The Atheist Perversion of Reality

April 5, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

[betty boop]

The Atheist Perversion of Reality
By Jean F. Drew

Atheism we have always had with us it seems. Going back in time, what was formerly a mere trickle of a stream has in the modern era become a raging torrent. Karl Marx’s gnostic revolt, a paradigm and methodology of atheism, has arguably been the main source feeding that stream in post-modern times.

What do we mean by “gnostic revolt?” Following Eric Voëgelin’s suggestions, our definition here will be: a refusal to accept the human condition, manifesting as a revolt against the Great Hierarchy of Being, the most basic description of the spiritual order of universal reality.

The Great Hierarchy is comprised of four partners: God–Man–World–Society, in their mutually dynamic relations. Arguably all the great world religions incorporate the idea of this hierarchy. It is particularly evident in Judaism and Christianity. One might even say that God’s great revelation to us in the Holy Bible takes this hierarchy and the relations of its partners as its main subject matter. It has also been of great interest to philosophers going back to pre-Socratic times — and evidently even to “anti-philosophers” such as Karl Marx.

In effect, Marx’s anti-philosophy abolishes the Great Hierarchy of Being by focusing attention mainly on the God and Man partners. The World and Society partners are subsidiary to that, and strangely fused: World is simply the total field of human social action, which in turn translates into historical societal forms.

Our principal source regarding the Marxist atheist position is Marx’s doctoral dissertation of 1840–1841. From it, we can deduce his thinking about the Man partner as follows:

(1) The movement of the intellect in man’s consciousness is the ultimate source of all knowledge of the universe. A human self-consciousness is the supreme divinity.

(2) “Faith and the life of the spirit are expressly excluded as an independent source of order in the soul.”

(3) There must be a revolt against “religion,” because it recognizes the existence of a realissimum beyond human consciousness. Marx cannot make man’s self-consciousness “ultimate” if this condition exists.

(4) The logos is not a transcendental spirit descending into man, but the true essence of man that can only be developed and expressed by means of social action in the process of world history. That is, the logos is “immanent” in man himself. Indeed, it must be, if God is abolished. And with God, reason itself is abolished as well: To place the logos in man is to make man the measure of all things. To do so ineluctably leads to the relativization of truth, and to a distorted picture of reality.

(5) “The true essence of man, his divine self-consciousness, is present in the world as the ferment that drives history forward in a meaningful manner.” God is not Lord of history, the Alpha and Omega; man is.

As Voëgelin concluded, “The Marxian spiritual disease … consists in the self-divinization and self-salvation of man; the intramundane logos of human consciousness is substituted for the transcendental logos…. [This] must be understood as the revolt of immanent consciousness against the spiritual order of the world.”

How Marx Bumps Off God
So much for Marx’s revolt. As you can see, it requires the death of God. Marx’s point of theocidal departure takes its further impetus from Ludwig von Feuerbach’s theory that God is an imaginary construction of the human mind, to which is attributed man’s highest values, “his highest thoughts and purest feelings.”

In short, Feuerbach inverts the very idea of the imago Dei — that man is created in the image of God. God is, rather, created by man, in man’s own image — God is only the illusory projection of a subjective human consciousness, a mere reflection of that consciousness and nothing more.

From this Feuerbach deduced that God is really only the projected “essence of man”; and from this, Feuerbach concluded that “the great turning point of history will come when ‘man becomes conscious that the only God of man is man himself.’”

For Marx, so far so good. But Marx didn’t stop there: For Feuerbach said that the “isolated” individual is the creator of the religious illusion, while Marx insisted that the individual has no particular “human essence” by which he could be identified as an isolated individual in the first place. For Marx, the individual in reality is only the sum total of his social actions and relationships: Human subjectivity has been “objectified.” Not only God is gone, but man as a spiritual center, as a soul, is gone, too.

Marx believed that God and all gods have existed only in the measure that they are experienced as “a real force” in the life of man. If gods are imagined as real, then they can be effective as such a force — despite the “fact” that they are not really real. For Marx, it is only in terms of this imaginary efficacy that God or gods can be said to “exist” at all.

Here’s the beautiful thing from Marx’s point of view: Deny that God or the gods can be efficacious as real forces in the life of man — on the grounds that they are the fictitious products of human imagination and nothing more — and you have effectively killed God.

This insight goes to the heart of atheism. In effect, Marx’s prescription boils down to the idea that the atheist can rid himself and the world at large of God simply by denying His efficacy, the only possible “real” basis of His existence. Evidently the atheist expects that, by his subjective act of will, he somehow actually makes God objectively unreal. It’s a kind of magic trick: The “Presto-Changeo!” that makes God “disappear.”

Note that, if God can be gotten rid of by a stratagem like this, so can any other aspect of reality that the atheist dislikes. In effect, the cognitive center which — strangely — has no “human essence” has the power of eliminating whatever sectors of objective reality it wants to, evidently in full expectation that reality itself will allow itself to be “reduced” and “edited down” to the “size” of the atheist’s distorted — and may we add relentlessly imaginary? — conception.

To agree with Marx on this — that the movement of the intellect in man’s “divine” consciousness is the ultimate source of all knowledge of the universe — is to agree that human thought determines the actual structure of reality.

Instead of being a part of and participant in reality, the atheist claims the power to create it as if he himself were transcendent to, or standing outside or “beyond” reality. As if he himself were the creator god.

This type of selective operation goes a long way towards explaining the fanatical hostility of many Darwinists today regarding any idea of design or hierarchy in Nature — which, by the way, have always been directly observable by human beings who have their eyes (and minds) open. What it all boils down to seems to be: If we don’t like something, then it simply doesn’t exist.

We call the products of such selective operations second realities. They are called this because they are attempts to displace and finally eliminate the First Reality of which the Great Hierarchy of Being — God–Man–World–Society — is the paradigmatic core.

First Reality has served as the unifying conceptual foundation of Western culture and civilization for the past two millennia at least. What better way to destroy that culture and civilization than an all-out attack on the Great Hierarchy of Being?

Thus we see how the gnosis (“wisdom”) of the atheist — in this particular case, Marx — becomes the new criterion by which all operations in (the severely reduced and deformed) external reality are to be conducted, understood, and judged.

Conclusion
Marx is the self-proclaimed Paraclete of an a-borning utopia in which man will be “saved” by being reduced to essentially nothing. With God “gone,” man, as we denizens of First Reality know him, disappears also.

But whatever is left of him becomes a tool for social action. He becomes putty in the hands of whatever self-selected, self-proclaimed Paraclete seeking to promote his favored Second Reality du jour (usually for his own personal benefit) manages to stride onto the public stage and command an audience.

Such a charmed person blesses himself with the power to change human society and history forever, to bring about man’s self-salvation in a New Eden — an earthly utopia— by purely human means.

Of course, there’s a catch: As that great denizen of First Reality, Sir Thomas More, eminently recognized, the translation into English of the New Latin word “utopia” is: No-place.

In short, human beings can conjure up alternative realities all day long. But that doesn't mean that they can make them “stick.” Reality proceeds according to its own laws, which are divine in origin, and so cannot be displaced by human desire or volition, individually or collectively.

And yet the Marxian expectation argues otherwise.

Out of such fantastic, idiotic, specifically Marxian/atheist foolishness have great revolutions been made. And probably will continue to be made — so long as psychopaths hold the keys to the asylum.

Note:
All quotations from Eric Voëgelin’s article, “Gnostic Socialism: Marx,” in: The Collected Works of Eric Voëgelin, Volume 26 — History of Political Ideas: Crisis and the Apocalypse of Man. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1999.

©2009 Jean F. Drew

April 4, 2009

[LeGrande]

That’s some draft!

It is a mountain wave. The wind hits the Wasatch mountain range apx. 10k high and shoots up, add in some thermals, a little moisture and it will make a nice thunderstorm. The idea is to get in, get the ride and get out, before it gets nasty : )

[betty boop]

The enzymes themselves must therefore be regarded as metabolites, i.e. products of metabolism, and other enzymes are needed to catalyze the replacement process. However, these other enzymes also have finite lifetimes, and also need to be replaced, in processes catalyzed by yet other enzymes, which also need to be replaced, and so on for ever unless there is a way to close the circle. We therefore need a way of conceiving that the organization of metabolism is circular, so that at no point do we need to rely on any external help.

And yet the Newtonian Paradigm proffers no help whatsoever in the small matter of "closing the circle." Yet "strong Newtonians" will demonize you as some kind of deranged mystic for even noticing the problem. Notwithstanding, it is STILL THERE: If you can't "close the circle," you cannot avoid the perils of the problem of infinite regress. Nothing infinitely regressive can ever mean anything.

On the other hand, one cannot "close the circle" absent the idea of final cause.

How can such a trusty old friend as Newtonian mechanics be so silent on the question, What is life? As Robert Rosen suggests, it lacks the universality it claims because of the constraints of its own self-imposed formalism. This formalism requires us to view Nature as a syntactical system.

To put "syntactical system" into context: Under the auspices of Natural Law, we are entitled to "deconstruct" any natural language into two separable components, semantics and syntax.

Very crudely put, semantics pertains to meaning — it associates a word directly with an external referrent (something in Nature that we try to establish cognitively by defining it, in communicable terms to others who speak/read the Natural Language). Once this association is established, the meaning of the word is established.

Syntax, on the other hand, is directly associated with the idea of grammar in a natural language: The "rules of the road" that specify how the parts of natural speech (e.g., nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, articles, prepositions, et al.) can be fittingly combined so to effectively convey semantic meaning in the given Natural Language. This is, in fact, a pretty "universal idea" — provided it can be isolated from the context of Nature altogether (i.e., from the context of meaning). Which is done implicitly by "pulling Nature itself" into the formalism. Nature then becomes, not a system containing inorganic and organic objects, but a set of syntactical rules.

When we speak of a "syntactical" approach or formalized model of Nature — as Newton evidently was glad to do (he said he was only interested in "descriptions" anyway) — we are already dealing with a world of total abstraction from Nature. We have withdrawn into the mental world of the formal construction, because we clearly understood that, if you want to have a "universal" law, it must be independent of any of its particular realizations. Only then can we say an observation is perfectly "objective" — because all the "baggage" of subjective engagement of questions precisely about meaning have been forbidden. The price one pays for this "objectivity" is: the abolition of all "external referents" by which "meaning" can be "entailed!" But we do get our "universality" that way.

As an observer from the semantic universe, I see how all this fails. The semantic aspect of meaning is never reducible to syntax. Therefore, I would expect all syntactical formalizations seeking to give a "universal" answer to the question, What is Life?, to fail against the tests of Nature.

Somehow Nature is meaningful. Natural Law already states this.

Rosen has certainly raised some interesting problems for me, dearest sister in Christ! And you also it appears! Thank you so very much for the excerpt from Athel Cornish-Bowden. He does manage to take away the "sting" of the seemingly relentless math of Rosen's reasoning, boiling it down to more intuitive concepts. Still, I believe Rosen ultimately must speak for himself, and in the terms he has chosen.

I'm no great mathematical genius myself when you come right down to it. Rosen relies heavily on set theory and (above all) Category Theory — pretty "high-level maths" for your average bear. But I could follow him throughout. He made sure of it — what with his graphs and his relational diagrams, married to excellent communication skills. :^)

In closing, just a remarkably astute comment from the sainted Einstein on this very point: "One can best feel in dealing with living things how primitive physics still is."

To God be the Glory!

[LeGrande]

And yet the Newtonian Paradigm proffers no help whatsoever in the small matter of "closing the circle."

Closing the circle would be like perpetual motion, it is disallowed. Energy comes from the Sun and 'Enzymes' come from the environment. A good example would be that ATP cycle.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your outstanding discussion of syntax and semantics, dearest sister in Christ!

Truly, if the universe were altogether a clockwork, a mechanism as contemporary science approaches it, then the semantics could be modeled by syntax universally, including living systems. That which is analyzed can be synthesized, etc.

But life isn't and cannot be modeled that way. The dead rabbit we broke apart earlier cannot be put together again.

Organization which must be addressed as a "thing" in itself plays no role in the Newtonian approach which partitions "the ambience into systems and environments, phases and forces, states and dynamical laws." (quoting Rosen "Life Itself" pg 117)

LeGrande's objection in his reply to yours is the same, it approaches the subject as if it were a mechanism, a clockwork; the efficient cause of a clockwork is a clockmaker which is necessarily outside the clockwork itself.

The material cause, LeGrande, is not at issue.

The final cause of the clock is to keep time. In life the final cause is the organism or subordinately, the function within the organism.

Life avoids (external) efficient causation (e.g. maintenance and repair) because of its circular organization.

[mrjesse]

Said TXnMA: You seem to get it right on the small scale, so I am interested in where your reasoning falls apart so badly as to allow you to be suckered into to the concept of a young universe.(Emph. his)

Good Day, TXnMA!

Say, I've noticed that you haven't yet taken a chance to respond to my earlier in-depth response to your question about how my reasoning allegedly falls apart so badly.

I also notice that you were kind of harsh on folks with whom you disagree on the age of the earth. Then you lay out a rather harsh insult inferring that my reasoning falls apart and that I got suckered into something. But then when I responded logically, you all the sudden won't talk to me anymore to date.

What am I to think? It looks to me as if you parade news of your alleged superior intelligence and learning over folks and then insult them for their alleged ignorance trying to shame them into agreeing with you - but if someone actually accepts your challenge and addresses the issues, you all the sudden just ignore them and refuse to address the very issues you yourself raised.

How can I, as an honest person, come to any conclusion other then that you're not using truth but insults to try to make your point but don't have the integrity to actually stick by what you say or give meaning and body to your empty insults?

Is there something I missed? Considering the evidence before me, how can I honestly reach another conclusion?

I'm not asking these rhetorically - I sincerely would like an honest answer from you if you might be so kind.

So please, let's not just throw insults and then run - let's have the discussion! As a scientist (unpaid for which as I may be) and a Christian I truly am interested in the truth. How are you going to teach me anything new if all you can do is make vague insults and run?

So please, go on ahead and take a whack at my earlier post to you. There's got to be something you can teach me. If not, then it's really not nice to insult someone in telling them they are wrong then refuse to show them how they are wrong. What's the point? Why tell someone they are wrong in an unkind manner when you are then unwilling to teach them the truth even when they are perfectly willing to examine the evidence in search of the truth?

Thank you very much and have a wonderful day,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said Hank:
I have another theory. It is possible for humans to fly in machines that are heavier than air. Can’t be proved though, right?

Replied LeGrande:
As a pilot I happen to know that an airplane must constantly displace its weight in air, in straight and level flight. If the plane doesn't displace its weight in air (becoming heavier than the air it displaces) it is no longer capable of sustained flight. Hence I have falsified your theory.

LeGrande, whether intentionally or not, your answer to Hank was not honest/true.

You see, when someone says "It is possible for humans to fly in machines that are heavier than air" they are really implicitly saying (that is, they are saying by implication) "If the machine is constructed at a certain shape, and is propelled through the air at a rate great enough that the craft's own weight is being displaced with downward accelerated air, then the craft will fly...." and so on - and of course there are lots of details I left out.

But the fact is that the theory (being that under certain clearly defined conditions planes do fly) that Hank is talking about IS proven: It is a proven fact that if you or I build a plane that meets certain (pretty lax) defined requirements, it WILL ALWAYS FLY. At least it has never been demonstrated that there are cases that it will not fly even when it's built to correctly and is displacing it's own weight in downward accelerated air. This is an experiment that I proven myself.

Now, it has been unquestionably proven that under the right conditions, an airplane can fly. There's no way that anyone can falsify that the theory that under the right conditions, airplanes can fly.

But what about the theory that says "When an airplane is displacing downward its own weight in air, it will fly"? Is that theory falsifiable? Well, you might be able to falsify that one if you could show me that an airplane that was accelerating downward air greater at a thrust greater then its own weight and still not flying.

But the theory that under the right conditions airplanes do always fly is simply not falsifiable - and yet it has been proven many many times.

Coming from someone who works in real science (electronics, computer science, physics on the side) there is much more to science then just being falsifiable. Being provable is extremely important, and things need not always be falsifiable.

-Jesse

[hosepipe]

I read your "earlier post" and this one too.. there seems to be way to many questions and allusions to questions.. couched in snarky similes.. to approach seriously..

This forum works best with simple questions not all tangled up like a birds nest.. However; the time-line on when/how the earth was "formed" and the time-line of when humans appeared/were created could be different.. Not the same at all.. Overlooking the possibility Genesis ch 1-3 might be mostly metaphorical.. if not completely..

This planet maybe took zillions of "years" to age/percolate but humans may be fairly recent additions to it.. That is if "time" is indeed lineal at all.. Except from a human perspective..

If the third person on this planet did not come from the first two.. a huge yarn must be constructed.. You know, science fiction.. Because science fiction must be very logical else whats the point.. Science fact/reality need not be logical at all.. Reality has nothing to prove..

Adam and Eve could be composites and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil may be metaphorical.. as well as the Tree of Life.. Being locked into a linear time-line could be the "first-mistake".. generating a birds nest of other errors.. The Bible could be constructed on the "KISS" principle.. How did Jesus walk on unfrozen water?.. Did he?.. Or is that merely legend?..

[hosepipe]

[ LeGrande's objection in his reply to yours is the same, it approaches the subject as if it were a mechanism, a clockwork; the efficient cause of a clockwork is a clockmaker which is necessarily outside the clockwork itself. ]

Me trying to understand what "a spirit is" the above comment makes me wonder, "Is a spirit a mechanism?".. It is possible that "the/A spirit" may Not be be a mechanism at all.. like a human body is.. Then what is it?.. a spirit/Spirit....

Even a human body is a mechanism.. as well all other life forms I know of.. I grew up thinking of life forms as mechanism's.. from a microbe, or carrot to my own body..

What "a spirit is", may not be a mechanism.. But what?.. I'm not sure I can even bridge the mechanism gap.. considering "LIFE"..

You and Boopy makes my mind go to new places.. I like that..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both for sharing your insights, dear brothers in Christ!

I agree with hosepipe that it is much more productive to simplify the questions you'd like answered and to present them one at a time.

It is also helpful to concentrate on the questions themselves rather than the parties involved or prior dialogues.

These two steps would help all of us to follow and perhaps learn or contribute along the way.

[CottShop]

Those hwo would argue (and apparently look down hteir noses at htose who do not agree with hteir itnerpretations of God’s word) that Day Meant ‘long ages’ are forced to do so by ignoring certain key elements in God’s word, and ignoring grammatical context.

“In Exodus 20:11, He said that in “six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them and rested on the seventh day.”

“The length of the “days” of creation in Genesis has involved a major controversy in Biblical interpretation among evangelicals for over 150 years. Many have sought to redefine the term in light of the naturalistic presuppositions of modern scientism. Therefore, let us attempt, honestly, to examine the evidence from Scripture.

The communication of language is through words and their use. We must ask ourselves why Moses was using the words he did, and not other words. What is the meaning he was trying to communicate to his original audience and to us, as well? Why did Moses use the word “day” and not the more generic term, “time”? Is there any significance to the repeated use of numbers in the account (”first day,” “second day,” etc.)? Why are these “days” bounded by the terms, “evening and morning”? As we examine the text of Genesis 1, answers to these questions become clear....

Those who argue that the word “day” means “long age,” point out that the Hebrew word, yom, can have a number of meanings, only one of which is “day of 24 hours.”1 They further seek to strengthen their position with the use of Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8, comparing a day to a thousand years. Both of these verses, however, are simply using figures of speech (similes) to show that God is not constrained by the same time parameters as are humans. These verses are really irrelevant to the discussion of the meaning of “day,” in Genesis 1.
The use of a number with the word “day” is very illuminating. This combination occurs 357 times outside of Genesis 1. The combination is used in four different ways, but each time it is used, it must mean 24-hour periods of time. If the combinations had been intended to mean long periods of time, both the texts and contexts then become meaningless. A typical verse is Genesis 30:36: “And he (Laban) set three days journey betwixt himself and Jacob.” God frequently issued commands that the people were to do or not to do certain things on a given day. This use occurs 162 times. A good example is Exodus 24:16: “And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days, and on the seventh day He called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.” These are the most typical uses of the word “day” with a number. Four times the terms are used to show a starting point. Ezra 3:6 says, “From the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings unto the Lord.” A number may also be used with “day” to convey an ending point. An example is Leviticus 19:6: “It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.” It would appear, then, that whenever the Old Testament uses a number with the word “day,” it means a 24-hour period of time without any demonstrable exception....

The meaning of the term “day” must be seen in conjunction with the use of “evening” and “morning.” Those who would argue that the days are long periods contend that these terms can have figurative meanings.12 But what is their meaning in the context of Genesis 1? We must ask ourselves, how would the people have understood these terms “evening” and “morning?” Is Moses, and by extension, God, trying to deceive us by not telling us the truth about the length of the “days?” The Old Testament records 38 times when these two words are used in the same verse. Each time they occur, the meaning must be that of a normal day. Here are a couple of examples to illustrate the point: Exodus 16:8 says, “And Moses said, this shall be when the Lord shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full.” Also Exodus 18:13, “and the people stood by Moses from the morning until the evening.” All the other occurrences are essentially the same. So then, it would appear that when the words “morning” and “evening” are used in the same verse, they must refer to a normal day.

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/288/306/

[CottShop]

The first reference to “day” in the creation account is in the context of a 24 hour cycle of light and dark, “And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (NASV, see Genesis One). As well, if some of hte first six days means ‘long ages, and some of them are literal days, how are we to determine when the SABBATH day is? Is is after a period of 1000 years + 2 literal days? A period of 1,000,000 years + 2 leteral days? Did God work for ‘long periods’, and hten a couple of literal days and just assign the word Sabbath to an allegorical day? How was it determined at htta point that the Sabbath was the 7’th day if some of God’s ‘days’ during creation were ‘long ages’? Why does Yom mean ‘long ages’ in the first days, but then switches to literal days at hte end of creation? Wouldn’t the writer have made clear hte distinction so that people would not be confused?

Those makign hte case for ‘long ages’ got some ‘splainin to do (not to mention ‘word manipulation, and context twisting to do)

“Some say that Exodus 20:11 is only an analogy in the sense that man is to work and rest—not that it was to mean six literal ordinary days followed by one literal ordinary day. However, Bible scholars have shown that this commandment “does not use analogy or archetypal thinking but that its emphasis is ‘stated in terms of the imitation of God or a divine precedent that is to be followed.’”20 In other words, it was to be six literal days of work, followed by one literal day of rest, just as God worked for six literal days and rested for one.”

Evolutionary scientists claim the fossil layers over the earth’s surface date back hundreds of millions of years. As soon as one allows millions of years for the fossil layers, then one has accepted death, bloodshed, disease, thorns, and suffering before Adam’s sin.

The Bible makes it clear24 that death, bloodshed, disease, thorns, and suffering are a consequence of sin.25 In Genesis 1:29–30, God gave Adam and Eve and the animals plants to eat (this is reading Genesis at face value, as literal history, as Jesus did in Matthew 19:3–6). In fact, there is a theological distinction made between animals and plants. Human beings and higher animals are described in Genesis 1 as having a nephesh, or life principle. (This is true of at least the vertebrate land animals as well as the birds and fish: Genesis 1:20, 24.) Plants do not have this nephesh—they are not “alive” in the same sense animals are. They were given for food.

The “days” in Genesis 1 are always specifically used in connection with the words “evening and morning.” This phrase is used with “day” 38 times in the Old Testament, not counting Genesis chapter 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24 hour type day. It is also important to note that this phrase is never used in the Old Testament in a manner which is obviously metaphoric.

When the phrase “evening and morning” is coupled with a numbered modifier and the word “yom”, there is no stronger way of specifying a normal day. We understand that Genesis is describing six Earth rotations, not an unspecified period of billions of years.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c002.html

The following is a VERY key point made to refute the ‘day = long ages’ argument

“If the days of creation are really geologic ages of millions of years, then the gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, thorns, and suffering before the Fall. The effort to define “days” as “geologic ages” results from an erroneous approach to Scripture—reinterpreting the Word of God on the basis of the fallible theories of sinful people.”

So, if ‘Day means long ages’ then species must have been alive for billions of years before man and woman came on the scene because we know there was no spirit death (or breath of life death) before the fall

“To understand the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for “day,” yom, is used in the context of Scripture. Consider the following:

A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, or a year.

A classic, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom—but it defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading “day as defined by evening and morning.”

A number and the phrase “evening and morning” are used with each of the six days of creation (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).

Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time it means an ordinary day.9 Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?10

Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning”11 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?12

In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word “night.” Outside of Genesis 1, “night” is used with yom 53 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word “light” with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.13

The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, such as “in those days.”14 Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11, where a number is used with “days,” it unambiguously refers to six earth-rotation days.

There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant. “

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days

[CottShop]

[[Or is that merely legend?..]]

If it’s merely legend, and if everythign is open to subjective interpretation, and becomes allegory, or metaphor, then we have no reason to accept ANYTHING in God’s word as literal. Do we pick and hcoose which accounts to take literally? which to take metaphorically? If we can’t trust the I am, can’t trust the TRUTH, can’t figure out which is actually literal, and which is metaphorical, then there are no absolutes to cling to, and everythign becomes subjective, and nothing becomes right or wrong.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!

Even a human body is a mechanism.. as well all other life forms I know of.. I grew up thinking of life forms as mechanism's.. from a microbe, or carrot to my own body..

This indeed has been the presupposition of modern science since Newton, namely that since physics and chemistry can be understood as a mechanism therefore biology can be fully understood the same way.

The article excerpted at 1120 explains in everyday language why this is not so.

But for the most stubborn among us, Rosen eviscerates that presupposition on pure logical grounds. The first nine chapters of his book, Life Itself, are focused on that very point.

The remainder of his book reveals his solution, a circular model that is oriented to organization as a “thing."

He punctuates his arguments with the observation that a clockwork requires a clockmaker (that is a metaphorical simplification of a profound logical argument concerning efficient and final causes) - and that modern science is loathe to admit such a clockmaker but a mechanistic view of the universe demands one. And that simply “throwing up of the hands” e.g. Vitalism, has long since been rejected by scientists.

All of this I have said to raise one point where Rosen’s book does not explicate his model as I would have liked.

He refers to execution of the circular organizational model as “chasing.” The model transfers what we would call information content, encodes and decodes, processes – much like a standard computer model: input, process, output > input, process, output etc.

He doesn’t get into the chasing in depth, but chasing is best understood by Shannon’s model which is the foundation of “Information Theory.” Information under Shannon is successful communication, it is not the message (data) itself. It is the chasing per se.

In a nutshell, because it is based on organization as a “thing” Rosen’s model is exceedingly illuminating for modeling material biological systems, i.e. the anticipation of need for and execution of maintenance, repair, replication and metabolism, etc. Thus it holds a great opportunity for scientists who work under the principle of “methodological naturalism.”

At the same time, just like Shannon’s model, it is mathematics. It is universal. Therefore it holds for the incorporeal as well, to whatever extent one would care to apply it.

For instance, we Christians know that God’s Name Logos or Word directly reveals that He created all that there is by communicating. Shannon’s model (communications) and Rosen’s (circular chasing or communication is the organization of life itself) are both compatible with that Spiritual knowledge.

"God said" is repeated ten times in Genesis 1.

For the word of the LORD [is] right; and all his works [are done] in truth. He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was [done]; he commanded, and it stood fast. – Psalms 33:4-9

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. – John 1:1-4

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. – Psalms 19:1-3

As you are wont to say, dear hosepipe, JESUS: You must be born again.

The new Spiritual creature we become, like the physical and soulful creature we were, are created by God's communicating.

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. - John 6:63

So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - Romans 10:17

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. – I Cor 2:14

And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. - Deuteronomy 29:2-5

(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. - Romans 11:8

Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. - Matthew 13:9

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. – Matthew 13:10-13

To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. – John 10:3-5

And as with the corporeal material life we "inhabit" - the new spiritual creature we become is organized (autonomously) and can be modeled in a circle (Rosen.) We are Spiritually aware, we reflect, anticipate, react, etc. We are alive with Christ in God. (Col 3:3)

Again I aver that the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics (Wigner) is God’s copyright notice on the cosmos.

To God be the glory, not man, never man!

[hosepipe]

[ If it’s merely legend, and if everything is open to subjective interpretation, and becomes allegory, or metaphor, then we have no reason to accept ANYTHING in God’s word as literal. ]

Some things are metaphor(parables) and some things are literal in the Bible.. Which is which is not always apparent.. To say the bible is 100% literal is obvious wrong and maybe even a lie.. sometimes.. Jesus and the hebrew language itself uses many language instruments.. like simile and parable.. and other word pictures/images..

Jesus talked of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which was a real mystery, to those overlooking that he said that the night of the passover feast.. which was about roasting a lamb(eating it) and using its blood in a historical sense.. to overcome the death angel.. All being a Jewish ceremony of remembrance.. Most if not all at the last supper GRASPED the significance of those words.. even if they didnt know of the NEXT days proceedings.. i.e. cruxifiction.. They grasped that Jesus was the metaphorical lamb of the passover.. Only to learn later in the week that cruxifiction could not actually kill YOU.. but YOU could rise again..

Those at the supper that didnt understand Jesus metaphor were OFFENDED... probably literalists..

[hosepipe]

Good homily(sermon).. requiring some meditation..
Short, sweet , to the point..
I liked it..

[CottShop]

[[To say the bible is 100% literal is obvious wrong and maybe even a lie.. sometimes..]]

I never made such a statement- infact, I said hte bible is pretty clear about which are metaphors, which are alegorical, whiich are literal- the links I gave in previous posts point out how we can take all God’s word to determine hwich passages are literal, and why they are literal. As well, things liek Christ, and indeed Peter, walking on water were witnessed by folks who related the vevents, and we have no reason to doubt hteir recountign of hte events

[[Jesus talked of eating his flesh and drinking his blood,]]

This is an obvious metaphor- literally.

I’m asking, if we can’t take eye witness accounts such as Jesus walking on water as literal truth, or Jesus restoring sight to blind people, or raising htem fro mthe dead, or the idea that days meant just that- days, and not long ages, as literal, then God’s word becoems meaningless, because we are made subject to people’s subjective itnerpretation which renders literal truths to be metaphors instead. Again, God’s word is very specific about which sayings were metaphorical, and which were literal- but ‘progressives’ want us to think that much of hte literals in God’s word are really nothign more than metaphors open to interpretation- but hte bible itself refutes thse claims, and one can only take literal issues and turn them into metaphorical ones by twisting hte word, and stretchign meanings beyond their itnended purposes.

you are correct, the Hebrew does use many instruments, BUT, it is also a VERy precise language, and a VERY careful language- and htose making out literalisms to be metaphors MUST ignore this precision, and assign incorrect values to isolated words in order to do so, and MUST ignore the precision of those isolated words elsewhere in God’s word.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!

[hosepipe]

[ I’m asking, if we can’t take eye witness accounts such as Jesus walking on water as literal truth ]

Unless you were there, there is no there there..
In that case you are bound to faith in "the words"..

I believe its possible and maybe even true too.. (walking on water)
But Jesus miracles holds no candle to a daily walk in faith/spirit..

I don't believe in miracles, I rely on them..

[CottShop]

[[Unless you were there, there is no there there..]]

Sure htere is- the desciples were there- they have proven htemselves quite reliable throughout God’s word, and I have no problem takign htem at their word- As well, other accounts of Christ’s life from secular historians and writers and rulers etc have corroberated the desciples accoutns on certain issues/acts as well- so we have reliable accoutns attesting to hte accuracy and truthfulness of hte writers time and time again- there’s no reason to doubt they saw and recorded what they did.

Our current walk is of course important, but it’s also very important that we know we have a bible that recorded history accurately, and truthfully, and it’s important that have a word that isn’t open ot subjective tinkering, because if we have no objective literal truth to stand on, then what’s hte point of God giving us truth in hte first place? If nothign can be taken as literal, then there’s no concrete literal truth to stand on, and religion becomes meaningless other than to subjugate it’s follows with subjective rules and regulations.

And just ofr hte record, Jesus’ miracles had huge Jewish implicatiosn far beyond just hte act itself- they were performed By Christ in such a manner steeped in Jewish tradition that hte Jews couldn’t honestly deny He was indeed the Messiah come to earth- even htough a great many still refused to beleive what htey had both seen and heard for htemselves- again, they preferred subjective reasoning over objective literal truth Christ provided first hand for hteir benifit. They rejected it, and He then offered His truth to the Gentiles- but sadly, a great many today prefer not to beleive His objective truths/acts, and doubt the literalism of His acts today- and we’re seeing God remove His blessings once again as a result- but I suppose these things must come to pass- it’s just sad to see happen- America and Britain, two tiny nations once mightily blessed By God because we turned to His truths, are becoming nothign but a joke in the eyes of nations aroudn hte world because we’ve preferred to doubt our Creator i nthese latter days- both our nations were turned to by the whole world for help and we were both admired once, and known as ‘God-Fearing Nations’ but htis is no logner hte case- with our leader hismelf claiming we ‘are not a Christian nation, but one made up of many beliefs’- He’s publically denying our dependence on God, and we’re about to suffer the consequences- although Obama and hte dems can’t quite see htrough hteir ‘progressive’ blinders the impact of their Denial of God’s truth.

[hosepipe]

[ Sure there is- the disciples were there- they have proven themselves quite reliable throughout God’s word, and I have no problem taking them at their word.. ]

Jesus left us the Holy Spirit to guide us.. not some written text..
Not that the bible is not useful.. with the old testament and some sayings by some Apostle(probably) or other.. The Paraclete(Holy Spirit) comes alongside to teach us all things.. From the bible, daily life, prayer, or even secular writings sometimes..

I have noticed some worshiping the bible even as an idol..
In lieu of the Holy Spirit..

The Holy Spirit can teach from the bible or even People Magazine if need be.. Some do indeed use the bible as a talisman or amulet.. or some other kind of magic artifact.. making them Shamans to Christ, or even Cargo Cultists..

The Jews did the same with the Talmud.. but they didn't claim to have the Holy Spirit.. Thereby NOT taking him out of the loop..

Many christians do that..