings who the bible tells us are fallen, imperfect and incapable of thinking for themselves. We would just be able to take it literally but apparently it isn’t because every Christian I have met has a different one depending on what church they go to. I don’t care what anyone’s interpretation is because I don’t consider it the word of God.
Do you still deny that the bible defines faith?
Do you still deny that the bible defines faith?
The bible displays “A”(some) definition(s) of faith..
Many english words have multiple definitions..
You don’t get out much..
TXnMA caught that one and concerning the second verse of Genesis 1, he was kind enough to point out another error I made in a Freepmail to me this morning. Hopefully he will post the correction and extend the discussion.
Certainly, I should have prefaced the terms "soup" and "watery" with words to show I did not mean those terms literally (obviously, since atoms had not yet formed) - but rather to visualize the composition of the early universe and how it corresponds to the second verse of Genesis 1.
Among Christians, Jews and Noahides there is a wide variety of understanding concerning Genesis. My understanding is very close to Jewish Physicist Gerald Schroeder's and takes into account the underlying meaning of original Hebrew words which have been translated as "morning" "evening" "day." See: Age of the Universe.
Likewise, I perceive that God was the only observer of creation and the author of Scripture, i.e. He is the Creator of both heaven and earth, both spiritual and physical. Thus I read Genesis chapters 1 to 3 from the inception perspective (space/time) and shift to the perspective of Adamic man (space/time) at the top of chapter 4 when he is banished to mortality. In this view, all the usual objections - e.g. plants before sunlight - melt away.
If you are interested in any of those theological points, let me know and I shall be happy to explain them.
More to the point, the conclusion a person draws is largely influenced by the evidence he considers. If a person chooses to exclude evidence from his reasoning, he commits the logical fallacy of "argument from ignorance" or "begging the question (circular reasoning)."
But arguing logical fallacies is a waste of time in this forum. Of course a person comes to the debate with presuppositions or worldviews some of which would exclude large areas of evidence or knowledge on principle, e.g. metaphysical naturalism. And some worldviews are so bizarre as to shutdown a discussion before it can get going, e.g. there's little to be argued with the person who believes reality is a figment of his own imagination.
Likewise, when a correspondent excludes as non-existent anything which cannot be physically measured or observed - issues raised in the debate which cannot be explained by physical cause/effect will be "chalked up" in his/her own mind as either a coincidence or an unknown that will someday be found by the scientific method. This essentially ends the discussion with an unstated "Nature did it."
Like in Tegmark's essay on the Level IV Parallel universe, the frog cannot see what the bird sees, but what the frog does see makes sense to the frog.
That was not so much a "correction" as it was a "meeting of minds". '-) Nonetheless, I do, Indeed, intend to and that contribution to this discussion. In fact, I am in the process of revising and re-drawing the graphic I included in my FRepmail to illustrate my viewpoint on the timing of the origination of anisotropy in what should have been an isotropic event.
For now, though, I must head out for our courthouse, and do some historical research -- and, then, proceed on to my final meeting as chairman of our county's Historical Commission. I decided to retire, after several years of service in that position, and to hand the gavel and the burdens over to a very worthy successor. (However, I will retain my position as Historical Marker Chairman -- I still have much to accomplish in that role.)
My hope is that resigning that one job will free me up for things I enjoy more -- such as FReeping and archaeology / cartography and teaching.
Don't go away -- I'll be back here soon with what is, I hope a solid -- and illustrated -- contribution to this discussion. TXnMA
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
I asked you to provide the Scripture to support your claim. What I got was a snark response. Not 'reading' your mind's intent, I allowed the possibility of the numerous translations filled with the traditions of men/women. But apparently based upon your snarky response your mind is made up.
There was a time when I would have 'felt' really bad for your mindset. However, this flesh age is getting long in the tooth and whether or not any soul/spirit intellect has the need for and love of truth, I finally realized my latter end is NOT contingent upon what path others take.
AND whether or not you keep your own path or seek to understand what Genesis actually and literally says in giving a chronology of this 'flesh' age does not change what is yet in store. Christ said 'I have foretold you all things', but He did not say that any or all would understand and/or comprehend all things. I know I sure do not understand all things foretold, but, I at least do have a primary expectation of worldly events as they unfold.
I figured you had it by heart. On the first day he created light. On the second day he created the sky by creating a vault to separate the waters above from the waters BELOW and he called the vault sky so clearly the Earth was already created because on the next day he causes the waters to gather into one place to make the land appear. Then he created plants. On the 4th day he created the Sun, the Moon and the stars and he SET THEM in the sky. So clearly he created the Earth first, then land, then plants and then the Sun and Moon. So this is a problem because we are only a handful of paragraphs into the most holy book which is supposed to be the truth of all truths and already you have to change the story and rationalize to make it fit the actual data of our observations. We can’t just read it. If this part is so wrong how can we trust any of the rest of it. Now we have a contradiction between science and the bible. You choose to believe the bible and I choose to believe science because scientists don’t just assert, they provide evidence and other scientists check the evidence on a continuous basis to integrate what we know with new data. I’ll let reality be the judge of who is right. The point is that you have to accept the story of genesis on faith and that is not reason that is just subjective belief. I don’t have a problem with people believing it. That’s their right. I do have a problem when they come and tell me I am an irrational fool because I don’t believe and I am blind and then threaten me with eternal punishment and they do all of this without a single solitary shred of evidence to back it up. Alamo girl said in her recent post that it is pointless pointing out logical fallacies on this forum which proves my point. You all don’t care if your arguments are fallacious and invalid because you don’t use logic. That’s why you can tell me that the bible doesn’t say what it says about the Earth being created before the sun and the moon. I don’ accept anything but logic so that is why we will never come to an understanding. Your faith separates us and causes you to judge me and wish bad things to happen to me because the person who repeats a threat to me is the one who threatens me. Stop it. Just stop it.
Genesis 1:1 is a declaration of action wherein the heavens and the earth were 'created'. No time stamp is given when these actions and/or events took place.
Genesis 1:2 has that big word AND describing a specific event following the creation of the heavens and the earth. There is no time stamp as to when this earth became 'without form' and 'void', and 'flooded'. Genesis is a chronology of events not a full disclosure and description of events.
Planted in Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD That created the heavens; God Himself That formed the earth and made it; HE hath established it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD; and there is none else.
So before Genesis 1:3 begins to introduce a Godly time stamp, we are told the heavens and the earth exist and a catastrophic event caused this earth to be uninhabitable.
Peter says that one day with the LORD is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day. And some claim God is outside of time... why He keeps time far better than His creation has or can.
Few ever consider what is being outlined in Genesis 1:2. And planted by other holy prophets in the volume of the book are glimpses of a 'supernatural' kind of war. And this earth is filled with parts and pieces of literal evidence that tell the story of a long ago catastrophic event(s) which destroyed all physical/flesh life upon this earth.
Yes, you can call it my interpretation, but Genesis 1:3 onward of the 'days' describes the grandest environmental clean up ever undertaken. The heavens and earth were not remade it was cleaned up and reestablished to be inhabited for this 'flesh' age.
And, there is to be yet another cleansing of this earth in the not so distant future. All 'evil' will be destroyed. Only the Creator has kept the perfect record and prerogative to 'judge' what is evil.
Literal science does not decide the outcome first and then seek to use the literal and available evidence to foster that conclusion. God is the ultimate scientist and there is no doubt He smirks at those who worship His creation instead of Him. Yeah, you can call that a 'judgment'. WE all, every soul/spirit intellect that passed through this flesh age will get to have their one on one, face to face accounting... yet future. The only advocate present with be the Redeemer Christ. And it does read that some will prefer to be destroyed from within because they have no natural love and affection of the Creator.
God was not impressed or snookered when He called upon the Adam for an accounting. I do not expect the excuse of, well, God that woman you gave me made me do it, will score any holy points. All this applies to me as much as anyone else.
I responded to your red flag notation of two different descriptions of creation.... I agreed with you they are different and should be read and being different. Really not a big deal given what has been discovered by the scientists regarding what story DNA tells about each individual flesh body.
Why should we expect that this should have been an isotropic event?
If the event were "informed," isotropy would be the least expected outcome.
I'm both sad and glad that you have resigned from your long tenure as chairman of your county's Historical Commission. Sad, because you loved working in that post, and by all accounts were outstanding in your execution of same. Glad, because that suggests you have found some other new area of "mind and action" to which you will bring your wisdom and energy....
I hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will continue to be your guide in your new endeavors, dear brother in Christ! And I look forward to hearing about your progress WRT your new pursuits!
To me, you — among other things a highly accompished physical chemist — embody the very idea of fides quarens intellectum, of faith in search of its reason.
Some people out there in FReeperland and beyond may regard "faith" and "reason" as mutually exclusive terms. But I do not; and I daresay, neither do you. Rather, they are fundamentally complementary and finally exist together in synergistic, dynamic relation....
Just some thoughts, dear brother in Christ! Thank you ever so much for your splendid elucidation of events in the early Universe as they comport with God's Revelation to us of the ex nihilo Beginning from which His Creation was created.
Our friend albionin wants to chalk up the amazing accord between the text of Holy Scripture and the findings of contemporary science to "coincidence."
I strongly doubt that it is any such thing. Rather, I see Genesis 1 as the root idea that the mind of man has been exploring over the past ~2,500 years, all the while pointing science to its own business of "evolving" truthful knowledge about the world we actually live in.
JMHO FWIW
The problem there is the frog doesn't see very much, from where he stands. The bird has a much vaster field of vision....
Thank you so very much, dearest sister in Christ, for all your outstanding essay/posts in this series!
p.s.: I am a great admirer of Max Tegmark and his Level IV Parallel universe. (But you already know that!)
FReepMail (with graphic) for your review... ‘-)
Thank you, Dear Sister -- but there's no "sadness" re that decision here! For one thing, I'm remaining on the Commission and doing what I enjoy and do best: researching and creating historical markers. For another, "riding herd on a bunch of cats" is the least enjoyable thing for an "individual contributor" like me!
Also, remember that I'm still an Archaeological Steward with the Texas Historical Commission. that means I am responsible for archaeological and historic preservation projects in my county and all adjoining counties -- and "as far as I am willing to drive"... '-)
In addition to multiple active archeological projects in six counties, making (many) presentations, and doing cartographic / overhead imagery research on historic roads and trails over a WIDE area -- my latest challenge is trying to prevent an organization called "Historic Jeffrson Foundation" from allowing the (National Register listed) last surviving Confederate Ordnance magazine of its type to fall off into Big Cypress Bayou.
One of my (illustrated) articles on the "Powder Magazine's plight"...
Otherwise, I raise grandkids, manage 65 acres of piney woods -- and FReep -- which I better get back to doing... '-)
And I do hope you'll have more time now for the things you mentioned: Freeping, archaeology, cartography and teaching! We'll certainly benefit from more of your Freeping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.