?'s for & about TE, ProgCre, etc [Archive]

lucaspa

January 3rd 2005, 12:37 PM

This makes sense to me. I used to think this would make the scriptures false because they were "borrowed." I think 'borrowed' is an unfortunate choice of words. "Borrowing" implies that you take an idea as valid for you. Genesis 1 is an original monograph expressing some very original ideas (for the time). It does not "borrow" its valid theological ideas from the Enuma Elish. Rather, it uses the format of the Enuma Elish as background for the creation story so that everyone can see that the Babylonian theology is wrong. Now, Genesis 1 does "borrow" Babylonian science: the shape of the earth (flat), the dome of heaven, waters above the dome, etc. However, the theological messages are not dependent on the science. They work just as well in modern science as they did under Babylonian science.

Now I see that the account may very well be "borrowed" a long with the flood and some other stories. Does it make them "false" or uninspired? No, if they are borrowed, they are still infused with the theology now of the Hebrews. Because of the theological inspiration of the Holy Spirit they are true.The Noah story is borrowed. But not Genesis 1-3, to my knowledge. Israel does not exist in a vacuum. It's neighbors are polytheists; they Hebrews are monotheists. It would be surprising if scriptures were not directed to some extent to showing that the neighboring polytheisms are wrong.

I'd like to linger here. There are two things that hold me up on a symbolic Adam and a symbolic fall. One, the geneologies. How do we understand them if they are not historical people? Let's see, Aeneas as Founder of Rome has a geneology. Do we understand him as fictional but symbolic despite that? Caesar traces his ancestry back to Aeneas; do we decide that Caesar is fictional? Or that Caesar has a political motive for having his geneology as it is? The geneologies in Matthew and Luke have political motives. What's more, since each of them traces thru Joseph, they can't be correct, can they? :wink: The Messiah was supposed to come from the House of David, therefore the geneologies go to the David.

Second, how do we understand the fall. Now, I agree with you that it could be explaining he human condition. We all disobey God at some point in our lives. Raising children makes you see the story replayed over and over again. Let's look at names. Adam and Eve are not names like Tim or Charleen -- words used as names only. Instead, in Hebrew "adam" is "dirt" and eve is "hearth". So we have a story of Dirt and Hearth. That tells you right there that you are looking at allegory. The authors of Genesis 2-3 are looking at the question: "why are we cut off from God?" This is especially pertinent after God apparently deserts Israel during the Babylonian conquest. Now, several places in the OT it is said that God punishes Israel because Israel disobeys God. This is the same thing, but stated as allegorical people (standing for all Israel) instead of naming the nation. As you noted, in allegorical form Genesis 2-3 states what happens to each and every one of us: we all disobey God at some point in our lives. Jesus died for our sins, not Adam's.

Now, before you ask, there is Paul. Paul constructs the theology of the Fall. But what is his major purpose in the letter? To equate Jesus to Adam so he can have an alpha and omega: a concept his Greek/Roman audience will understand.

Paul was a great evangelist, but a terrible theologian. In his defense, Paul wasn't trying to be a theologian. Paul thought he was living in the end times and that God was going to close the world down in his lifetime. Therefore, it was Paul's duty to save as many people as possible. To Paul, it wasn't as important how they were saved in terms of consistent theology, but that they were saved. So, Paul has several problems:
1. Getting as many Gentiles as possible to convert ASAP before the world ends.
2. Stop his rivals (many of his letters refer to other preachers trying to lead his congregatios astray) from undoing his work.
3. Stop internal conflicts in the churches so that the saved stay saved.
4. Explain to Gentiles why any Jewish scripture is relevant.

All this combines to make Paul inconsistent in his letters. The last one is because Paul is a Jew and wants to keep the Judaic traditions of himself and Jesus. Yet when he tries to introduce the Hebrew scriptures to the Gentiles, he gets resistance. No wonder! 1) Paul tells people that ALL you need for salvation is Jesus Christ. The Torah doesn't mention Jesus at all! 2) Paul tells them the bulk of Jewish scripture -- the Laws -- don't apply anymore. So, you can just hear the gentiles saying "Why in the world should we pay attention to the Torah when it doesn't mention Jesus and we aren't to obey the laws anyway? What in the Torah is worthwhile?" 2 Tim. 3:16 is one attempt at an answer. IMO, tying Adam to Jesus is another attempted answer.

Most of Paul's letters are concerned with crisis management: keeping the saved saved both from external threats (rival preachers) and internal conflicts. IMO, it is a tragedy of Christianity that so many people take these very specific letters directed at specific situations and try to make them universal principles. A friend described it as "trying to take the Session minutes of a particular Presbyterian Church as universal scripture". There may be universals in those minutes, but to determine that you really have to know the specifics of the discussion underway at the time. Many Christians have stripped Paul's letters of those specifics, and stripped understanding at the same time. :sigh:

It's just those geneologies and the promise of the rainbow that really make me wonder. I come from a background that always took the accounts as literal. I would like to hear your input on this.Rainbow? If we look at the Noah story as symbolic of the Babylonian Conquest, then we have God destroying Israel because MOST of the people are bad. Justification for the catastrophe. But some of the Hebrews -- faithful like Noah -- are saved and God doesn't totally desert them -- altho it sure looks that way for a while. The rainbow becomes a symbol that the Hebrews will again rebuild their nation and that God will not destroy it the same way -- Babylonian conquest. ( And, if you want to get poetic, God doesn't! :smile: The Jews themselves have to revolt against the Romans, and Israel is destroyed in the symbolic (and literal) fire of the rebellion, including the fire that destroys the Temple. )

I agree. Though how do we merge non history geneologies and then, bang, you got Abraham?The same way we merge non-history geneologies and then, bam! get Caesar's parents! Or how Alexander the Great merged non-history geneologies and then bam! we get Phillip of Macedon.

A good method of looking at these issues, Charleen, is to take them outside the Bible and see if similar situations arise in history. Then look at how we deal with them in this less emotional context.

reyvin

January 3rd 2005, 12:38 PM

1. The Gilgamesh epic with the Unt-napushtim story predates the OT by over 1,000 years. Noah is a plagiarism of that story.
2. I said Genesis 1 was written to refute the Babylonian gods. El and Marduk are not at all similar to Yahweh.

Now, can you provide a source for your claims that some concepts in scripture were not borrowed from other cultures?

I think you want to be careful with the 'borrowing' argument. Skeptics try to discredit the resurrection with similar arguments about dying/rising god stories. So the 'borrowing' can only mean so much and we've got to be careful what can be drawn from such an idea.

lucaspa

January 3rd 2005, 12:52 PM

I think you want to be careful with the 'borrowing' argument. Skeptics try to discredit the resurrection with similar arguments about dying/rising god stories. So the 'borrowing' can only mean so much and we've got to be careful what can be drawn from such an idea.Yeah, I just posted that "borrowing" was an unfortunate choice of words. However, looking at the specifics, it's pretty clear that the Noah story was plagiarized from the Babylonian. OTOH, I am not convinced that the Resurrection is "borrowed" from another culture. Yes, there are dying/rising god stories in a number of cultures, but 1) I've never seen the historical links to the gospels, 2) many of those cultures were completely unknown to first century Palestine, 3) the stories that are in the area -- particularly Mithra -- are very, very different from the resurrection and 4) the Noah story is not central theologically to Judaism, meaning they didn't take something and try to make it a central and essential idea, whereas the resurrection is central to Christianity.

However, the details of the Noah story are very similar to the details of the Unt-napushtim story. My conclusion is that the Hebrews took a very popular story of a rival religion and re-worked it so that it favored Judaism. However, as I noted, it is a peripheral story and not essential to Judaism. The whole Noah Flood (like the Jonah story) can drop right out of the Bible and Judaism is unaffected.

Jack777

January 3rd 2005, 06:31 PM

shunyadragon

January 7th 2005, 08:44 AM

I am thinking that you believe that the OT was put together in Babylon during the captivity.

The epic does not pre-date the OT by 1000 years.

I have a web site with some references. You can look for yourself. click on the link that says references for the whole web site. Someone stated that the KT size hits occur every 100mm years. I have had that hypothesis in my refs for about two years now, it is called the Shiva hypothesis if I remember right.

http://www.eyeofgodbluestar.com (http://www.eyeofgodbluestar.com/)I give the website an A+ for creative mythology, but F- for science.

Yes, the 'OT could have been put together in Babylon during the captivity.' based primarilly on Babylonian literature and law. There is not evidence of any thing of the OT before this yet there is abundent evidience of Babylonian myths and laws in writing that predates this.

Can you provide one scrape in clay, stone or papyrus of the bible that are older than Gilgamesh and the thosands of other tablets in clay and stone that occur from Egypt to the Tygris-Euphrates Valley from cultures related directly to the Babalonia.

lucaspa

January 14th 2005, 12:00 PM

I am thinking that you believe that the OT was put together in Babylon during the captivity.
Not the whole OT. But Biblical scholars have determined that Genesis 1 dates from near the end of or just after the Babylonian captivity. As Shunydragon notes, your site is good mythology.

Someone stated that the KT size hits occur every 100mm years. I have had that hypothesis in my refs for about two years now, it is called the Shiva hypothesis if I remember right.
There is a hypothesis that there are mass extinctions about every 30 my. NOT KT sized hits, because that was truly large. The hypothesis is that there are regular large meteor strikes about every 30 my, possibly due to a disturbance in the Oort Cloud by either an undiscovered planet or a brown dwarf companion star.

A Beautiful Truth

February 20th 2005, 03:56 PM

I've enjoyed your response very much, lucaspa.

Let's see, Aeneas as Founder of Rome has a geneology. Do we understand him as fictional but symbolic despite that? Caesar traces his ancestry back to Aeneas; do we decide that Caesar is fictional? Or that Caesar has a political motive for having his geneology as it is? The geneologies in Matthew and Luke have political motives.

Never thought of it before. But the geneologies are so extensive in the scriptures before Abraham. I'm assuming that it is with Abraham or his father or grandfather that we should begin the historical record? Who were these other fellows? Could there be a mix of history and fictional men? Would these fictional men be the subjects of famous tribal stories who got mixed in with real life stories of famous men?

The authors of Genesis 2-3 are looking at the question: "why are we cut off from God?" This is especially pertinent after God apparently deserts Israel during the Babylonian conquest. Now, several places in the OT it is said that God punishes Israel because Israel disobeys God. This is the same thing, but stated as allegorical people (standing for all Israel) instead of naming the nation. As you noted, in allegorical form Genesis 2-3 states what happens to each and every one of us: we all disobey God at some point in our lives. Jesus died for our sins, not Adam's.

Fine, but will you argue this in the Theology forum? There is much riding on this. Everyone I know who is a Christian blames everything bad in life on one event. If the event is only a symbol, what of everything bad in our life? You have God, the author of everything evil.

Now, I think the Free Will Theodicy, the Natural Law Theodicy, and the Soul Making Theodicy works fine here to get God off the hook, but that requires brain power and most Christians would choose the easier explanation--Adam done it.

Before you ask, there is Paul. Paul constructs the theology of the Fall. But what is his major purpose in the letter? To equate Jesus to Adam...

Yes, quite so.

Paul was a great evangelist, but a terrible theologian.

I'll not allow that. I agree with your supporting paragraph to this statement, but a "terrible" theologian? How are we to judge? I am a free thinker but the minute I judge Paul, is the minute the Bible is no longer my judge. I will not be a judge of it, but be subjected to its judgement. Am I not safer here?

In his defense, Paul wasn't trying to be a theologian. Paul thought he was living in the end times and that God was going to close the world down in his lifetime. Therefore, it was Paul's duty to save as many people as possible. To Paul, it wasn't as important how they were saved in terms of consistent theology, but that they were saved. So, Paul has several problems:
1. Getting as many Gentiles as possible to convert ASAP before the world ends.
2. Stop his rivals (many of his letters refer to other preachers trying to lead his congregatios astray) from undoing his work.
3. Stop internal conflicts in the churches so that the saved stay saved.
4. Explain to Gentiles why any Jewish scripture is relevant.

All this combines to make Paul inconsistent in his letters. The last one is because Paul is a Jew and wants to keep the Judaic traditions of himself and Jesus. Yet when he tries to introduce the Hebrew scriptures to the Gentiles, he gets resistance. No wonder! 1) Paul tells people that ALL you need for salvation is Jesus Christ. The Torah doesn't mention Jesus at all! 2) Paul tells them the bulk of Jewish scripture -- the Laws -- don't apply anymore. So, you can just hear the gentiles saying "Why in the world should we pay attention to the Torah when it doesn't mention Jesus and we aren't to obey the laws anyway? What in the Torah is worthwhile?" 2 Tim. 3:16 is one attempt at an answer. IMO, tying Adam to Jesus is another attempted answer.

I can see this for the most part. But where is he inconsistent?

Most of Paul's letters are concerned with crisis management: keeping the saved saved both from external threats (rival preachers) and internal conflicts. IMO, it is a tragedy of Christianity that so many people take these very specific letters directed at specific situations and try to make them universal principles. ...Many Christians have stripped Paul's letters of those specifics, and stripped understanding at the same time. :sigh:

Yes, and I, being a woman, agree.

Rainbow? If we look at the Noah story as symbolic of the Babylonian Conquest, then we have God destroying Israel because MOST of the people are bad. Justification for the catastrophe. But some of the Hebrews -- faithful like Noah -- are saved and God doesn't totally desert them -- altho it sure looks that way for a while. The rainbow becomes a symbol that the Hebrews will again rebuild their nation and that God will not destroy it the same way -- Babylonian conquest. ( And, if you want to get poetic, God doesn't! :smile: The Jews themselves have to revolt against the Romans, and Israel is destroyed in the symbolic (and literal) fire of the rebellion, including the fire that destroys the Temple. )

So the people at the time would have not considered the story a "lie" or a "fairy tale" if "made up" for them? This is where an understanding of the culture of the ANE would probably help. Many people today would judge the account as unworthy of our trust if it was not literal. I think that is putting an unfair boundary on its worth as truth.

Compare this with the resurrection, of course, which if it were not literal, then Christianity is worthless.

The same way we merge non-history geneologies and then, bam! get Caesar's parents! Or how Alexander the Great merged non-history geneologies and then bam! we get Phillip of Macedon.

Thanks, I'll have to look them up...

A good method of looking at these issues, Charleen, is to take them outside the Bible and see if similar situations arise in history. Then look at how we deal with them in this less emotional context.

Agreed, finding similar situations in history is key to understanding. We allow for the culture of the time in other places in scripture to help us understand scripture. We use it in our apologetic. It is not that it is a new concept, it is just that it is a new for Christians today to view Genesis with this understanding.

Help me start a revolution.

lucaspa

February 21st 2005, 06:48 PM

Never thought of it before. But the geneologies are so extensive in the scriptures before Abraham. I'm assuming that it is with Abraham or his father or grandfather that we should begin the historical record? Who were these other fellows? Could there be a mix of history and fictional men? Would these fictional men be the subjects of famous tribal stories who got mixed in with real life stories of famous men?
I'd say "yes" to all your questions. Remember, the Bible is a theological book, not a history or science book. Even the books in the Bible were chosen among all the available books claiming to be inspired because of their theological messages, not their history or science. Within Genesis, I think that Abraham is where you can start considering that Genesis has even SOME historical accuracy. But again, try not to get too hung up on whether the history is accurate.

Fine, but will you argue this in the Theology forum?
Yes. Give me where you want me to argue this. Send a link in a PM.

Now, I think the Free Will Theodicy, the Natural Law Theodicy, and the Soul Making Theodicy works fine here to get God off the hook, but that requires brain power and most Christians would choose the easier explanation--Adam done it. I'm not familiar with the arguments under those names, but I bet I am under different names. I happen to think all of them are flawed. I've found an answer to the Problem of Evil that works.

I'll not allow that. I agree with your supporting paragraph to this statement, but a "terrible" theologian? How are we to judge? I am a free thinker but the minute I judge Paul, is the minute the Bible is no longer my judge. I will not be a judge of it, but be subjected to its judgement. Am I not safer here?
Charleene, the Bible was never your judge. Your judge is God. What you have stated here is Biliolatry -- worship of the Bible. It is false idol worship. We judge Paul the way we judge any other theologian, from Mohammed to James Smith to Mary Baker Eddy to Jimmy Swaggert: do the ideas fit with our understanding of what God wants and with our own experience. Paul tells us that married women should not work in church; they are too much given over to sexual desires. Yet all churches I know of have women as secretaries, choir directors, etc. We don't listen to Paul there; our own experience with God and with life tell us he was wrong.

Look below, you don't stay "safer here". As a woman you don't agree with Paul's theology of "women should be quiet in church", do you? You are judging Paul and think that taking that statement as universal is wrong, don't you?

I can see this for the most part. But where is he inconsistent? I'll look up the details later, but he says in some parts that Christ died to save us from Adam's sin, and in other parts from our own sin. Also remember, we don't have all of Paul's letters! And some of the letters said to be by Paul aren't. What we have are letters by Paul and others that a Council of men decided had correct theology in them.

Yes, and I, being a woman, agree. So, since you agree it is a tragedy that we have lost the context of Paul's letters and try to make them universal, why do you say above "the minute I judge Paul, is the minute the Bible is no longer my judge. I will not be a judge of it, but be subjected to its judgement." Your agreement here and that statement are inconsistent. To think we have lost the context and Paul's statements are NOT universal is to place judgement on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

So the people at the time would have not considered the story a "lie" or a "fairy tale" if "made up" for them?
Do we consider Macbeth a lie or fairy tale? Yes, it is fiction. It is not literal Scottish history. But the play contains TRUTHS about human behavior.

This is where an understanding of the culture of the ANE would probably help. Many people today would judge the account as unworthy of our trust if it was not literal. I think that is putting an unfair boundary on its worth as truth. I say you don't need an understanding of the culture of the ANE. It helps to understand how they saw the story, but the logic of the "many people today would judge the account as unworth of our trust if it is not literal" is wrong by testing today of works of literature we consider worthy of trust while not requiring them to be literally true. The Little Engine that Could is worthy of my trust that I can do a lot if I simply try and believe I can, but there doesn't have to be a literal Little Blue Engine.

The problem is the logic of "either literal or worthless". Again, this is worship of the Bible, not of God.

Compare this with the resurrection, of course, which if it were not literal, then Christianity is worthless.
:) OK, that's true. Judeo-Christianity is a historical religion in that it is based on observations of God's intervention in history. As far as I can tell, there are two such essential interventions: the Exodus and the Resurrection. Neither of them have to be correct in every detail, but the essence of the event has to be real. So, if you could ever falsify the Exodus or the Resurrection as historical events, Judeo-Christianity would die.

Agreed, finding similar situations in history is key to understanding. We allow for the culture of the time in other places in scripture to help us understand scripture. We use it in our apologetic. It is not that it is a new concept, it is just that it is a new for Christians today to view Genesis with this understanding.

Help me start a revolution.
I'm going to be more revolutionary than that! I'm going to have you consider that Fundamentalism is NOT Christianity. Instead, it is a new religion that turn the Bible, especially Genesis and some other parts, into a god to worship. Instead of worshipping God, Fundamentalism worships a literal interpretation of the Bible. Whereas God needs to be pretty perfect, for Fundamentalism, a literal interpretation of the Bible has to be perfect.

What we have is a new religion that calls itself Christian as a deception. Instead of helping you start a revolution, how about you helping me throw down a false religion?

lucaspa

February 21st 2005, 06:52 PM

I am thinking that you believe that the OT was put together in Babylon during the captivity. The data says the Pentateuch was put together from 2 or 3 original sources shortly after the Babylonian captivity, probably during the time of Ezra.

The epic does not pre-date the OT by 1000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh does indeed predate the Exodus, and thus sources of the Pentateuch, by over 1,000 years. The Noah story is a re-working of the Unt-napushtim story.

A Beautiful Truth

February 21st 2005, 09:17 PM

Yes. Give me where you want me to argue this. Send a link in a PM.

I'll start a thread in Theology 201 when I asses more of your beliefs here and PM you if I start the thread.

I'm not familiar with the arguments under those names, but I bet I am under different names. I happen to think all of them are flawed. I've found an answer to the Problem of Evil that works.

Please include it in our future discussion in Theology 201.

Charleene, the Bible was never your judge. Your judge is God. What you have stated here is Biliolatry -- worship of the Bible.

Do you believe it is scripture or not? God's word or not? If God's word, then we are subject to it. I do not, however, claim to know all the right interpretations on a number of secondary issues, including how we are to take Genesis.

It is false idol worship. We judge Paul the way we judge any other theologian, from Mohammed to James Smith to Mary Baker Eddy to Jimmy Swaggert:

But if not for the Bible, from where do we judge? By what standard? The Bible is the standard.

do the ideas fit with our understanding of what God wants and with our own experience.

Again, the Bible instructs us of "what God wants." And as far as my experience, what does any of it matter in light of the Word of God? Differing interpretations I can handle, but to outright say it may be unauthoritative is against my beliefs.

I can pretty much handle a shaking up of my worldview. I've withstood a number of shake ups now in my Christian walk. But at the very core, at the foundation is the Word of God. To dis it would be not just a shake up but a complete overthrow of my worldview. I'll subject it to falsifiability, but as of now, from what I've studied, I'd say it is the Word of God and therefore I am subject to it. Peter refers to Paul's writing as scripture and Paul subjected himself to the apostles. He bears their approval, no? Jesus' choice in the apostle's leadership assures me that what they approved in Paul is good as scripture. Who am I to judge Paul as a crappy theologian when he was in such good company?

Paul tells us that married women should not work in church; they are too much given over to sexual desires.

And you must know that there are differing interpretations than yours, right? I do not believe Paul "tells us" any such thing.

Look below, you don't stay "safer here". As a woman you don't agree with Paul's theology of "women should be quiet in church", do you? You are judging Paul and think that taking that statement as universal is wrong, don't you?

Again, differing interpretations. And the issue of universal as opposed to specific. Paul would be contradicting himself if your interpretation is correct as he does allow women to prophecy which does require some sort of speaking. (I Cor. 11:5)

I'll look up the details later, but he says in some parts that Christ died to save us from Adam's sin, and in other parts from our own sin.
Which is not nessesarily a contradiction...

And some of the letters said to be by Paul aren't.

Like...?

So, since you agree it is a tragedy that we have lost the context of Paul's letters and try to make them universal, why do you say above "the minute I judge Paul, is the minute the Bible is no longer my judge.

I agree that is unfortunate that we have lost the context of many Paul's specific church or family related instructions and have tried to make them universal. I do not blame Paul for Christians who take things out of a proper interpretation. I do not believe this loss of context means a loss of the scripture's authority, however.

I say you don't need an understanding of the culture of the ANE. It helps to understand how they saw the story, but the logic of the "many people today would judge the account as unworth of our trust if it is not literal" is wrong by testing today of works of literature we consider worthy of trust while not requiring them to be literally true.

I should have been more specific. I meant the gospel accounts and the "problems" that some have found important. I believe such "problems" are answered when one considers the "rules" of ANE culture. (differing gospel accounts, "inaccurate" quotes from the O.T.)

I'm going to be more revolutionary than that! I'm going to have you consider that Fundamentalism is NOT Christianity. Instead, it is a new religion that turn the Bible, especially Genesis and some other parts, into a god to worship. Instead of worshipping God, Fundamentalism worships a literal interpretation of the Bible. Whereas God needs to be pretty perfect, for Fundamentalism, a literal interpretation of the Bible has to be perfect.

What we have is a new religion that calls itself Christian as a deception. Instead of helping you start a revolution, how about you helping me throw down a false religion?

I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God. I believe we are to be subject to the theological principles therein. The moment I let my "life experience" be the ultimate judge instead of the words of the Bible is the moment I worship in my own man made religion instead of Biblical Christianity.

I am all for gaining understanding from outside sources to understand the mindset and motives of Bible stories. I believe as long as the theological boundaries are preserved and understood as inspired then we are free to think along the lines we have here in this thread about Genesis.

And I believe the theological boundaries must be maintained in Paul as well. When we break the theological bounds, we break from traditional Christianity and have put ourselves, our thoughts, our personal "life experience" on par with what Christians believe is the "Word of God", on par with those whom Jesus entrusted with His Words--the apostles and Paul whom the apostles personally approved as a minister of His Truth.

Constantine

February 22nd 2005, 01:23 AM

I'm going to be more revolutionary than that! I'm going to have you consider that Fundamentalism is NOT Christianity. Instead, it is a new religion that turn the Bible, especially Genesis and some other parts, into a god to worship. Instead of worshipping God, Fundamentalism worships a literal interpretation of the Bible. Whereas God needs to be pretty perfect, for Fundamentalism, a literal interpretation of the Bible has to be perfect.

What we have is a new religion that calls itself Christian as a deception. Instead of helping you start a revolution, how about you helping me throw down a false religion?

I agree with most of that. But for different reasons than you might think. I do believe that there are too many fundamentalists out there who worship the Bible or worse yet what they are really doing is worshiping their own interpretation of the Bible. Infact they don't even have the entire Bible. But I am digressing.

I agree with Charlene that we cannot just arbitrarily disregard parts of the Bible we don't like. If your personal judgement is in opposition to the Bible, you can't just say "oh well, we don't have to believe that part". Either the Bible is the Inspired Word of God or it isn't. That does not mean we must take it literally, but that we must recognise the doctrinal authority of the Bible.

We may debate various interpretations, but just plain throwing out chunks you don't like is making your own ad hoc religion of feel-goodisms. Leaving me to ponder if that is really any better (or perhaps worse) than fundamentalism.

Certain historical facts are vital to Christianity, obviously the Resurrection is. But there are others that a theologically necessary. In the case of Genesis, I as a Roman Catholic have alot of lee way as long as I interpret it within an acceptable theological framework. It is my belief and the Doctrine of the Church that when interpreting Genesis the following ideas must be maintained:

1. The universe had a begining.

2. That no matter how God created mans body, that He specially created the human soul.

3. Adam and Eve were real people with a real Fall.

This framework sets some things in stone, but still leaves alot of freedom. I don't have to believe there was a historical Garden or a historical flood (though I do believe in a flood of some sort, and am undecided on the Garden).

I am personally a Theistic Evolutionist. I believe that our interpretation of Scripture should be consistent with science, but not held hostage or need to be proven by it.

But back to my main point regarding the Inspiration of Scripture. I agree that the Bible is not a science book and the reason for it is to teach us theological truths. And that it is first and foremost a theological document. But it is still Inspired, so when it teaches doctrine you can't go and ignore it because you don't like it.

I must admit I am a bit disturbed that you would presume to call St. Paul a terrible theologian. Does that mean you say you are a better one?

Also if all of Genesis up to Abraham is non-historical, where in the text to you argue for that? If you can just decide what is non-historical and historical based on what is easiest to believe then why believe in the Bible in the first place? Where do you draw the line? You believe that the Resurrection was historical, but what criteria make it different from the Fall of man or the Flood of Noah?

Don't misunderstand me Lucaspa, I think your a smart guy with some interesting ideas. I am just made un-easy by your approach and can't seem to find some singluar foundation for it.

lucaspa

February 24th 2005, 12:23 AM

Do you believe it is scripture or not? God's word or not? If God's word, then we are subject to it. I do not, however, claim to know all the right interpretations on a number of secondary issues, including how we are to take Genesis.
Did God write the Bible? Did He dictate it word for word? Your answers to those questions are terribly important.

Now, consider the books that are in the Bible. Did God pick them? NO! Men did. There are many other works that people claimed were inspired by God -- such as the Book of Enoch in the OT and some 80 gospels that were not included.

Finally, we seem to have a communication problem between you and I. This has come because I (principally) have been using "scripture" as shorthand for "literal interpretation of the Bible". Thruout your post you talk of different interpretations. This is the first time you have done this. You are upset because you feel I am attacking scripture. This is not really so. I am attacking a literal interpretation of scripture. By saying that Paul was not trying for a consistent theology, I am saying that one interpretation of Paul is that Paul did not mean what he literally said. So, you and I need to be more precise in our language and spend a little more time trying to understand exactly what the other is saying.

In this case, both of us are saying that a literal interpretation of many passages from Paul's letters is the wrong interpretation. We have different non-literal interpretations.

A major difference is that you want absolute authority for the Bible. I don't. God didn't write the Bible. Fallible humans did. I don't require the humans to be perfect. Thru the post, you are using "interpretations" to somehow preserve Paul's authority and reverence. I don't need to do that. I can respect Paul's writings by understanding what he was trying to accomplish in the historical context. I am not constrained to keep Paul perfect because some of his letters are in the "Word of God". You are protecting the integrity of the Bible. I don't need to do that because it is God's integrity that counts. The human authors of the Bible are allowed to make mistakes.

But if not for the Bible, from where do we judge? By what standard? The Bible is the standard.
Oops. Looks like you have decided. Too bad. The Bible isn't the standard. The Bible is a guide. However, as you have noticed, the standard changes even WITHIN the Bible. In the Pentateuch, men are allowed to divorce their wives with a simple declaration - Deut 24:1. However, Jesus in Mark 10 and Matthew 14 changes that standard. In the Pentateuch, the dietary laws are laid down for absolute standards. Yet in Acts they are revoked.

If you read 2 Timothy 3:16, you find Paul telling us that scripture is a GUIDE. It is "useful for instruction". Not the standard.

Again, the Bible instructs us of "what God wants." And as far as my experience, what does any of it matter in light of the Word of God?
Charleen, in the Bible, what is the "Word of God"? John 1. It is NOT the Bible. This is where I am afraid you are turning to worship of the Bible and not worship of God.

Differing interpretations I can handle, but to outright say it may be unauthoritative is against my beliefs.
What I said was: " do the ideas fit with our understanding of what God wants and with our own experience." I did NOT "say it may be unathorative".

Both the Old and New Testaments condone slavery. Yet we don't. In fact, we have gone so far as to say slavery is against God. The Abolitionists came from a Christian tradition and many of them were Christian ministers. So how could they condemn something the Bible says is OK if the Bible is "authoritative" as you say?

But at the very core, at the foundation is the Word of God. To dis it would be not just a shake up but a complete overthrow of my worldview. I'll subject it to falsifiability, but as of now, from what I've studied, I'd say it is the Word of God and therefore I am subject to it. Again, read John 1. What is the "Word of God"? Is it the Bible?

Peter refers to Paul's writing as scripture and Paul subjected himself to the apostles. He bears their approval, no?
1. Paul disobeyed the Jerusalem disciples and it was they who eventually caved in to Paul.
2. If you mean 2 Peter 3:15 as Peter saying Paul's letters were scripture, then you have sadly misread the text. 3:16 "speaking of this as he does in all his letters." You need to go back to find out what the "this" is. What Peter is actually referring to is the the expected day of Jesus' return.

Jesus' choice in the apostle's leadership assures me that what they approved in Paul is good as scripture. Who am I to judge Paul as a crappy theologian when he was in such good company?
Ah, the old Argument from Authority. But your real authority is supposed to be God and Jesus, right? So, when Paul contradicts Jesus, who should you follow? When Paul says things Jesus did not, who should you follow? When Paul advocates behavior and practices that you know contradicts what other parts of scripture say, you look to PAUL for authority? Who died and made him god?

And you must know that there are differing interpretations than yours, right? I do not believe Paul "tells us" any such thing.Literally, this is exactly what Paul tells us. Why do you think a different interpretation is more likely correct? Let me submit it is because your personal experience of women says that Paul cannot possibly be saying that, so you look for another interpretation. Charleen, the reason we consider different interpretations is because often our own experience and general knowledge of what God wants leads us to conclude that a literal interpretation just can't be right.

BUT, you are now judging Paul's theology. You are saying: "The plain meaning of Paul's words are wrong. They are crappy theology. Married women can too work in church." Now, you and I are both saying that a literal interpretation of Paul is wrong. So, we are either:
1. Saying that a literal interpretation can be judged wrong based on our experience and understandig of God.
2. Saying that Paul is "always right", but he is right only with a particular interpretation. That interpretation being based on our experience and understanding of God.

There's not much difference between the two.

Again, differing interpretations. And the issue of universal as opposed to specific. Paul would be contradicting himself if your interpretation is correct as he does allow women to prophecy which does require some sort of speaking. (I Cor. 11:5)
Again, the plain words say Paul contradicts himself. Wasn't that one of my points when I said Paul was a poor theologian? Thanks for supporting me. The difference is that I do not require Paul to be perfect in order to admire him.

Like...?
http://www.bibletexts.com/workshops/2-paul-7-letters.htm
http://www.dunedinmethodist.org.nz/bibl/paul.htm

So some of what we are arguing -- such as women being silent in church -- Paul did not write at all.

I agree that is unfortunate that we have lost the context of many Paul's specific church or family related instructions and have tried to make them universal. I do not blame Paul for Christians who take things out of a proper interpretation. I do not believe this loss of context means a loss of the scripture's authority, however.
But you do agree that the loss of context means that a loss for the authority of a literal interpretation, don't you?

I should have been more specific. I meant the gospel accounts and the "problems" that some have found important. I believe such "problems" are answered when one considers the "rules" of ANE culture. (differing gospel accounts, "inaccurate" quotes from the O.T.)
Now you seem to be referring to arguments used by militant atheists. The idea that, since there are discrepancies in the details of the crucifixion, for example, then the whole story is wrong. You should note that militant atheists always argue based on a literal interpretation and they are really arguing against the idea that you have: the Bible must be the "Word of God" or Christianity fails.

My point is still better in reference to militant atheists. Militant atheists don't, in other contexts, require texts to be literally true or consistent in all details in order for them to accept that they are generally truthful.

I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God. I believe we are to be subject to the theological principles therein. The moment I let my "life experience" be the ultimate judge instead of the words of the Bible is the moment I worship in my own man made religion instead of Biblical Christianity.
Oh boy. Where to start?
1. Christianity is supposed to be based on a personal relationship with God and Jesus, isn't it? So "Biblical Christianity" isn't really a religion. It's a perversion of Christianity to worship of the Bible.
2. Your life shows that you are not subject to all the theological principles therein. Obviously, you must be subject to some of them. Jesus said in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 what the essence of the law and what God wants from us is. And those verses DEMAND that we use our own life experiences (what we would have others do unto us) in order to fulfill the law.
3. So yes, you should have your personal relationship with God and your life experiences be the ultimate judge instead of a literal interpretation "of the words of the Bible". Now, I suspect that what you do is try to preserve "the words of the Bible" by using your life experiences to decide what the correct interpretation of the "words of the Bible" are.

I am all for gaining understanding from outside sources to understand the mindset and motives of Bible stories. I believe as long as the theological boundaries are preserved and understood as inspired then we are free to think along the lines we have here in this thread about Genesis.
My theological boundaries are found in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31. Where do you find yours?

And I believe the theological boundaries must be maintained in Paul as well. When we break the theological bounds, we break from traditional Christianity and have put ourselves, our thoughts, our personal "life experience" on par with what Christians believe is the "Word of God", on par with those whom Jesus entrusted with His Words--the apostles and Paul whom the apostles personally approved as a minister of His Truth.
I also believe the theological boundaries must be maintained in Paul as well. But, for me, literal interpretations of some of the verses in Paul violate Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31. If I were a woman, I would not want someone to decide I must be silent in church or could not be a minister. If I were gay, I would not want someone to use Romans to forbid me to marry or carry on a loving, monogamous relationship, or condemn me to Hell.

Tell me, why do you want to put those "whome Jesus entrusted with His Words" (again, wrong use of the capital W. The only Word in the Bible is Jesus!) above Jesus himself? Isn't the whole essence of Christianity that we are freed of ministers to tell us what to think? That our personal relationship with Jesus frees us from slavish obedience to fallible humans who may, or may not, have gotten the message right?

lucaspa

February 24th 2005, 12:50 AM

I agree with Charlene that we cannot just arbitrarily disregard parts of the Bible we don't like. If your personal judgement is in opposition to the Bible, you can't just say "oh well, we don't have to believe that part". Either the Bible is the Inspired Word of God or it isn't. That does not mean we must take it literally, but that we must recognise the doctrinal authority of the Bible.
WHOA!!! Stop right there. Where did I EVER say "arbitrarily"? It appears that you and Charleen are taking "personal experience" as equal to "arbitrary". It's not. I NEVER said, and certainly never meant to imply, that we can say "I don't like it, so we can ignore it." There ALWAYS must be reasons. Now, we can discuss whether the reasons are good ones or bad ones, but we are discussing the reasons.

Now, some of the reasons I have for distrusting a literal interpretation of Paul is the historical sketch I gave of Paul and what he was trying to accomplish. Another reason is that literal application of some passages violate Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31. That is, they [literal interpretation] require me to treat others differently than I would want to be treated.

Now, as I've said often before, I don't agree with you about the "Word of God". The ONLY capitalized Word is Jesus! As soon as you start using "Word" for Bible, I see false idol worship.

Certain historical facts are vital to Christianity, obviously the Resurrection is. But there are others that a theologically necessary. In the case of Genesis, I as a Roman Catholic have alot of lee way as long as I interpret it within an acceptable theological framework.
Now, there is a difference between what is minimally necessary for Christianity and what necessary for Roman Catholicism. The two aren't the same. I am speaking of what is minimally necessary for Christianity to survive. That doesn't mean Roman Catholicism will. :) Let's go thru your list.

It is my belief and the Doctrine of the Church that when interpreting Genesis the following ideas must be maintained:

1. The universe had a begining.
If Ekpyrotic or No Boundary is correct, you will have to renounce your faith. Sorry, but both these theories say the universe did NOT have a beginning. Now, I don't know if it is a good thing or not that you make your faith dependent on whether the unvierse had a beginning and thus tie is to the validity of a scientific theory. I suspect it is a bad one.

But let me have you do a thought experiment: Suppose Ekpyrotic is right, and the universe is cyclic and is a result of two always existing 'branes in higher dimensions. Does that negate the existence of God, the Exodus, or the Resurrection? Can God exist without the universe having a beginning, can He still intervene in human history, and can He still offer everlasting life?

2. That no matter how God created mans body, that He specially created the human soul. That's in the Pope's encyclical on evolution.

3. Adam and Eve were real people with a real Fall. ... I am personally a Theistic Evolutionist.
1. You just contradicted the "no matter how God created mans body". After all, Adam and Eve have a very specific how that their bodies were created.
2. The Pope's encyclical did not mention this, so it is not necessary Catholic doctrine.
3. You can't be a theistic evolutionist and hold to #3. You must be a special creationist. And, the evidence God left us in His Creation and the evidence is scripture says you are in deep doctrinal trouble. There never was a literal Adam and Eve or literal Fall.

This framework sets some things in stone, but still leaves alot of freedom.
What it sets in stone are such that you can falsify your version of Christianity with it. Congratulations. You just managed to destroy Catholicism and show it isn't a viable denomination. Proud of yourself?

I am personally a Theistic Evolutionist. I believe that our interpretation of Scripture should be consistent with science, but not held hostage or need to be proven by it.
This sets science separate from God. How can you do that?

What is science? Think about it. Science is simply the study of the physical universe. WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE???!!! God, right? So science is the study of God's second book. Science is not separate from God, but reads a different scripture. When the 2 scriptures contradict, you can be sure that our human, fallible, interpretation of the Bible is at fault. See the second quote in my signature.

I am disturbed that you would presume to call St. Paul a terrible theologian. Does that mean you say you are a better one? Non sequitor. Paul's status as a theologian says nothing about my own status as one. I told why I so "presumed". The same "presumption", based on the same general criteria, that I presume to call Joseph Smith, Mary Bake Eddy, Pat Robertson, Jim Jones, and others terrible theologians.

Also if all of Genesis up to Abraham is non-historical, where in the text to you argue for that?
In the contradictions. Genesis 1 is contradicted by Genesis 2. Both are contradicted by Genesis 5. Also in the fact that the text is poetry. It's a song! Go to any synagogue on Sabbath and you can still listen to the Torah being sung!

If you can just decide what is non-historical and historical based on what is easiest to believe then why believe in the Bible in the first place?
WHOA! Who ever said the criteria was "what is easiest to believe"? Please don't put words into my mouth. If you think I implied that, please point out exactly where you think I did so.

Where do you draw the line? You believe that the Resurrection was historical, but what criteria make it different from the Fall of man or the Flood of Noah? The Resurrection is not contradicted by God's second book. The others are. That's the criteria.

I am just made un-easy by your approach and can't seem to find some singluar foundation for it.
Then let me help you find the "singular foundation" Read the second quote in my signature. Have that reinforced by:
"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

"duplex cognito" John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed by John T. McNeil, 1.2.1, 1960.

"Man learns from two books: the universe for the human study of things created by God; and the Bible, for the study of God's superior will and truth. One belongs to reason, the other to faith. Between them there is no clash." Pope Pius Xii, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Dec. 3, 1939.

There is no clash between the books because, when Creation contradicts a fallible, human interpreation of the Bible, I know that the fallible interpretation is wrong.

As for the other foundation:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. "

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. "

kofh2u

February 24th 2005, 01:03 AM

I agree with most of that. But for different reasons than you might think. I do believe that there are too many fundamentalists out there who worship the Bible or worse yet what they are really doing is worshiping their own interpretation of the Bible. Infact they don't even have the entire Bible. But I am digressing.

I agree with Charlene that we cannot just arbitrarily disregard parts of the Bible we don't like. If your personal judgement is in opposition to the Bible, you can't just say "oh well, we don't have to believe that part". Either the Bible is the Inspired Word of God or it isn't. That does not mean we must take it literally, but that we must recognise the doctrinal authority of the Bible.

We may debate various interpretations, but just plain throwing out chunks you don't like is making your own ad hoc religion of feel-goodisms. Leaving me to ponder if that is really any better (or perhaps worse) than fundamentalism.

Certain historical facts are vital to Christianity, obviously the Resurrection is. But there are others that a theologically necessary. In the case of Genesis, I as a Roman Catholic have alot of lee way as long as I interpret it within an acceptable theological framework. It is my belief and the Doctrine of the Church that when interpreting Genesis the following ideas must be maintained:

1. The universe had a begining.

2. That no matter how God created mans body, that He specially created the human soul.

3. Adam and Eve were real people with a real Fall.

This framework sets some things in stone, but still leaves alot of freedom. I don't have to believe there was a historical Garden or a historical flood (though I do believe in a flood of some sort, and am undecided on the Garden).

I am personally a Theistic Evolutionist. I believe that our interpretation of Scripture should be consistent with science, but not held hostage or need to be proven by it.

But back to my main point regarding the Inspiration of Scripture. I agree that the Bible is not a science book and the reason for it is to teach us theological truths. And that it is first and foremost a theological document. But it is still Inspired, so when it teaches doctrine you can't go and ignore it because you don't like it.

I must admit I am a bit disturbed that you would presume to call St. Paul a terrible theologian. Does that mean you say you are a better one?

Also if all of Genesis up to Abraham is non-historical, where in the text to you argue for that? If you can just decide what is non-historical and historical based on what is easiest to believe then why believe in the Bible in the first place? Where do you draw the line? You believe that the Resurrection was historical, but what criteria make it different from the Fall of man or the Flood of Noah?

Don't misunderstand me Lucaspa, I think your a smart guy with some interesting ideas. I am just made un-easy by your approach and can't seem to find some singluar foundation for it.

You make a great deal of sense. Nevertheless two points seem useful to round out your liberalism.

First, the Bible is clearly not understood by anyone, any Church, any interpretation to date.
This is evidenced in the on going debates here, throughout history, and especially notable in the days of Jesus. His inte pretation was SO unsatisfactory to absolutely everyone that only John stood at the Cross, the Mother of Jesus and Magdal perhaps understanding.

Second, in spite of this undeniable human failing to know proof positive what the Bible says, we are to have faith that whatever it does say, when it is revealed to us, will be theTruth.

This is all very supportable commentary, whst I say, in thst it applies to God, that we can not fathom Him either, that we nevertheless debate our exclusive knowledge of Him, ignoring that "the Word was God"...

1In the beginning was the Word, (unwritten Scripture), and the Word, (now the Bible), was with God (only, unknown to men), and the Word, (our only medium by which to know God), was God. 2He, (the living Word), was with God in the beginning.

Constantine

February 24th 2005, 03:22 AM

WHOA!!! Stop right there. Where did I EVER say "arbitrarily"? It appears that you and Charleen are taking "personal experience" as equal to "arbitrary". It's not. I NEVER said, and certainly never meant to imply, that we can say "I don't like it, so we can ignore it." There ALWAYS must be reasons. Now, we can discuss whether the reasons are good ones or bad ones, but we are discussing the reasons.[/quuote]

Perhaps arbitrary was a bit, blunt. But you seem to be proposing the idea that we can today decide what is and is not Cannon. Is this correct? Do you think we have the authority to toss out books of the Bible?

[quote]Now, as I've said often before, I don't agree with you about the "Word of God". The ONLY capitalized Word is Jesus! As soon as you start using "Word" for Bible, I see false idol worship.

Don't be silly. I as a Catholic am much to busy worshipping statues and Mary to bother with worshiping the Bible :lol:

(note: Sarcasm in above comment)

But seriously, I capitalize those words because as the guide to Salvation given to us by God the Bible and the words it contains deserve reverence and respect. But certainly not worship.

Now, there is a difference between what is minimally necessary for Christianity and what necessary for Roman Catholicism. The two aren't the same. I am speaking of what is minimally necessary for Christianity to survive. That doesn't mean Roman Catholicism will. :) Let's go thru your list.

Lets just not go there right now, wrong forum.

If Ekpyrotic or No Boundary is correct, you will have to renounce your faith. Sorry, but both these theories say the universe did NOT have a beginning. Now, I don't know if it is a good thing or not that you make your faith dependent on whether the unvierse had a beginning and thus tie is to the validity of a scientific theory. I suspect it is a bad one

Not necessarily. If the Ekpyrotic theory were correct it would just place the begining of the universe with the begining of those two three dimensional worlds that collided to make this one. I may be mistaken, but doesn't science stop several seconds after the Big Bang? Science can't go past the begining of the Big Bang, so proposing "scientific" theories explaining what happened before the universe seems futile.

I'm not really subjecting my faith to a scientific theory. But rather a physical reality. Either the universe had a begining or it did not. If the universe is eternal, how can God create it? If God is the only eternal entity then how could there be an eternal universe that existed forever with God?

And shall we go to Genesis 1:1:

"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth"

If the heavens are already here how can God create them? Regardless of your interpretation of Genesis I can't see a way around this simply statement.

In the Gospel of John we also read:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be"
(John 1:1-3)

Theism at its core requires a universe with a begining. I'm a little perplexed why you find this idea odd.

But if say the Steady State theory was correct, I may have to be forced to abandon my faith or ignore what science was telling me. You can't be a theist and believe in an eternal universe.

But let me have you do a thought experiment: Suppose Ekpyrotic is right, and the universe is cyclic and is a result of two always existing 'branes in higher dimensions. Does that negate the existence of God, the Exodus, or the Resurrection? Can God exist without the universe having a beginning, can He still intervene in human history, and can He still offer everlasting life?

Depends. Do these "branes in higher dimensions" need a begining? How do you test for them scientifically? I believe in the Exodus because I have faith that God exist. I believe the Resurrection is possible because I can logically show why God is probable. If you take away the logical foundation of theism how do you expect a monotheistic religion to survive?

You seem to want an invincible religion. One that no matter the facts can find a way around them. How is this any different than fundamentalism? The Fundy's tell us to ignore facts of nature, and you tell us to ignore facts of theology. Am I mistaken in your approach? I accept the fact that I could be wrong and the atheist right. I just happen to believe that my theistic viewpoint is more rational and reasonable.

1. You just contradicted the "no matter how God created mans body". After all, Adam and Eve have a very specific how that their bodies were created.
2. The Pope's encyclical did not mention this, so it is not necessary Catholic doctrine.
3. You can't be a theistic evolutionist and hold to #3. You must be a special creationist. And, the evidence God left us in His Creation and the evidence is scripture says you are in deep doctrinal trouble. There never was a literal Adam and Eve or literal Fall.

I think Glenn Morton would disagree. He thinks that Adam and Eve were real people, and I don't hink you'd doubt his commitment to TE.

Also it is indeed part of Catholic Doctrine that Adam and Eve were real people. From the Catechism:

"The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390)

And from Humani Generis:

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is partained. But I'm not here to debate Catholic Doctrine with you.ssed onto all and is in everyone as his own"
(Humani Generis 37)

You see that the Doctrine of Original Sin is directly linked to a real Fall and a real Adam and Eve. That certainly doesn't mean that Genesis is literal, just that from a figurative reading these historical facts can be ascertained. But I'm not here to debate Catholic Doctrine with you.

What it sets in stone are such that you can falsify your version of Christianity with it. Congratulations. You just managed to destroy Catholicism and show it isn't a viable denomination. Proud of yourself?

I'm not sure where I destoyed Catholicism (again the debate over Catholicism and Protestanism does not belong in Cosmogony).

You should be able to falsify Christianity. If you can't, what good is it? What would convert the atheist if he knew that Christianity can just change whenever it gets too tough? If the tomb wasn't empty, or if the universe didn't have a begining then Christianity is wrong. Why can't you admit that possibility? It doesn't disturb me because the facts are on Christianity's side.

This sets science separate from God. How can you do that?

What is science? Think about it. Science is simply the study of the physical universe. WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE???!!! God, right? So science is the study of God's second book. Science is not separate from God, but reads a different scripture. When the 2 scriptures contradict, you can be sure that our human, fallible, interpretation of the Bible is at fault. See the second quote in my signature.

When do we know it is our Biblical interpretation and not our scientific interpretation that is wrong? Humans are fallible, how can we know which to change? And if you can just willy nilly twist and distort the text to whatever you want it to say then why have it at all? You can't use a guide you keep changing all the time.

Non sequitor. Paul's status as a theologian says nothing about my own status as one. I told why I so "presumed". The same "presumption", based on the same general criteria, that I presume to call Joseph Smith, Mary Bake Eddy, Pat Robertson, Jim Jones, and others terrible theologians.

Fair enough.

In the contradictions. Genesis 1 is contradicted by Genesis 2. Both are contradicted by Genesis 5. Also in the fact that the text is poetry. It's a song! Go to any synagogue on Sabbath and you can still listen to the Torah being sung!

I don't deny the contradictions. I currently think that the Framework view is correct, in that view the chonological order doesn't really matter. Everything is ordered according to topic not time.

WHOA! Who ever said the criteria was "what is easiest to believe"? Please don't put words into my mouth. If you think I implied that, please point out exactly where you think I did so

When you said we should change our Biblical interpretation according to science. That way if it goes along with the mainstream view it is certainly easier to believe.

The Resurrection is not contradicted by God's second book. The others are. That's the criteria

Science tells us that once thigns are dead, they tend to stay dead. There is no process in the "second book" of nature to tell us that a man can raise from the dead. That is why we have faith in the Resurrection, any other miracles in the Bible are no different. Why are you so quick to put fallible human knowledge that is constantly changing as the arbiter of your theology?

There is no clash between the books because, when Creation contradicts a fallible, human interpreation of the Bible, I know that the fallible interpretation is wrong.

Again I ask how do you know it isn't the fallible inerpretation of Creation that is wrong? You are at the opposite but equally extreme view point of the fundy's. They say that if creation contradicts their view of the Bible, then science is wrong. You say our view of the Bible is wrong. Two sides of the same extremist coin.

I prefer balance and the adminission that we are fallible in both endeavours of trying to find the truth. Through theology and through science. If there is a conflict, we should look to see if either side is overstepping its boundries...which is where 99% of conflict actually comes from.

First, the Bible is clearly not understood by anyone, any Church, any interpretation to date.

So what about the Early Church Fathers? Are their writings irrelavent? How do we know when we get the right understanding?

Seems a strange position to me, but then again I'm Catholic ;)

A Beautiful Truth

February 24th 2005, 06:22 PM

Did God write the Bible? Did He dictate it word for word? Your answers to those questions are terribly important.

Why, does His hand need to have physically written the words or every word need to have been audibly dictated for the scriptures to be the inspired word of God?

Now, consider the books that are in the Bible. Did God pick them? NO! Men did. There are many other works that people claimed were inspired by God -- such as the Book of Enoch in the OT and some 80 gospels that were not included.

We could discuss this if you thought it had enough bearing on our conversation.

Finally, we seem to have a communication problem between you and I. This has come because I (principally) have been using "scripture" as shorthand for "literal interpretation of the Bible". Thruout your post you talk of different interpretations.

"Scripture" means something different than "interpretation", but I'm glad you saw the problem in our communication.

You are upset because you feel I am attacking scripture. This is not really so. I am attacking a literal interpretation of scripture.

I attack literal interpretations in many cases also because such is not nessesarily the meaning of scripture. This is why we have exegesis.

A major difference is that you want absolute authority for the Bible. I don't. God didn't write the Bible.

So since God did not physically write the Bible, it is unauthoritative? How does that follow? It could very well be inspiration is enough.

I am not constrained to keep Paul perfect

Since we need to be consise about things, let's be clear that "Paul" does not need to be perfect, but that the theology he writes does. Paul was not perfect, nor were the other writers of the Bible. This says nothing of inspiration, however.

You are protecting the integrity of the Bible. I don't need to do that because it is God's integrity that counts. The human authors of the Bible are allowed to make mistakes.

So are you one of these "many paths lead to God" believers? How do we know the accurate view of God if not for the Bible? Do you believe the O.T. has value in understanding Christ?

The Bible isn't the standard. The Bible is a guide.

So those Old Covenent believers did not really have to obey the Law, it was just sort of a guide book? Now, we could get into why we don't practice O.T. law today, but that is of course a topic better treated seperately.

However, as you have noticed, the standard changes even WITHIN the Bible. In the Pentateuch, men are allowed to divorce their wives with a simple declaration - Deut 24:1. However, Jesus in Mark 10 and Matthew 14 changes that standard. In the Pentateuch, the dietary laws are laid down for absolute standards. Yet in Acts they are revoked.

If such things make you believe the Bible is therefore unauthoriative, then perhaps we need to spin a new thread to discuss it.

If you read 2 Timothy 3:16, you find Paul telling us that scripture is a GUIDE. It is "useful for instruction". Not the standard.

Only useful because if you disagreed with it you can really just do your own thing?

Charleen, in the Bible, what is the "Word of God"? John 1. It is NOT the Bible. This is where I am afraid you are turning to worship of the Bible and not worship of God.

Perhaps a concordance study of "word of God" would help. The Bible contains the word of God. While I do not worship mere words, I worship the God who I understand though those words. I take those words as true in all they address.

What I said was: " do the ideas fit with our understanding of what God wants and with our own experience." I did NOT "say it may be unathorative".

Well, I was wondering what would happen if the scripture's meaning contradicted the ideas that "fit with our understanding of what God wants and with our own experience." Who has the final authority, experience or the meaning of scripture?

Both the Old and New Testaments condone slavery. Yet we don't. In fact, we have gone so far as to say slavery is against God. The Abolitionists came from a Christian tradition and many of them were Christian ministers. So how could they condemn something the Bible says is OK if the Bible is "authoritative" as you say?

This topic has been around and you can probably find one active even now on Tweb. The point is, you must understand the cultural context and the kind of slavery it was in ancient Isreal. People back then sold themselves into slavery. Their tenure was seven years. Is it fair to judge ancient socio-economics against modern? There was also the issue of prisoners of war. There is also the issue of misunderstanding "sex slaves" as many Bible critics do with regard to fathers selling their daughters into marriage. Again, who are we to judge the socio economics of their practices? Many people today get very offended at the idea that some people's ideas are being "forced" upon other cultures. Christian missionaries often get this accusation railed against them. We need to be sensitive when we judge other cultures. Different cultures have different customs than we do. As long as these are not immoral (like being poor and having to make ends meet somehow and selling yourself for seven years to make it work) then we need to be sensitive in our judgement.

1. Paul disobeyed the Jerusalem disciples and it was they who eventually caved in to Paul.

In what way did he disobey?

2. If you mean 2 Peter 3:15 as Peter saying Paul's letters were scripture, then you have sadly misread the text. 3:16 "speaking of this as he does in all his letters." You need to go back to find out what the "this" is. What Peter is actually referring to is the the expected day of Jesus' return.

Actually, what I meant was (in bold)

as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the scriptures..."

II Peter 3:16

Ah, the old Argument from Authority. But your real authority is supposed to be God and Jesus, right? So, when Paul contradicts Jesus, who should you follow?

Paul contradicted Jesus? Where?

When Paul says things Jesus did not, who should you follow?

Because Jesus did not say them in the Gospels does not mean that they are not words of His inspiration through Paul. I wonder at you saying this. There must be some things in Paul that you think are without the bounds of Christ. This may explain much in our discussion.

When Paul advocates behavior and practices that you know contradicts what other parts of scripture say, you look to PAUL for authority?

I do not know that Paul advocates behavior and practices that contradict other parts of scripture. I think such thoughts indicate a need to investigate further the hard sayings of Paul. When you brought up the difference between situationally specific vs. universal, I thought you were onto it.

Who died and made him god?

I believe His teachings are inspired because of the argument I laid out before. Inspired and "god" are not the same.

Literally, this is exactly what Paul tells us. Why do you think a different interpretation is more likely correct?

This is further discussion on what you said previously: "Paul tells us that married women should not work in church; they are too much given over to sexual desires." Perhaps you wouldn't mind giving the verse and letting us go from there.

Let me submit it is because your personal experience of women says that Paul cannot possibly be saying that, so you look for another interpretation.

No, actually the reason is because I am unsure of the scripture you are referencing.

Charleen, the reason we consider different interpretations is because often our own experience and general knowledge of what God wants leads us to conclude that a literal interpretation just can't be right.

Or that we need to look into it more through proper exegesis.

BUT, you are now judging Paul's theology. You are saying: "The plain meaning of Paul's words are wrong. They are crappy theology. Married women can too work in church." Now, you and I are both saying that a literal interpretation of Paul is wrong. So, we are either:
1. Saying that a literal interpretation can be judged wrong based on our experience and understandig of God.

We really need to back up and reference that scripture in order to have a discussion about it.

2. Saying that Paul is "always right", but he is right only with a particular interpretation. That interpretation being based on our experience and understanding of God.

Rather it is with a mindset that the Bible contains no contradictions and that we should assume it is innocent until proven guilty. If we consider proper avenues for interpreting scripture, including allowing the consideration of the account being culturally specific, then we are within fair bounds.

Again, the plain words say Paul contradicts himself.

I'd like to see what you mean.

Thanks for supporting me.

I did not support that Paul contradicts himself. I think a misunderstanding of the text could lead one there.

The difference is that I do not require Paul to be perfect in order to admire him.

I do not believe Paul to be perfect. That is reserved for God alone. But I believe that the Bible, including Paul's writing, is the inspired word of God and therefore worthy of our submission. There are aspects of Paul's writing that need to be carefully understood. As I woman, I would only have to follow his inspired instruction if I were in the context of His admonishment. I am not in the same specific situation, therefore the specific instruction has no bearing on me. This does not mean that is uninspired or unauthoratative, it just means it does not apply to me because I am not in the situation he was addressing in that culturally sensitive instance.

I believe this to be the case for women speaking in church. I believe one needs to understand the culture of that particular area to understand the passage. Additionally, a look into the original language and its use elsewhere in the immediate text is beneficial. Specifically "speak" and "silent". The silence is the same "silence" used in 14:28, even addressed to men. And the "speak" has been used in the whole Corinthian discussion about speaking in foreign language and speaking in tongues. There was a particular social situation that needed to be addressed and the instruction is not a universal. (The priestesses at Delphi would speak in an "unknown language" in their religious ceremonies and the church was not to have any such things in it.)

http://www.bibletexts.com/workshops...l-7-letters.htm
http://www.dunedinmethodist.org.nz/bibl/paul.htm

So some of what we are arguing -- such as women being silent in church -- Paul did not write at all.

It is very convenient that these hard sayings of Paul are so easily dismissed as simply not being his writing. I don't see much support but only that these are controversial and that it is so much easier to write them off. I'd need to see some evidence.

But you do agree that the loss of context means that a loss for the authority of a literal interpretation, don't you?

Again, no. It has to do with--to whom does the instruction apply? It does not apply to me, it is not a universal, but a specific.

Now you seem to be referring to arguments used by militant atheists. The idea that, since there are discrepancies in the details of the crucifixion, for example, then the whole story is wrong. You should note that militant atheists always argue based on a literal interpretation and they are really arguing against the idea that you have: the Bible must be the "Word of God" or Christianity fails.

They argue on a misunderstanding of how the gospel accounts are to be understood within the cultural context of writing during that time. But because their literary standards do not fairly apply does not mean that the Bible is not the Word of God.

My point is still better in reference to militant atheists. Militant atheists don't, in other contexts, require texts to be literally true or consistent in all details in order for them to accept that they are generally truthful.

Are other religions generally truthful, too, just like Christianity is generally truthful?

Oh boy. Where to start?
1. Christianity is supposed to be based on a personal relationship with God and Jesus, isn't it? So "Biblical Christianity" isn't really a religion. It's a perversion of Christianity to worship of the Bible.

Christianity is not based solely on a personal relationship with God and Jesus. We have to know Him rightly in order to know Him truly. The Bible directs us into that right truth. Any thing beyond is self-made religion.

2. Your life shows that you are not subject to all the theological principles therein.

No? I am subject to what applies to me, which is all the theological principles but not nessarily the specific instructions given to a particular culture or even to people under a particular covenent (as when considering the O.T.).

Obviously, you must be subject to some of them. Jesus said in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 what the essence of the law and what God wants from us is. And those verses DEMAND that we use our own life experiences (what we would have others do unto us) in order to fulfill the law.

I assume to mean that some of this contradicts what Paul wrote. I hope you will explain.

3. So yes, you should have your personal relationship with God and your life experiences be the ultimate judge instead of a literal interpretation "of the words of the Bible".

Well, since understanding scripture is not about always having a literal interpretation (consider Job, Revelation, and even Genesis, I believe), then your argument has no true bearing on the validitiy or invalidity of the scriptures.

Now, I suspect that what you do is try to preserve "the words of the Bible" by using your life experiences to decide what the correct interpretation of the "words of the Bible" are.

Nay, that would get me no where. The words of the Bible are understood by me as the words of God for such a great many reasons, none of them being that I am free to use my life experience to decide.

My theological boundaries are found in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31. Where do you find yours?

In a Biblically based understanding of God.

I also believe the theological boundaries must be maintained in Paul as well. But, for me, literal interpretations of some of the verses in Paul violate Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31.

This is where it comes out...
If I were a woman, I would not want someone to decide I must be silent in church or could not be a minister. If I were gay, I would not want someone to use Romans to forbid me to marry or carry on a loving, monogamous relationship, or condemn me to Hell.

"What does a man profit if he gains the world and forfeits his soul"? To me, I think the homosexual is better to look to the eternal rewards of living a life of sacrifice on this earth for Him rather than trusting in the liberal theologians who say the words of the Bible are unauthorative.

He understands the sacrifice, it is certainly no more than what He gave when He gave His life for us. We all have a cross to bear. Some of us bear harder crosses than others. I think the homosexual has a hard cross to bear in their life but I am certain, if there is a God, that He will reward the sarifice given for Him.

This would be the same for those who decided not to ever marry but to remain dedicated to Him alone. Eternal reward for such a sacrifice outweighs the miserable temporary life that one may endure. But it is not more than the martyrs and Christians before them. No, dedication to Christ is never without sacrifice. As I said, we all have a cross to bear. We admire those who bear the most. Is He not worth it?

What if Christ is saying to those who battle this kind of fight the same principle He said to the rich, young ruler? "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." There is a cost to pay, and not everyone has the same cross to bear. Is it unfair that this young ruler had to give so much? In comparison to following Him, no. And this, I believe, is the same message to the homosexual. Christ wants to be everything to us, is He not worth it?

Tell me, why do you want to put those "whome Jesus entrusted with His Words"... above Jesus himself?

I don't, but Jesus granted them authority as apostles. I also believe that the Lord inspired them to write down what He willed, making their words His words. I guess you disagree that He did this because you have decided that Paul speaks of women (and we have spoken of this as far as specific and universal...) and homosexuals in a way that does not match your relationship with God. It is what it boils down to.

To be honest, this is unfortunate for Theistic Evolution as a whole. It turns out that many theistic evolutionists agree with you and are not conservative. Theistic evolution will never "catch on" as long as those who proport it don't believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Isn't the whole essence of Christianity that we are freed of ministers to tell us what to think?

No, read Acts.

That our personal relationship with Jesus frees us from slavish obedience to fallible humans who may, or may not, have gotten the message right?

If you think it is so chancy that the Bible writers may not have gotten the message right, what would be so bad about taking such a chance with other religions?

lucaspa

February 28th 2005, 02:34 PM

Perhaps arbitrary was a bit, blunt. But you seem to be proposing the idea that we can today decide what is and is not Cannon. Is this correct? Do you think we have the authority to toss out books of the Bible?
Not at all. I'm not discussing the Canon. I'm discussing passages WITHIN the Bible. Are ALL passages equally accurate and valid theology? Is every interpretation of these passages correct?

Remember, the dietary laws are commanded in the Bible. They are supposed to be an essential part of worshipping God. Yet along comes Paul and says Gentile converts don't have to obey them! Then Peter has a dream in Acts 7 and decides that the dietary laws are no longer valid theology.

So ... the Bible itself says that some theological claims can change and be discarded.

But seriously, I capitalize those words because as the guide to Salvation given to us by God the Bible and the words it contains deserve reverence and respect. But certainly not worship. But again, teh Bible has only one Word. And that isn't the Bible. To call the Bible "Word of God" is to elevate it to Jesus. Not a good idea.

Not necessarily. If the Ekpyrotic theory were correct it would just place the begining of the universe with the begining of those two three dimensional worlds that collided to make this one. I may be mistaken, but doesn't science stop several seconds after the Big Bang? Science can't go past the begining of the Big Bang, so proposing "scientific" theories explaining what happened before the universe seems futile.
Big Bang goes to 10^-43 seconds after the singularity that is the BB. Within that last fraction of a second, Relativity doesn't hold and time itself smears out in quantum effects.

However, Ekpyrotic is different. Instead, it proposes 2 eleven dimensional 'branes that collide to form a 3 D universe. Instead of a Big Bang, there is a "Big Splat". Instead of God always existing, we have the 'branes always existing and a cyclic universe without beginning or end -- very much like Hinduism. :)

As it turns out, ekpyrotic will produce different gravity waves than BB, so in a decade or so when we have the technology to detect gravity waves, ekpyrotic can be tested and we may find out the BB is incorrect and ekpyrotic is correct. What does that do to your list if ekpyrotic turns out to be correct?

I'm not really subjecting my faith to a scientific theory. But rather a physical reality. Either the universe had a begining or it did not. If the universe is eternal, how can God create it? If God is the only eternal entity then how could there be an eternal universe that existed forever with God? So if either scientific theory of No Boundary or ekpyrotic is correct, the universe had no beginning, thus no God creating it. Isn't that subjecting you faith to a scientific theory? If not, what is it?

And shall we go to Genesis 1:1:

"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth"

If the heavens are already here how can God create them? Regardless of your interpretation of Genesis I can't see a way around this simply statement.
Sure there is. Genesis 1 is making a theological statement that the Babylonian gods don't exist, not HOW the universe came to be.

In the Gospel of John we also read:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be"
(John 1:1-3)
John 1-3 is stating that Jesus co-exists with God and is part of God. It is stating one version of Christology, not HOW the universe came to be.

Theism at its core requires a universe with a begining. I'm a little perplexed why you find this idea odd.
Because, at its core, Christianity doesn't require a universe with a beginning. It only requires God as Creator -- and God already created the ancient state of Israel -- God as intervening in human history, God becoming human in Jesus and the Resurrection, and God granting eternal life.

But if say the Steady State theory was correct, I may have to be forced to abandon my faith or ignore what science was telling me. You can't be a theist and believe in an eternal universe.
I think you can be a theist and believe in an eternal universe. We'll find out if this is possible if ekpyrotic is correct. You have set yourself up a situation where you must deny God as Creator or deny God altogether. Tough choice.

I believe in the Exodus because I have faith that God exist.
Really? You don't trust the accounts fo the people involved and therefore have faith God exists? To me, you have it backwards.

I believe the Resurrection is possible because I can logically show why God is probable. If you take away the logical foundation of theism how do you expect a monotheistic religion to survive?
The Resurrection is possible because there is nothing to forbid it, not because "God is probable." You believe the Resurrection because you trust the eyewitnesses to it and, hopefully, because of your personal relationship with the risen Christ. At least, that's why I HOPE you believe the Resurrection.

Christianity is not a "logical" religion. It is a historical religion. God did certain things. People witnessed these events. People passed on what they had seen and experienced to others.

You seem to want an invincible religion. One that no matter the facts can find a way around them.
Not necessarily. I was asking YOU how you felt about it. Please don't read my own thoughts into my questions here. I was getting you to think about the consequences of what YOU would do should your conditions not be met.

Now, my faith is based on personal experience. Should you be able to show me that the personal experience of the people who talked about the Exodus was wrong or that the witnesses to the Resurrection were wrong, or that the personal experiences of the millions of people who claim experience of God are wrong, then indeed I will say that theism is wrong. I am simply not putting the falsification criteria where you are. Not that I don't have any.

The Fundy's tell us to ignore facts of nature, and you tell us to ignore facts of theology. Just the Fundies? Above you said "But if say the Steady State theory was correct, I may have to be forced to abandon my faith or ignore what science was telling me." Now, why would you ignore the facts of nature as found by science?

Constantine, it appears you are not about to abandon theism based on what science finds. Why not? I know why I wouldn't. Because, even if ekpyrotic were correct, I'd still have all those personal experiences of God. IOW, I'd still have a lot of data saying God exists. Ekpyrotic would say "God did not create the universe" but it would not gainsay those experiences.

I just happen to believe that my theistic viewpoint is more rational and reasonable.
As a scientist, I have learned that "rational and reasonable" does not determine reality. Look at QM. Irrational by our daily experiences. Instead, I have learned that the universe IS what it IS. And that includes whether deity exists or not. If I am going to believe, that belief has to be based on EVIDENCE, not "rational and reasonable". Personal experience of God provides evidence.

I think Glenn Morton would disagree. He thinks that Adam and Eve were real people, and I don't hink you'd doubt his commitment to TE.
I have seen a 1995 article by Glenn stating that Adam and Eve literally existed. I have not seen whether that is his current opinion.

However, we are not talking about what Glenn or you believe. What we are discussing is whether the IDEA of a literal Adam and Eve is consistent with the IDEA of evolution.

Also it is indeed part of Catholic Doctrine that Adam and Eve were real people. From the Catechism:

"The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390)
Well, so much for Catholicism, then. Nice of you to falsify it.

You see that the Doctrine of Original Sin is directly linked to a real Fall and a real Adam and Eve. That certainly doesn't mean that Genesis is literal, just that from a figurative reading these historical facts can be ascertained. But I'm not here to debate Catholic Doctrine with you.
Then let's not debate Catholic doctrine, but whether the Doctrine of Original Sin MUST be linked to a real Fall and a real Adam and Eve. I don't think so. I think the whole story is allegory, with the "names" Adam and Eve tipping you off. What's more, I submit that natural selection gives you original sin to everyone without a literal Adam and Eve (which we don't have).

I'm not sure where I destoyed Catholicism (again the debate over Catholicism and Protestanism does not belong in Cosmogony).
I'm not debating Catholicism or Protestantism. Read my post again. You tied the Catholicism to a particular event that you say MUST happen for Catholicism to be valid. So, by deductive logic, if the event did not happen, then Catholocism is not valid. And the validity of Protestantism is irrelevant to that.

You should be able to falsify Christianity. If you can't, what good is it? What would convert the atheist if he knew that Christianity can just change whenever it gets too tough? If the tomb wasn't empty, or if the universe didn't have a begining then Christianity is wrong.
OK, here we go. I agree that if the tomb was not empty, then Christianity is toast. I said that initially when I said there were 2 things that, if shown to be wrong, would sink Judeo-Christianity. I am not so sure that if the universe did not have a beginning, then Christianity is toast. Do you see? We are not arguing WHETHER Christianity can be falsified, but specifically WHAT would falsify it.

And, the only thing that will convert the atheist is personal experience of God. She has already decided not to trust the accounts of others. So, you have put up a strawman here when you mention atheism.

When do we know it is our Biblical interpretation and not our scientific interpretation that is wrong? Humans are fallible, how can we know which to change?
Because, by its very nature, if science is wrong God Himself in Creation will tell us we are wrong. That is, science MUST change its theories if there are data in God's Creation to show you the theories are wrong. However, no such thing happens with interpretation, does it? God can't come down and change the text and, for whatever reason, God doesn't put up neon signs in the sky and say "This interpretation is wrong, idiot!"

And if you can just willy nilly twist and distort the text to whatever you want it to say then why have it at all? You can't use a guide you keep changing all the time.
Who said "willy nilly"? That's like saying "arbitrary". What we have is an interpretation WE (fallible humans, remember) think is correct. I propose that we 1) try to determine what the people OF THE TIME meant by the text and 2) re-interpret in the light of Jesus summary of the law. Remember, by saying "love God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul" and "treat others as you would have them treat you" Jesus did give us leave to re-interpret scripture.

I don't deny the contradictions. I currently think that the Framework view is correct, in that view the chonological order doesn't really matter. Everything is ordered according to topic not time.
The contradictions go deeper than simply chronological order. God creates by two separate methods in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. I think that the Documentary Hypothesis is correct: we have 2 separate creation stories telling different theological truths.

When you said we should change our Biblical interpretation according to science. That way if it goes along with the mainstream view it is certainly easier to believe.
Science is not always "easier". Look at QM. Quite difficult to conceive. Also, evolution is not easier. It is much simpler and easier to have God zap creatures into existence.

Finally, both the Bible and science ask me to do things that are not "easy". For instance, the "easy" thing for me to do is look at homosexuality as deviant behavior. My heterosexuality is such that the thought of homosexual sex sends shudders down my spine. Yet science tells me that homosexuality (and heterosexuality) are hardwired by the genes and, thus, that homosexuality is not "deviant". It's "normal". Jesus constantly tells me to accept EVERYONE and to treat them as I would like to be treated. That means acceptance of gays, gay marriage, etc. Not easy, but what I MUST do. By both science and following Jesus.

Science tells us that once thigns are dead, they tend to stay dead. There is no process in the "second book" of nature to tell us that a man can raise from the dead. That is why we have faith in the Resurrection, any other miracles in the Bible are no different.
Here you have science wrong. Science does NOT tell us "once things are dead, they stay dead." This is the difference between THEORY and DATA. The THEORY is "once people are dead for 3 days, they will not come back to life." This theory is supported by a large amount of data -- observations that people dead 3 days don't come back to life.

BUT, the Resurrection is DATA. That is, it is an OBSERVATION that a person dead 3 days came back to life. Theory must ALWAYS be modified in the face of data. Therefore, for Christians, the theory now becomes: "people dead for 3 days do not come back to life UNLESS acted upon by God." Think about gravity and helium balloons and you will see the same process at work there.

What saves atheism as still possible is that the data of the Resurrection happened a long time ago, there is no physical evidence that persists to today, and the documentation is open to doubt. Therefore, atheism can treat the Resurrection as an ANOMALY and not modify the theory.

Now, "miracles" in the Bible are different. Some of them, such as the Resurrection and the healings of Jesus, have left no physical evidence we can study today. Science can't comment on them. Some of them -- such as a single pair of humans or a global Flood -- would have left evidence to today. When we find evidence counter to those miracles, then science can say those miracles never happened.

Why are you so quick to put fallible human knowledge that is constantly changing as the arbiter of your theology?
As to "constantly changing", that is true and false. It is true that currently valid theories are being modified or discarded in the face of new data. But already FALSIFIED theories don't change their status. Is there any doubt that the earth is NOT flat? So, flat earth theory was falsified and that falsification will NEVER change. No matter what theory about the earth's shape comes along in the future, the earth will NEVER be flat.

Again I ask how do you know it isn't the fallible inerpretation of Creation that is wrong? You are at the opposite but equally extreme view point of the fundy's. They say that if creation contradicts their view of the Bible, then science is wrong. You say our view of the Bible is wrong. Two sides of the same extremist coin.
You keep separating science and God. You can't do that. WHO CREATED?? God, right? Then Who put everything in Creation that science studies? God, right? Look what you said "they say that if creation contradicts their view of the Bible, then science is wrong." Since Creation is done by God, what they are saying is that if God contradicts their view of the Bible, then GOD is wrong! Fundies pit God vs God. That is, they pit God in the Bible against God in Creation. I'm not that extreme. I want to know what GOD says, not what I say ABOUT God -- as in my interpretation of the Bible.

Now, remember that hypotheses/theories are dependent on data -- observations. Those observations are what GOD put into Creation. So, if our "interpretation" of Creation (science) is wrong, GOD will tell us directly.

I prefer balance and the adminission that we are fallible in both endeavours of trying to find the truth. Through theology and through science. If there is a conflict, we should look to see if either side is overstepping its boundries...which is where 99% of conflict actually comes from.
This is a different subject. There is a difference between what science says (as in what the data says) and what some people say science says. You did it above with the Resurrection. You misstated what science says. Some scientists who are atheists extrapolate beyond what the data says to metaphysical conclusions. Now, rather than say "either side is overstepping its boundaries" I would say "whether atheists are overstepping what the data and science actually says."

So what about the Early Church Fathers? Are their writings irrelavent? How do we know when we get the right understanding?

Seems a strange position to me, but then again I'm Catholic ;)
Remember, this is Kof2hu's post, not mine. I would say that the early Church Fathers are not irrelevant. They too are respected seekers of the truth. However, they are not authorities. They, too, do not know about the specific issues Paul is writing about in each church, for instance. They too are groping thru the gospels to find Jesus' message. So, I will listen to them with respect, but remember the Early Church Fathers were almost all flat earthers. Should we go with their interpretation of scripture as showing a flat earth or should we use God in His Creation to know that the earth is not flat?

Jack777

February 28th 2005, 04:18 PM

lucaspa,

The Torah was not put together during the time of Ezra. Your statement is based on outmoded scholarship done by Higher Critics that has been disproven.

The story provided in Genesis 1 was not borrowed from other cultures. It is the other way around.

Almost every idea that came into the heads of Higher Critics has been trounced by fact.

Also,

"As Shunydragon notes, your site is good mythology."

Don't go back to my site and do not let any of your friends know about it. They are probably as ignoratn as you are. You are ignorant and showing it. What I have put on there is not mythology. How do you know whether or not it is mythology? You do not.

rogero

February 28th 2005, 04:52 PM

lucaspa,

The Torah was not put together during the time of Ezra. Your statement is based on outmoded scholarship done by Higher Critics that has been disproven.

Disproven by whom?

Please cite references and give a reasoned response.

The story provided in Genesis 1 was not borrowed from other cultures. It is the other way around.

Yet another Oxlegs ipse dixit. Give some reference(s) to support your views.

Almost every idea that came into the heads of Higher Critics has been trounced by fact.

Is that a fact Jack? Give some factual support of your simplistic pronouncements.

Also,

"As Shunydragon notes, your site is good mythology."

Don't go back to my site and do not let any of your friends know about it. They are probably as ignoratn as you are. You are ignorant and showing it. What I have put on there is not mythology. How do you know whether or not it is mythology? You do not.

I'll let you slug this out with Shuny. Even though we don't share the same theistic views, he does strive for scientific integrity (especially geological) and seems to be a pretty honest and nice fella.

Constantine

March 1st 2005, 01:06 AM

lucaspa, I think I have been misunderstanding you. I think I know where you are coming from now and will explain below.

But again, teh Bible has only one Word. And that isn't the Bible. To call the Bible "Word of God" is to elevate it to Jesus. Not a good idea.

Then maybe a better term would be message from God.

However, Ekpyrotic is different. Instead, it proposes 2 eleven dimensional 'branes that collide to form a 3 D universe. Instead of a Big Bang, there is a "Big Splat". Instead of God always existing, we have the 'branes always existing and a cyclic universe without beginning or end -- very much like Hinduism. :)

As it turns out, ekpyrotic will produce different gravity waves than BB, so in a decade or so when we have the technology to detect gravity waves, ekpyrotic can be tested and we may find out the BB is incorrect and ekpyrotic is correct. What does that do to your list if ekpyrotic turns out to be correct?

Interesting. I am not familiar with Ekpyrotic theory and will look into it. If those two eleven dinmensional branes had to come from somewhere then I would say the ultimate begining of everything just gets pushed back. If those two branes are eternal, it gives us theist some problems.

So if either scientific theory of No Boundary or ekpyrotic is correct, the universe had no beginning, thus no God creating it. Isn't that subjecting you faith to a scientific theory? If not, what is it?

I'm not tying my faith to a specific theory. The BB might be correct or might not be, if it isn't my faith is still fine because the universe still needs a begining. If the Steady state or the ekpyrotic is correct then my faith encounters some problems. Not specific theories per say but rather what those theories are based on.

Sure there is. Genesis 1 is making a theological statement that the Babylonian gods don't exist, not HOW the universe came to be.

And I agree. My point was that the universe did come to be and is not eternal.

John 1-3 is stating that Jesus co-exists with God and is part of God. It is stating one version of Christology, not HOW the universe came to be.

Again the point is simply that the universe had a begining, not how it got from there to here.

Because, at its core, Christianity doesn't require a universe with a beginning. It only requires God as Creator -- and God already created the ancient state of Israel -- God as intervening in human history, God becoming human in Jesus and the Resurrection, and God granting eternal life.

At its core Christianity requires God. The idea of a single omnipotent God who is Transcendent of His Creation needs a universe with a begining. How can God create the universe if the universe has always been?

I think you can be a theist and believe in an eternal universe. We'll find out if this is possible if ekpyrotic is correct. You have set yourself up a situation where you must deny God as Creator or deny God altogether. Tough choice.

I'm curious how a theist argues for God in an eternal universe, from a strictly intellectual stand point that is. What are the arguments for the existence of God without the First Cause? Or better yet, what is your definition of God if not creator of the universe? Maybe that is where we are having a communication breakdown.

Really? You don't trust the accounts fo the people involved and therefore have faith God exists? To me, you have it backwards

If God does not exist, then no matter what anyone said the miracles of the Exodus are impossible. Do you see how I'm looking at this? If I just picked up the book of Exodus and read it, why would I believe it without evidence? Any archeaological evidence is inconclusive, if I didn't believe God existed then I would not have any reason to believe that the parting of the Red Sea or the Manna in the desert or any of that actually happened. But because I believe God exists it makes those miracles possible.

The Resurrection is possible because there is nothing to forbid it, not because "God is probable." You believe the Resurrection because you trust the eyewitnesses to it and, hopefully, because of your personal relationship with the risen Christ. At least, that's why I HOPE you believe the Resurrection.

I believe in the Resurrection because I believe the Bible. I believe the Bible for politically incorrect reasons you can read about in another thread I started a while ago called "Proving Inspiration". You can read it here: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44354

And that argument would fall apart if Theism isn't viable.

Christianity is not a "logical" religion. It is a historical religion. God did certain things. People witnessed these events. People passed on what they had seen and experienced to others.

Christianity is both logical and historical. The theology is logical and the foundation historical.

Not necessarily. I was asking YOU how you felt about it. Please don't read my own thoughts into my questions here. I was getting you to think about the consequences of what YOU would do should your conditions not be met

I apologize for making such an assumption. I will be more careful not to jump to conclusions about your beliefs.

Now, my faith is based on personal experience. Should you be able to show me that the personal experience of the people who talked about the Exodus was wrong or that the witnesses to the Resurrection were wrong, or that the personal experiences of the millions of people who claim experience of God are wrong, then indeed I will say that theism is wrong. I am simply not putting the falsification criteria where you are. Not that I don't have any.

Of course this is also part of my reason for having my faith. But I also need solid, logically defendable reasons as well. Out of curiosity what are your criteria for falsification of theism?

Just the Fundies? Above you said "But if say the Steady State theory was correct, I may have to be forced to abandon my faith or ignore what science was telling me." Now, why would you ignore the facts of nature as found by science?

If the steady state theory were correct, I can't honestly say I know what my position would be. Though if I were consistent I would most likely have to conclude that theism was falsified.

Constantine, it appears you are not about to abandon theism based on what science finds. Why not? I know why I wouldn't. Because, even if ekpyrotic were correct, I'd still have all those personal experiences of God. IOW, I'd still have a lot of data saying God exists. Ekpyrotic would say "God did not create the universe" but it would not gainsay those experiences.

But if God didn't create the universe is He still God? If God didn't create the universe then He lied to us when He said He did and in that case shouldn't be worshipped.

As a scientist, I have learned that "rational and reasonable" does not determine reality. Look at QM. Irrational by our daily experiences. Instead, I have learned that the universe IS what it IS. And that includes whether deity exists or not. If I am going to believe, that belief has to be based on EVIDENCE, not "rational and reasonable". Personal experience of God provides evidence.

I'm not a scientist (just a student for now), but to my knowledge QM is understandable and still follows some rules. For instance I'm aware that a certain percentage of photons directed at a mirror will not reflect from it, but that we cannot predict which particular photons won't reflect because they are all identicle. Irrational seeming, but everytime we shine a light on the mirror the same percentage will always be reflected or not reflected.

How does one quantify personal experience as evidence? Like eyewitnesses to an event? As I said it is part of my faith, but my faith doesn't/can't stand on it alone.

However, we are not talking about what Glenn or you believe. What we are discussing is whether the IDEA of a literal Adam and Eve is consistent with the IDEA of evolution.

This is a debate in and of itself that deserves to be dealt with seperately.

Do you see? We are not arguing WHETHER Christianity can be falsified, but specifically WHAT would falsify it.

This is where I missed you last time around. I thought you were trying to make an unfalsifiable religion, and now I understand the real difference of opinion is about the actual conditions for falsification.

The contradictions go deeper than simply chronological order. God creates by two separate methods in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. I think that the Documentary Hypothesis is correct: we have 2 separate creation stories telling different theological truths.

I agree. But there is still real historical truths still in there. Whether or not the Garden of Eden was a real place, the fact that Adam was a real guy and the Fall a real event are inescapable from the text. Why would there be more chapters after the Fall describing the life and lineage of a purely figurative person?

Science is not always "easier". Look at QM. Quite difficult to conceive. Also, evolution is not easier. It is much simpler and easier to have God zap creatures into existence.

My comment was in error because it was under the wrong assumptions of what you believe. I thought you were asscribing to a fluid and ever changing view of Christianity. Again I apologize for that.

Finally, both the Bible and science ask me to do things that are not "easy". For instance, the "easy" thing for me to do is look at homosexuality as deviant behavior. My heterosexuality is such that the thought of homosexual sex sends shudders down my spine. Yet science tells me that homosexuality (and heterosexuality) are hardwired by the genes and, thus, that homosexuality is not "deviant". It's "normal". Jesus constantly tells me to accept EVERYONE and to treat them as I would like to be treated. That means acceptance of gays, gay marriage, etc. Not easy, but what I MUST do. By both science and following Jesus.

Whoa whoa whoa, stop right there. There is a HUGE difference between accepting gay individuals and condoning homosexaul activity. Yes we should be tolerant of everyone, but that doesn't mean we condone clearly immoral activity. Heterosexuals are "hardwired" to have sex as often as possible with as many people as possible, but that doesn't make being promiscuous right. And any evidence of a "gay gene" is flaky at best. That is not to say homosexuality is a choice, it certainly isn't, but I would say it was more likely a result of physcological influences.

I hold nothing against homosexual individuals, no more than I do against heterosexuals who have pre-marital sex. Yes the activity is wrong, but we are all sinners and shouldn't think anyone is better or worse than another person.

You keep separating science and God. You can't do that. WHO CREATED?? God, right? Then Who put everything in Creation that science studies? God, right? Look what you said "they say that if creation contradicts their view of the Bible, then science is wrong." Since Creation is done by God, what they are saying is that if God contradicts their view of the Bible, then GOD is wrong! Fundies pit God vs God. That is, they pit God in the Bible against God in Creation. I'm not that extreme. I want to know what GOD says, not what I say ABOUT God -- as in my interpretation of the Bible.

But what if God didn't create the universe because it has always been here? Everything we need to know about God is in the Bible, its why it is there. Aspects of Creation can be learned through science, but our knowledge of the attributes of God and morality and Salvation our learned through Scripture not science.

Science can tell us about what and how God created, not why He created.

A Beautiful Truth

March 1st 2005, 01:27 AM

If those two branes are eternal, it gives us theist some problems.

Just a short butt-in, sorry. I have been thinking of this. Why would it give us some problems? There may be planes of existence that you and I and the best of the best scientist cannot comprehend. There could be different dimensions of time. Could something be eternal in one time dimension and something else be eternal in another time dimension? (This is an open question to anyone who would like to answer, of course) Or is that a logical inconsistency?

God knows the future from eternity. Could these branes have existed from eternity because of God's infinite knowledge of them? Sounds pretty trippy, but perhaps so? Would this answer the "problem", do you think? I don't know, I need to hear from people who know about infinities. I never got that far in school...

lucaspa

March 1st 2005, 01:29 PM

lucaspa,

The Torah was not put together during the time of Ezra. Your statement is based on outmoded scholarship done by Higher Critics that has been disproven.
Some scholarly references, please? This is straight denial without any supporting argumentation.

The story provided in Genesis 1 was not borrowed from other cultures. It is the other way around.
I think we have miscommunicated here. Genesis 1 is not "borrowed" per se. That is, it isn't a copied creation story. Instead, Genesis 1 takes the Enuma Elish as background that everyone knows. It follows the order of creation as laid out in the Enuma Elish but has the unique theological message of the Hebrews: one god who creates all things, a god not associated with any material object (like a god of plants or a sun god) but creates all the material objects, a god that creates humans for their own sakes. So Genesis 1 is a magnificent monograph for monotheism and Yahweh, having Yahweh destroy the Babylonian gods by creating all the material things those gods are tied to: salt water, sweet water, plants, sun, animals, etc.

Almost every idea that came into the heads of Higher Critics has been trounced by fact.
Again, simple denial. There are no facts or arguments cited here. If you really think HC has been "trounced", then surely there are scholarly articles that show that. Instead, what I find is that the ideas of HC are taught in virtually every mainstream theological seminary, including those of conservative denominations such as the Luthern Missouri Synod.

Remember Jack, once again the conservative ideas were tried FIRST. The ideas you represent are the ones theologians started out with. It was those ideas -- such as complete Mosaic authorship of the Torah -- that were shown to be wrong. By Christians. By Christian MINISTERS. Ministers that did not lose their faith. Why not? Because they worship God, not the literal intrepretation of the Bible. God is truth. There's nothing to fear in truth. Unless, of course, that truth challenges your false idol.

"As Shunydragon notes, your site is good mythology."

Don't go back to my site and do not let any of your friends know about it. They are probably as ignoratn as you are. You are ignorant and showing it. What I have put on there is not mythology. How do you know whether or not it is mythology? You do not.
I and Shunydragon discussed a few of the reasons. One that you did not answer was that the clay tablets on which the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish are written are at least 1,000 years older than any possible manuscript of Genesis. When one story is published first and then another work repeats the story, the conclusion is that the second (Noah story in this case) plagiarized the first.

Now, the oral tradition of the Torah may be older than 500 BC, but then the same criteria applies to the Epic of Gilgamesh -- the oral tradition would be older than the clay tablets. So there is no gain for the Torah.

lucaspa

March 1st 2005, 01:43 PM

Just a short butt-in, sorry. I have been thinking of this. Why would it give us some problems? There may be planes of existence that you and I and the best of the best scientist cannot comprehend. There could be different dimensions of time. Could something be eternal in one time dimension and something else be eternal in another time dimension?
Because there are not multiple time dimensions. There are multiple dimensions. ONE of them is what we call "time". Our universe is 4 dimensional: 3 of space and one of time. The other proposed 7 dimensions do not have sensory equivalents, but none of them is going to be "time".

God knows the future from eternity.
Does He? WITHIN the universe God does not know the future. The universe is constructed such that the future CANNOT be precisely known. Notice the "cannot". Impossible to know, even for God. God is very knowing, but He cannot be omniscient with regards to future events in the universe. I for one am glad of that because it leaves it open for my life to have meaning.

Could these branes have existed from eternity because of God's infinite knowledge of them? Sounds pretty trippy, but perhaps so?
Begging the question. Christians say "God is eternal." You don't need a cause for God to have God cause the universe. The same type of reasoning applies to the 'branes. The 'branes would be eternal and we don't need a cause of the 'branes for the 'branes to cause the universe. IOW, God becomes unnecessary to cause the universe.

The same problem happens with Hawking's No Boundary Proposal. If the parameters of spacetime are exactly right, then there is no distinction between the 3 space dimensions and the time dimension early in the universe. This gives a closed but unbounded universe that has no beginning or end in 4 dimensions. Think of walking on a sphere. The sphere is closed (finite) but unbounded (you can walk forever and never come to the end). The implications of this are as Hawking states in A Brief History of Time (which you should read for more details):

"The success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break those laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started--it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary ir edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then for a creator?" S. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pp. 140-141.

Charleen, we define entities in terms of the "jobs" they do. Atoms were defined as small perfect spheres who had the "job" of bouncing around and producing the behavior of gasses. Since gasses behaved as they would if atoms existed, we concluded atoms exist. Since then, there have been more "jobs" for atoms and more supporting evidence they exist.

Now, let's take another example from a holiday coming up: the Easter bunny. The "job" of the Easter bunny is to bring eggs and baskets to children on Easter. However, you can show (by a little experimenting) that baskets and eggs are NOT brought by the Easter bunny. Therefore, the Easter bunny has no "job" to do, and we consider that the Easter bunny does not exist.

Constantine tied the existence of God to a beginning of the universe. Like Hawking said, a Creator is needed to set up the laws of the universe. That's ONE "job" for God. What I am saying is that God has a lot of other "jobs" -- freeing the Hebrews in the Exodus, becoming man in Jesus, communicating with us as the Holy Ghost, etc. So, if it turns out that God does not have the "job" of creating the universe, does God stop existing?

Constantine says "yes". That creating the universe is an ESSENTIAL job for God. That unless God does creating from a beginning, then, like the Easter bunny, we should conclude God does not exist. That may be true. However, I have my doubts about that.

Are the positions and arguments of Constantine and myself clearer now?

A Beautiful Truth

March 1st 2005, 03:16 PM

Because there are not multiple time dimensions. There are multiple dimensions. ONE of them is what we call "time". Our universe is 4 dimensional: 3 of space and one of time. The other proposed 7 dimensions do not have sensory equivalents, but none of them is going to be "time".

Can time be defined as "that realm where cause and effect relationships take place"? If so, and something outside our time dimension caused the universe, would that nessesitate at least one other dimension, or "realm" of time? I am at the mercy of those who understand such things, I admit I do not yet have a handle of the Ekyprotic theory. I had thought general relativity worked out to say that time had a beginning. Does Ekyprotic say otherwise? Is the time of our universe the same as the time in the "branes" that supposedly collided?

Does He? WITHIN the universe God does not know the future.

God is in the universe but do you agree that He is not bound to it? Being the Creator of it means that He is also above and beyond it. Is this not so? Do you argue for a NON transcendent Creator? But this seems contrary to the scriptures.

The universe is constructed such that the future CANNOT be precisely known. Notice the "cannot". Impossible to know, even for God. God is very knowing, but He cannot be omniscient with regards to future events in the universe. I for one am glad of that because it leaves it open for my life to have meaning.

Sort of a non-traditonal way of looking at God. What do you think of prophecies?

Begging the question. Christians say "God is eternal." You don't need a cause for God to have God cause the universe. The same type of reasoning applies to the 'branes. The 'branes would be eternal and we don't need a cause of the 'branes for the 'branes to cause the universe. IOW, God becomes unnecessary to cause the universe.

If the branes are eternal, does that mean that God cannot be eternal? (I've been curious about this...)

This gives a closed but unbounded universe that has no beginning or end in 4 dimensions. Think of walking on a sphere. The sphere is closed (finite) but unbounded (you can walk forever and never come to the end). The implications of this are as Hawking states in A Brief History of Time (which you should read for more details):

"The success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break those laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started--it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary ir edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then for a creator?" S. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pp. 140-141.

Again, I thought it was Hawking and Penrose who worked out general relativity to the point that it was revealed that space and time had a beginning. Perhaps I have been wrong about that? (Would not suprise me to find out I was wrong...)

So, if it turns out that God does not have the "job" of creating the universe, does God stop existing?

So perhaps the ill-educated writers of the Bible just got that attribute about God totally wrong?

Constantine says "yes". That creating the universe is an ESSENTIAL job for God. That unless God does creating from a beginning, then, like the Easter bunny, we should conclude God does not exist. That may be true. However, I have my doubts about that.

Well, you do have that little problem with the Bible saying that God did create the Heavens and the Earth. How are we suppose to take that?

lucaspa

March 1st 2005, 03:22 PM

Then maybe a better term would be message from God. Or say "word of God" with a small "w". Like you say, a message from God. But a message that has to be filtered thru the limited minds of people: people limited by their culture, language, and their knowledge. Some ideas simply can't be put across unless and until humans develop concepts and language to describe those concepts.

For instance, the OT has God tied to a specific tribe of people. I submit that this is because people of the time could only view their tribe as fully human. Other tribes were "foreigners" and not quite human. A universal message of God's love had to wait until humans developed the idea that people from any tribe were equally human. I don't think it coincidental that God did not become human until the time of the Roman Empire. Rome had, thru offering citizenship to worthy people of ANY tribe, introduced the concept of universal humanity. A message of universal love and a universal God could not have been understood until then.

Interesting. I am not familiar with Ekpyrotic theory and will look into it. If those two eleven dinmensional branes had to come from somewhere then I would say the ultimate begining of everything just gets pushed back. If those two branes are eternal, it gives us theist some problems.
1. The 'branes don't have to come from somewhere to make a universe. Just like God doesn't have to come from somewhere to make a universe. God just is. The 'branes just are. Same reasoning.
2. References for you:
1. C Seife, Big bangs's new rival debuts with a splash. Science 292: 189-190, Apr 13, 2001. "Ekpyrotic" model. 11 dimensions, 6 rolled up and safely ignored. In perfectly flat 5D space float 2-4D membranes. One is our universe, the other a hidden "parallel" universe. Random fluctuations cause hidden universe to shed membrane that floats to our universe with quantum fluctuations. Some of energy of collision becomes matter and energy in our universe. Removes need for inflation. Removes singularity of big bang, instead is a "platelike splash". Big bang and ekpyrotic have different gravity waves. If another membrane peels off of hidden universe, then would destroy ours on impact. www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5515/189

I'm not tying my faith to a specific theory. The BB might be correct or might not be, if it isn't my faith is still fine because the universe still needs a begining. If the Steady state or the ekpyrotic is correct then my faith encounters some problems. Not specific theories per say but rather what those theories are based on.
You think you are tying your faith to the concept that the universe had a beginning. To you, BB is simply a specific way that the universe began. Right? Theories are "based on" data. What you have is that theories are based on other theories. That is, that the universe had a beginning is ITSELF a theory. However, if you look historically, BB started out as the theory that the universe had a beginning. Until then, the theory was that the universe was eternal -- Steady State. However, when the expansion of the universe became known, then extrapolation of the expansion backwards led to the theory that the universe had a beginning! The beginning was given a name -- you guessed it -- Big Bang! Within the theory that the universe had a beginning, there are different theories about HOW the beginning (BB) happened. There was the cold BB (now falsified), hot BB (now modified), inflationary BB (current theory with combination with hot BB).

And I agree. My point was that the universe did come to be and is not eternal. You are basing the point on Genesis 1:1. However, remember that you agree that Genesis 1 is getting rid of the Babylonian gods. The Enuma Elish starts with "in the beginning" was Tiament and Apsu. So Genesis 1:1 is simply borrowing the language of the Enuma Elish but substituting Yahweh to show that Tiamet and Apsu are false.

What we are discussing is: can God still exist if God did not create the universe from a beginning? See my post to Charleen about the different "jobs" entities do and the different jobs God has. Now, if God did not create the universe from a beginning, could God still do the other jobs we assign to Him? This also involves the question: what does an entity have to do/be in order to be God?

Again the point is simply that the universe had a begining, not how it got from there to here. But having a beginning is one HOW the universe came to be: as the result of a beginning. An alternate how the universe came to be is that it has existed forever. Do you see? Saying that the universe had a beginning is inescapably giving a HOW the universe got to be here -- thru a beginning.

So, John 1:1-3 is not meant to give a HOW the universe got here -- thru a beginning -- but to tie Jesus to God within the same ousia.

At its core Christianity requires God. The idea of a single omnipotent God who is Transcendent of His Creation needs a universe with a begining. How can God create the universe if the universe has always been?
Two different concepts here:
1. Christianity requies the existence of God. OF COURSE it does. But God is a CONCLUSION from the evidence, not a premise.
2. God must create the universe in order to exist. THAT is the requirement we are discussing. Does God have to create the universe in order for us to conclude He exists? Can God exist if the universe has always existed?

Now, you use the words "omnipotent" and "transcendent". This gets us back to the question: what does an entity have to do/be in order to qualify as God? Does God have to be omnipotent and transcendent? Well, I have already concluded that God is not omnipotent. Very powerful, yes. Omnipotent, no. It is simply logically impossible for God to be omnipotent. Now, what exactly do YOU mean by transcendent? I know what the dictionary definition is, but am not sure you are using the word this way. Why do you think God must be transcendent in order to be God? Once I know that then we can discuss the point more fully.

I'm curious how a theist argues for God in an eternal universe, from a strictly intellectual stand point that is. What are the arguments for the existence of God without the First Cause? Or better yet, what is your definition of God if not creator of the universe? Maybe that is where we are having a communication breakdown.
And you say the Bible is a message from God. sigh. Isn't God the entity that became human in Jesus Christ, taught, suffered, died on the cross, and was resurrected in order to save us from sin and offer us eternal life? Anywhere in that description is "creator of the universe" found?

The arguments for God are what they have always been, and First Cause is not one of them. The arguments for God are the evidence of God's intervention in history and His personal communication with us.

If God does not exist, then no matter what anyone said the miracles of the Exodus are impossible. Do you see how I'm looking at this?
Yeah, I see. Backwards. You are using the premise of God's existence to explain the miracles of the Exodus. Instead, the miracles of the Exodus are the evidence that God exists!

If I just picked up the book of Exodus and read it, why would I believe it without evidence? The book IS EVIDENCE!! It is the testimony of people who were there and witnessed the events. You say, on the one hand, that the Bible is a message from God. Then, OTOH, you say you need extrabiblical evidence to believe the message is true! Constantine, make up your mind, please

Let's take this out of religion for a moment and try another historical story. In the battle of Antietam the 131st Pennsylvania Infantry regiment was attached to Greene's division. It had attacked with that division and was around the Dunker Church. Later Sedgwicke's division attacked in 3 brigade lines. It was ambushed a mile north of the Dunker Church and hit from 3 sides by Confederate troops. Several witnesses report that the 131st showed up in Sedgwick's FRONT line during the attack. Now, the men of the 131st would have had to move a mile north, pass thru Confederate troops and 2 lines of Union troops to reach that position. We have no archeological evidence. There can't be any. So what's our evidence: the testimony of the men who were there and SAW the 131st in that position.

Exodus is the testimony of the people who were there and saw the miracles and were set free. Exodus is the evidence. Now, you are faced with the same issue as involves the 131st: do you trust the eyewitnesses to have reported accurately?

Apparently you don't. Apparently you, like atheists, think the claims are "extraordinary" and need the existence of God proved by another method in order to trust the account.

Any archeaological evidence is inconclusive, if I didn't believe God existed then I would not have any reason to believe that the parting of the Red Sea or the Manna in the desert or any of that actually happened. But because I believe God exists it makes those miracles possible.
Again, I submit you have it backwards: because you believe the account then you have evidence God exists. That's how it worked for the Hebrews. They saw all this evidence of Yahweh's power and CONCLUDED that Yahweh existed and was the God of Israel.

Constantine, I don't mean to insult you here, but you are approaching this like an atheist. You are basically assuming atheism is true: the claims of the Bible are extraordinary and impossible. Therefore, you don't believe them. You say the events are only possible if God exists. Therefore, you have to "prove" God exists by some other method before you can believe the impossible events.

I believe in the Resurrection because I believe the Bible. But you've just shown above that you DON'T believe the Bible! You don't believe the accounts are accurate or the events even possible. You have to go outside the Bible to say "the universe has a beginning" in order to believe in God so THEN you can believe the Bible. You are getting science to tell you to believe the Bible.

I believe the Bible for politically incorrect reasons you can read about in another thread I started a while ago called "Proving Inspiration". You can read it here: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44354

And that argument would fall apart if Theism isn't viable.
(sad smile) Again, you have it backwards. The Resurrection, to the disciples, was overwhelming evidence that Jesus was the Son of God. Remember, Josephus chronicles AT LEAST 5 other men in 1st century Palestine who claimed to be the Messiah and who all put together a following. At the death of each of these, the followers abandoned the claim. But, because the disciples witnessed the risen Jesus, they did not abandon their claim.

However, you don't trust them that the Resurrection happened. To you, the Resurrection is impossible. So, you must find outside evidence for you to trust the Apostles. First you go to Josephus for verification of a man named Yeshu ben Joseph. Then you go to the later lives of the disciples and their deaths for evidence that you can trust what they reported.

OK, now that I think about it, when you say "if Theism isn't viable" you may mean if the existence of God is not POSSIBLE. Yes, if the existence of God is not even POSSIBLE, then we MUST look for other explanations for the Biblical accounts. Because we ruled the existence of God out by other means. So this evidence for the existence of God must now have another explanation.

However, you seem to be going beyond having science show God is POSSIBLE, to having science show God exists or that God's existence is PROBABLE. Science will do the first. Science is agnostic. God is a possibility, but that is as far as science CAN go.

Christianity is both logical and historical. The theology is logical and the foundation historical.
I would modify this. The foundation is historical. The theology SHOULD be logical in that it is internally consistent and a logical extension of Jesus' teachings. But, as you have shown, the accounts are not "logical" because the miracles go against our daily experience. If the accounts were so "logical" -- as in a winter storm -- then you wouldn't have the problem you do of trusting them.

Of course this is also part of my reason for having my faith. But I also need solid, logically defendable reasons as well. Out of curiosity what are your criteria for falsification of theism?
I gave the criteria, twice, in the previous post. In fact, the part of the post you quoted had some of the criteria in it! Here:
Now, my faith is based on personal experience. Should you be able to show me that the personal experience of the people who talked about the Exodus was wrong or that the witnesses to the Resurrection were wrong, or that the personal experiences of the millions of people who claim experience of God are wrong, then indeed I will say that theism is wrong.

Now, why do you think my reasons are not "solid, logically defensible reasons"? Wny do you need something additional?

If the steady state theory were correct, I can't honestly say I know what my position would be. Though if I were consistent I would most likely have to conclude that theism was falsified. OK, NOW we are getting to it. Yes, if creating the universe from a beginning is ESSENTIAL to theism, logical consistency demands that you accept that theism is falsified.

But you are not sure you would accept that. Why? I submit the reason is below:
[qoute] He lied to us when He said He did and in that case shouldn't be worshipped. [/quote]
Here you implicitly TRUST the statements in the Bible. Before, you said those statements were only possible IF God existed. NOW you are using the Bible as evidence of His existence: the Bible is from God. Well, the Bible can't be from God if God doesn't exist, right? I submit that the reason you would hesitate is that you do trust the Biblical accounts in their essentials, and you are, at some level, using them as primary evidece instead of believing as you say -- because you already know God exists.

But if God didn't create the universe is He still God? If God didn't create the universe then He lied to us when He said He did and in that case shouldn't be worshipped.
OK, for the sake of argument we'll say that ekpyrotic turns out to be right and the universe had no beginning and God didn't create it. Does this mean that God lied? IF you think the Bible is dictated by God, then that is a logical conclusion. BUT, if the Bible is INSPIRED, and God has to work thru the human limitations I described above, did God lie or did the human authors (and intepreters) simply get it wrong. God INSPIRES the Genesis 1 authors to write a refutation of the Babylonian gods. But, because the Enuma Elish mentions a beginning, the authors do also. God didn't lie. The human author made an understandable and unavoidable mistake. God INSPIRES John to say that God and Jesus are one ousia and have always been one ousia. John does so but uses the word "beginning" to mean "always" and sets it in the Genesis context of creation and Constantine misunderstands. Did God lie?

I'm not a scientist (just a student for now), but to my knowledge QM is understandable and still follows some rules. For instance I'm aware that a certain percentage of photons directed at a mirror will not reflect from it, but that we cannot predict which particular photons won't reflect because they are all identicle. Irrational seeming, but everytime we shine a light on the mirror the same percentage will always be reflected or not reflected.
This is an example of unpredictability. Remember this when Charleen objects to my saying that God is not omniscient in the universe. This is evidence that God is not omniscient.

No, there are other irrational and illogical things. For instance, the logical Law of the Excluded middle says that an entity is one thing or another, but not both. Now, look at those photons again. They are BOTH particles and waves, violating the logical law.

Also, all our rational experience says that a cat is either dead or alive, it can't be both. But QM -- in Schroedinger's Cat -- says the cat is BOTH dead AND alive at the same time. Recent experiments have shown this irrational condition to be true.
5. G Taubes, Atomic mouse probes the lifetime of a quantum cat. Science, 274 (6 Dec): 1615, 1996.
6. P Yam, Bringing Schrodinger's cat to life. Scientific American, June, 1997, pp. 124-129. Summary of recent experiments of superposition (coherence) and dechoherence.
7. GP Collins, Schrodinger's SQUID. Scientific American 283: 23-24, October 2000. Electric current flows both ways around a superconducting loop at the same time.

How does one quantify personal experience as evidence? Like eyewitnesses to an event? As I said it is part of my faith, but my faith doesn't/can't stand on it alone.
Why can't your faith stand on it alone. All you other "faiths" and everything you consider "knowledge" stands on personal experience. Constantine, ALL evidence is personal experience. ALL. All evidence is eventually eyewitness. Science is so reliable because it CHOOSES to confine itself to a SUBSET of personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. But if the set is not inherently reliable, then the subset can't be reliable.

Here:
12. Lucas, P.A. Chemotactic response of osteoblast-like cells to TGF-beta. Bone, 10: 459-463, 1990.

There is MY eyewitness account of what happens when you have TGF-beta in the bottom well of a chemotactic chamber and rat osteosarcoma cells on a membrane in the top chamber. My eyewitness account -- personal experience -- is that the cells migrated thru the membrane when TGF-beta was in the bottom well and they did not migrate when TGF-beta was absent from the bottom well. Why can't my "knowledge" that TGF-beta is a chemotactic agent stand on my personal experience alone? What else do I require?

I agree. But there is still real historical truths still in there. Whether or not the Garden of Eden was a real place, the fact that Adam was a real guy and the Fall a real event are inescapable from the text.
The very names show they were not. In Hebrew "adam" is "dirt" and "eve" is "hearth'. We have an allegorical tale of Dirt and Hearth.

lineage[/b] of a purely figurative person? Because the succeeding chapers are continuing the allegory. Cain and Abel is now an allegory for the conflict between Israel and Babylon. Also, somewhere in there the story slips into a typical explanation for the various types of peoples in the world. In a way, it is good because it is a crude attempt at universalism.

WHOA, stop right there. There is a HUGE difference between accepting gay individuals and condoning homosexaul activity. Yes we should be tolerant of everyone, but that doesn't mean we condone clearly immoral activity.
This also deserves a separate topic. I will only say briefly that homosexuality, within the context of hardwired preference and Matthew 7:12, CAN'T be immoral. I can understand how Paul and Leviticus made the mistake thinking it was immoral, but homosexual sex itself can't be immmoral, any more than heterosexual sex itself is.

You yourself made that point Heterosexuals are "hardwired" to have sex as often as possible with as many people as possible, but that doesn't make being promiscuous right.
Actually, heteros are not so hardwired. There is no "promiscous" gene. And proposed evolutionary hypotheses are not complete. Remember, it is SURVIVING offspring that are important. And a long standing pair bond (which we are hardwired for) gives an infant a better chance at surviving. What you have pointed out is that SOME sexual behaviors are "immoral". Rape, pedophilia, adultery, etc. However, those behaviors are immoral for BOTH hetero and homo. However, hetero has a "safe zone" of sex within a long term committed relationship (marriage) is moral. Therefore, homosexual sex within the SAME FRAMEWORK (long term comitted relationship) must also be moral. The gay couples who have been getting married have been in relationships that have been stable for 10, 15, 20, 25, 30+ years! Longer than most hetero marriages (longer than mine). Therefore, if I am supposed to do unto others as I want done unto me, and I want my marriage to be considered moral (with the sex that happened in it), then long term homo relationships (with the sex in them) MUST also be moral. Anything else is breaking Jesus' law.

And any evidence of a "gay gene" is flaky at best.
I'm afraid you are not up on the current literature. Start a new thread, PM me that it exists, and I'll be happy to sen you my reference list on genes that control hetero and homosexuality. It's quite a LOOOONG list.

But what if God didn't create the universe because it has always been here? Everything we need to know about God is in the Bible, its why it is there. Aspects of Creation can be learned through science, but our knowledge of the attributes of God and morality and Salvation our learned through Scripture not science.

Science can tell us about what and how God created, not why He created. Yes, science tells you HOW God created, but not WHY. However, is everything in the Bible dependent on God creating? If God did not create the universe, does that stop God from saving you from sin and offering you eternal life with Him?

Science also doesn't tell what God wants from you or how God wants you to relate to other people. The Bible tells you that. So, even if God didn't create, doesn't the Bible still have useful things to tell you about God and how to relate to other people? You talked of "moral" and "immoral" behavior above. Again, we agree that there is moral and immoral behavior. We disagree on exactly what behaviors fall into each category. So, since we both use the Bible to decide what behaviors fall into each category, we are both using the Bible as 2 Timothy 3:16 says to: "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

kofh2u

March 1st 2005, 04:08 PM

lucaspa

March 1st 2005, 04:19 PM

Can time be defined as "that realm where cause and effect relationships take place"?
That's colloquially how we humans view time, but that won't work as a definition of physics. For one thing, most physical processes don't have an "arrow" of time: that is, they can as easily go in reverse as forward. Thus, the cause and effect thing doesn't work.

In physics, we live in spacetime That is, time is not separable like you are trying to.

If so, and something outside our time dimension caused the universe, would that nessesitate at least one other dimension, or "realm" of time?
No. Remember, all 3 space dimensions came into existence at the BB. That means that something "outside" our space caused our space. But that does not NECESSITATE another space dimension. The "dimensions" of String Theory are PROPOSED, not definitely said to be real.

The definitive statement we can make, at this time, is that our spacetime came into existence at the BB. What went "before" is meaningless because there WAS NO "BEFORE" since time also came into existence at the BB. I can understand and sympathize with trying to extrapolate your everyday experience to the situation. I really can and do. It's very tough dealing with this stuff. The March 2005 issue of Scientific American has a good review article on the BB and the implications. I strongly suggest you buy it or read it at the library. If you can't do either, I have an online subcription, will download the PDF version, and send it to you via e-mail if you want. And other members of the thread. I can do that without violating copyright. We can consider this as me teaching a "class". Otherwise, I'll do my best to explain. Keep asking questions until you do understand.

I admit I do not yet have a handle of the Ekyprotic theory. I had thought general relativity worked out to say that time had a beginning. Does Ekyprotic say otherwise? Is the time of our universe the same as the time in the "branes" that supposedly collided?
Relativity does say spacetime (including time) had a beginning. Once the universe was found to be expanding, then extrapolating backwards put all the mass/energy of the universe at a single point. Unfortunately, that much mass/energy also meant a singularity (black hole) where Relativity broke down! Ironic, huh? Relativity does NOT apply to the BB. There's too much mass/energy and not enough spacetime.

So, Relativity is mostly about gravity. QM can handle a singularity but there is no workable theory of quantum gravity. We don't know how to split up gravity into discreet bits. So along comes a lot of theories trying to come up with a way to combine QM and Relativity. ONE of these is String Theory (or now called M Theory). String Theory envisions a whole lot of "extra" dimensions that we can't directly detect, but that determine the properties of spacetime and matter/energy (remember, matter and energy are 2 forms forms of the same thing: E = mc^2). Current versions of String Theory have 11 dimensions, the 4 of spacetime and 7 extra. Also, String Theory started out with matter being 2 dimensional "strings" with the other 9 dimensions rolled up and invisible. String Theory developed into M Theory where you have more dimensional 'branes (membranes) with some of the dimensions rolled up.

So, in Ekpyrotic, we have 11 dimensions, 6 of which are "rolled up" and can be ignored. That leaves 5 dimensions. In that effectively five-dimensional space float two perfectly flat four-dimensional membranes, like sheets drying on parallel clotheslines. One of the sheets is our universe; the other, a "hidden" parallel universe. Provoked by random fluctuations, our unseen companion spontaneously sheds a membrane that slowly floats toward our universe. As it moves, it flattens out--although quantum fluctuations wrinkle its surface somewhat--and gently accelerates toward our membrane. The floater speeds up and splats into our universe, whereupon some of the energy of the collision becomes the energy and matter that make up our universe. The model's name comes from the Stoic term for a universe periodically consumed in fire. That is because at any moment another membrane could peel off, float toward us, and destroy our universe. Fun thought, huh?

Now, just as God always existed, so too does the 5 dimensional space and the 4 D membranes.

God is in the universe but do you agree that He is not bound to it? God is not a member OF our universe. That's standard Christian doctrine. But the question is: what does God know OF our universe? Does not being a member of the universe mean you know everything that goes on it it?

Let's try this a different way. You are not a member of say, the First Baptist Church in your town. Now, this means you are not "bound" by the Baptist doctrine and "beyond" the congretation. You can, however, observe the congregation, even attend the services. Does that mean you will know everything that does go in that church and everything that will happen to that church and congregation.

That's an analogy. God has created a universe such that even He cannot know all the future and where His power is limited. Perhaps self-limitation, but limited nonetheless. Now, you can make any claim you want about what God can do OUTSIDE our universe. I don't care; that doesn't concern me. Christianity is special in that we really don't know what God when He is not interacting with us and the universe. In regards to this universe, does God know the entire future in detail? NO! He CANNOT. The future is open and God must wait for it like everyone else. As I say, that is OK by me, even if it does mean giving up "transcendence". I'm not sure it does. Again, I need to know exactly what you think "transcendence" is. Let me find out what "transcendence" is to you and then we can see if this is against scripture.

What we and God gain -- life with meaning -- is far greater than anything God or we lose.

Sort of a non-traditonal way of looking at God. What do you think of prophecies? It's a change in the way of looking at God using what we have recently learned from God's Creation to try to understand God. We have information available from God's second book that the authors of the books of the Bible did not.

As to prophecies.
1. I think no one should try to use them for Apologetics. The Biblical prophecies do not work as "proof" of God.
2. Do you mean "prophecying" or "predicting" the future? You don't need to be omniscient or transcendent to do that. Let's take this out of religion and lessen the emotion. I have a daughter who is now out living on her own. I raised her, I know her VERY well. When she tells me about a new guy in her life or I meet one, I can "prophecy" how the relationship will go. I don't need to be omniscient to do that. Nor do I need to actually look at the future. So if a prophet "prophecies" that Tyre will fall, God (or the prophet) only has to have a good grasp of politics and economics in Tryre and the surrounding countries to predict what will happen. For instance, I "prophecied" the Iraqi insurgency right after the fall of Baghdad when we disbanded the Iraqi army. It didn't take a genius to realize that a combination of 1) dissatisfaction with defeat and occupation and 2) a lot for people whose only job skills were firing an RPG and wiring explosives would result in a guerilla war against the Americans and any Iraqis who supported the Americans.

If the branes are eternal, does that mean that God cannot be eternal? (I've been curious about this...) No, it simply means that if you have eternal 'branes, that takes the job of an eternal God. It leaves God without a job -- being eternal.

Again, I thought it was Hawking and Penrose who worked out general relativity to the point that it was revealed that space and time had a beginning. Perhaps I have been wrong about that? (Would not suprise me to find out I was wrong...)
Oh, no, Hawking was one of the people that did help show how viable BB was. But no one liked the singularity of the BB. No one likes where the laws of physics breaks down. So Hawking started trying to find a way to avoid the singularity. He found one. Unfortunately, the implication of that finding was that there was no creation. :) Penrose was not involved in either No Boundary or ekpyrotic.

Now, ekpyrotic started because no one is happy that the universe is "flat". It's too convenient and coincidental. BB was modified with inflation to smooth out the early universe to give us a flat one. Now, since we can't experiment to try to falsify BB, one way to test BB is to propose alternative scenarios and, when they fail, then BB is supported. You have eliminated another possible alternative to inflation.

So Turok started ekypyrotic thinking that it would fail and thus show that inflation was still the best idea. To his surprise, it did NOT fail. LOL! Oops. So now we have a new theory and some theological implications to deal with.

So perhaps the ill-educated writers of the Bible just got that attribute about God totally wrong? I don't know that they did. What I am exploring is a "what if". I take it you don't play "what if" and see where the logic and reasoning leads you. What if it turns out that the universe was not created? Does that do away with God?

Constantine and you seem to think "yes". Maybe you are right. Maybe being Creator is an ESSENTIAL job for God, and God can't be God, or exist, unless He created. Or maybe there is an entity that does the other jobs we think God does and is still "worthy" of worship as God.

You are concerned with the Bible. I'm concerned with God.

Well, you do have that little problem with the Bible saying that God did create the Heavens and the Earth. How are we suppose to take that? Maybe exactly as it says. Or maybe, as I've suggested, we should take it as the authors using the phrasing of the Enuma Elish to drive home the point that the Babylonian gods don't exist.

Charleen, this started because Constantine claimed that the universe MUST have a begining in order for God to exist. All I asked was: is that true? Can God exist IF the universe did not have a beginning? It was of more than imaginary interest because there are 2 theories out there that, if correct, would do away with a beginning of the universe. And one of the -- ekpyrotic -- can be tested within the next 20 years. If ekpyrotic is correct, do I have to accept that atheism is correct and there is no God?

Now, we both seem to agree that, IF the universe had no beginning, then our interpretation of certain verses of the Bible are in error. However, that doesn't bother me, since when it was shown the earth was round, verses that seemed to say that the earth was flat were ignored or reinterpreted. Again, when it was shown that the earth was NOT immovable, that it moved in orbit around the sun, then some verses that said in plain Hebrew that the earth WAS immovable were either ignored or reinterpreted.

Charleen, this would not be the first time by any means that evidence in God's Creation has caused Christianity to change its interpretation of the Bible.

Constantine

March 2nd 2005, 01:31 AM

lucaspa, I think I've figured out how to explain my beliefs. How I tried to explain before left you with the impression of inconsistencies, so let me try to clear things up.

I start with theism, as I stated before. I believe theism is viable, as in consistent with science, not "proved" by it because as we both agree science is agnostic.

Now onto Jesus. Way back 2,000 years ago there was this guy walking around named Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God. Now I already believe God exist, so the possibility that Jesus was telling the truth is real. I then make up my mind based on the New Testament. I believe the New Testament because of the reasons in the other thread, because I don't believe that the disciples could all have the same delusion and they couldn't all have been liars. Therefore Jesus must really have been raised from the dead. Only God could raise the dead so therefore Jesus was who He said He was, the Messiah, Son of the One and only Living God. Jesus believed in the Old Testament and because He was God, then the Old Testament must be correct. Not necessarily our interpretation of it, but in its true form it is accurate in spiritual matters at the very least.

I have many other reasons for my faith, but at its foundation lies this reasoning.

But what if the universe didn't have a begining? Well then I still believe Jesus rose from the dead, but He isn't who He seems to be. The God of Christianity is a Creator God, so then He cannot exist.

Some other "God" could exist, just not an omnipotent God described in the Bible. So that means Christianity as I (and most Christians like Charleen) know it is wrong. I would not become an atheist, because with or without God I know mankind has a spiritual side, I would probably go looking for some other religion....maybe Taoism or Buddhism since they predicted an eternal universe (and by extension, are falsified by a universe with a begining..I think). Or I would become agnostic. But atheism is too close minded an approach and is self defeating because they claim to know absolute truths (like there are no spirits) yet the only way to know an absolute truth is to be omniscient and to be omniscient is to be God.

I agree that we should NOT read the Bible as a science book. You do the message of the Bible great violence by that. But the Bible is a "history" book in a way. It is the history of the relationship between God and man. Part of that history is the fact that God created all things, and that there was a Fall from grace. We can debate the second, but if you debate the first you are no longer talking about any kind of orthodox or traditional Christianity. Instead you are proposing something completely different, something alien to the very core of 2,000 years of Christian thought.

I for one am not so presumptuous to say that we have any right or special knowledge to say that Christianity has been wrong about its fundamental assumption for over two millenia.

You are basing the point on Genesis 1:1. However, remember that you agree that Genesis 1 is getting rid of the Babylonian gods. The Enuma Elish starts with "in the beginning" was Tiament and Apsu. So Genesis 1:1 is simply borrowing the language of the Enuma Elish but substituting Yahweh to show that Tiamet and Apsu are false

So then do we throw out Genesis 1:1 because we don't like it? Also Genesis 1:1 is an important theological statement as well. It says that God is not part of the universe as the gods of other religions are, but instead He is seperate and apart from it and is the source of everything. Sounds like something too important to be regarded as disposable.

Now, you use the words "omnipotent" and "transcendent". This gets us back to the question: what does an entity have to do/be in order to qualify as God? Does God have to be omnipotent and transcendent? Well, I have already concluded that God is not omnipotent. Very powerful, yes. Omnipotent, no. It is simply logically impossible for God to be omnipotent. Now, what exactly do YOU mean by transcendent? I know what the dictionary definition is, but am not sure you are using the word this way. Why do you think God must be transcendent in order to be God? Once I know that then we can discuss the point more fully.

Transcendent as in beyond, and greater than the universe. He is not part of the universe nor in it, He is something so much more powerful and grander that the universe itself pails in comparison. That is my personal take on transcendent.

Now there could be spritual beings or a being who is not transcendent and he has been parading around as the creator God of the Bible, but he is not if he did not actually create anything.

If God didn't create the universe, then why was he mucking with us? Why not mind His own business and not bother us by making us immortal and forcing us to choose what He wants or go to hell. What right does He have to interefere? Doesn't that make God into a spoiled brat or a bully?

Or worse yet, that wierd glowing green thing Captian Kirk found out was but a child who liked to toy with mortals?

Why should I worship a meddler? I am glad to worship the majestic Creator of all things...but a tinkerer who can't keep to himself? Certainly not, infact I would not even like such a God. What authority does he have over us? As part of the universe through evolution that means we're just as eternal as He is and we have no reason to follow Him. Why do we need redemption? Why has he passed judgement on us? He just a "Q"-like being?

Don't you see where your reasoning is leading you? To an irrelavent God at best, and a malevolent one at worst.

Thats all I have time for right now, and I apologise for all the star trek references, I'll explain incase you don't get it. As in your not as big of a dork as me. :)

kofh2u

March 2nd 2005, 09:51 AM

Hello,...

Hawkins makes the observation that our Universe may be without beginning or end, like walking inside a sphere. Then he offers a theory that no God is needed to begin this "sphere analogy." He might be criticized by suggesting the sphere merely offers no data to discover a beginning, and defies any evidence of going away, ending. We are still no better than before concerning this sweet mystery of life and death.

The antithesis to that "Spherical Reality" thesis is that God, Himself, has become the Universe, transformed from some pre-existing formless absolute energy that transcended the ""sphere." God is all, His material ansformation is Universe defined by Buckminster Fuller as all that is not you, the personal you. And, even that, "you," is also part of God. mGod is everything that is or can be. He is merely transformed from pure energy to material universe.

One might say that no, this circumvents the issue of a scientific process of argument.

By examining the workings of universe, from inside, as we walk endless around the materialism of this "sphere," we can not explain even to ourselves what it might mean. We have no access to data outside the sphere, if there is such a place, "outside."

We are at the "end of our sciences," unable to develop arguments for or against such a meaning, "outside," if one were proposed. We are hardly better off knowing everything about inside the sphere, regarding what is outside the "sphere of Universe."
We might argue that from inside this Universe we can see no beginning and no end, using all information and collectable data from inside itself. But, in this, we admit to no knowledge or data about "outside."

It is an assumption that there is only an inside to this sphere analogy, which, in its own geometry, implies a necessary and sufficient outside by which the sphere is defined.

If there can/could be an outside, then, that would be God, a creator of a "Closed Universe," which from inside would seem endless, and from inside would not admit to its own beginning. And, neither would inside offer data from outside needed to prove God. God would become a matter depending upon faith.

Or, we might understand that this whole ball of wax, the Universe itself, is the pantheistic spirit of God, God expressed by the behavior of Him in the transformation from "outside" Energy into "inside" materialism. God now transformed from a Potential Energy state of total, Absolute Energy into a Kinetic, dynamic materialism.

Using the Einsteinian relationship between Energy and Matter, we can say that the "sphere" of our material universe is the sum of the Energy, (God), composing it, energy defined today only as "The ability to make things move," by definition, The Prime Mover.

The sum of the sphere, and everything material in it, equates, by Einstien's Formula, to the total, formless, weightless, spaceless, spirit-like Absolute Energy that trancends Universe of matter.
Energy becomes the Prime Mover, God, the only power endowed with the "Ability to make things move."

And, also, energy is able make, (create by transforming), material things. Energy has the two abilities, to create matter and "command" matter to move.
When things move, time begins. from "inside" the sphere is without a beginning or discernable end.

To sum:
There was a process ("creating") during which the THEISTIC (pre-existent) God transformed, in accord to Einstein's Theory, into and becoming, (YHVH), our "Father Nature," expressed pantheistically, as God whose "hand" and handiwork is behind all material reality.

In other words, this "sphere" without discernable beginning or end is God, has "become" or "is becoming" whatever He turns out "to be," YHVH, the Great I am.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (Elohim, creator), God, (the Theistic Absolute Energy, pre-existing material Universe), created (by Einstienian transformation), the (matter composing the) heaven and the earth.

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit, (the pantheistic Natural Laws), of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Jack777

March 2nd 2005, 02:56 PM

rogero

March 2nd 2005, 03:30 PM

rogero,

I have enough time to respond to this. I said something on the order of:

Higher Criticism and their garbage has been trounced by facts

You wrote:

Is that a fact Jack? Give some factual support of your simplistic pronouncements.

Yes that is a fact. Get out of your comfort zone and look for yourself. Read Gleason Archer to start with. He has an introductory book on the OT. Based on linguistic evidence alone the Higher Critics using lower criticism (go figure) show themselves to be prejudiced idiots. Piling on the evolutionary bandwagon like lemmings only pronounced their lack of academic integrity and showed them to be the jackals that they are.

You didn't give factual support. You just re-stated that what you had said is a fact, then told me to go read Archer's book. You finished off by spouting invectives regarding the academic integrity of higher critics.

You'll need to argue better than this. :lol:

A couple of people said my site is mythology. That is a simple pronouncement. I wonder by what authority they say it is mythology.

rogero, my site is not about geology although some aspects of physical evidence include geology. I don't think you are a geologist, maybe not even a biologist. Why is an antiquated theory that has been disproven such as evolution so important to you?

Did I say your site was mythology? Please be clear to whom you are responding.

No, I'm neither a geologist nor a biologist -- what are you going credentialistic on me, Jack? It's not fair that an intellectual powerhouse like you with two degrees in Geology and another in English would bully a li'l ol' ignoramus like moi. :bawl:

If you think (biological?) evolution is an "antiquated theory" I would recommend starting a thread in Natural Science 301 and discussing your reasons for this statement with some "real" biologists and geologists. Just a small piece of advice before you do this --- be really sure of the distinction between classical Darwinism and the modern synthesis. :blush:

Jack777

March 2nd 2005, 07:35 PM

rogero, if you were unaware you did not say anything about my site not being mythology, then I will let you know that I was not referring to you. Did it take my statement to make you realize that you had not?

You sure are a smart aleck rogero. Very humorous. Forget I asked.

I did not ask for your credentials and I do not want to know. I have not claimed to be an intellectual powerhouse. I care about people's ideas, worldviews, and beliefs. I do not look at the profiles of people. Jesus did not go to college as far as I know. The Apostle Paul studied under the most brilliant theologian of his day, perhaps all time and he counted it as dung. It would matter not a bit to me if you had no education rogero. If something is true, it is not because you went to school or not, it is because it is true.

rogero

March 2nd 2005, 09:31 PM

rogero, if you were unaware you did not say anything about my site not being mythology, then I will let you know that I was not referring to you. Did it take my statement to make you realize that you had not?

If you would learn to use the TWeb "quote" feature correctly, then perhaps such confusion could be eschewed in the future.

You sure are a smart aleck rogero. Very humorous. Forget I asked.

It takes one to know one. Forget you asked what? Being confusing again?

I did not ask for your credentials and I do not want to know.

No, but you were certainly being snide about me not being a geologist or a biologist. If credentials aren't important to you, what was your point in making that remark?

I have not claimed to be an intellectual powerhouse. I care about people's ideas, worldviews, and beliefs. I do not look at the profiles of people. Jesus did not go to college as far as I know. The Apostle Paul studied under the most brilliant theologian of his day, perhaps all time and he counted it as dung. It would matter not a bit to me if you had no education rogero. If something is true, it is not because you went to school or not, it is because it is true.

I care about people's ideas as well. However, I do insist that they be logically consistent in their argumentation, and when discussing issues of the reality of nature, that they are aware of the best available information -- or more precisely, that they make statements of fact commensurate with their level of education. I like the pursuit of ideas, but I like the pursuit of truth and excellence even more.

For example, you have told us you have two degrees in Geology and one in English. You told us you have professional experience in Geology (namely palyno-paleontology). Yet you didn't know then consensus figure for the age of Earth (circa 4.5 Ga), and when you were pressed on this you said you "could care less" about it. A freshman geology student should know the former, and a good junior-high student should know that the latter is a gross semantical error.

On the other hand, you've done nothing but spout off your views bashing biological evolution, TE (including Christian TEs), etc. You very rarely argue your views. You don't seem to me to "care about people's ideas, worldviews, and beliefs." You seem to care to make yourself heard, like an old bachelor crank at a church picnic. I find a huge disconnect between what you said in your last paragraph above and what you've done here on Tweb in the thirty-some threads you've started.

Now, if you want to make a case for the logical consistency of what you say, please try to explain (carefully!) your statements on how speciation has occurred in the continuous history of the biosphere in the last billion years but that biological evolution is not true. Explaining that will go a long way to helping you establish some credibility.

A Beautiful Truth

March 3rd 2005, 12:06 AM

No. Remember, all 3 space dimensions came into existence at the BB. That means that something "outside" our space caused our space. But that does not NECESSITATE another space dimension.

But another realm where cause and effect relationships take place would at least be another time dimension?

Sorry, I still may be stuck back thinking in terms without the ekyroptic theory.

The definitive statement we can make, at this time, is that our spacetime came into existence at the BB.

So, "something" outside caused it, therefore working in a cause and effect relationship, right? It may be these branes. If so, they operate in a different realm of cause and effect. If our cause and effect realm of time had a beginning, then at least there is another realm of cause and effect in which the branes exist???

What went "before" is meaningless because there WAS NO "BEFORE" since time also came into existence at the BB.

There was something "before" the BB, if not, then that would mean nothing caused it, it always was. But it has not always been here, at least not in the condition it is today. It may be an outcome of these branes colliding, but it is still an outcome, an effect of some thing that was "before" it, no?

I can understand and sympathize with trying to extrapolate your everyday experience to the situation. I really can and do. It's very tough dealing with this stuff.

My many thanks for your sympathy. I realize I may not ever grasp this. I've learned to accept my limitations on these sorts of things, but I do appreciate you trying to help.

The March 2005 issue of Scientific American has a good review article on the BB and the implications. I strongly suggest you buy it or read it at the library. If you can't do either, I have an online subcription, will download the PDF version, and send it to you via e-mail if you want. And other members of the thread. I can do that without violating copyright. We can consider this as me teaching a "class". Otherwise, I'll do my best to explain. Keep asking questions until you do understand.

Again, I do appreciate that you want to help.

So, in Ekpyrotic, we have 11 dimensions, 6 of which are "rolled up" and can be ignored. That leaves 5 dimensions. In that effectively five-dimensional space float two perfectly flat four-dimensional membranes, like sheets drying on parallel clotheslines. One of the sheets is our universe; the other, a "hidden" parallel universe. Provoked by random fluctuations, our unseen companion spontaneously sheds a membrane that slowly floats toward our universe. As it moves, it flattens out--although quantum fluctuations wrinkle its surface somewhat--and gently accelerates toward our membrane. The floater speeds up and splats into our universe, whereupon some of the energy of the collision becomes the energy and matter that make up our universe.

Hi there, lucaspa. It is funny how I feel right now. I think I look how some people look when I talk to them.

Anyway, so this model is saying that our universe always was, but that our universe had a beginning at the BB. Help?

The model's name comes from the Stoic term for a universe periodically consumed in fire. That is because at any moment another membrane could peel off, float toward us, and destroy our universe. Fun thought, huh?

Actually, that IS how the Bible predicts the end...
...the heavens will be destoryed by burning and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth.... II Peter 3:12

Now, just as God always existed, so too does the 5 dimensional space and the 4 D membranes.

So no more having to answer the age old question, "Who created God", huh? If something else has always existed, the five dimensional space and the 4 D membranes, then it is not so hard to believe God always existed, no?

God is not a member OF our universe. That's standard Christian doctrine. But the question is: what does God know OF our universe? Does not being a member of the universe mean you know everything that goes on it it?

But He is both a member and a non-member. He resides here with us, but in heaven as well. Y'know that trinity thing at work.

God has created a universe such that even He cannot know all the future and where His power is limited.

How do you know that? What logic of the physical universe is needed to understand this? But do we not also believe as Christians that God is also spiritual? Can this aspect not make exception? Can we not conceive of a God who can over ride the physical, natural universe in whatever form(s) it may exist?

Perhaps self-limitation, but limited nonetheless.

God, in Christ, limited His power. How would being self limiting affect omniscience? I think as long as His omniscience is preserved in one form of His triunity, then we can maintain omniscience. What think you?

Now, you can make any claim you want about what God can do OUTSIDE our universe. I don't care; that doesn't concern me.

If we want to preserve the doctrine of God being all-knowing (I know you may care not for such a thing, but I do) then we at least have to have Him so here. To deny this would be to deny the scriptures. Since scripture denying does not concern you, I understand why this would not conern you, either. But break a while here and see the concern this may have for Christianity. I think all Christiantiy needs is a reasonable answer. Just because I am looking for a way it can fit does not mean it is less of an option, if indeed it is reasonable. I appreciate your help through this.

In regards to this universe, does God know the entire future in detail? NO! He CANNOT. The future is open and God must wait for it like everyone else.
So that "beginning and end" thing, that was just sort of a power trip...

Again, I need to know exactly what you think "transcendence" is. Let me find out what "transcendence" is to you and then we can see if this is against scripture.

I'd say transcendence is that attribute of God that makes Him unconfined to our space/time. He is above and beyond our universe, but He can also be in it.

We have information available from God's second book that the authors of the books of the Bible did not.

"Second book" being...?

Do you mean "prophecying" or "predicting" the future? You don't need to be omniscient or transcendent to do that. Let's take this out of religion and lessen the emotion. I have a daughter who is now out living on her own. I raised her, I know her VERY well. When she tells me about a new guy in her life or I meet one, I can "prophecy" how the relationship will go. I don't need to be omniscient to do that. Nor do I need to actually look at the future. So if a prophet "prophecies" that Tyre will fall, God (or the prophet) only has to have a good grasp of politics and economics in Tryre and the surrounding countries to predict what will happen. For instance, I "prophecied" the Iraqi insurgency right after the fall of Baghdad when we disbanded the Iraqi army. It didn't take a genius to realize that a combination of 1) dissatisfaction with defeat and occupation and 2) a lot for people whose only job skills were firing an RPG and wiring explosives would result in a guerilla war against the Americans and any Iraqis who supported the Americans.

What about "The virgin shall be with child...", same thing?

No, it simply means that if you have eternal 'branes, that takes the job of an eternal God. It leaves God without a job -- being eternal.

Being the cause of the branes colliding would be a job for Him, right? Getting the "just right" collision...

Oh, no, Hawking was one of the people that did help show how viable BB was. But no one liked the singularity of the BB. No one likes where the laws of physics breaks down. So Hawking started trying to find a way to avoid the singularity. He found one. Unfortunately, the implication of that finding was that there was no creation. :) Penrose was not involved in either No Boundary or ekpyrotic.

I was referring to the beginning of time out of GR. I found the reference I was looking for: Hawking and Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceeding of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970), pages 529-548.

Just the reference, not the paper...My mind has been shocked by children, I barely have any capacity left...

I don't know that they did. What I am exploring is a "what if". I take it you don't play "what if" and see where the logic and reasoning leads you. What if it turns out that the universe was not created? Does that do away with God?

I do play "what if", I am indeed playing it now. But this idea that the universe had no beginning and yet it had a Big Bang and our space time began, is puzzling to me.

Maybe being Creator is an ESSENTIAL job for God, and God can't be God, or exist, unless He created.

Well, lucaspa, I actually see a nessesity for believing this because the scriptures communicate this basic characteristic of God as being creator. So much, so much scripture point there. Even Christ said:
For in those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created, until now, and never shall. Mk. 13:19

Or maybe there is an entity that does the other jobs we think God does and is still "worthy" of worship as God.

But we have Christ. I know we don't know the fullness of God, not in our state of being, but if we have Christ, we have the God also of the Hebrews from which He came, from which He learned, from which He taught. I do not believe you can have a seperate God.

You are concerned with the Bible. I'm concerned with God.

The Bible teaches us of God.

Charleen, this started because Constantine claimed that the universe MUST have a begining in order for God to exist. All I asked was: is that true? Can God exist IF the universe did not have a beginning? It was of more than imaginary interest because there are 2 theories out there that, if correct, would do away with a beginning of the universe. And one of the -- ekpyrotic -- can be tested within the next 20 years. If ekpyrotic is correct, do I have to accept that atheism is correct and there is no God?

I think Christ should be our focus, lucaspa. If we have evidence for His life, death, and resurrection, then we have the evidence that we need. I think you have a high regard for Christ and it is also Christ who mentions God being creator. Can God be creator in a ekpyrotic scenario? I don't know the science well enough to say. But it seems to me that something had to cause that wondering piece of brane to collide with the universe in just the right way. Hey, for all I know, the universe it collided with is the universe in which He made the angels or the other host of heaven we read about in those trippy books like Ezekiel or Revelation. The present universe in which we live could have some links to the universe from which it came in order for angels to cross over. And this universe will be destroyed by fire, another plug. Additionally, God will create a new heaven and a new earth, perhaps from yet another brane collision.

It is something, this paradox of chance and predestination working all the while in conjunction...

Now, we both seem to agree that, IF the universe had no beginning, then our interpretation of certain verses of the Bible are in error.

Well, I think that it would be very hard to get another interpretation out of even Jesus calling God "creator".

Would this be better: "creator of brane collisions" :wink: You would get the same thing as "creator".

Charleen, this would not be the first time by any means that evidence in God's Creation has caused Christianity to change its interpretation of the Bible.

I am open to change. Show me a "what if" of Bible interpretation.

lucaspa

March 3rd 2005, 08:12 AM

1) And, these "banes," where did they proceed from? What was the cause of these banes? They don't need a cause. Just like God doesn't need a cause.

How do banes solve the problem of First Cause? Are banes Uncaused Effects? Because the God concept originates in this problem of cause-effect.
Yes, the 11 dimensional universe is an Uncaused Cause. I beg to differ about the origin of the God concept. The God concept did not originate with First Cause. That logical argument for the existence of God was not formulated until the Middle Ages (Thomas Aquinas, if I remember correctly). The Hebrews did not have "God concept" because of First Cause. Instead, they had a "God concept" because God intervened in history and created the nation of Israel from nothing.

2) A Pulsating Universe does not solve the problem of cause and effect requiring a first uncaused prime mover. The pulsing behavior reduces to a mere characteristic of the caused universe. Even in disappearing into a giant black whole and disappearing, the next pulse of its re-appearance evidences that universe went domewhere unexplained. This is NOT a pulsating universe. Read my later descriptions of ekpyrotic.

lucaspa

March 3rd 2005, 08:28 AM

Hello,...

Hawkins makes the observation that our Universe may be without beginning or end, like walking inside a sphere. Then he offers a theory that no God is needed to begin this "sphere analogy." He might be criticized by suggesting the sphere merely offers no data to discover a beginning, and defies any evidence of going away, ending. We are still no better than before concerning this sweet mystery of life and death.
Kofh2u, I'd be a lot more impressed if you had gotten the elementary facts correct. But you didn't. Hawking's No Boundary proposal has a universe with the analogy of walking around the OUTSIDE of a sphere. The North Pole is the BB, and the South Pole would be the Big Crunch. Now, since new data shows that the universe is expanding and will never go to a Big Crunch, Hawking has found another solution to the math and the universe is analogous to a parabaloid -- an ice cream cone with a rounded bottom.

The idea that the universe is self-contained without beginning or end is a CONCLUSION from No Boundary. Thus, the question about the necessity of God to create the universe arises as an IMPLICATION of the conclusion of the theory.

What saves us all from having to become atheists is that, to get No Boundary, Hawking arbitrarily picks some parameters having to do with the nature of the universe right after BB. Those parameters are not necessary to get the universe we see today. That is, there is a large set of parameters for the very early universe that will also give us what we see around us and does not give No Boundary. So we are not compelled to say the parameters are what they were to give No Boundary.

So, for First Cause to get the universe started we have AT LEAST 5 hypotheses. http://christianforums.com/t43923 There is insufficient data to eliminate ANY of them right now. So they all remain on the table and science remains agnostic.

The antithesis to that "Spherical Reality" thesis is that God, Himself, has become the Universe, transformed from some pre-existing formless absolute energy that transcended the ""sphere." God is all, His material ansformation is Universe defined by Buckminster Fuller as all that is not you, the personal you.
This goes against all traditional Christian theology. This is panentheism.

By examining the workings of universe, from inside, as we walk endless around the materialism of this "sphere," we can not explain even to ourselves what it might mean. We have no access to data outside the sphere, if there is such a place, "outside."
This may, or may not, be true. In traditional BB theory, the singularity of the BB prevents us from looking at anything "before" the BB. Nothing from "before" survives to affect our universe. However, ekpyrotic would leave evidence of the 'branes -- gravity waves. When we can measure gravity waves, we may, or may not, find that they support ekpyrotic.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (Elohim, creator), God, (the Theistic Absolute Energy, pre-existing material Universe), created (by Einstienian transformation), the (matter composing the) heaven and the earth.
Ah, back to strange interpolations again, I see. Are you aware that, in Hebrew, elohim is the PLURAL of god? That is, the correct translation of Elohim is "Gods". Kofh2u, this could NOT have been the meaning of the original authors of Genesis 1, and don't you think we should find out what THEY meant when they wrote Genesis 1?

lucaspa

March 3rd 2005, 08:37 AM

Higher Criticism and their garbage has been trounced by facts

Yes that is a fact. Get out of your comfort zone and look for yourself. Read Gleason Archer to start with. He has an introductory book on the OT. Based on linguistic evidence alone the Higher Critics using lower criticism (go figure) show themselves to be prejudiced idiots.
Jack, this isn't argumentation from facts. It's argument by authority. Who says Archer is correct? Just because he criticizes Higher Criticism doesn't mean his criticism is valid. The FACT remains that Higher Criticism is STILL taught by virtually every theological seminary outside Fundamentalism.

You haven't given us one fact yet! Since Archer's books are out of print, please provide 2 or 3 of Archer's "facts" against Higher Criticism so we can see what you are talking about.

Piling on the evolutionary bandwagon like lemmings only pronounced their lack of academic integrity and showed them to be the jackals that they are. You are using a lot of ad hominem. I've found that people resort to insults when they don't have rational and reasonable arguments. And so far you haven't given any rational or reasonable arguments.

In this case, your facts are in error. That there were 2 creation stories was first noticed in 1715 long before even the possibility of evolution was considered! I realize that the authors of the Fundamentals hated both Higher Criticism and evolution and tried to dump them in the same box, but they are separate.

A couple of people said my site is mythology. That is a simple pronouncement. I wonder by what authority they say it is mythology. Shunyadragon made the statement. She told you why. You have ignored the reasons ever since, focussing only on the supposed insult.

rogero, my site is not about geology although some aspects of physical evidence include geology. I don't think you are a geologist, maybe not even a biologist. Why is an antiquated theory that has been disproven such as evolution so important to you?
1. Where has evolution been disproven? Jack, go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter "evolution" as your search term. First look at the sheer NUMBER of scientific articles dealing with evolution. Then start reading abstracts and please tell us which papers "disprove" evolution.
2. Evolution is important because it is the way God created. Denying the evidence from God's Creation is denying God. I think you would agree that denying God is important.

lucaspa

March 3rd 2005, 08:44 AM

jack, a very quick search of Gleason Archer revealed some interesting things:
1. His books are out of print and hard to find. I wonder why that is? If they were so acceptable and correct, don't you think they'd be popular enough among Biblical scholars and others to stay in print? After all, Origin of the Species (that you claim propounds a falsified theory) is still in print.
2. Apparently Archer was a "progressive creationist", not a YEC. Answers in Genesis doesn't think much of him: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/Quotes/gleason_archer.asp
3. Here's a criticism of Archer. This criticism itself has some flaws in it, but it does show some of the flaws in Archer's approach. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/david_zaitzeff/asa_arch.html

Jugulum

March 3rd 2005, 09:59 AM

Yes, the 11 dimensional universe is an Uncaused Cause. I beg to differ about the origin of the God concept. The God concept did not originate with First Cause. That logical argument for the existence of God was not formulated until the Middle Ages (Thomas Aquinas, if I remember correctly). The Hebrews did not have "God concept" because of First Cause. Instead, they had a "God concept" because God intervened in history and created the nation of Israel from nothing.
I was starting to nod my head to this, but then I thought, "Isn't 'God=Creator' a First Cause concept?" Then I realized, "Oh, his point is that First Cause wasn't what gave the Hebrews the concept of God."

kofh2u

March 3rd 2005, 10:00 AM

They don't need a cause. Just like God doesn't need a cause.

Yes, the 11 dimensional universe is an Uncaused Cause. I beg to differ about the origin of the God concept. The God concept did not originate with First Cause. That logical argument for the existence of God was not formulated until the Middle Ages (Thomas Aquinas, if I remember correctly). The Hebrews did not have "God concept" because of First Cause. Instead, they had a "God concept" because God intervened in history and created the nation of Israel from nothing.

This is NOT a pulsating universe. Read my later descriptions of ekpyrotic.

We seem to agree in everything except the conclusions we draw upon in understanding such agreements. Strange.

"God" is that "thingee" which transcends our material existence as a Universe. It is therefore the unknowable almighty uncaused cause of everything. Our lack of knowledge concerning this "Bane" is immaterial to our acceptance of "it" as the Father of all that exists including us. "It" created us, heaven and earth, in some beginning. We can only image... imagine ... where "Banes"
might have come from or surmise that "Banes" need not come from anywhere because they are Almighty above such human requirements for such things. Banes transcend humanity and the capacity to understand banes.

This seems to be not far removed from an ancient more intuitive God concept.

Whatever banes may or may not be, we can only infer that they are not capricious. Banes are part of some systematic rational "thingee" related to and continuous with our present understandings of "nature."

Rom. 1:20 For, from the creation of the (material Universe which we know as the) world, the invisible things of him, (the Father of all nature, Reality), are clearly seen, (empirically, by the rational application of the methods of our science), being understood by (a progression of theories concerning) the things that are made (and observation of the natural laws appropriate to them), even his eternal (natural) power and (his Quantum Reality which is the) Godhead (of all things); so that (even the atheists), they are without excuse (gor denying the Word):

Jack777

March 3rd 2005, 02:50 PM

lucaspa wrote:

jack, a very quick search of Gleason Archer revealed some interesting things:

1. His books are out of print and hard to find. I wonder why that is? If they were so acceptable and correct, don't you think they'd be popular enough among Biblical scholars and others to stay in print? After all, Origin of the Species (that you claim propounds a falsified theory) is still in print.

I did not make any claims as to Gleason Archer's books being acceptable and correct.

I was in a seminary bookstore in January and there were stacks of his book in paperback. Your search is interesting though.

His book is a start. It has a bibliography. A current commentary gives reference to his writing.

I do not base my opinions on only one book about something. I have used sources that are not Christian as well as Christian to find out things. My work with ancient Hebrew, protosanskrit and other languages draws on mostly non-Christian authors. Linear A is not the sole possession of Christianity for instance, nor were they Hebrew and that people group lived in 1600 BC--Linear B came along later and so on. That is a small aspect of a larger picture that fits with what I referred to. Language, proto-language, petroglyphs, migration of people and their relatedness in terms of culture or genetics all makes a part of the picture. Archer is as good a place to start as any besides the Bible.

The fact evolution has aspects that are incorrect seems to trouble people. It has been useful to a certain extent. I do not mean to offend anyone personally. I did not make it up, Darwin did. It was a theory and is way outmoded in many details. How it fits with things is something you have to decide, not me. I also am not running a contest between Gleason Archer and Charles Darwin. Darwin is dead and so is his theory.

lucaspa

March 3rd 2005, 04:19 PM

Why, does His hand need to have physically written the words or every word need to have been audibly dictated for the scriptures to be the inspired word of God?
:smile: Nice to see you using the small "w". There's a big difference between "dictated" and "inspired". In one, God directly speaks the actual words that are written down -- like Allah spoke the actual words in the Quran. Mohammed was only a scribe. Inspired means that God tried to give the general idea but the actual words were chosen by the human. Dictated means that God's limitation by humans is less than inspired.

For instance, Genesis 1 being dictated means that God spoke every word in I Corinthians -- even chapter 7 that Paul says is his. He is limited by human lack of language to describe some things, but Paul's personality is missing. However, if 1 Corinthians is inspired, then God tried to get across certain theological ideas but the actual wording of those ideas is Paul's. And now Paul's personality comes into play, particularly his dislike of women. So we get this admonishment not to marry, because the human Paul doesn't want to marry. OTOH, we also gain Paul's beautiful language in 1 Corinthians 13, which is one of the most magnificent poems about love ever written.

"Scripture" means something different than "interpretation", but I'm glad you saw the problem in our communication. Please define the two for me so I know what you mean by them.

I attack literal interpretations in many cases also because such is not nessesarily the meaning of scripture. This is why we have exegesis. And what do we use for exegesis? How do you decide that the literal interpretation isn't the meaning? How do you decide the author meant something different?

Since we need to be consise about things, let's be clear that "Paul" does not need to be perfect, but that the theology he writes does. Paul was not perfect, nor were the other writers of the Bible. This says nothing of inspiration, however. Why does the theology need to be "perfect"? The people he was writing TO were not. They can only understand concepts that they are familiar with, based on their extrabiblical knowledge. Just as the OT had the dietary laws because that is what the people of the time understood to be necessary to faith, could not Paul have included theology that was only specific to the people of the time?

Now, you yourself argue for time specific theology when you say:
This topic has been around and you can probably find one active even now on Tweb. The point is, you must understand the cultural context and the kind of slavery it was in ancient Isreal. People back then sold themselves into slavery. Their tenure was seven years. Is it fair to judge ancient socio-economics against modern?

You are thinking of Leviticus 25:39. However, altho SOME slaves happened that way, captives from war and people enslaved forcefully by other countries could also be bought, and these do NOT have to be released. Lev. 25:44-45. Since these slaves can be inherited by your sons, they are not released. Only Israelite slaves must be released. So, what we have are rules making slavery more humane, which is good. But the practice itself is condoned and accepted.

lucaspa: "You are protecting the integrity of the Bible. I don't need to do that because it is God's integrity that counts. The human authors of the Bible are allowed to make mistakes."

So are you one of these "many paths lead to God" believers? How do we know the accurate view of God if not for the Bible? Do you believe the O.T. has value in understanding Christ? How did you get "many paths lead to God" from what I said? What exactly do YOU mean by that?

How do we know an accurate view of God outside the Bible? Ever hear of the Holy Spirit? Charleen, Christians are supposed to have a PERSONAL relationship with God/Jesus. That is outside the Bible, is it not? It appears that you think there is no other way for God to contact us or us to know God but thru the Bible. This is back to worship of the Bible again. The Bible is god, and you must listen to it only.

So those Old Covenent believers did not really have to obey the Law, it was just sort of a guide book? If it wasn't, it means God gets to change His mind. God tried this method of communicating with humans and the Law as a guide for them. It appears that guide didn't work, so God became human and instituted some other guides.

Remember, the Good Samaritan did not obey the Law. That's why they were outcast from Jewish society. The parable certainly says the Samaritan was better in tune with God than the Pharisee who obeyed the Law. So, I would say "yes".

lucaspa: "However, as you have noticed, the standard changes even WITHIN the Bible. In the Pentateuch, men are allowed to divorce their wives with a simple declaration - Deut 24:1. However, Jesus in Mark 10 and Matthew 14 changes that standard. In the Pentateuch, the dietary laws are laid down for absolute standards. Yet in Acts they are revoked."

If such things make you believe the Bible is therefore unauthoriative, then perhaps we need to spin a new thread to discuss it.
I'm truly sorry, Charleen. The more I talk with you, the more I see that you are truly lost if the Bible is not absolutely "authoritative" to you. Using Matthew 7:11 leaves your behavior up to your own judgement, tempered by your love of God and your love of your fellow human. It appears that you can't rely on your own judgement. You are saying that if you don't follow the Bible as absolute authority, then you have no moral compass. I'm truly sorry. That type of insecurity in yourself and God must be very scary.

Only useful because if you disagreed with it you can really just do your own thing? Why do you keep thinking that disagreeing with an interpretation of scripture or even with scripture gives you license to do anything you want? Nothing can be further from the truth. You are still bound by Mat. 7:12 and your personal relationship with God. It's just that you are allowed to use your personal relationship and the guidelines instead of rotely following a set of rules. You still have to justify your actions to yourself and God. The personal responsibility on you is GREATER. You can always say to yourself "The Bible says! Therefore I don't have to think beyond that and I'm not responsible because the Bible says!" I don't get that our. The responsibility is mine. Did I REALLY treat that person as I would have wanted to be treated if our places were reversed? Maybe being kinder or harsher would have been better for them than what I did? Can I really tell God that what I did was for someone else, or was I secretly being selfish?

Perhaps a concordance study of "word of God" would help. The Bible contains the word of God. While I do not worship mere words, I worship the God who I understand though those words. I take those words as true in all they address. Even when what they address changes? This where the "all" gets you in trouble. Also, really? Would you permit someone to sell himself into slavery? There are still slaves, you know. Since they are foreigners, Leviticus says you are allowed to buy them. If someone brought their unruly child to the park in your neighborhood, would you help stone that child? You are supposed to, by Deut 21:18-21.

Well, I was wondering what would happen if the scripture's meaning contradicted the ideas that "fit with our understanding of what God wants and with our own experience." Who has the final authority, experience or the meaning of scripture? You say our experience does. You change the interpretation of scripture. This is where I need you to define "scripture" and "scripture's meaning". It seems to me that "scriptures meaning" = interpretation = exegesis. So, it appears that you look for a new exegesis.

In the examples I gave above, what do YOU think "scripture's meaning" was there? If not the plain reading of the text, then how do you justify changing it.

I think, Charleen, that you and I do very similar things. You just clothe the use of personal experience by saying you are getting the "correct" exegesis.

Is it fair to judge ancient socio-economics against modern? There was also the issue of prisoners of war. There is also the issue of misunderstanding "sex slaves" as many Bible critics do with regard to fathers selling their daughters into marriage. Again, who are we to judge the socio economics of their practices?
Let's apply this to homosexuality. Is it fair to judge ancient attitudes toward homosexuality with what we know about it today? In those days, homosexuality was practiced in the rites of many of the gods. When Paul condemns such religions by condemning the practices (Romans), is he condemning a loving, long term homosexual union?

You see, here you are not using the Bible as "authoritative". You say the Bible is true in "ALL" it addresses. Well, it addresses slavery. But your personal experience says slavery is wrong, even if people sell themselves into it. You are essentially saying that scripture is wrong and does not apply anymore. I'm saying the same thing.

Different cultures have different customs than we do. As long as these are not immoral (like being poor and having to make ends meet somehow and selling yourself for seven years to make it work) then we need to be sensitive in our judgement.
Whoa! It may not be immoral for a person to sell himself. But is it immoral for YOU to OWN another person, even if for only 7 years? You are looking at only one side of the morality question. It's not the slave that we think is immoral, but the slaveowner!

In what way did he disobey? He baptized Gentiles without them being Jews first. In particular, he baptized the men without making them undergo circumcision. Acts 15. Peter spoke up in support and Paul carried the day.

Because Jesus did not say them in the Gospels does not mean that they are not words of His inspiration through Paul. I wonder at you saying this. There must be some things in Paul that you think are without the bounds of Christ. This may explain much in our discussion. Yes, there are. We have gone over some of them: women working in church, women speaking in church, condemnation of homosexuality, etc. It's not contradicting what Jesus did NOT say, but what Jesus DID say.

I do not know that Paul advocates behavior and practices that contradict other parts of scripture. I think such thoughts indicate a need to investigate further the hard sayings of Paul. When you brought up the difference between situationally specific vs. universal, I thought you were onto it. Yes, but that means lessening the authority of Paul, because now the words are not universal, but only for a specific situation. So we get to ignore the words for OUR situation. But at this point you challenged me because you think that is challenging the "authority" of scripture. You can't have it both ways. If I say that "women should be quiet in church" applies only to the former worshippers of Diana who were shouting in the Corinth church, then I am challenging that scripture is inspired and authoritative in your view. If I say that Paul's misogyny got the better of him when he says married women should not work in church, then you think I'm challenging the inspiration, since the Bible is the "word of God."

It seems that this is a lose-lose situation.

rogero

March 3rd 2005, 04:32 PM

...

The fact evolution has aspects that are incorrect seems to trouble people. It has been useful to a certain extent. I do not mean to offend anyone personally. I did not make it up, Darwin did. It was a theory and is way outmoded in many details. How it fits with things is something you have to decide, not me. I also am not running a contest between Gleason Archer and Charles Darwin. Darwin is dead and so is his theory.

You have a very brittle, loaded writing style, Jack. It's not a "fact" that evolution has aspects that are "incorrect" --- there are uncertainties and lack of data in certain aspects of the theory, as there are in any theory. Apparently you don't understand scientific method that well. "Incorrect" hypotheses are discarded or modified. Could you cite example(s) of where the modern synthesis of biological evolution has "aspects that are incorrect"? Yes, the way you (mlsleadingly) stated your first sentence, "incorrect" aspects would (and should!) trouble people, however your premise is false.

The two bolded sentences are another indication you have a foggy at best understanding of the modern synthesis. You seem to want to use Darwin's inaccuracies and incorrect conclusions (without mentioning what they are) as a strawman to attack the modern synthesis.

Jack777

March 4th 2005, 01:42 PM

First, I haven't the time to become embroiled in other people's arguments on this or any other thread. I would like to and I would like to go point by point. I just do not have the time.

The Bible is authoritative. The Bible is inspired and inerrant. It is the Word of God. God literally dictated some of the Bible letter by letter, word by word, and line by line. The New Testament and the Old Testament are both the Word of God.

Charleen is not lost.

rogero,

I should have said that the Theory of Evolution is wrong. I know I used the word incorrect. As far as its synthesis being perfect and the Bible being wrong, you have it backwards rogero. If you have a perfect synthesis you should let people know what it is.

On this forum, I have asked point blank what evolution is to them. I have read the assertions of those who advocate evolution. People say things that are flat out wrong as it touches on the Bible. I do no tknow why evolution has to be inerrant and the Bible has to be in error for you. If that is not your position, then you leave a different impression. I said that evolution was useful and some of the things are correct as far as they go. rogero, my writing is brittle and flawed according to you and therefore I sympathize with your pain.

lucaspa

March 4th 2005, 04:11 PM

"God" is that "thingee" which transcends our material existence as a Universe. It is therefore the unknowable almighty uncaused cause of everything. Our lack of knowledge concerning this "Bane" is immaterial to our acceptance of "it" as the Father of all that exists including us. "It" created us, heaven and earth, in some beginning. We can only image... imagine ... where "Banes"
might have come from or surmise that "Banes" need not come from anywhere because they are Almighty above such human requirements for such things. Banes transcend humanity and the capacity to understand banes.

This seems to be not far removed from an ancient more intuitive God concept.
It's 'branes. Derived from "membranes". As you noted, 'branes like God in the respect that you use them. 'branes "created' the universe and we can only imagine where the 'branes came from. Just as we can only imagine where God came from.

Whatever banes may or may not be, we can only infer that they are not capricious. Banes are part of some systematic rational "thingee" related to and continuous with our present understandings of "nature."
Actually, 'branes are capricious. If you read the description of ekpyrotic, "random fluctuations" (capricious) in the 'branes sheds a sheet that migrates to our universe. It can happen at any time. There's no control. When the sheet collides with our universe, everything is wiped out and a new universe forms.

So ... your attempt to put 'branes in the universe fails. As First Cause, they are equivalent to God. So, if your faith requires a deity that created the universe, then, IF ekpyrotic turns out to be correct, your faith is falsified.

lucaspa

March 4th 2005, 04:14 PM

First, I haven't the time to become embroiled in other people's arguments on this or any other thread. I would like to and I would like to go point by point. I just do not have the time. IOW, you don't have the evidence. You simply reassert your position of faith as tho it is fact:

The Bible is authoritative. The Bible is inspired and inerrant. It is the Word of God. God literally dictated some of the Bible letter by letter, word by word, and line by line. The New Testament and the Old Testament are both the Word of God.

But you are wrong. The Biblle is NOT the "Word of God". The Word is Jesus. Read John 1.

People say things that are flat out wrong as it touches on the Bible. We say things that do not agree with your literal interpretation of the Bible. That's not the same thing as their being wrong.

I do no tknow why evolution has to be inerrant and the Bible has to be in error for you. Because it is God's Creation vs Jack's interpretation of the Bible. God vs Jack. Now, who do YOU think would be wrong in that confrontation?

rogero

March 4th 2005, 04:55 PM

...

The Bible is authoritative. The Bible is inspired and inerrant. It is the Word of God. God literally dictated some of the Bible letter by letter, word by word, and line by line. The New Testament and the Old Testament are both the Word of God.

Are you referring to your Fundy-mentalist interpretation of the Bible? I was not aware that the Bible could be read in toto without some interpretation.

Charleen is not lost.

Well, we agree on something. :wink:

rogero,

I should have said that the Theory of Evolution is wrong. I know I used the word incorrect. As far as its synthesis being perfect and the Bible being wrong, you have it backwards rogero. If you have a perfect synthesis you should let people know what it is.

You must enjoy being irritating. FYI, "wrong" and "incorrect" have the same meaning. You do have a degree in English as you've said, don't you?

More loaded and brittle rhetoric from the Jackster... Who said that the modern synthesis is "perfect"? I don't even know what that means in the context of scientific theory. Who said "the Bible is wrong"? Your or anyone else's interpretation of the Bible may be wrong.

On this forum, I have asked point blank what evolution is to them. I have read the assertions of those who advocate evolution. People say things that are flat out wrong as it touches on the Bible. I do no tknow why evolution has to be inerrant and the Bible has to be in error for you. If that is not your position, then you leave a different impression. I said that evolution was useful and some of the things are correct as far as they go. rogero, my writing is brittle and flawed according to you and therefore I sympathize with your pain.

What the harwell do you mean by "evolution has to be inerrant"?? If "evolution is wrong" how can it be "useful"? What do you mean by "evolution"? Perhaps explaining that would help clarify some of your statements.

My Lands, are you ever frustrating and confusing! :ahem:

lucaspa

March 4th 2005, 05:09 PM

I did not make any claims as to Gleason Archer's books being acceptable and correct.
Jack, did I misread this: "Higher Criticism and their garbage has been trounced by facts

Yes that is a fact. Get out of your comfort zone and look for yourself. Read Gleason Archer to start with. "

Now, you didn't use the words "acceptable and correct", but doesn't Gleason have to be correct in order for Higher Criticism to be trounced by facts? You wanted us to read Archer. I presumed you would not want us to read an incorrect book. Am I mistaken?

His book is a start. It has a bibliography. A current commentary gives reference to his writing. Which book? Archer has a couple. You didn't specify. All of them are over 20 years old. The bibliography must be even older. Yet Higher Criticism is still here and all the commentaries of Genesis I can find in Barnes and Nobles (10 of them, all written in the last 5 years) accept Higher Criticism.

I do not base my opinions on only one book about something. I have used sources that are not Christian as well as Christian to find out things. My work with ancient Hebrew, protosanskrit and other languages draws on mostly non-Christian authors. Linear A is not the sole possession of Christianity for instance, nor were they Hebrew and that people group lived in 1600 BC--Linear B came along later and so on. That is a small aspect of a larger picture that fits with what I referred to. Language, proto-language, petroglyphs, migration of people and their relatedness in terms of culture or genetics all makes a part of the picture. Archer is as good a place to start as any besides the Bible.
Well, then, in the interest of understanding, could you share those other sources? And what specifically are you claiming is false about Higher Criticism? That the Torah had 3 authors and was put together by a 4th -- and editor? That there was no "Q" document that was used by Mark, Matthew, and Luke? That 2 Peter is not pseudographic? Please be specific so I can understand better.

The fact evolution has aspects that are incorrect seems to trouble people. It has been useful to a certain extent. I do not mean to offend anyone personally. I did not make it up, Darwin did. It was a theory and is way outmoded in many details. How it fits with things is something you have to decide, not me. ... Darwin is dead and so is his theory.
You didn't go to PubMed like I asked, did you, Jack? I went to your website. At least you could have the courtesy to go to the one I recommended. And show me the scientific papers that show evolution is dead. If evolution is really dead, then there should be papers stating that. After all, there are papers in PubMed stating that other theories -- such as Steady State -- are dead. Again, your assertions lack the facts and arguments essential for us to believe them or even take them seriously.

Jack, theories are collections of statements. General theories like evolution are LARGE collections of statements. Evolution as Darwin prpposed it, for instance, is actually 5 theories. Not one, but five.

So, in large theories like evolution or gravity there are some key statements and then a host of subsidiary statements that cover more specific areas of the key statements. Some of these lesser statements can be wrong -- what you call "aspects can be wrong" -- without affecting the main statements. For instance, that whales descenced from a common ancestor to hippos instead of a common ancestor to wolves doesn't affect the key statement of "common ancestry". That the fossil record shows that most speciation was by allopatric speciation (punctuated equilibrium) rather than by phyletic gradualism does not affect common ancestry.

The key statements in evolution are 1) descent with modification (common ancestry) and 2) natural selection to give the designs in plants and animals. Both of those statements are so strongly supported that they are regarded as fact. Common ancestry has survived so many attempts to show it to be wrong that we are out of things to try. We have tried everything we can think of. Natural selection is so strongly supported that even the Bush Administration uses the phrase "Darwinian selection" to describe the increase in ability of the Iraqi resistance. :smile: It's so accepted that Darwinian selection leads to "improvement" that they say that we have killed off all the stupid insurgents and selected only the good and effective ones.

Now, as to your website. I've looked at it more carefully. I've noted several errors:
1. There was no canopy of ice crystals. Such a canopy can't form because ice crystals are simply too heavy.
2. Mammoths were not flash frozen. The meat is decayed when it is thawed, which would not happen if they were flash frozen. Most of the frozen mammoths have broken bones, which would not have happened if they were flash frozen as the website states. Finally, not all frozen mammoths were frozen at the same time, which is what the website claims.
3. The idea of a nuclear explosion over N. America suffers from several problems as well. Foremost among them is that much of Michigan and Ohio were subjected to temps over 1,000 degrees. As you know, that will melt most metals and take other sediments and melt them to form glass. So much of Michigan and Ohio would have a layer of glass in the soil. That soil has been very well explored and documented and no layer of glass.

Now, I don't think "mythology" is a bad term. Myths are constructed to tell spiritual and emotional truths. So, for me, Shunyadragon calling the site "mythology" is not necessarily an insult. Having read the site more closely, I think Shunyadragon was too kind.

A Beautiful Truth

March 4th 2005, 07:05 PM

:smile: Nice to see you using the small "w". There's a big difference between "dictated" and "inspired". In one, God directly speaks the actual words that are written down -- like Allah spoke the actual words in the Quran. Mohammed was only a scribe. Inspired means that God tried to give the general idea but the actual words were chosen by the human. Dictated means that God's limitation by humans is less than inspired.

For instance, Genesis 1 being dictated means that God spoke every word in I Corinthians -- even chapter 7 that Paul says is his. He is limited by human lack of language to describe some things, but Paul's personality is missing. However, if 1 Corinthians is inspired, then God tried to get across certain theological ideas but the actual wording of those ideas is Paul's. And now Paul's personality comes into play, particularly his dislike of women. So we get this admonishment not to marry, because the human Paul doesn't want to marry. OTOH, we also gain Paul's beautiful language in 1 Corinthians 13, which is one of the most magnificent poems about love ever written.

Please define the two for me so I know what you mean by them.

And what do we use for exegesis? How do you decide that the literal interpretation isn't the meaning? How do you decide the author meant something different?

Why does the theology need to be "perfect"? The people he was writing TO were not. They can only understand concepts that they are familiar with, based on their extrabiblical knowledge. Just as the OT had the dietary laws because that is what the people of the time understood to be necessary to faith, could not Paul have included theology that was only specific to the people of the time?

Now, you yourself argue for time specific theology when you say:

You are thinking of Leviticus 25:39. However, altho SOME slaves happened that way, captives from war and people enslaved forcefully by other countries could also be bought, and these do NOT have to be released. Lev. 25:44-45. Since these slaves can be inherited by your sons, they are not released. Only Israelite slaves must be released. So, what we have are rules making slavery more humane, which is good. But the practice itself is condoned and accepted.

How did you get "many paths lead to God" from what I said? What exactly do YOU mean by that?

How do we know an accurate view of God outside the Bible? Ever hear of the Holy Spirit? Charleen, Christians are supposed to have a PERSONAL relationship with God/Jesus. That is outside the Bible, is it not? It appears that you think there is no other way for God to contact us or us to know God but thru the Bible. This is back to worship of the Bible again. The Bible is god, and you must listen to it only.

If it wasn't, it means God gets to change His mind. God tried this method of communicating with humans and the Law as a guide for them. It appears that guide didn't work, so God became human and instituted some other guides.

Remember, the Good Samaritan did not obey the Law. That's why they were outcast from Jewish society. The parable certainly says the Samaritan was better in tune with God than the Pharisee who obeyed the Law. So, I would say "yes".

I'm truly sorry, Charleen. The more I talk with you, the more I see that you are truly lost if the Bible is not absolutely "authoritative" to you. Using Matthew 7:11 leaves your behavior up to your own judgement, tempered by your love of God and your love of your fellow human. It appears that you can't rely on your own judgement. You are saying that if you don't follow the Bible as absolute authority, then you have no moral compass. I'm truly sorry. That type of insecurity in yourself and God must be very scary.

Why do you keep thinking that disagreeing with an interpretation of scripture or even with scripture gives you license to do anything you want? Nothing can be further from the truth. You are still bound by Mat. 7:12 and your personal relationship with God. It's just that you are allowed to use your personal relationship and the guidelines instead of rotely following a set of rules. You still have to justify your actions to yourself and God. The personal responsibility on you is GREATER. You can always say to yourself "The Bible says! Therefore I don't have to think beyond that and I'm not responsible because the Bible says!" I don't get that our. The responsibility is mine. Did I REALLY treat that person as I would have wanted to be treated if our places were reversed? Maybe being kinder or harsher would have been better for them than what I did? Can I really tell God that what I did was for someone else, or was I secretly being selfish?

Even when what they address changes? This where the "all" gets you in trouble. Also, really? Would you permit someone to sell himself into slavery? There are still slaves, you know. Since they are foreigners, Leviticus says you are allowed to buy them. If someone brought their unruly child to the park in your neighborhood, would you help stone that child? You are supposed to, by Deut 21:18-21.

You say our experience does. You change the interpretation of scripture. This is where I need you to define "scripture" and "scripture's meaning". It seems to me that "scriptures meaning" = interpretation = exegesis. So, it appears that you look for a new exegesis.

In the examples I gave above, what do YOU think "scripture's meaning" was there? If not the plain reading of the text, then how do you justify changing it.

I think, Charleen, that you and I do very similar things. You just clothe the use of personal experience by saying you are getting the "correct" exegesis.

Let's apply this to homosexuality. Is it fair to judge ancient attitudes toward homosexuality with what we know about it today? In those days, homosexuality was practiced in the rites of many of the gods. When Paul condemns such religions by condemning the practices (Romans), is he condemning a loving, long term homosexual union?

You see, here you are not using the Bible as "authoritative". You say the Bible is true in "ALL" it addresses. Well, it addresses slavery. But your personal experience says slavery is wrong, even if people sell themselves into it. You are essentially saying that scripture is wrong and does not apply anymore. I'm saying the same thing.

Whoa! It may not be immoral for a person to sell himself. But is it immoral for YOU to OWN another person, even if for only 7 years? You are looking at only one side of the morality question. It's not the slave that we think is immoral, but the slaveowner!

He baptized Gentiles without them being Jews first. In particular, he baptized the men without making them undergo circumcision. Acts 15. Peter spoke up in support and Paul carried the day.

Yes, there are. We have gone over some of them: women working in church, women speaking in church, condemnation of homosexuality, etc. It's not contradicting what Jesus did NOT say, but what Jesus DID say.

Yes, but that means lessening the authority of Paul, because now the words are not universal, but only for a specific situation. So we get to ignore the words for OUR situation. But at this point you challenged me because you think that is challenging the "authority" of scripture. You can't have it both ways. If I say that "women should be quiet in church" applies only to the former worshippers of Diana who were shouting in the Corinth church, then I am challenging that scripture is inspired and authoritative in your view. If I say that Paul's misogyny got the better of him when he says married women should not work in church, then you think I'm challenging the inspiration, since the Bible is the "word of God."

It seems that this is a lose-lose situation.

Lucaspa, thanks for responding to this post of mine, we have much left to discuss, apparently. But I can see you are getting back logged. I am not going to post a reply to this until you had a chance to get to my post #47, which actually came after the post to which you just responded here. I am so immensely curious (really) about the ekpyrotic theory and I am grateful for you trying to explain it. So, I'm putting the above response on the back burner until we get the other squared away. But there is much to discuss yet, I am sorry we have not been communicating very effectively about theology.

Jack777

March 6th 2005, 03:28 PM

lucaspa,

I gave you a few references by referring to those on my site reference pages. Start reading anytime. If you will notice books have bibliographies. I cannot do your reading for you.

kofh2u

March 7th 2005, 03:27 AM

lucaspa:

Kofh2u, I'd be a lot more impressed if you had gotten the elementary facts correct. But you didn't. Hawking's No Boundary proposal has a universe with the analogy of walking around the OUTSIDE of a sphere. The North Pole is the BB, and the South Pole would be the Big Crunch. Now, since new data shows that the universe is expanding and will never go to a Big Crunch, Hawking has found another solution to the math and the universe is analogous to a parabaloid -- an ice cream cone with a rounded bottom.

KOFHY:
Ok, ok, though my academic background is physics, I don't read Hawkings brainstorming hypothesises.

I am satisfied that he still reduces everything to conic sections. There is little hope of eliminating my intuitive sense that life is an unsolvable mystery, that our human ability to image a pantheistic expression of God's hand in all natural phenomena, is his "spirit which moves across the face of the deep" unknown.

lucaspa:
The idea that the universe is self-contained without beginning or end is a CONCLUSION from No Boundary. Thus, the question about the necessity of God to create the universe arises as an IMPLICATION of the conclusion of the theory.

What saves us all from having to become atheists is that, to get No Boundary, Hawking arbitrarily picks some parameters having to do with the nature of the universe right after BB. Those parameters are not necessary to get the universe we see today. That is, there is a large set of parameters for the very early universe that will also give us what we see around us and does not give No Boundary. So we are not compelled to say the parameters are what they were to give No Boundary.

So, for First Cause to get the universe started we have AT LEAST 5 hypotheses. http://christianforums.com/t43923 There is insufficient data to eliminate ANY of them right now. So they all remain on the table and science remains agnostic.

KOFHY:
I may be old school, but I see God, in his Theistic expression, and Judeo-Christian view, as the Almighty Total pre-universe Energy, Potential Energy.
Universe, by whatever mathematically valid principles Hawkings might inform us, is a transformation of this almighty, an Einsteinian energy to matter conversion. Universe is God. Elohim is the pluraty expressed in the diversity of God's Natural Laws. These are His pantheistic "angels." But, He is One, the AbsolutemTotal Initial Energy State of the immate ial universe.

lucaspa:
This goes against all traditional Christian theology. This is panentheism.

KOFHY:
God is a Trinity.
Theistic God, prior to Universe, is expressed "pantheistically," after universe,... but not by little godlings working for Him. The natural processes of universe ARE him, analogous to our personality. This is just how God is, pantheistically speaking.

lucaspa:
This may, or may not, be true. In traditional BB theory, the singularity of the BB prevents us from looking at anything "before" the BB. Nothing from "before" survives to affect our universe. However, ekpyrotic would leave evidence of the 'branes -- gravity waves. When we can measure gravity waves, we may, or may not, find that they support ekpyrotic.

KOFHY:
Still First Cause remains.

lucaspa:
Ah, back to strange interpolations again, I see. Are you aware that, in Hebrew, elohim is the PLURAL of god? That is, the correct translation of Elohim is "Gods". Kofh2u, this could NOT have been the meaning of the original authors of Genesis 1, and don't you think we should find out what THEY meant when they wrote Genesis 1?

KOFHY:
Hahaaa... yp. We should find out. Every religious denomination, even the Jews are STILL debating this strange expression:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (Elohim, creator), God, (the Theistic Absolute Energy, pre-existing material Universe), created (by Einstienian transformation), the (matter composing the) heaven and the earth.

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit, (the pantheistic Natural Laws), of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Jack777

March 7th 2005, 02:33 PM

lucaspa,

I forgot to respond to you about the mythology statement. I was replying to you, not shunyadragon. I had read her say my site is mythology. I am fine with other people's opinions. However there is no way you could know if my site is mythology. You reiterated it for the purpose of insulting me. You have no basis to know if my site is mythology or not and neither does she. She expressed an opinion, you decided to use what she said to show what you think of me. I have been on the internet for a long time and have seldom encountered narrow-minded pettiness of this magnitude. You are a lot better than rogero though in the narrow-minded department.

rogero,

I have not pitted myself against God. It is not my interpretation versus the intention of God's Word.

To all, no amount of argument and insults and cajoling to disbelieve that the Bible is the Word of God will work on me. I notice what a relief it was that lucaspa thinks he is doing the Lord's will by convincing someone they cannot trust the Bible and compliments them on not using the capital "W". Pathetic.

A Beautiful Truth

March 7th 2005, 05:24 PM

Oh, no you don't, Kof2u and Jack...I get lucaspa FIRST when he returns, got it?! :glare:

kofh2u

March 7th 2005, 10:32 PM

Oh, no you don't, Kof2u and Jack...I get lucaspa FIRST when he returns, got it?! :glare:

I heard you.

Go girl.

rogero

March 8th 2005, 12:14 AM

To lucaspa,

... I have been on the internet for a long time and have seldom encountered narrow-minded pettiness of this magnitude. You are a lot better than rogero though in the narrow-minded department.

I think you've been on the Internet way too long without being challenged.

What's it mean that Lucaspa is "better than me in the narrow-minded department"? I sure wish you would practice writing clearly.

rogero,

I have not pitted myself against God. It is not my interpretation versus the intention of God's Word.

Who said you "pitted yourself against God?" It this another confusing pity-party?

The bolded sentence is more tantalizingly frustrating rhetoric. If you konw the "intention of God's Word", then you are tacitly claiming that your interpretation is correct -- and you're doing it in an almost blasphemous manner -- like you have some special knowledge of the intention of God's Word. Please be careful in your choice of words!!!

Jack777

March 8th 2005, 11:50 AM

You are so funny rogero. You don't remember stuff do you?

I am sorry Charleen, I have to post this.

lucaspa,

Higher Criticism?

There are several reasons to believe that the Pentateuch is narrative. The objection has been raised that most seminaries in the United States follow the school of the Higher Critics and therefore Higher Criticism is correct. Majority opinion has weight in certain instances but it is an error to think that majority opinion is always correct opinion. A few alternate views to the proposed majority opinion are offered here. If all of the books that speak to the Torah as narrative in contrast to the Torah as many source documents put together by Ezra or later were listed, it would be overwhelming.
John Sailhamer presents some cogent arguments in his book, The Pentateuch as Narrative. Francis A. Schaeffer presents a discussion of Genesis in a thoughtful way that supports the view it is part of the Revelation of God to us as a part of narrative in his book, Genesis in Space and Time. Gregory A. Boyd presents a world view that seeks to correct the introduction of erroneous philosophy into Christian writing in his book God at War. As such he at least broaches the question of the Pentateuch as the Revelation of God to us in a way that indicates why the view Genesis account is erroneously thought to be borrowed from pagan writings. Gleason Archer points out the flaws in the criticism of those who hold to the Documentary Hypotheses and other errors in analysis begun by the pantheist Spinoza in 1670 who thought Ezra put the Torah together based on surmisings. Archer follows up in brief form why the Pentateuch may be considered a narrative to recent scholarship past the mid-twentieth century. His book is available at some libraries and is A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. It is available in paperback as well and I saw it in a college bookstore. Herman Bavinck contributes greatly to allowing the reader to come to understand the controversy between Faith in the Word of God as Revelation to us and the different schools of thought that oppose the witness of Scripture as it is. Two books published in English from his writings are In the Beginning and The Philosophy of Revelation. I am not sure if the latter is still in print. Victor P. Hamilton presents an analysis of the first 17 chapters of Genesis that is not dependent upon doubting the authentic Revelation of God to us and contributes to an understanding of the structure of Genesis as narrative. His book is, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17. Nahum Sarna gives an outline of Genesis that suggests it is part of a narrative and not a disjointed amalgamation of source documents. Underlying the suppositions of many who follow the school of Higher Criticism is that the Pentateuch is not the Revelation of God to us, inspired by the Holy Spirit and dictated by Yahweh letter by letter, word by word, and line by line in a specific sequence. Many of the Higher School would balk at the notion the Ten Commandments were written by the finger of Yahweh on stone tables.

There are many reasons to believe that the Torah is a narrative. One reason that it is not immediately obvious is that most modern English translations are really interpretations and not strictly translations. The structure of the Pentateuch is obliterated in most all translations. This is done from a linguistic point of view rather innocently no doubt. The Douay (1609) Rheims (1582) and King James Authorized Version (1611) of the Holy Bible preserve the structure in the English language better than other versions. My past favorite Bible translation is the New English Bible because most of my time spent reading the Bible in the past 34 years was with it. Reading the King James Authorized Version is my favorite now because of it being closer to preserving the structure of the Bible found in original language. In analyzing the Bible from a linguistic point of view or even a philological point of view what is there for us falls out more easily in conformance with the whole counsel of God. I say "easy" and yet I must bring diligence and determination to a reading of the Bible that requires work in order to discern in detail things available not gleaned from a casual reading. It is my experience that the Holy Spirit tutors a mind that has the cognitive structures in place based on knowledge. At the very least the mind cannot comprehend things that it has no knowledge of or is adverse to believing. Expecting to know the truth is a different proposition than thinking the things being read have no more value than other books. Knowing that the Bible is the Revelation of God to us is essential to approaching an understanding of the whole counsel of God.

Below are a few sources that give evidence that not all people think the Bible is just another dusty old book. The rest of what you will read are from different books.

Although Genesis is anonymous, the Pentateuch was considered essentially one book in Jewish tradition, and its authorship as a whole attributed to Moses. Mosaic authorship was the established view of the church, as well as of Jewish tradition, until the mid-eighteenth century. At that time, critical scholars began reconsidering the character of the Pentateuch’s literary features and concluded that it reflected a composite picture of literary sources that had been pieced together in stages over many centuries by a series of unknown editors. The final edition, as it exists today, was thought to be the work of Ezra (fifth century b.c.). Although modifications of this source theory have been made, many modern scholars still operate under some version of it. It fails, however, to give adequate attention to the internal evidence that the Pentateuch is a unified work, rather than a hodgepodge of sources. The theme of Israel’s blessing and covenant, as well as the unity of the historical narrative from Abraham’s election to Israel’s origins, shows that the books are better interpreted as a cohesive whole.

God does not leave the world ignorant concerning His truth. His Word and His works are Right and correct, and He desires that His creation know and live by His truth. The Psalmist understood this when he said to God, "Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts" (Psalm 51:6).

God revealed His true nature in Jesus Christ. Jesus said of Himself, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). Truth in the scriptural sense here means more than the absence of falsehood. It means complete revelation. Jesus completed the revelation of God, who is honest, correct, pure, and dependable. Christ embodies all of these qualities, as well as others that are beyond the ability of human language to interpret, or the human mind to comprehend. He manifested His Father’s purity and holiness in His walk upon the earth. As the perfect example, He earned the fight to call believers to follow Him. Peter said it this way: "as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, ’Be holy, for I am holy’" (1 Pet. 1:15, 16). Being obedient to God by imitating His Son produces excellence in the character of His children.

EMBLAZONED IN THE SCRIPTURE

God’s indestructible Word is alive with truth. It exalts the perfection of the King of kings. It is at the same time a down-to-earth book written about human relationships. It is a documentation of experiences of people who came to know God and be known by Him.

The Bible is the measuring rod of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, light and darkness. It contains the thoughts of God and is a book to be read for wisdom, safety, and holiness. Experiential knowledge of the Word of God is the key to understanding its beauty and sacredness.

"Your word is truth" (John 17:17). God would never have asked His people to obey and follow His truth without providing its clear revelation. Fervent and regular study of the Scripture produces essential knowledge and inspiration for the living of a life hidden in Christ Jesus. Such study will not be neglected by the earnest seeker. Either the Word will keep one from sin, or sin will keep one from the Word.

When God made the heavens and the earth, they must have been beautiful, perfect, and pure, as only God could create them. But sin entered through the pride of Satan, and the beautiful creation was destroyed. Sin always destroys. It did so again after the perfect re-creation described in the first chapter of Genesis. In the Garden of Eden, through a denial of the word of God and through Satan’s deception of the woman, our first parents fell.

W. A. Criswell, Believer’s Study Bible [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1991 by the Criswell Center for Biblical Studies.

In the beginning (Heb. bereµshé÷t): Creation marks the absolute beginning of the temporal and material world. The traditional Jewish and Christian belief is that Genesis 1:1 declares that God created the original heaven and earth from nothing (Lat. ex nihilo) and that verse 2 clarifies that when it came from the Creator’s hand, the mass was "without form, and void," unformed and without any life. The rest of the chapter then explains the process of Creation in detail. There is no evidence in the Hebrew text for long ages of evolutionary development or a gap of time between verse 1 and verse 2. God (Heb. Eloµhé÷m): This form of the divine name occurs 2,570 times in the Old Testament. The plural ending im indicates a plural of majesty and takes a singular verb. Created (Heb. bara<): This verb is used exclusively with God as its subject. It refers to the instantaneous and miraculous act of God by which He brought the universe into existence. Thus, the Genesis account of Creation refutes atheism, pantheism, polytheism, and evolution.

Authorship. With very few exceptions, until the eighteenth century, Jewish and Christian scholars alike believed that Moses wrote Genesis. His authorship is supported by the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Palestinian Talmud, the Apocrypha (cf. Ecclus. 45:4; 2 Macc. 7:30), the writings of Philo (Life of Moses 3:39), and Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 4:8:45; Contra Apion I.8).

During the nineteenth century, higher critics began to question—then deny—the Mosaic authorship of Genesis and of the entire Pentateuch, preferring the Documentary Hypothesis (or Developmental Theory). Using the initials J, E, D, and P to identify four different alleged source documents, this theory suggests that the Pentateuch is a composite of several documents. The J document was attributed to the author who preferred the name Jehovah and was assigned an arbitrary date of about 850 b.c. The E document prefers the nameEloµhé÷m for God and was dated at around 750 b.c. The D document was identified with much of Deuteronomy and was dated at around 620 b.c. The P document was identified with a priestly writer in the postexilic period nearly one thousand years after the time of Moses.

But there is no valid reason to reject Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, with the exception of the record of his death in Deuteronomy 34. The Pentateuch itself attests Mosaic authorship (cf. Ex. 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:1, 2; Deut. 31:9), and Old Testament references outside the Pentateuch abound (cf. Josh. 1:7, 8; 8:31, 32; 1 Kin. 2:3; 2 Kin. 14:6; 21:8; see also Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1; Dan. 9:11–13; Mal. 4:4). New Testament references to Mosaic authorship are not lacking either (Matt. 19:8; Mark 12:26; John 1:45; 5:46, 47; Acts 3:22; Rom. 10:5). Jesus Himself clearly stated that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch (Luke 24:27, 44). What can be inclusively said of the Pentateuch can particularly be said of Genesis.

Thomas Nelson, Inc., King James Version Study Bible [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1988 by Liberty University.

Unity. The Pentateuch is both a composite document of individual books and also a seamless narrative of a complete story from creation to the death of Moses. Both aspects are important.

In the first place, each of the books has its own interest and unity. Genesis reveals its literary structure by repeating ten times the formula, "this is the history" or "this is the genealogy" of what follows. Exodus reveals itself to be a unity in a number of ways. For example, the law promulgated in chs. 19–40 is based on the narrative of Israel’s exodus from Egypt (chs. 1–18; Ex. 19:3–6). Without the narrative, the law has no historical foundation. God confirmed His call to Moses by leading the nation out of Egypt back to Mount Horeb, the mountain where Moses was commissioned in the first place (Ex. 3:1, 12). Leviticus is a liturgical manual for priests. Numbers recounts Israel’s march from the wilderness of Sinai to Canaan. As the Exodus from Egypt memorialized by the Passover prefigures the salvation of the new Israel from sin through the sacrifice of Christ, so the history in Numbers dramatizes the spiritual march of all God’s children through a wilderness on their way to the Promised Land, warning them not to lose faith. Finally, Deuteronomy records Moses’ exposition of the law he received at Mount Sinai.

At the same time, the five books of the Pentateuch are linked together as a continuous narrative.

Luder Whitlock, Jr., executive director; R.C Sproul, general editor, New Geneva Study Bible [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1995 by Foundation for Reformation.

rogero

March 9th 2005, 09:32 PM

You are so funny rogero. You don't remember stuff do you?
...

And, you didn't seem to remember to explain how speciation after mass extinctions in a billion+ year-old continously-existing biosphere is not evolution.

More currently, you didn't seem to remember my point from post #68, even though it was the one immediately before your post #69 (which consisted of a snide remark and a long cut-n-paste.) Thus, I will reproduce your quote here:

It is not my interpretation versus the intention of God's Word.

I was pointing out how hypocritical you sound in the above quotation. Your implication is that your interpretation is not an interpretation, rather it is the "intention of God's Word." Like you or anyone else knows for sure what is the "intention of God's Word."

So, you quoted some Bible commentators who agree with you. Big deal. There are many folks here who can quote Bible commentators who disagree with you. There are some Christian (and maybe Jewish?) theologians right here on TWeb who disagree with you.

Anywho, the topic of this forum area is Cosmogony (http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=cosmogony) -- or views about Origins. There are other fora on TWeb where you can air your ire against Historical Criticism or "higher" Criticism. Of course you realize that you obviously depart from the vast majority of Historical-Grammatical Biblical Literalists in your scientific views. But, why you draw the line with "evolution" as "un-Biblical" is still a mystery to me, as is how you are so certain you know how God creates (i.e., He can use any means He wants as long as it's not through evolution!)

lucaspa

March 10th 2005, 12:18 PM

lucaspa,

Higher Criticism?

There are several reasons to believe that the Pentateuch is narrative. The objection has been raised that most seminaries in the United States follow the school of the Higher Critics and therefore Higher Criticism is correct.
That wasn't how I put it. Rather, because the Torah clearly shows that it had multiple sources, most of seminaries in the US have accepted that.

Majority opinion has weight in certain instances but it is an error to think that majority opinion is always correct opinion. A few alternate views to the proposed majority opinion are offered here. And the alternative views are also not always correct. :smile: I already acknowledged that some people won't accept the truth. So you found some of those. The fact remains, however, that the argument that the Torah is a redacted document convinced everyone of its truth. However, the critics have not convinced anyone to change back.

There are many reasons to believe that the Torah is a narrative. One reason that it is not immediately obvious is that most modern English translations are really interpretations and not strictly translations. The structure of the Pentateuch is obliterated in most all translations.[/quote]
And this is one major reason to think the Toray is NOT strictly narrative. In the original Hebrew, the Torah is a SONG! It is still sung today every Sabbath in Jewish synagogues. What do you think the Cantor is doing? Now, we all know that songs are not strictly narrative. Thank you for showing that the Torah is not narrative, Jack. Yes, it LOOKS like a narrative in English, but that is a deception of the translation.

It is my experience that the Holy Spirit tutors a mind that has the cognitive structures in place based on knowledge. At the very least the mind cannot comprehend things that it has no knowledge of or is adverse to believing.
So tell me, Jack, just what knowledge of science did the people OF THE TIME Genesis 1-3 was written have of science? Just how do you expect God to tell the REAL how of creation to people who don't even have words or concepts of "genes", "gravity", "erosion", "metamorphoses of rocks", "population genetics", "natural selection", etc? The Bible doesn't come with a Glossary of new terms. Genesis 1-3 tells important theological truths in language and images the people of the time understood. You are trying to impose your time on theirs.

Expecting to know the truth is a different proposition than thinking the things being read have no more value than other books.
No one is saying that the Bible has no more value than other books. The Bible is a compilation of personal experience with God. As such, it has great value in determing theological truths. The Origin of the Species doesn't tell us about the who or why of Creation. The Bible doesn't tell us the how of Creation.

However, it was written by men just like any other book. It was not dictated by God the way Moslems think the Quran was dictated to Mohammed. So we can read the Bible to know when it was written and how it was written. The Toray was compiled from 3 different and distinct sources.

Below are a few sources that give evidence that not all people think the Bible is just another dusty old book.
Jack, no one is making the claim that the Bible is "just another dusty old book". One of the major problems we have with Biblical literalists is that they confuse their interpretation with the Bible. Criticize the interpretation, and you think we are criticizing the Bible. That's not so. We are criticizing the interpretation. The fallible, human interpretation. You are confusing your interpretation with the Bible itself. Since you think the Bible is from God, you are essentially confusing yourself with God. You ain't God.

lucaspa

March 10th 2005, 12:25 PM

lucaspa,

I had read her say my site is mythology. However there is no way you could know if my site is mythology.
Sure there is. The same way I know the Greek myth about Ariadne is mythology -- compare the story with the real world. Comparing the statements on the site with the real world, the site is mythology.

Now, I am unclear on one point: did YOU write the site? Is it your site as in you are the author, or is it "yours" in that you posted it?

You reiterated it for the purpose of insulting me. You have no basis to know if my site is mythology or not and neither does she. She expressed an opinion, you decided to use what she said to show what you think of me. I have been on the internet for a long time and have seldom encountered narrow-minded pettiness of this magnitude.
I am sorry you read it this way. However, I used Shunyadragon's post just to show I agreed with that opinion. As I said, I can tell if the statements are mythology.

To all, no amount of argument and insults and cajoling to disbelieve that the Bible is the Word of God will work on me. Too bad. I'm afraid you are completely lost. As I noted, the "Word" is not the Bible, but JESUS! That you think differently shows how lost you are. You have read John 1, haven't you?

I notice what a relief it was that lucaspa thinks he is doing the Lord's will by convincing someone they cannot trust the Bible and compliments them on not using the capital "W". Pathetic.I never said people could not trust the Bible. I said they couldn't trust you. Or rather, they could not trust your interpretation of the Bible. You aren't the Bible. Are you?

That you keep repeating this shows me how far down the road of false idol worship you have gone. You have made your golden calf and won't renounce it. I'm sorry for you. God is merciful. I will have to hope He shows you that mercy.

lucaspa

March 10th 2005, 02:17 PM

But another realm where cause and effect relationships take place would at least be another time dimension?
Time dimension applies, as far as we know, ONLY to our spacetime. Our spacetime has 4 dimensions. Three of these we know as length, width, and height. The other dimension we know as "time". So, you are postulating another "realm" that also has a spacetime. In standard BB, there is no such thing. Spacetime came into existence at the BB.

So, "something" outside caused it, therefore working in a cause and effect relationship, right? It may be these branes. If so, they operate in a different realm of cause and effect. If our cause and effect realm of time had a beginning, then at least there is another realm of cause and effect in which the branes exist???
That's an infinite regress. We are ONLY looking at the First Cause for OUR universe. Remember, God doesn't have to have a Cause. Because God caused out universe with its chain of cause and effect. The same applies to the 'branes. They cause our universe. They don't have to have a cause to do that anymore than God has to have a cause. Same rules.

There was something "before" the BB, if not, then that would mean nothing caused it, it always was. But it has not always been here, at least not in the condition it is today. It may be an outcome of these branes colliding, but it is still an outcome, an effect of some thing that was "before" it, no?
In standard BB, we can't talk of anything "before" the BB. The term is meaningless. Therefore we look for a cause of the BB. One possibility of that is God. However, WITHIN our universe there are events that are not "caused" in the traditional sense. Happens all the time at the quantum level. For instance, particles pop into and out of existence all the time. They last for about 10^-22 seconds and are called "virtual particles". Remember, matter and energy are the same thing. Virtual particles "borrow" energy from the vacuum and thus exist before paying the energy back and disappearing. Did you know that if you add all the positive energy of matter and energy and then subtract all the negative energy, the TOTAL energy of the universe is 0? Yep, zero. So, the universe itself could be one huge virtual particle and not have a cause. String Theory implies this, which is one of the reasons people are so fascinated by it.

My many thanks for your sympathy. I realize I may not ever grasp this. I've learned to accept my limitations on these sorts of things, but I do appreciate you trying to help. In any discipline, there are things that we do not understand or intuitively grasp, but simply accept the data. For instance, in religion the concept of "grace" escapes me. I really don't grasp it. I simply accept it. I also really don't grasp 14 billion years. Or even 1 million years. Yes, I work with the numbers and I can imagine what can happen over a million years with 250,000 human generations, but I don't really "grasp" it. You may have to accept the data and wait to grasp later. You may never reach that point. It's something we all live with in some area of our lives. One of yours is the BB. :smile:

Anyway, so this model is saying that our universe always was, but that our universe had a beginning at the BB. Help?
1. Ekpyrotic is a rival to BB. Instead of a "bang" where the universe was infinitely small at the beginning, we now have a "splat" as the 2 sheets -- our universe and the floating 4d sheet collide.

Let's say our "cycle" had a "beginning" in the last splat. And our cycle could be wiped out by a new sheet hitting it. As "our universe" is being wiped out in the next splat, a new universe would be forming.

So, we can look back at the last splat and, to us, the universe had a beginning. But it was just our cycle.

So, in Ekpyrotic, we have 11 dimensions, 6 of which are "rolled up" and can be ignored. That leaves 5 dimensions. In that effectively five-dimensional space float two perfectly flat four-dimensional membranes, like sheets drying on parallel clotheslines. One of the sheets is our universe; the other, a "hidden" parallel universe. Provoked by random fluctuations, our unseen companion spontaneously sheds a membrane that slowly floats toward our universe. As it moves, it flattens out--although quantum fluctuations wrinkle its surface somewhat--and gently accelerates toward our membrane. The floater speeds up and splats into our universe, whereupon some of the energy of the collision becomes the energy and matter that make up our universe.

Actually, that IS how the Bible predicts the end...
...the heavens will be destoryed by burning and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth.... II Peter 3:12
That's in 2 Peter. Matthew has a different prediction.

So no more having to answer the age old question, "Who created God", huh? If something else has always existed, the five dimensional space and the 4 D membranes, then it is not so hard to believe God always existed, no? Never was so hard. That question: "Who created God?" was never a legitimate question in terms of First Cause anyway. It was a false argument put forward by atheism.

But He is both a member and a non-member. He resides here with us, but in heaven as well. Y'know that trinity thing at work. This still doesn't make him a member of the universe. God is NOT a member of the universe by traditional Christian theology. Yes, He "dwells" within us, meaning that He is present, but that doesn't mean He is a member of the universe. Just as your attendance at a Jewish synagogue does not mean you are a member of the Jewish community. So, we are still back at "what does God know about the universe? Does He know every detail of the future?" The answer is "no". The future is open and even God doesn't know every detail of it.

How do you know that? What logic of the physical universe is needed to understand this? But do we not also believe as Christians that God is also spiritual? Can this aspect not make exception? Can we not conceive of a God who can over ride the physical, natural universe in whatever form(s) it may exist?
Different concepts here.
1. Quantum mechanics has shown that many things CANNOT be known with precision. For instance, it is not possible to know PRECISELY the position and momentum of an electron. Doesn't matter whether God is spiritual or not; both CANNOT be known. Similarly, shine a flashlight on a mirror. 95% of the photons are reflected, 5% go thru. The percentages will never change. BUT, look at each photon and try to know whether it will be reflected or pass thru? It can't be known. No better measurement or understanding will help. It can't be known. Not even to God.
2. Now, can God override the laws of the universe? Yes. He can make it so that all photons will pass thru. But that doesn't change that, before He worked the miracle, He did not know which photons would go thru and which would reflect.

God, in Christ, limited His power. How would being self limiting affect omniscience? I think as long as His omniscience is preserved in one form of His triunity, then we can maintain omniscience. What think you?
Within the universe, omniscience can't be maintained in any form of the trinity. Now, outside the universe? I don't know and I don't care. There are profound implications to the limits within the universe; but I think they are good implications.

If we want to preserve the doctrine of God being all-knowing (I know you may care not for such a thing, but I do) then we at least have to have Him so here. To deny this would be to deny the scriptures.
Scripture says God is very knowing.

Why do you want to preserve the doctrine of all-knowing? Why is that necessary? Does God stop being God if He doesn't know the position AND momemtum of an electron at the same time? Does that affect any of His abilities that you care about, such as raising Jesus from the dead, forgiving your sins, and providing you with life everlasting?

Since scripture denying does not concern you, I understand why this would not conern you, either. But break a while here and see the concern this may have for Christianity.
And I have looked for a concern for Christianity. I can't find a valid concern. What concern do you have, other than preserving absolute authority of scripture -- which I maintain you can't do anyway.

So that "beginning and end" thing, that was just sort of a power trip...What exactly does God say about that? He says He was there at the beginning and will be there at the end, not that He knows exactly what will happen every step in between.

Charleen, by omniscience, God knew when He created the universe that Paul Lucas would write these sentences. If He knew that ahead of time, what's the point of doing all this? What's the point for you, me, and God? If God knows exactly what my beliefs and actions are going to be, ahead of time, and thus knows exactly whether I will qualify for salvation or will be eternally lost from Him, why bother going thru all the hoops to get my attention and make contact?

Life -- ours and God's -- only has meaning if the future is open. If everything is pre-determined or pre-known, then I'm just going thru the motions and am really a puppet of everything that has gone before. I have no real choices at all. Nor does God. He is simply following His own script. Why bother? It would make more sense to say "Let's just say I created and be done with it. Now, where can I get a good mug of beer?"

I'd say transcendence is that attribute of God that makes Him unconfined to our space/time. He is above and beyond our universe, but He can also be in it. OK. so, when He is "in" our universe, or even observing it from outside, then He faces limitations.

"Second book" being...? Don't you believe God created? Then WHAT did He create?
"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

"Man learns from two books: the universe for the human study of things created by God; and the Bible, for the study of God's superior will and truth. One belongs to reason, the other to faith. Between them there is no clash." Pope Pius Xii, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Dec. 3, 1939.

How is it so many "Christians" are so ignorant of Christianity? How can you not realize that Creation (what science studies) is a second book of God?

What about "The virgin shall be with child...", same thing? This is why I said that using "prophecy" for apologetics is a terrible idea. Charleen, ALL the "prophecies" in the Bible were written AFTER the event. Not before. Therefore you can't use them as true prophecies. The OT doesn't have a "prophecy" of a virgin birth. Instead, you find it only in the NT, and only in the later gospels. Mark doesn't say a thing about Jesus' birth. Also, their scholarship was different from ours. Look at Herodotus -- a very honest historian. Yet he uses the literary form of putting prophecies into the mouths of historical characters as part of his narrative. They "prophecy" events that Herodotus already knows happened.

So, while you see this as a "true" prophecy, I can equally argue that it was not prophecied, but written after the fact but only put in the form of a prophecy as either 1) literary convention or 2) convince people that Jesus was divine.

Being the cause of the branes colliding would be a job for Him, right? Getting the "just right" collision...Nope. the formation of the sheets is an uncaused quantum event. With an infinite number of cycles, pure chance says that one of the cycles will be "just right". Just as, with millions of lottery tickets sold, chance says that ONE of them will have the winning numbers.

I was referring to the beginning of time out of GR. I found the reference I was looking for: Hawking and Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceeding of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970), pages 529-548.
Right. Hawking was involved in that. Look at the date: 1970. Then look at the date of A Brief History of Time. 1988. In the intervening 18 years Hawking found a way around the singularity and a beginning of time out of GR. I know that frustrates a lot of Fundamentalists. Science changes. We change ideas with new knowledge. Of course, religion does the same thing, but more slowly. After all, Jesus' life changed Judaism, didn't it? New knowledge, new ideas.

I do play "what if", I am indeed playing it now. But this idea that the universe had no beginning and yet it had a Big Bang and our space time began, is puzzling to me. Perhaps if you realize that this cycle had a beginning, but the entire universe of the 2 'branes did not?

Well, lucaspa, I actually see a nessesity for believing this because the scriptures communicate this basic characteristic of God as being creator.
The Hebrews knew Yahweh as Creator: the creator of Israel. Out of nothing. There is no doubt that the ancient nation of Israel was created by Yahweh. Not only by giving them land, but also by creating an entire culture and national identity: all those laws and rules in the Torah.

So ... is the idea that Yahweh created the universe a human extrapolation from that? An extrapolation that was undertaken initially not so much because God told them He had, but because that was a very effective way of showing all other gods to be false.

Now, if you decide that God must be Creator of the universe and testing of gravity waves shows ekpyrotic to be correct, then it seems to me that you will have to accept that Yahweh does not exist.

But we have Christ. I know we don't know the fullness of God, not in our state of being, but if we have Christ, we have the God also of the Hebrews from which He came, from which He learned, from which He taught. I do not believe you can have a seperate God.The other jobs I'm referring to is creating Israel -- God of the Hebrews -- becoming human in Jesus, resurrecting, forgiving sins, etc. So, can you have an entity that does all those other jobs but did NOT create the universe? If there is such an entity, can it be God? Above you say "no". Now you seem to be saying "yes". Think it thru.

The Bible teaches us of God. As you said above: "we don't know the fullness of God, not in our state of being,". Since the authors of the Bible were humans, could it be that they didn't get all the facts?

I think Christ should be our focus, lucaspa. If we have evidence for His life, death, and resurrection, then we have the evidence that we need. Hmmm. That's what I told Constantine. It wasn't enough for him. :smile: Constantine's position was that the evidence could only be believed after we had "scientific" evidence that God exists.

I think you have a high regard for Christ and it is also Christ who mentions God being creator. Can God be creator in a ekpyrotic scenario? I don't know the science well enough to say. Nope. God is out of a job as Creator. Yes, the gospel verse you quoted does have Jesus saying God is Creator. However, a point to consider is whether Jesus is speaking from his human limitations in this instance. After all, he was FULLY human. His audience thought God was Creator. The verse's point seems to be about tribulations before the end times, and the reference to creation is only used to illustrate how bad those tribulations are going to be. Just like you might use the phrase "since the founding of Israel". It's not the main focus of the verse.

But it seems to me that something had to cause that wondering piece of brane to collide with the universe in just the right way.
This is where you again have to accept the data. Something does not HAVE to be a cause in this instance (or many others). It's counter intuitive, but the data is clear. Some events don't have causes.

Hey, for all I know, the universe it collided with is the universe in which He made the angels or the other host of heaven we read about in those trippy books like Ezekiel or Revelation. In that case, there are no angels or host, since that universe was wiped out in the collision.

It is something, this paradox of chance and predestination working all the while in conjunction... Quantum mechanics helps here. While we don't know which individual photon will pass thru, we know that ALWAYS 5% will pass thru the mirror. That regularity in percentages gives us the illusion of cause and effect. Or the illusion of predestination. :smile:

Well, I think that it would be very hard to get another interpretation out of even Jesus calling God "creator". Not that verse. Again, you tried to lift the phrase out of context. Jesus referred to Noah and the Flood, too, but we know that didn't happen. Arnold Swartzenegger used to be referred to as having a "Herculean physique", but we know Hercules did not exist. We can refer to non-existent entities in metaphor as long as the audience shares knowledge of the fictional character or event.

Would this be better: "creator of brane collisions" :wink: You would get the same thing as "creator". But it's not a necessary job. Quantum mechanics takes care of the formation of the sheet and, once the sheet is formed, collision is inevitable.

I am open to change. Show me a "what if" of Bible interpretation.These verses say, in plain Hebrew, that the earth does not move.
Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5. They led to the theory that the earth is the center of the solar system and the sun and all planets go around the earth. Only such a position would enable the earth to not move.

Yet when Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler (among others) showed that the earth goes around the sun, it was obvious that the earth DOES move. So those verses were re-interpreted. Or ignored. Of course, you may find that there is no other interpretation. Like you can't find one in the verse where Jesus says God is Creator. In that case, then the Bible would be in error and God falsified. No God, because the earth moves.

Want to get into the re-interpretation of the flat earth verses?

lucaspa

March 10th 2005, 03:18 PM

lucaspa,

I gave you a few references by referring to those on my site reference pages. Start reading anytime. If you will notice books have bibliographies. I cannot do your reading for you.No references are going to change the facts that refute the statements on the website. I gave you some of those facts. You haven't responded to them. Telling me to go read doesn't answer the specific facts I noted. It's just a duck, Jack.

lucaspa

March 10th 2005, 03:20 PM

rogero,

I have not pitted myself against God. It is not my interpretation versus the intention of God's Word.
Actually, Jack, it was I that stated that it was you vs God. It is your interpretation of the Bible vs the evidence God left us in Creation.

Now, are you trying to tell me that you don't have an interpretation? That you KNOW that what YOU say the Bible means is exactly what God means? Isn't pride a deadly sin, Jack?

lucaspa

March 10th 2005, 04:30 PM

Nahum Sarna gives an outline of Genesis that suggests it is part of a narrative and not a disjointed amalgamation of source documents. Jack, I've read Nahum Sarna's Genesis. It is he who first showed me that Genesis 1 uses the Enuma Elish as a framework. Sarna is totally behind the Documentary Hypothesis. I'm afraid this total untruth really undercut your case.

Underlying the suppositions of many who follow the school of Higher Criticism is that the Pentateuch is not the Revelation of God to us, inspired by the Holy Spirit and dictated by Yahweh letter by letter, word by word, and line by line in a specific sequence. Uh, you really think that Yahweh dictated the Pentateuch? That would go against Jesus who, in Mark 10 and Matthew 14, specifically states that Moses got it WRONG! This would mean God dicated something untrue!

Do you really believe that God dictated the Pentateuch the way that Allah dictated the Quran? That goes against all of Christian tradition.

It fails, however, to give adequate attention to the internal evidence that the Pentateuch is a unified work, rather than a hodgepodge of sources. The theme of Israel’s blessing and covenant, as well as the unity of the historical narrative from Abraham’s election to Israel’s origins, shows that the books are better interpreted as a cohesive whole. Unified whole? This guy has to be kidding? Doesn't he realize you can separate Genesis 6-8 into 2 separate stories of the Flood? That together, the stories contradict? Doesn't he realize that this "whole" switches back and forth in the name of God? Sometimes it is "elohim" and sometimes "Yahweh". What kind of "unified whole" would do that?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jepd_gen.htm#flood

God revealed His true nature in Jesus Christ. Jesus said of Himself, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). Truth in the scriptural sense here means more than the absence of falsehood. It means complete revelation.
"Complete" revelation? I dont' think so. Where did the wives for Cain and Seth come from? We're never told. Is that "complete"? Did God create angels? If so, when? Not very complete there, either.

Of course, if you really want incomplete, read the last verses in John. The Bible tells you right there that it is not "complete".

The Flood in Genesis is very gentle. But the Flood used by creationism is very violent. Why isn't revelation complete enough to tell us how violent the Flood was?

Jesus completed the revelation of God, who is honest, correct, pure, and dependable. Then what about the Epistles? If Jesus completed the revelation of God, then why the epistles as part of scripture? Aren't they further revelation from God? After all, Fundies base their anti-homosexual attitudes on what Paul wrote, not on anything Jesus said. So don't you consider Paul's letters to be revelation?

Being obedient to God by imitating His Son produces excellence in the character of His children. I agree. Too bad too many people ignore what Jesus said and don't really try to imitate.

God’s indestructible Word is alive with truth. And what is that indestructable "Word"? Read John 1.

It is a documentation of experiences of people who came to know God and be known by Him. That's very similar to what I've said on numerous occasions. The Bible is a compilation of personal experiences of God. Of course, that is far, far different than the earlier statements in your post that the Bible is dictated word for word. I wish you'd make up your mind.

The Bible is the measuring rod of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, light and darkness. And here I thought GOD was the measuring rod. Since when did the Bible become God?

It contains the thoughts of God and is a book to be read for wisdom, safety, and holiness. Experiential knowledge of the Word of God is the key to understanding its beauty and sacredness.
1. THat's more than the Bible says about itself. 2 Timothy 3:16 only says the Bible is useful, not that it is sacred. Now, what is this "experiential knowledge" that is the key to understanding? That wouldn't be knowledge OUTSIDE the Bible, would it?

"Your word is truth" (John 17:17). God would never have asked His people to obey and follow His truth without providing its clear revelation. I love people who take the Bible out of context to mean something it does not. Saying the Bible is truth, they then make it lie. John 17:17 is in the midst of a PRAYER by Jesus for the disciples. "Just as I do not belong to the world, they [disciples] do not belong to the world. Dedicate them to you by means of the truth; your word is truth. I sent them into the world, just as you sent me into the world." This is NOT a reference to the Bible, but a reference to God personally communicating to the disciples as God had communicated to Jesus. Please stop bearing false witness against the Bible.

It did so again after the perfect re-creation described in the first chapter of Genesis. re creation? Where in Genesis 1 do you get the idea there was a previous creation?

In the Garden of Eden, through a denial of the word of God and through Satan’s deception of the woman, our first parents fell.[/size][/font]

[size=3]W. A. Criswell, Believer’s Study Bible [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1991 by the Criswell Center for Biblical Studies. Yes, I can see tha Criswell is a fervent priest for the new religion of worshipping the Bible. Or rather, the false idol of what Criswell thinks the Bible is. BTW, a plain reading of Genesis 3 shows that the serpent CANNOT be Satain. Impossible. But hey, why let the Bible get in the way of the belief you want to make?

In the beginning[/b] (Heb. [font=SemiticaDict]bereµshé÷t): Creation marks the absolute beginning of the temporal and material world. The traditional Jewish and Christian belief is that Genesis 1:1 declares that God created the original heaven and earth from nothing Yes, except where did the water come from? No mention of God creating the water in Genesis 1:2? The first thing created by God is light in verse 3.

There is no evidence in the Hebrew text for long ages of evolutionary development or a gap of time between verse 1 and verse 2 And where is the evidence for a "recreation"? No, I agree that the Hebrew text doesn't have ages or gaps. But then, it isn't really trying to tell HOW God created, because, if it is, then it contradicts Genesis 2. Instead, it is 1)destroying the Babylonian gods and 2) setting up an (unnecessary) justification for the Sabbath.

The plural ending im indicates a plural of majesty and takes a singular verb. Well, it's nice that he recognizes that elohim is plural. But the verbs used can also be plural, can't they?

Thus, the Genesis account of Creation refutes atheism, pantheism, polytheism, and evolution. I agree with the first 3. Genesis 1 does refute those. That's its purpose. But evolution? No.

With very few exceptions, until the eighteenth century, Jewish and Christian scholars alike believed that Moses wrote Genesis. The 18th century is the 1700s. Nice of him to refute the idea that Higher Criticism came about because of evolution!

His authorship is supported by the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Palestinian Talmud, the Apocrypha (cf. Ecclus. 45:4; 2 Macc. 7:30), the writings of Philo (Life of Moses 3:39), and Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 4:8:45; Contra Apion I.8).

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]During the nineteenth century, higher critics began to question—then deny—the Mosaic authorship of Genesis and of the entire Pentateuch, preferring the Documentary Hypothesis (or Developmental Theory). Using the initials J, E, D, and P to identify four different alleged source documents, this theory suggests that the Pentateuch is a composite of several documents.
Notice that Mosaic authorship was THE accepted theory. Why did people discard it? Because the evidence WITHIN Genesis showed that it could not be correct.

But there is no valid reason to reject Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, with the exception of the record of his death in Deuteronomy 34. Well, at least this guy realizes that Moses could not have written ALL the Pentateuch. However, one reason is given above: different names used for God. That's a valid reason right there.

The Pentateuch itself attests Mosaic authorship (cf. Ex. 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:1, 2; Deut. 31:9),
Another false witness about the Bible. Ex 17:14 says "Then the Lord said to Moses: 'Write an account of of this victory, so that it will be remembered" There is nothing in that to say the account of a victory against the Amelekites is the present Torah.

Old Testament references outside the Pentateuch abound Of course. By that time the tradition had been established. But again we have false witness. Josh. 1:7, 8; states "Just be determined, be confident, and make sure that you obey the whole Law that my servant Moses gave you." That says NOTHING about Genesis. Or even that the present Exodus was totally written by Moses. Just that the Law was given by Moses. Tell me, how can anyone defend the Bible while lying about what it says?

What can be inclusively said of the Pentateuch can particularly be said of Genesis. As we have seen, it can't. Genesis doesn't contain any of the Law.

Thomas Nelson, Inc., King James Version Study Bible [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1988 by Liberty University. You want me to believe someone who commits false witness about the Bible? I don't think so.

[quote]The Pentateuch is both a composite document of individual books and also a seamless narrative of a complete story from creation to the death of Moses. Both aspects are important.

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]In the first place, each of the books has its own interest and unity. Genesis reveals its literary structure by repeating ten times the formula, "this is the history" or "this is the genealogy" of what follows. Exodus reveals itself to be a unity in a number of ways. For example, the law promulgated in chs. 19–40 is based on the narrative of Israel’s exodus from Egypt (chs. 1–18; Ex. 19:3–6). Without the narrative, the law has no historical foundation. God confirmed His call to Moses by leading the nation out of Egypt back to Mount Horeb, the mountain where Moses was commissioned in the first place (Ex. 3:1, 12). Leviticus is a liturgical manual for priests. Numbers recounts Israel’s march from the wilderness of Sinai to Canaan. As the Exodus from Egypt memorialized by the Passover prefigures the salvation of the new Israel from sin through the sacrifice of Christ, so the history in Numbers dramatizes the spiritual march of all God’s children through a wilderness on their way to the Promised Land, warning them not to lose faith. Finally, Deuteronomy records Moses’ exposition of the law he received at Mount Sinai.

Luder Whitlock, Jr., executive director; R.C Sproul, general editor, New Geneva Study Bible [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1995 by Foundation for Reformation.[QUOTE]Um, they talk about unity, but never mention Genesis! :lol: I guess that doesn't fit in with the whole.

However, of course one would expect a little unity from a compiled document. The editor would have picked only those parts that gave him unified themes, and altered (as in Exodus 20:11) the text to reinforce that unity. So the argument fails because the DH explains the same things these guys say you get by having Moses be the author.

A Beautiful Truth

March 12th 2005, 08:50 PM

Time dimension applies, as far as we know, ONLY to our spacetime. Our spacetime has 4 dimensions. Three of these we know as length, width, and height. The other dimension we know as "time". So, you are postulating another "realm" that also has a spacetime. In standard BB, there is no such thing. Spacetime came into existence at the BB.

I am postulating the equivalent of a cause and effect relationship outside of our space/time. This would not be our space time, it would the equivalent of a time dimension, however, because of the cause and effect relationship. Is this not nessesary in order to believe that a random fluctuation (the cause) created our universe (the effect) and therefore the space time of our universe? Or, are you saying that the random fluctuation was in the same space time of our universe? I think this is what you are saying?

I just want to know, are the two sheets hanging in the same space/time as our universe? So the cause and effect relationship that caused our universe is still the same cause and effect relationship that governs the inside of our current universe? So every other universe made by these collisions will have the same space/time dimension as ours because our space/time is the same space time as these membranes? Is this right?

(sorry to do this to you--I am, but bear with me, I am really grateful to be able to dialog with someone who knows these things...)

So some aspects of our universe are eternal (like the space/time that governs it) but other aspects are not eternal? So that we eventually end has no bearing that our space/time is eternal? Are the universes produced from these membranes like branches of eternity that end? Since they eventually do end, can we still call them eternal?

Did not the universe's time began in a plate-like singularity, how can this be the same space time that is also eternal? Is not a singularity any infinitesimal volume regardless of its shape? Since we still have an infinitesimally small volume as our universe began, do we not also have a beginning? Or are you saying that this model means that the universe no longer needs an infinitesimally small volume at its beginning?

You can see, I'm in knots over this. (Don’t make fun of me, either…:brood:)

That's an infinite regress. We are ONLY looking at the First Cause for OUR universe. Remember, God doesn't have to have a Cause. Because God caused out universe with its chain of cause and effect. The same applies to the 'branes. They cause our universe. They don't have to have a cause to do that anymore than God has to have a cause. Same rules.

How can this model determine that these branes are eternal? Is it nessesary that they are eternal in order to get the model to work? Since we don’t know whatever equivalent of “time” (cause and effect relationships) are at work outside of our own universe, how can we say with certainty that the branes are eternal? And if we have the equivalent of another realm of cause and effect relationships in addition to our own, then we already have the equivalent of a “plane” of time rather than a line. Who is to say there are not other equivalents of time as well and we end up with the equivalent of multi-dimensional time? Our own limitation to our space-time seems to suggest that there may be more going on than what we know. To kick God out of a job when we can't know the fulness seems unnessesary. Can Ekpyrotic really answer "why" like the concept of God can?

...WITHIN our universe there are events that are not "caused" in the traditional sense. Happens all the time at the quantum level. For instance, particles pop into and out of existence all the time. They last for about 10^-22 seconds and are called "virtual particles". Remember, matter and energy are the same thing. Virtual particles "borrow" energy from the vacuum and thus exist before paying the energy back and disappearing.

From where did the particles get this ability? Are these particles eternal, do they reside outside of our universe and pop in? So are they in the same space time as us, and reside outside of the membranes? So the particles may even be the cause of the membranes themselves? So do the membranes operate in the same space/time as the quantum particles?

You may have to accept the data and wait to grasp later. You may never reach that point. It's something we all live with in some area of our lives. One of yours is the BB. :smile:

If it comes to be that Ekpyrotic model is confirmed, I will leave my full time job as housewife and mother and become a physicist so I can understand it better, okay? :glare:

1. Ekpyrotic is a rival to BB. Instead of a "bang" where the universe was infinitely small at the beginning, we now have a "splat" as the 2 sheets -- our universe and the floating 4d sheet collide.

The splat would make a plate-like singularity, are you certain the singularity is dismissed? And I thought not even string theory could get rid of an infintismally small volume at the beginning, the singularity is vibrating?

Do we have to abandon string theory to get the Ekpyrotic?

Let's say our "cycle" had a "beginning" in the last splat. And our cycle could be wiped out by a new sheet hitting it. As "our universe" is being wiped out in the next splat, a new universe would be forming.

The Bible does say God will create a new heaven.

That's in 2 Peter. Matthew has a different prediction.

Please help, what is Matthew’s prediction?

Also reference Hebrews 1:11,12

This still doesn't make him a member of the universe. God is NOT a member of the universe by traditional Christian theology. Yes, He "dwells" within us, meaning that He is present, but that doesn't mean He is a member of the universe. Just as your attendance at a Jewish synagogue does not mean you are a member of the Jewish community. So, we are still back at "what does God know about the universe? Does He know every detail of the future?" The answer is "no". The future is open and even God doesn't know every detail of it.

He can know the future if He can operate in the equivalent of multiple time dimensions. Since our universe has an end, and if God can operate in the equivalent of a plane of time, then He can know the beginning and the end. However, while limited to this earth, as He was as Jesus of Nazereth, He did have limitations. He does not know the day or the hour of the Father’s plan of return, so in once sense I think you are right about God not knowing the future while a member of the universe as long as we recognize that this limitation is not the summation of God’s capacities for indeed, you did not account for the Holy Spirit which gave Jesus the power and ability to transcend His human limitations.

Traditional Christian theology believes in the Trinity. We believe that Christ became a member by becoming human flesh and that the Holy Spirit dwells in us, does this not make at least part of God a member? Christ did voluntarily limit Himself when He became flesh and dwelt among us. But by the Holy Spirit, He also had access to supra dimensional capabilities. Do you believe in the resurrection? Do you believe that He was translated into another realm called Paradise? Would he not need to be both a member of our universe and a non-member of our universe in order to accomplish these things? Thus Christianity seems to have a God different than the one you espouse. Or maybe I have misunderstood you.

And how about us, lucaspa? Do you believe in a realm that is both different and real than that which exists in the natural and that which existed before the universe and is that place also where souls reside when they die? Do you believe in heaven, lucaspa? If so, if you believe them because you believe Christ, does this not also say there is a realm of existence that is at the same time different than what is detectable and is superior to it? And if you believe in these, can you not also believe that God can transcend the limitations in which you put Him?

I think the power of the resurrection gives us faith to believe that God can and does transcend our finite human understanding.

Different concepts here.
1. Quantum mechanics has shown that many things CANNOT be known with precision. For instance, it is not possible to know PRECISELY the position and momentum of an electron. Doesn't matter whether God is spiritual or not; both CANNOT be known.

How do you know spirituality has no bearing on this? God could operate outside of everything natural. Granted, if He were confined to nature, He could not know. But He has no such strict limitation, if He is the God Jesus affirmed through His resurrection.

I think this is where the paradox of God’s omniscience and God’s self limitation of His knowledge is solved. You can have both God not knowing AND God knowing, depending on the view of where He is in relation to His creation. Inside of nature, He is limited in knowledge (as we saw through Christ) but outside nature He is not confined. Through His Holy Spirit He transcends both nature and super-nature. The trinity.

2. Now, can God override the laws of the universe? Yes. He can make it so that all photons will pass thru. But that doesn't change that, before He worked the miracle, He did not know which photons would go thru and which would reflect.

That is, while He is in space/time, but nobody says God is restricted to space/time. Such restrictions redefine the Christian God.

Some classical understanding of this through scripture:

“You loved Me before the creation of the world.” John 17:24

He was chosen before the creation of the world. I Peter 1:20

This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time. II Tim. 1:9

The hope of eternal life, which God who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time. Titus 1:2

Within the universe, omniscience can't be maintained in any form of the trinity.
Now, outside the universe? I don't know and I don't care.

Perhaps it is in your haste to dismiss the implications of having a God who can come in and out of the natural realm at His own will that has made you a believer in a different God than the one Christ affirmed? If you say Jesus got it wrong about God (as in the case where Christ affirmed God as creator Mk 13:19) because Jesus was totally limited on earth, then what have you said about the Holy Spirit’s involvement in Christ’s supernatural abilities in both knowledge and power which He clearly did demonstre? Certainly you do not deny the Holy Spirit.

Scripture says God is very knowing.

Would you change your mind if scripture said God was all-knowing or would you chalk that one up as well to human limitations in the Bible?

Why do you want to preserve the doctrine of all-knowing? Why is that necessary? Does God stop being God if He doesn't know the position AND momemtum of an electron at the same time? Does that affect any of His abilities that you care about, such as raising Jesus from the dead, forgiving your sins, and providing you with life everlasting?

This seems to be very frustrating to you. How about if we say, yes, God has limited His knowledge when He is a member of our universe. But God is not confined to be a member of our universe but rather can operate in a realm that transcends nature. So, on one hand God is limited in knowledge while a member of the universe (as He is in Christ) but on the other hand God is not limited. So you can have both all-knowing and not all-knowing because you have the trinity. Because of God’s ability to be a member of our universe through Christ, we also have a God who can be both dead and alive at the same time. These things transcend nature. I don’t see your insistence on either/or. We can and do have both/and.

What exactly does God say about that? He says He was there at the beginning and will be there at the end, not that He knows exactly what will happen every step in between.

He says He IS the beginning and the end. This, to me, would imply more knowledge of the beginning and the end since they are already part of Him. God the Father knows the day and hour of the ending of our universe, that does imply He is all-knowing
”Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not evne the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” Matt. 24:35,36

Charleen, by omniscience, God knew when He created the universe that Paul Lucas would write these sentences. If He knew that ahead of time, what's the point of doing all this? What's the point for you, me, and God? If God knows exactly what my beliefs and actions are going to be, ahead of time, and thus knows exactly whether I will qualify for salvation or will be eternally lost from Him, why bother going thru all the hoops to get my attention and make contact?

We have a paradox. We have chance and God’s will operating simultaneously. It is a matter of perspective. From the space/time of our universe we have chance which is undetermined and God, in Christ, has limited knowledge. From beyond nature, however, we have a God who knows the day and the hour. Since we have a God who does self-limit, we have both/and, not either/or.

Life -- ours and God's -- only has meaning if the future is open. If everything is pre-determined or pre-known, then I'm just going thru the motions and am really a puppet of everything that has gone before. I have no real choices at all. Nor does God. He is simply following His own script. Why bother? It would make more sense to say "Let's just say I created and be done with it. Now, where can I get a good mug of beer?"

I believe in chance. I believe I have real choices. But why limit God and say these things are not free if He knows the end from the beginning? One aspect of God does not supercede the other, they are both true, but at different perspectives. One does not make the other any less true, likewise, one is not “more” true than the other.

How is it so many "Christians" are so ignorant of Christianity? How can you not realize that Creation (what science studies) is a second book of God?

It is funny to hear this thrown at me. I just wanted to make sure you had not introduced some other cult book. No, I believe in the “second book” of creation—so much so that I have been terribly ridiculed by my young earth creationist brothers. No, I believe God has spoken to us in nature, I believe our study of nature shows us how He created. It is not as important as special revelation, but general revelation is nonetheless important.

This is why I said that using "prophecy" for apologetics is a terrible idea. Charleen, ALL the "prophecies" in the Bible were written AFTER the event.

How about Jesus’ prophesies? Some of them have not happened yet (y’know like His return to earth, all that stuff about heaven and earth passing away…)

Not before. Therefore you can't use them as true prophecies. The OT doesn't have a "prophecy" of a virgin birth. Instead, you find it only in the NT, and only in the later gospels. Mark doesn't say a thing about Jesus' birth. Also, their scholarship was different from ours. Look at Herodotus -- a very honest historian. Yet he uses the literary form of putting prophecies into the mouths of historical characters as part of his narrative. They "prophecy" events that Herodotus already knows happened.

So, while you see this as a "true" prophecy, I can equally argue that it was not prophecied, but written after the fact but only put in the form of a prophecy as either 1) literary convention or 2) convince people that Jesus was divine.

Of course, we could dialog about this. I disagree with you, but for the sake of keeping the original argument (at least this present discussion) on track, I would advise taking this up in another forum at a different time if you wanted. I think my question about Jesus’ prophecies, however, give us enough to go on for this current discussion.

Nope. the formation of the sheets is an uncaused quantum event.

From what “fabric” did this quantum particle come? What is that “stuff” from where these particles come if these particles themselves are outside of the two membranes?

Perhaps if you realize that this cycle had a beginning, but the entire universe of the 2 'branes did not?

So the branes themselves had no beginning because the quantum particles that caused the membranes had no beginning? And the particles had no beginning because the quantum event that caused them had no beginning? So we have quantum events taking place in what medium? Perhaps God is the creator of the “place” where the fluctuations occur?

The Hebrews knew Yahweh as Creator: the creator of Israel. Out of nothing. There is no doubt that the ancient nation of Israel was created by Yahweh. Not only by giving them land, but also by creating an entire culture and national identity: all those laws and rules in the Torah.

Do you believe God is the creator of these things, lucaspa?

So ... is the idea that Yahweh created the universe a human extrapolation from that? An extrapolation that was undertaken initially not so much because God told them He had, but because that was a very effective way of showing all other gods to be false.

And Jesus was deceived in this as well? Could not the Holy Spirit keep Him from such a gross misunderstanding? Or was Jesus just a natural man with no divine anything? I agree He emptied Himself and took on physical limitations, but I doubt that His theological knowledge was lacking, do you doubt that? He seemed to know the Father very well, do you think Jesus really got it wrong concerning God’s creation? Other Bible writers seem to think the worlds were made through Christ. Are we to dismiss them, too? You seem fine with disregarding the human writers of the Bible, citing their humanity, but what of Christ? Are we not to trust Him, either? In what other way could His references by taken? I’m open, but have you considered the weight of not taking Jesus’ theology as true? With what are you left?

Now, if you decide that God must be Creator of the universe and testing of gravity waves shows ekpyrotic to be correct, then it seems to me that you will have to accept that Yahweh does not exist.

As I said, I’ll quit my job as full time wife and mother and pursue these topics more fully. (I’ll not really quit, but I will have to get my hands real dirty trying to understand such things. These do not come very easily, as you can see, so I will have to put much concentration on these matters. If it turns out that we gain full knowledge and confirmation of the Ekpyrotic theory and it is as you seem to say it is, and this produces without a reasonable doubt that nothing was ever created and it truly leaves God without a “job”, not even describing “how” He created, then I will be very confused, I admit.)

The other jobs I'm referring to is creating Israel -- God of the Hebrews -- becoming human in Jesus, resurrecting, forgiving sins, etc. So, can you have an entity that does all those other jobs but did NOT create the universe? If there is such an entity, can it be God? Above you say "no". Now you seem to be saying "yes". Think it thru.

I tell you why it would bother me: because Christ affirmed that God created. Now, I readily admit that God can use various mediums to create. He may have used Ekpyrotic for the universe, He may have used evolution for life, I don’t think the Bible’s concern is with “how” but rather “why” and that He is responsible for it. That He is responsible for it is a major Biblical theme, one even Christ affirmed. I don’t know exactly how the science you teach here can really take God’s ultimate responsibility away from creation. Just as I don’t see how evolution can take God’s ultimate responsibility away from creating man.

As you said above: "we don't know the fullness of God, not in our state of being,". Since the authors of the Bible were humans, could it be that they didn't get all the facts?

Christians believe the Holy Spirit moved these writers and conveyed understanding of God to them. They did not understand the fullness, but they conveyed what they were moved to say, do, and write. Much of this was for our benefit, not theirs.

Hmmm. That's what I told Constantine. It wasn't enough for him. :smile: Constantine's position was that the evidence could only be believed after we had "scientific" evidence that God exists.

I think all we need is evidence that Christ rose from the dead. His affirmation of the O.T. makes it true. I don’t think it is to be read as a science textbook, but it does convey theological truths, one of them being that God is ultimately responsible as creator. I believe God directed the communication of these truths for man and that they are true.

However, a point to consider is whether Jesus is speaking from his human limitations in this instance. After all, he was FULLY human. His audience thought God was Creator. The verse's point seems to be about tribulations before the end times, and the reference to creation is only used to illustrate how bad those tribulations are going to be. Just like you might use the phrase "since the founding of Israel". It's not the main focus of the verse.

If He was wrong theologically, that means He makes mistakes. If He did not know the Father, then the message He preached about Him could also be wrong. Can we trust this fella, do you think, this fella who claims to know the Father, to be one with Him and yet does not know if He is responsible for creating? Seems like major misunderstanding on Jesus’ part.

In that case, there are no angels or host, since that universe was wiped out in the collision.

Alright, so perhaps these membranes do not contain the heavenly host. Do you believe in heaven and angels? I wonder in what realm these beings exist? Certainly nothing from nature, silly of me to even suggest it.

Not that verse. Again, you tried to lift the phrase out of context. Jesus referred to Noah and the Flood, too, but we know that didn't happen.

True, but the theological significance is what mattered in the reference, that it was a parable of sorts is not problem. What theological significance can we get from Jesus calling God creator and Him knowing the end of the universe if these things are to relay only theological truth? You told me before the reason for Christ’s calling God creator was because of Christ’s human error. So there is not theological significance, is there, it is just plain wrong.

These verses say, in plain Hebrew, that the earth does not move.
Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5. They led to the theory that the earth is the center of the solar system and the sun and all planets go around the earth. Only such a position would enable the earth to not move.

These verses are not making scientific statements, they were spoken poetically. Was the Bible telling everything on earth to reallytremble, can the heavens really be glad, is the Lord really clothed, can the field really exult, etc, etc. If the Hebrews really believed all these things and were speaking literally, then I would see your point. But they were not speaking literally, but poetically here in these verses and these verses provide the context for the earth being unmovable. So, to the contrary, these verses “say” no such thing.

Yet when Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler (among others) showed that the earth goes around the sun, it was obvious that the earth DOES move. So those verses were re-interpreted.

Or how about we let the text speak for itself instead of us trying to add something to it is did not “say.”

Want to get into the re-interpretation of the flat earth verses?
Sure, you probably got those ones wrong, too, for the very same reason. I’m not saying that people have not misinterpreted them, but that fault does not rest on the scriptures. It’s not the scriptures fault that some people are morons.

Constantine

March 13th 2005, 12:05 AM

..WITHIN our universe there are events that are not "caused" in the traditional sense. Happens all the time at the quantum level. For instance, particles pop into and out of existence all the time. They last for about 10^-22 seconds and are called "virtual particles". Remember, matter and energy are the same thing. Virtual particles "borrow" energy from the vacuum and thus exist before paying the energy back and disappearing.

I could be wrong but don't those particles come from the decay of atoms and so they don't come out of nothing.

I don't pretend to be any kind of expert but I remember reading about this. Is there somewhere to look it up? It is an important question...whether there are uncaused effects. Sorry for nit picking.

To all, no amount of argument and insults and cajoling to disbelieve that the Bible is the Word of God will work on me. I notice what a relief it was that lucaspa thinks he is doing the Lord's will by convincing someone they cannot trust the Bible and compliments them on not using the capital "W". Pathetic.

Yes, because calling other Christians who are engaging in honest debate in search of the truth "pathetic" is exactly what we should be doing. Please don't ever forget that when you are arguing about Christianity that you are a representative of Christ to all non-Christians and Christians alike who read it. What do you think non-Christians will think if all the read were posts like this insulting each other?

Lets remember to keep the Christ in Christian when debating theology.

kofh2u

March 13th 2005, 06:49 AM

LUSCA....et al:

".....WITHIN our universe there are events that are not "caused" in the traditional sense. Happens all the time at the quantum level. For instance, particles pop into and out of existence all the time. They last for about 10^-22 seconds and are called "virtual particles". Remember, matter and energy are the same thing. Virtual particles "borrow" energy from the vacuum and thus exist before paying the energy back and disappearing."

KOFHY:
This is true and important to understanding EXACTLY where the Uncaused First Cause boundary exists between the entity, "God," if you will... AND the human mind. This is the interface between Human Consciousness and Cosmic Consciousness.

As Lusca will tell you, we know human consciousness determines the outcome, the effect, in certain experiments at the quantum level.

Uncaused events AND the Conscious attention of the observer determine outcomes. This is the mening of "man in our image. Man has the ability, as does the Uncaused Causer to "move mountains."

CARL JUNG: Synchronicity,

Synchronicity is a principle referring to events occurring together in
time. Jung included the supernatural, such as clairvoyance. Jung believed that in an unknown order or force in nature which is beyond
causality. By a process unknown to him, he believed that an archetype is able to synchronously manifest itself in someone's psyche and in the external world.

Prayers answered, Support Group mediated health improvements, the outcomes of social events, clairvoyance, prophecy, ESP, the Paranormal, etc, all may be rooted in what Carl Jung identified as The Collective Unconscious and its relationship to Synchronicity.

A Beautiful Truth

March 15th 2005, 10:30 AM

:bump:

post #77

Jack777

March 15th 2005, 11:22 AM

A brief word of apology.

I have not been on the internet and may not be able to respond to the well thought out responses to my interjections and for this I apologize. I hope to though.

lucaspa

March 15th 2005, 03:09 PM

I am postulating the equivalent of a cause and effect relationship outside of our space/time. This would not be our space time, it would the equivalent of a time dimension, however, because of the cause and effect relationship. Is this not nessesary in order to believe that a random fluctuation (the cause) created our universe (the effect) and therefore the space time of our universe? Or, are you saying that the random fluctuation was in the same space time of our universe? I think this is what you are saying?
In ekpyrotic theory, the ENTIRE universe consists of an 11 dimensional space. Six of those dimensions are "rolled up". So we have, effectively, a 5 dimensional universe. In that universe sit two 4 D 'branes -- one of them is our 4 D universe. Notice the 3 dimensions of space and one of time are already there. There is also another 4 D universe that we can't see.

So, the ENTIRE 11 dimension universe is complete, and it "causes" our 4 dimension universe. You don't need a cause for the 11 dimension universe. Like God, it has always existed.

I just want to know, are the two sheets hanging in the same space/time as our universe? So the cause and effect relationship that caused our universe is still the same cause and effect relationship that governs the inside of our current universe? So every other universe made by these collisions will have the same space/time dimension as ours because our space/time is the same space time as these membranes? Is this right?
Close, but not quite. You're making a good effort, though. Yes, the two sheets both have the same 4 dimensions -- what we know as space and time. It's just that they are hanging within a dimension. Let's see if I can help. Think of a sphere. It is 3 D. Now, cut 2 parallel planes in that sphere. You now have 2 two dimensional circles in a 3 D space. The 2 circles can't see each other because they can't look outside of their limited 2 dimensions. Right? Ekpyrotic does this with 4 D spaces in a 5 D larger space.

Now, when a sheet is emitted from the other 4 D universe and collides with our 4 D universe, "our" universe is wiped out. It's gone. Instead, you end up with a new 4 D universe. So you still have 2 4-D universes hanging in 5 D space.

So some aspects of our universe are eternal (like the space/time that governs it) but other aspects are not eternal? So that we eventually end has no bearing that our space/time is eternal? Are the universes produced from these membranes like branches of eternity that end? Since they eventually do end, can we still call them eternal? The 11 D space (with 6 dimensions rolled up) is eternal. The 4 D universes are not eternal. They are destroyed and replaced with a new 4 D universe. After all, if the other universe can shed a 'brane, so can ours. So you have the 2 4-D universes shedding 'branes that then collide with the other 4 D universe.

Let's try this. You have 2 4-D universes, call them A and B. B sheds a 'brane that collides with A and wipes out A, but makes a new 4 D universe -- call it A1 -- in the process. So now we have A1 and B instead of A and B. Now A1 sheds a 'brane that collides with B. B is gone and replaced with B1 In the same eternal 11 D space, we now have A1 and B1 universes.

Make more sense now?

Did not the universe's time began in a plate-like singularity, how can this be the same space time that is also eternal? Is not a singularity any infinitesimal volume regardless of its shape?
Remember, we have two theories: Big Bang and ekpyrotic. BB has a singularity, ekpyrotic does not. BB comes from General Relativity. Ekpyrotic comes from String Theory.

Now, the definition of "singularity" is: "Astrophysics. A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted." http://www.answers.com/singularity&r=67 BTW, http://www.astronomycafe.net/ is a good site for you to visit for further research into the BB and cosmology :smile:.

As you can see, singularity is a point. A larger area won't be a singularity since you can't reach "infinite density" and "infinitesimal volume" in a larger area. You violate the "infinitesimal volume". However, ekpyrotic does not have "infinite density" in the Big Splat as far as I can tell. Ekpyrotic does not have an infinitesimally small volume. BB does have the singularity.

Since we still have an infinitesimally small volume as our universe began, do we not also have a beginning? Our "cycle" (A or A1) of the 4 D universes definitely had a beginning. But in ekpyrotic this results from straight physical processes in the larger eternal 11 D universe.

You can see, I'm in knots over this. (Don’t make fun of me, either…:brood:) Keep in mind we have two theories. Ekpyrotic is different from BB. A lot of what you are saying applies to BB but does not apply to ekpyrotic.

How can this model determine that these branes are eternal? Is it nessesary that they are eternal in order to get the model to work? In order to get our 4 D universe, there is no need for the 11 D space to be created. Remember, we are looking for the cause of our universe. We don't have to have a cause of the cause. That's the whole idea behind First Cause -- an uncaused Cause. So, if God is allowed to be eternal and not have a cause, then the 11 D universe is also allowed to be eternal and not have a cause. After all, how do we "determine" that God is eternal? We don't. We simply assert it.

Since we don’t know whatever equivalent of “time” (cause and effect relationships) are at work outside of our own universe, how can we say with certainty that the branes are eternal? This same argument applies to God as creator of our universe, doesn't it? Same rules. If the rules work for God, then those same rules have to work for the 11 D universe of ekpyrotic. Otherwise, you have special pleading.

Who is to say there are not other equivalents of time as well and we end up with the equivalent of multi-dimensional time? What we have are dimensions. Time is one of the dimensions. It is not something distinct such that there are dimensions of time. After all, are you arguing for equivalents of "length" so we can have "multi-dimensional" length? Why not? Because the idea is absurd. Length is length. Width is width. Again, same rules apply to time.

Our own limitation to our space-time seems to suggest that there may be more going on than what we know.
And that is what both BB and ekpyrotic say: there is more going on than we know. In BB we say that the singularity of the BB makes it impossible to know what went "before". There was no "before". However, ekpyrotic says we can know what went "before": there was another 4 D universe that was wiped out when a 'brane collided with it. So, ekpyrotic says there is more going on than we knew, but now we do know what was going on.

Of course, the hypothesis that God created the universe also says we "know" what was going on: God wanted to create a universe.

Can Ekpyrotic really answer "why" like the concept of God can? Unfortunately, yes. The question is: Why is there a universe?
Hypothesis of God: There is a universe because God wanted to create one for purposes laid out in revelation.
Ekpyrotic: There is a universe because a 4 D universe in an 5 D space shed a 'brane that collided with a previous 4 D universe. That collision wiped out the previous universe and left this one.

From where did the particles get this ability? Are these particles eternal, do they reside outside of our universe and pop in? So are they in the same space time as us, and reside outside of the membranes? So the particles may even be the cause of the membranes themselves? So do the membranes operate in the same space/time as the quantum particles? Virtual particles are in our 4 D universe. Remember, energy and matter are 2 aspects of the same thing: E = mc^2. So, you can convert energy to matter and vice versa. What happens is that energy is "borrowed" from the vacuum to make the matter of the virtual particles. They are not "eternal" in that they only last for about 10^-20 seconds. Then the energy must be "paid back" and the virtual particle disappears. However, if you have some way of inputting energy -- such as a particle accelerator -- then the energy of collision of 2 particles can generate enough energy to make the virtual particles permanent. It's like colliding 2 refrigerators at very high speed. You have the 2 refrigerators, but now you have a toaster and blender also -- virtual particles made permanent.

If it comes to be that Ekpyrotic model is confirmed, I will leave my full time job as housewife and mother and become a physicist so I can understand it better, okay? :glare: :smile: OK, but being a mother is an important job. I would rather you have questions about ekpyrotic than have some screwed up adults running around because they didn't have good parenting.

The splat would make a plate-like singularity, are you certain the singularity is dismissed? And I thought not even string theory could get rid of an infintismally small volume at the beginning, the singularity is vibrating? This is what the physicists tell me, that the singularity is avoided.
"At first glance, the new model--based on an extension of string theory known as M-theory--seems surreal. ... Another attractive feature is that it gets rid of the singularity at the beginning of the universe: Instead of a pointlike big bang, the universe is formed in a platelike splash." I really wish you would go read the article. :sigh: Take the kids on a field trip to the public library. C Seife, Big bangs's new rival debuts with a splash. Science 292: 189-190, Apr 13, 2001.

Do we have to abandon string theory to get the Ekpyrotic? Absolutely not. After all, ekpyrotic is based in String Theory. :smile: Ekpyrotic relies on String Theory being true.

The Bible does say God will create a new heaven. Which book?

Please help, what is Matthew’s prediction? Prediction in Matthew. Matthew 24.

Also reference Hebrews 1:11,12 Put that in context of all fo Chapter 1, remembering we are dealing with a poem. That's the problem with taking individual verses as "proof" text. They are taken out of context and mean something different than what they mean in context.

He can know the future if He can operate in the equivalent of multiple time dimensions. Since our universe has an end, and if God can operate in the equivalent of a plane of time, then He can know the beginning and the end.
But I've shown there are no "equivalent of multiple time dimensions". So the premise of the argument is flawed. Even as God the Father, God cannot know exactly the future. God created a universe where this is not possible, even for God in whatever form.

Traditional Christian theology believes in the Trinity. We believe that Christ became a member by becoming human flesh and that the Holy Spirit dwells in us, does this not make at least part of God a member?
A "member" of the universe as we were using it means that God is a physical object and is required to perform visible tasks to keep the universe running. It does not apply to God as Jesus. For instance, creationism has God directly creating the first life. That makes God a member of the universe. God is directly required to connect 2 parts of the universe -- non-life to life.

Christ did voluntarily limit Himself when He became flesh and dwelt among us. Are you sure it was voluntary? However, remember this when you hear some creationists say Jesus talked about the Flood or even when you have Jesus saying that God created. Those are limitations of the knowledge of the people at the time. As you said, Jesus is limited.

:smile: I hope you realize that you have just provided a good reason to question the absolute authority of scripture. If Jesus is limited to the knowledge of the time, then Jesus is not an authority on the historicity of Adam and Eve or of Noah's Flood. He is limited to the knowledge and beliefs of the humans at the time.

But by the Holy Spirit, He also had access to supra dimensional capabilities. When? While living? If that is the case, then Jesus is not limited, is he? Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Do you believe in the resurrection? Do you believe that He was translated into another realm called Paradise? Resurrection, yes. Translated into another realm called Paradise? No. But then, I see nowhere in the gospels where this is said.

And how about us, lucaspa? Do you believe in a realm that is both different and real than that which exists in the natural and that which existed before the universe and is that place also where souls reside when they die? :blush: The Bible is contradictory on souls. The ideas you are giving above came about during the Intertestament period and outside the Bible later. I don't know about heaven. Jesus talked about the Kingdom of God, not heaven.

can you not also believe that God can transcend the limitations in which you put Him? These are not limitations I am putting on God, but that He put on Himself. God simply cannot know exactly the future in this universe. Period. His Creation tells us this. I am not about to argue with God on this point.

I think the power of the resurrection gives us faith to believe that God can and does transcend our finite human understanding. This has nothing to do with knowing the future. That God can raise Jesus and resurrect him is completely separate from being able to know the future exactly. You can't tie the 2 things together.

How do you know spirituality has no bearing on this? God could operate outside of everything natural.Because the data is very clear on this. This is a property of the universe. The information cannot be known. There is no way to get the information; being spiritual doesn't help, because the information can't be available. Even if you are spiritual, the more you know about the position, the less you know about the momentum.
Granted, if He were confined to nature, He could not know. You don't get it. According to QM, the future cannot be known. Period. The precise location and exact momentum of an electron cannot be known at the same time. Doesn't matter where you are. They both can't be known at the same time. Not for God. Not for anyone. It isn't a matter of being able to make more precise measurements from a different perspective. The elemental properties of matter are such that the more you know about position, the less you know about momentum.

I think this is where the paradox of God’s omniscience and God’s self limitation of His knowledge is solved. You can have both God not knowing AND God knowing, depending on the view of where He is in relation to His creation. Inside of nature, He is limited in knowledge (as we saw through Christ) but outside nature He is not confined. Through His Holy Spirit He transcends both nature and super-nature. The trinity. Sorry, but the data are clear. Doesn't matter if God transcends nature. He still can't know. The information can't be known. This has to do with exactly how the universe is put together. It doesn't matter what the nature of God is; the information can't be known.

That is, while He is in space/time, but nobody says God is restricted to space/time. Such restrictions redefine the Christian God. This has nothing to do with being in space/time. It's a property of the photons and the universe. All the photons are identical. Therefore there is nothing to tell you which photon will pass thru and which will be reflected. What's more, take the 5% that passed thru and then shine them on the same mirror. 95% will be reflected this time! By standard cause and effect, if the photons went thru the first time, they should go thru the second. But 95% of them don't! So this is not a property of some photons being different and God knows which photons are different. This is uncertainty at such a basic level that it is impossible to know which photon will go thru and which will be reflected.

Instead of arguing against God and trying to impose your view of what you think God should know and be able to do, I suggest you accept the evidence God left you in His Creation and instead of denying God, try to figure out why God created a universe where even He can't know everything. What was His purpose?

Some classical understanding of this through scripture:

“You loved Me before the creation of the world.” John 17:24

He was chosen before the creation of the world. I Peter 1:20

This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time. II Tim. 1:9

The hope of eternal life, which God who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time. Titus 1:2

Again, I would ask you to put these in context. Not an isolated sentence, but the whole chapter. Do they really say what you are trying to make them say. Instead of looking at the data and trying to figure out God, you already have your idea of God and are trying to make Him fit that mold. Not good.

Perhaps it is in your haste to dismiss the implications of having a God who can come in and out of the natural realm at His own will that has made you a believer in a different God than the one Christ affirmed? I don't think so. Because I'm not sure where you get the idea of God "come in aond out of the natural realm at His own will". I'm not sure where you are getting the idea of God being absent from nature. Standard Christian theology has God sustaining nature, and therefore not being absent from it.

If you say Jesus got it wrong about God (as in the case where Christ affirmed God as creator Mk 13:19) because Jesus was totally limited on earth, Above you also say Jesus was limited. :smile: So you aren't saying things much different than I. We are just applying them differently. Remember, I said this because I am not sure that, if it turns out that God did not directly create our 4 D universe, then God is falsified. You do think God would be falsified if God is not creator. And challenged me on what I would do to that verse. I told you. It's ironic that in this post you advocate the very reason I gave -- limitations of Jesus.

Certainly you do not deny the Holy Spirit. No, but the Holy Spirit doesn't restore the qualities of God that you want Him to have in regard to this universe. It seems you are insisting because you want God to be a certain way. I want God to be Who He is. I just want to understand that Who. God's Creation tells me that God cannot be omniscient with regard to our universe. OK, if God wants it that way, that's up to God. What I want to do is figure out why God wants it that way. Not argue that God has to be a certain way because 1) I say He is or 2) other people (authors of the Bible) say He is.

Would you change your mind if scripture said God was all-knowing or would you chalk that one up as well to human limitations in the Bible? If the Bible says God was "all-knowing" then I have contradictory data about God. I have God in His Creation telling me He is not all-knowing and I have the people who wrote the Bible telling me He is all-knowing. Which should I trust? God or the people? I choose God. What I don't understand is why you don't.

This seems to be very frustrating to you. How about if we say, yes, God has limited His knowledge when He is a member of our universe. Not good enough. Say rather "God has limited knowledge in regard to our universe."

He says He IS the beginning and the end. This, to me, would imply more knowledge of the beginning and the end since they are already part of Him. God the Father knows the day and hour of the ending of our universe, that does imply He is all-knowing”Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not evne the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” Matt. 24:35,36

This is eschatological. God is going to close out the universe at some time of His choosing. That doesn't mean He knows exactly what that universe is going to be like when He makes that choice. Is lucaspa going to write "arerareoresafsoes"? Or is lucaspa going to write this sentence instead? I say God didn't know that ahead of time. It was my choice. Take a pile of C14 atoms. Does God know that atom A will decay next? No. Both God and I know that, in 5,240 years half of the atoms present will decay. But the next atom to decay might be atom B and not atom A. We have a paradox. We have chance and God’s will operating simultaneously. It is a matter of perspective. From the space/time of our universe we have chance which is undetermined and God, in Christ, has limited knowledge. From beyond nature, however, we have a God who knows the day and the hour. Since we have a God who does self-limit, we have both/and, not either/or.

Wrong example. As I said, the time God closes down the universe is part of God's choice. Just as what I have for dinner is my choice. So, of course, I know now what I will be having for dinner. BUT, neither God nor I know which atom of C14 will decay next or which photon will pass thru the mirror. Because those events are not of our choosing and the information about them simply cannot be known.

Having God be limited in knowledge about the universe solves the paradox.

I believe in chance. I believe I have real choices. But why limit God and say these things are not free if He knows the end from the beginning? Because the only way that can happen is if you have very strict determinism: where each event is the result of a cause. A lot of what you call "chance" is not really chance if you have infinite knowledge like you attribute to God. For instance, we say that a coin being heads or tails is due to chance. Not so. IF you knew the exact force applied, the exact spin rate, the exact effect of atmosphere on the coin, etc, then you would know whether the coin would end up as heads or tails. That would not be chance. If you knew everything about the firing of neurons and the chemicals in your neurons -- as you say God does -- then you have no real choices. Everything you "choose" was determined ahead of time by those chemicals and exactly how many there were and exactly where they were. How many and where the chemicals were, in turn, was determined by how many and where they were just a little before, and so on back to the moment of the BB.

The only way to get real choice is where the future is not strictly determined by the past. That is, where events happen that are not strictly caused. BUT, for that to happen you have to have events where it cannot be known what will happen next. For, if it can be known, then it isn't choice -- it's predetermined from the previous state by strict cause and effect.

No, I believe in the “second book” of creation—so much so that I have been terribly ridiculed by my young earth creationist brothers. No, I believe God has spoken to us in nature, I believe our study of nature shows us how He created. It is not as important as special revelation, but general revelation is nonetheless important. So, faced with what is in the Bible -- written by humans -- and what you find God has told you in His Creation, you will believe the humans, not God. You would disagree with the first quotation in my signature, right?

Remember limitations? Well, isn't God limited in what He can communicate thru special revelation? That is, He is limited to what the people of the time can understand. Human understanding depends on our experience and language. If the language does not have words for concepts, then we can't understand them. Did Hebrew have a word for "billions", as in "billions of years old"? I don't think so.

But, God isn't limited that way in general revelation. He can wait until we have acquired the experience and understanding. So I am the opposite of you: general revelation is more important than special revelation. General revelation comes directly from God, but special revelation has to be filtered thru the limitations of humans receiving inspiration.

How about Jesus’ prophesies? Some of them have not happened yet (y’know like His return to earth, all that stuff about heaven and earth passing away…)My apologies. I should have said "all the fullfilled prophecies" Remember, I was talking in the context of using prophecy for Apologetics. You can't use the prophecies that haven't happened yet for Apologetics, for the very reason that they haven't happened yet. :smile: Therefore you can't convince people they have been or will be fulfilled. As for the "fulfilled" prophecies, they were written after the event. It's easy to prophecy after something has happened.

I disagree with you, but for the sake of keeping the original argument (at least this present discussion) on track, I would advise taking this up in another forum at a different time if you wanted.
Charleen, I didn't introduce the topic of prophecy. You did. In the context of QM and knowing about the future.

I think my question about Jesus’ prophecies, however, give us enough to go on for this current discussion. Not really. Now, if the prophecies of the return of the son of Man come true (Matthew 24), then you have very powerful objective evidence for the existence of God. But, since they haven't happened, you don't.

From what “fabric” did this quantum particle come? What is that “stuff” from where these particles come if these particles themselves are outside of the two membranes?

So the branes themselves had no beginning because the quantum particles that caused the membranes had no beginning? And the particles had no beginning because the quantum event that caused them had no beginning? So we have quantum events taking place in what medium? Perhaps God is the creator of the “place” where the fluctuations occur?
WHOA! You are combining several separate ideas into one indigestible stew.
1. "Quantum particles" or "virtual particles" are particles that happen in our 4 -D universe. They are not part of ekpyrotic.
2. Look below for a discription of ekpyrotic. If you still have these questions, ask them again.

"At first glance, the new model--based on an extension of string theory known as M-theory--seems surreal. It takes place in 11 dimensions, six of which are rolled up and can safely be ignored. In that effectively five-dimensional space float two perfectly flat four-dimensional membranes, like sheets drying on parallel clotheslines. One of the sheets is our universe; the other, a "hidden" parallel universe. Provoked by random fluctuations, our unseen companion spontaneously sheds a membrane that slowly floats toward our universe. As it moves, it flattens out--although quantum fluctuations wrinkle its surface somewhat--and gently accelerates toward our membrane. The floater speeds up and splats into our universe, whereupon some of the energy of the collision becomes the energy and matter that make up our cosmos."

Do you believe God is the creator of these things, lucaspa? If I didn't, I couldn't be Judeo/Christian.

And Jesus was deceived in this as well? Could not the Holy Spirit keep Him from such a gross misunderstanding? How? How could the Holy Spirit do this and keep the limitation of Jesus being a human of his time? Everyone believed this, it was part of the general background "knowledge" of the time. How was Jesus going to tell them different?

Or was Jesus just a natural man with no divine anything? Trinity says Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Now, speaking as a human to his fellow humans, what do you expect him to say? He wasn't speaking directly to you. He had to be understood by the people of the time so that they would believe and then write what he said down. You have general revelation that the people of the time lacked. Why won't you use it?

I doubt that His theological knowledge was lacking, do you doubt that? We are not talking about theological knowledge. Unless you classify "God as Creator of the universe" as theological knowledge. Special revelation is that God was Creator of the Hebrews. We are speculating that the Hebrews decided, based on that, that God was creator of the universe. By the time Jesus was born, this speculation had become "knowledge", just as the speculation of "omniscience" has become "knowledge" to you.

He seemed to know the Father very well, do you think Jesus really got it wrong concerning God’s creation? Other Bible writers seem to think the worlds were made through Christ. Are we to dismiss them, too? If I run up against something God left in His Creation that contradicts what the Bible writers "seemed to think", you already know which I'm going to choose. I'll choose God instead of the writers.

You seem fine with disregarding the human writers of the Bible, citing their humanity, but what of Christ? Are we not to trust Him, either? Jesus the human with human limitations vs God in His Creation. Which do you think we should choose? Remember, we are "rejecting" (in speculation!) Jesus' words about God being Creator because we are speculating that ekpyrotic will show that the universe had no beginning and God didn't create. BUT, we still have evidence of God's existence in the intervention of God in history in the Exodus and the life and resurrection of Jesus. Some of us also have evidence in our personal experience of God. So now (in speculation) we have conflicting data regarding God's existence. On the one hand, we have data that God did not create. You say this means that God does not exist. OTOH, we have the evidence above that God does exist? What do we do?

1. We can decide that God has to create the universe in order to exist. This would mean we have to find some other, non-God, explanation for the formation of Israel, the apparent resurrection of Jesus, and personal experience of God.
2. We can decide that God does not have to create the universe in order to exist, create Israel, become human in Jesus and resurrect, forgive us, and offer us eternal life with Him. This means we would have to formulate a theology where God has a lot of limitations, one being that He didn't really create the universe but found it in place already.

OR, we can take the tacks you have:
1. Deny the possibility of ekpyrotic.
2. Try to find a way that ekpyrotic would require God to create 1) the 11 D universe or 2) the original 4 D universes or 3) the sheets that come off the 4 D universes.
3. Assert the primacy of scripture over that of nature.

If it turns out that we gain full knowledge and confirmation of the Ekpyrotic theory and it is as you seem to say it is, and this produces without a reasonable doubt that nothing was ever created and it truly leaves God without a “job”, not even describing “how” He created, then I will be very confused, I admit.)
Remember, it puts God out of one job. The question is whether that job is essential for God to exist. You seem to think so. I am questioning whether creating the universe is essential.

I tell you why it would bother me: because Christ affirmed that God created. Now, I readily admit that God can use various mediums to create. He may have used Ekpyrotic for the universe, He may have used evolution for life, I don’t think the Bible’s concern is with “how” but rather “why” and that He is responsible for it. That He is responsible for it is a major Biblical theme, one even Christ affirmed. I don’t know exactly how the science you teach here can really take God’s ultimate responsibility away from creation. Just as I don’t see how evolution can take God’s ultimate responsibility away from creating man.
Well, that is succinct on why you are bothered. Notice that the first sentence is #3 in my list, the third sentence is #2.

What we are concerned with is the creation of our 4 D universe. The question is: how did our 4 D universe come about?
With BB, one possible answer is: God directly created it in the BB.
However, with ekpyrotic, the answer is: our 4 D universe arose from collision of a 'brane with a previous 4 D universe all in an 11 D universe. No role for God as Creator of our universe. Now, you can try to say: who created the 11 D universe? However, that's like asking: who created God? Irrelevant to the origin of our universe.

Christians believe the Holy Spirit moved these writers and conveyed understanding of God to them. They did not understand the fullness, but they conveyed what they were moved to say, do, and write. Much of this was for our benefit, not theirs. It mostly had to be for their benefit. Otherwise, they would not have written it down. Now, you say "they did not understand the fullness". Why not? I say because of their human limitations. Which in turn limited God in conveying understanding about Himself. What do you say?

I think all we need is evidence that Christ rose from the dead. His affirmation of the O.T. makes it true. I disagree. As a human, Jesus' affirmation of the OT, just by itself, is nothing more than affirmation of what he was taught as a human child.

I don’t think it is to be read as a science textbook, but it does convey theological truths, one of them being that God is ultimately responsible as creator.
Normally, I would agree that God as Creator is a theological truth. However, in the context of this conversation that stops being a theological truth and becomes a material question: did God really create the universe?

lucaspa

March 15th 2005, 03:11 PM

Wow, my answer, Charleen, got so long I couldn't put it all in one post. Here's the rest:

If He was wrong theologically, that means He makes mistakes. If Jesus is fully human, then he makes mistakes.

If He did not know the Father, then the message He preached about Him could also be wrong. Can we trust this fella, do you think, this fella who claims to know the Father, to be one with Him and yet does not know if He is responsible for creating? Seems like major misunderstanding on Jesus’ part.Good points. We are talking, however, about the understanding of the audience. The audience thinks that God is creator. Again, what is the point that Jesus is trying to make? Is it that God is creator? NO! The point of the speech is that there will be tribulations before the end, tribulations greater than have ever been seen. Jesus emphasizes the magnitude of the tribulations by referring to something the audience "knows" -- that God created in the beginning. The point is the tribulations, not the creating.

Do you believe in heaven and angels? Heaven as in a wonderful place we go to after we die? I don't know. Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God, and that doesn't seem to be heaven in the traditional sense. Angels? Too much inconsistency in scripture on them and too much of what we believe comes from outside special revelation for me.

True, but the theological significance is what mattered in the reference, that it was a parable of sorts is not problem. What theological significance can we get from Jesus calling God creator and Him knowing the end of the universe if these things are to relay only theological truth?
You told me before the reason for Christ’s calling God creator was because of Christ’s human error. So there is not theological significance, is there, it is just plain wrong. Whoa! I'm speculating, remember? We are playing a "what if" scenario. IF ekpyrotic is correct, then can we salvage God? You are saying "no" because, for you, Jesus calling God creator means God must be creator in order to exist. I offered an alternative reading. You don't like it.

Now, you have a good point. If God didn't create the universe, can God shut it down? Let's look at some analogies in humans. Humans didn't create species, but we can certainly make them extinct. We might not ever be able to create a sun, but we can make one go nova and destroy it (theoretically, if we drop a planet like Jupiter into the sun). So, in general, I think the power to destroy is a lot easier than the power to create. So, the theological truth that God "knowing the end of the universe" (as in destroying it) could be true without God having created the universe. What do you think?

These verses are not making scientific statements, they were spoken poetically. But, read literally, they meant the earth does not move. What matter that it is in the middle of a poem? You used a verse in the middle of a poem above -- Hebrews 1:11-12 -- as tho it was literal. How is your use different from that?

Was the Bible telling everything on earth to reallytremble, can the heavens really be glad, is the Lord really clothed, can the field really exult, etc, etc. If the Hebrews really believed all these things and were speaking literally, then I would see your point. But they were not speaking literally, but poetically here in these verses and these verses provide the context for the earth being unmovable. So, to the contrary, these verses “say” no such thing. Thank you for making 2 of my points so well:
1. Verses get reinterpreted. You just did.
2. Verses must be taken in context. Unfortunately, you are not so good at that.
3. When general revelation contradicts what we think special revelation says, we choose general revelation. But you say you do the opposite.

Or how about we let the text speak for itself instead of us trying to add something to it is did not “say.” They didn't "add". In plain Hebrew, the verses say the earth does not move. They simply took the logical extension of that. Look at you. You think God is omniscient. So you are trying to use what you think is a logical extension of the dimension of time into a multi-dimensional time.

Sure, you probably got those ones wrong, too, for the very same reason. I’m not saying that people have not misinterpreted them, but that fault does not rest on the scriptures. It’s not the scriptures fault that some people are morons.You are missing the point. YOU insist on a literal meaning and try to deny data that doesn't fit. Go see our discussion on QM. You even said that "special revelation" should be taken over "general revelation". That is exactly what those Christians did. They took their literal reading -- special revelation -- over general revelation. And tried to deny the data. Now, is it the scriptures fault that you insist they be "authoritative" and more important than general revelation -- "It is not as important as special revelation, but general revelation is nonetheless important." Why are you convinced that you are not misinterpreting scripture?

I'm reminded here of specks, eyes, and beams.

lucaspa

March 15th 2005, 03:17 PM

I could be wrong but don't those particles come from the decay of atoms and so they don't come out of nothing.

I don't pretend to be any kind of expert but I remember reading about this. Is there somewhere to look it up? It is an important question...whether there are uncaused effects. Sorry for nit picking.
You are not nitpicking. You have information that, if true, contradicts the information I posted. So we have a situation of apparently conflicting data.

Let's see if this site clears up virtual particles:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/apr14/virtual.html

As to uncaused effects, that has been documented numerous times. I suggest The Matter Myth by Paul Davies, The Whole Shebang by Timothy Ferris, or Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller for good and readable summaries. If you want to get into the nitty gritty experiments and details, we can try to do that, but I suggest you start a new thread. PM me if you do, OK?

grmorton

March 16th 2005, 11:56 PM

You are not nitpicking. You have information that, if true, contradicts the information I posted. So we have a situation of apparently conflicting data.

Let's see if this site clears up virtual particles:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/apr14/virtual.html

As to uncaused effects, that has been documented numerous times. I suggest The Matter Myth by Paul Davies, The Whole Shebang by Timothy Ferris, or Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller for good and readable summaries. If you want to get into the nitty gritty experiments and details, we can try to do that, but I suggest you start a new thread. PM me if you do, OK?

There is one test that ekpyrotic theory, or M theory has already failed.

“If there were other dimensions that gravity could flow into, leaving our four-dimensional space-time behind, the energy released by a supernova would leak out into these other hidden dimensions by gravity waves. The energy balance for the supernova in our space-time would not work out. There would be missing energy to account for in the aftermath of the explosion. When Supernova 1987A exploded in March 1987, physicists detected neutrinos from the detonation and were unable to find any "missing energy" that could have escaped into other dimensions. Everything they saw could be accounted for very neatly by the energy of the event estimated from our own space-time. If Nature was indeed taking advantage of M-theory, it was being subtle in the traces it would permit astronomers or physicists to see of it. ” Sten F. Odenwald, Patterns in the Void, (New York: Westview Press, 2002), p.186

Jack777

March 17th 2005, 12:09 PM

Okay, okay, lucaspa, keeping up with defending evolution by asserting the Bible is wrong, not true or truth-telling myth, and replying to Charleen that Jesus would not know if the OT is true?????

RED FLAG

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge [gnosis]: because thou hast rejected [full knowledge] [epignoµsis], I will also reject thee."

Hosea 4:6

[translated from The Septuagint, LXX]1

The English word "knowledge" occurs 172 times in 169 verse in the King James Version of the Holy Bible. The English word "understanding" occurs 160 times in 152 verses and the English word "wisdom" occurs 234 times in 222 verses, and the English word "faith" occurs 247 times in 231 verses of the King James Version of the Holy Bible. There are some things that are not necessarily as essential to understanding the Revelation of the Word of God to us as others. However, that the Bible is the Word of God is essential. In one of my collections of books, out of 73 books, the phrase, "Word of God" occurs 6824 times.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Colossians 2:8 -

In order to advance an idea, it is a red flag if someone is urged to disregard the Bible as the Word of God. There is good reason for this and is enough to reject the idea if this is what is needed to be done to validated the idea. This is an introduction to coming to know that the Bible is valid for the believer and is indeed the Word of God. The assertion by some that the Bible is not the Word of God is not merely a matter of conjecture that can be accepted or rejected with little care. The Bible certainly testifies that it is the Word of God through the record left to us in its Scriptures. There are many verses in the Old and the New Testaments that makes it plain the Bible is the Word of God. Before validating this in Scripture, a few things are worth observing. There are plenty of ideas and world views that compete for our attention. The Bible is the basis for determining God's view of the world. We are to have our minds renewed to the mind of Christ. John the Baptist told the people that came to listen to him in the wilderness to repent. Repent means to have a change of mind.

In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying,

Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 3:1-2

A. T. Robertson explains:

Repent (metanoeite). Broadus used to say that this is the worst translation in the New Testament. The trouble is that the English word “repent” means “to be sorry again” from the Latin repoenitet (impersonal). John did not call on the people to be sorry, but to change (think afterwards) their mental attitudes (metanoeite) and conduct. The Vulgate has it “do penance” and Wycliff has followed that. The Old Syriac has it better: “Turn ye.” The French (Geneva) has it “Amendez vous.” This is John’s great word (Bruce) and it has been hopelessly mistranslated. The tragedy of it is that we have no one English word that reproduces exactly the meaning and atmosphere of the Greek word. The Greek has a word meaning to be sorry (metamelomai) which is exactly our English word repent and it is used of Judas (Matthew_27:3). John was a new prophet with the call of the old prophets: “Turn ye” (Joel 2:12; Isaiah 55:7; Ezekiel 33:11, Ezekiel 33:15).2

John urged people to change our minds, have a change of mind, change our world view. The witness of the Scriptures tells us what it is that God's world view is. The Holy Spirit convicts our hearts of the Truth contained in the Bible. After John the Baptist was arrested, Jesus said the same thing that he did.

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

And saying,

The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Mark 1:14-15

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 4:17

Jesus said that we should have a change of mind and believe the Gospel. He did not intend that His message only apply to the people that He spoke to, but to us today as well. He said that we are to believe the Gospel. How are we to know what the Gospel is if we do not have a record of it. God is certainly capable of assuring that we have a record of the Gospel and the Scriptures John and Jesus taught from. In fact, we do have a record, the Bible. Does it make sense that God would provide a record we cannot trust? It is important that we have a change of mind and that we see the world through God's view of things rather than ours. This is accomplished in part by finding out what the Scriptures have to say about things. The Old Testament prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus told us to have a change of mind. John and Jesus both preached from the Scriptures that we call the Old Testament.

Paul told people to keep themselves from being deceived through philosophy and vain deceit, the traditions of men, and the rudiments of the world. What written record would we refer to if not the Bible? How could we know the difference if there were not a written record? Not only this, but we have the witness of the Holy Spirit, our Tutor and Helper. He comes alongside of us to teach us and give us the ability to discern between the Truth of the Bible and the world views that do not agree with it.

Jesus told the Pharisees that they diminished the Word of God by their traditions. Jesus believed that the Old Testament is the Word of God. He said:

Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Mark 7:13

Evidently Jesus thinks that the Old Testament is the Word of God. It is true that Jesus is the Word, the Logos but He did not see any conflict with calling the Old Testament the Word of God even in the light of His identity. Paul recognized the importance of the Word of God:

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.

Romans 10:17

The Word of God is essential to our walk as believers and Paul considered it to be so essential he described it as being part of our spiritual armor, the Armor of God.

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God:

Ephesians 6:17

Paul considered the Word of God to be important...

For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Hebrews 4:12

Peter also testifies to the importance of the Word of God in the life of the believer.

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

I Peter 1:23

If the Bible is not important in the life of the believer, as some contend, or if it is not the Word of God, then John the Apostle was mistaken to think it is important.

I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the Word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.

I John 2:14

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the Word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Revelation 1:1-2

Not only are we to have a change of mind, but we are to have a renewing of our minds.

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Romans 12:2

Our minds are to be renewed and we are not to be conformed to the kosmos, the world system. The Word of God is important as is shown by the examples of the prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, John, Peter, and Paul. The work of the Holy Spirit is important too. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to us and Paul affirms how important the Holy Spirit is too.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Titus 3:5

We are renewed day by day, our inward being is renewed as our outward man is perishing.

Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.

For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.

For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

II Corinthians 4:14-16

And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

Ephesians 4:23

And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

Colossians 3:10

Our renewing is based on knowledge, knowledge that is available to us through the Bible, the Word of God. God desires that we have truth in the inward part of us. Paul affirms the witness of King David, who also wrote as a prophet.

Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.

Psalm 51:6

Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

Psalm 51:10

We now know that the Word of God , God and the Holy Spirit help us so our minds are renewed and our spirits are renewed.

No doubt many doctrines of men and devils are presented to believers but we have ready help from the LORD. Instead of running after philosophy, vain deceit, tradition of men, and after the rudiments of the world we are to wait upon the LORD if need be, simply stay grounded in Him and come to know Him.

But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

Isaiah 40:31

from

Word Pictures in the New Testament, Archibald Thomas Robertson

Colossians 2:8 -

Take heed (blepete). Present active imperative second person plural of blepō, common verb for warning like our “look out,” “beware,” “see to it.”

Lest there shall be any one (mē tis estai). Negative purpose with the future indicative, though the aorist subjunctive also occurs as in 2Co_12:6.

That maketh spoil of you (ho sulagōgōn). Articular present active participle of sulagōgeō, late and rare (found here first) verb (from sulē, booty, and agō, to lead, to carry), to carry off as booty a captive, slave, maiden. Only here in N.T. Note the singular here. There was some one outstanding leader who was doing most of the damage in leading the people astray.

Through his philosophy (dia tēs philosophias). The only use of the word in the N.T. and employed by Paul because the Gnostics were fond of it. Old word from philosophos (philos, sophos, one devoted to the pursuit of wisdom) and in N.T. only in Act_17:18. Paul does not condemn knowledge and wisdom (see Col_2:2), but only this false philosophy, “knowledge falsely named” (pseudōnumos gnōsis, 1Ti_6:20), and explained here by the next words.

And vain deceit (kai kenēs apatēs). Old word for trick, guile, like riches (Mat_13:22). Descriptive of the philosophy of the Gnostics.

Tradition (paradosin). Old word from paradidōmi, a giving over, a passing on. The word is colourless in itself. The tradition may be good (2Th_2:15; 2Th_3:6) or bad (Mar_7:3). Here it is worthless and harmful, merely the foolish theories of the Gnostics.

Rudiments (stoicheia). Old word for anything in a stoichos (row, series) like the letters of the alphabet, the materials of the universe (2Pe_3:10, 2Pe_3:12), elementary teaching (Heb_5:12), elements of Jewish ceremonial training (Act_15:10; Gal_4:3, Gal_4:9), the specious arguments of the Gnostic philosophers as here with all their aeons and rules of life.

And not after Christ (kai ou kata Christon). Christ is the yardstick by which to measure philosophy and all phases of human knowledge. The Gnostics were measuring Christ by their philosophy as many men are doing today. They have it backwards. Christ is the measure for all human knowledge since he is the Creator and the Sustainer of the universe.

Mark 7:13 -

Making void the word of God by your tradition (akurountes ton logon tou theou tēi paradosei humōn).

See note on Mat_15:6 for the word akurountes, invalidating, a stronger word than athetein, to set aside,

Matthew 15:6 -

Ye have made void the word of God (ekurōsate ton logon tou theou). It was a stinging indictment that laid bare the hollow pretence of their quibbles about handwashing. Kuros means force or authority, akuros is without authority, null and void. It is a late verb, akuroō but in the lxx, Gal_3:17; and in the papyri. Adjective, verb, and substantive occur in legal phraseology like cancelling a will, etc. The moral force of God’s law is annulled by their hairsplitting technicalities and immoral conduct.

Matthew 15:17 -

Perceive ye not? (ou noeite). Christ expects us to make use of our nous, intellect, not for pride, but for insight. The mind does not work infallibly, but we should use it for its God-given purpose. Intellectual laziness or flabbiness is no credit to a devout soul.

in Mark_7:9.

Mark 7:9 -

Full well do ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your traditions (kalōs atheteite tēn entolēn tou theou hina tēn paradosin humōn tērēsēte). One can almost see the scribes withering under this terrible arraignment. It was biting sarcasm that cut to the bone. The evident irony should prevent literal interpretation as commendation of the Pharisaic pervasion of God’s word. See my The Pharisees and Jesus for illustrations of the way that they placed this oral tradition above the written law. See note on Mat_15:7.

See both used in Gal_3:15, Gal_3:17.

Setting aside does invalidate.

1 W. E. Vine, Collected Writings of W. E. Vine [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, ©1996 by W. E. Vine Copyright Ltd. of Bath, England.

2 Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, http://www.e-sword.net (http://www.e-sword.net/)

rogero

March 17th 2005, 03:30 PM

Okay, okay, lucaspa, keeping up with defending evolution by asserting the Bible is wrong, not true or truth-telling myth, and replying to Charleen that Jesus would not know if the OT is true?????
...

What do you mean by "true"? Do you mean true as historical narrative? Can't parts of the Bible be "true" theologically but use metaphor and allegory, a "truth-telling myth" as it were? As usual your writing is loaded and brittle and your use of the long cut 'n paste is noted.

lucaspa

March 21st 2005, 11:33 AM

Okay, okay, lucaspa, keeping up with defending evolution by asserting the Bible is wrong, not true or truth-telling myth, and replying to Charleen that Jesus would not know if the OT is true?????
First, Jack, Charleen and I are not discussing evolution. We are playing a "what if" game. This started because Constantine claimed that Yahweh had to create the universe in order to exist. IOW, Yahweh MUST create the universe in order to be God.

I got to thinking: is that true? Can God exist and not be Creator? What started me thinking about this was ekpyrotic theory, which, if true, would mean that Yahweh did not create our universe.

Charleen, quite rightly, pointed out that scripture asserts, many times, that God did create. However, even if God did not create, we have several other things that God did do: create Israel, become human in Jesus, resurrect Jesus, forgive our sins, interact with humans today via the Holy Spirit, etc. Are all those evidences for God wrong? If we assert that God must be Creator in order to exist, then yes, those evidences are wrong.

OR, we can try to reinterpret the verses that assert God as Creator. I was trying to see if that can be done.

So, I'm afraid, Jack, that you have completely misunderstood the discussion.

However, that the Bible is the Word of God is essential. In one of my collections of books, out of 73 books, the phrase, "Word of God" occurs 6824 times. That's because your collection is, probably, from the false religion of Fundamentalism. As I have pointed out numerous times, according to scripture there is only one "Word" -- capital W -- and that is Jesus.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Colossians 2:8 -

In order to advance an idea, it is a red flag if someone is urged to disregard the Bible as the Word of God. The problem here, Jack, is that it is you that have the red flag. It is you advancing the philosophy of Fundamentalism over Christ -- in violation of what Colossians tells you to do. Your fallible, human interpretation of the Bible -- what you call "Word of God" has replaced Christ.

Yes, what I am saying is a red flag to Fundamentalism. It means I'm not Fundamentalist. But since Fundamentalism is false idol worship and not Christian, that doesn't bother me.

There is good reason for this and is enough to reject the idea if this is what is needed to be done to validated the idea. This is an introduction to coming to know that the Bible is valid for the believer and is indeed the Word of God. The assertion by some that the Bible is not the Word of God is not merely a matter of conjecture that can be accepted or rejected with little care. The Bible certainly testifies that it is the Word of God through the record left to us in its Scriptures.
Again, Jack, explain to me how you get around John 1. That chapter clearly says that the Word is Jesus, not the Bible.

The Bible is the basis for determining God's view of the world. We are to have our minds renewed to the mind of Christ.

Jack, how did the disciples and Paul have their minds renewed to the mind of Christ? After all, they did not have scripture on Christ. The basis for determining God's view of the world is God working in each of us. Yes, the Bible is a guide, but even Paul said it was no more than "useful". Here again we see the false idol worship of worshipping the Bible and not Christ.

John the Baptist told the people that came to listen to him in the wilderness to repent. Repent means to have a change of mind. And, unfortunately, it appears that you can't repent because you are too caught up in your worship of the false idol you have made. God is merciful. We must hope for that when He judges you.

John urged people to change our minds, have a change of mind, change our world view. The witness of the Scriptures tells us what it is that God's world view is. The Holy Spirit convicts our hearts of the Truth contained in the Bible. Well, well, well. At least you admit the Bible isn't the only way to know God. Here you admit the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, it seems you won't let God change your mind. You won't listen to God in his other Book. Instead, you must listen only to your false idol of your literal interpretation of the Bible. Again, we must pray for God's mercy for you.

How are we to know what the Gospel is if we do not have a record of it. We still have the living Jesus, remember? Jesus isn't dead. I'm sorry you don't have a relationship with the living Jesus. Truly I am. But that you don't have such a relationship does not mean that the rest of us must worship your interpretation of scripture.

God did provide another record we can trust: His Creation. Does it make sense that these should conflict? NO! Instead it makes more sense that the second quote in my signature is true. Also, I would rather believe what God has written directly -- Creation -- than what Jack tells me the Bible says. God vs Jack. It's no-brainer which I'm going to choose.

[quote]Paul told people to keep themselves from being deceived through philosophy and vain deceit, the traditions of men, and the rudiments of the world. Yes he did. Too bad you don't pay attention to him.

What written record would we refer to if not the Bible? Creation. Remember, we believe God really did create, don't we? Well, it appears that Fundamentalism does not believe that. Because you ask me to bow to your interpretation of the Bible -- your god -- rather than listen to what God wrote in His Creation. Sorry, Jack, but nothing you can say will get me to forsake God for your graven image.

Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Mark 7:13
It seems that you have lied about what the Bible actually says. Mark 7:11-13:
"But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, [It is] Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; [he shall be free]. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mar/Mar007.html#top

Notice first that "word of God" is a small "W". So you lied about that. Notice also in context that the Pharisees have changed what scripture actually meant. You are doing the same thing. Changing what scripture actually meant and what scripture actually is. Making scripture a god isn't going to fill the void you have in living without a personal relationship with God and Christ.

Finally, read Mark 8. You will find there that Jesus not only said that Moses wrote the Torah, not God, but that Moses got it wrong. Jesus is not saying the Bible is the "Word of God" as you are using it. You are lying about what Jesus said.

I think that's enough to show the false idol worship you are advocating. Until you can somehow refute that you have made a graven image of your interpretation of the Bible and are worhipping that graven image instead of God, your points are moot.

lucaspa

March 21st 2005, 11:39 AM

There is one test that ekpyrotic theory, or M theory has already failed.

“If there were other dimensions that gravity could flow into, leaving our four-dimensional space-time behind, the energy released by a supernova would leak out into these other hidden dimensions by gravity waves. The energy balance for the supernova in our space-time would not work out. There would be missing energy to account for in the aftermath of the explosion. When Supernova 1987A exploded in March 1987, physicists detected neutrinos from the detonation and were unable to find any "missing energy" that could have escaped into other dimensions. Everything they saw could be accounted for very neatly by the energy of the event estimated from our own space-time. If Nature was indeed taking advantage of M-theory, it was being subtle in the traces it would permit astronomers or physicists to see of it. ” Sten F. Odenwald, Patterns in the Void, (New York: Westview Press, 2002), p.186
First, ekpyrotic is not the same thing as M Theory. Ekpyrotic is based in M Theory, but they are not the same thing.

Second, this seems to be a strawman of M Theory. If I'm reading it correctly, it says that M Theory demands that gravity flow into other dimensions. I don't see that in any of the descriptions of M Theory. Since the other dimensions are "rolled up", why would energy flow into them?

Glenn, I understand that Odenwald is critiqueing M Theory here, and he can do that. However, M Theory continues to be worked on in the 3 years after this book. If this was really the killer falsification advertised, that wouldn't be true. For instance, I find a March 18, 2005 lecture on M Theory as valid at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History: http://www.cuyahogalibrary.org/Businesscontacts/CMNH/explorer_series_superstring.htm
I think it's time you went and found a critique of the critique. So, Glenn, as a first step in critically evaluating Odenwald's quote, can you find any quotes from the people who proposed M Theory that energy should and must flow into the other dimensions?

It appears that Odenwald is no longer taking new questions on his Ask the Astronomer website, so that is not an avenue to find out 1) whether you have correctly represented Odenwald or 2) whether he still feels this way 3 years after he wrote the book.

grmorton

March 22nd 2005, 12:35 AM

First, ekpyrotic is not the same thing as M Theory. Ekpyrotic is based in M Theory, but they are not the same thing.

Second, this seems to be a strawman of M Theory. If I'm reading it correctly, it says that M Theory demands that gravity flow into other dimensions. I don't see that in any of the descriptions of M Theory. Since the other dimensions are "rolled up", why would energy flow into them?

Glenn, I understand that Odenwald is critiqueing M Theory here, and he can do that. However, M Theory continues to be worked on in the 3 years after this book. If this was really the killer falsification advertised, that wouldn't be true. For instance, I find a March 18, 2005 lecture on M Theory as valid at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History: http://www.cuyahogalibrary.org/Businesscontacts/CMNH/explorer_series_superstring.htm
I think it's time you went and found a critique of the critique. So, Glenn, as a first step in critically evaluating Odenwald's quote, can you find any quotes from the people who proposed M Theory that energy should and must flow into the other dimensions?

It appears that Odenwald is no longer taking new questions on his Ask the Astronomer website, so that is not an avenue to find out 1) whether you have correctly represented Odenwald or 2) whether he still feels this way 3 years after he wrote the book.

One of the reasons I pretty much ceased interacting with you is that I don't think you are very objective. If Ekpyrotic theory is based upon M-theory and M theory is wrong, what on earth do you think that would mean for E theory? Secondly, there is so far NO observational evidence of extra dimensions. Your faith in E theory is just that--faith. You tell me to go get a critique of the critique, but you fail to live by your own standard. Here is from Brian Greene (surely no physics slouch) in a 2004 book.

By trapping three of the four fources, the braneworld scenario significantly relaxes experimental constraints on how big the extra dimensions can be, but the extra dimensions ren't the only thing this approach allows to get bigger."

How large must the dimensions be? Well they can't be very big.

"This is one of the most striking realizations of the last decade. Using the three nongravitational forces, we can probe down to about a billionth of a billionth (10-18 ) of a meter, and no one has found any evidence of extra dimensions. But in the braneworld scenario, the nongraviational forces are impotent in searching for extra dimensions since they are trapped on the brane itself. Only gravity can give insight into the nature of the extra dimensions, and, as of today, the extradimensions could be as thick as a human hair and yet they'd be completely invisible to our most sophisticated instruments."

"The reason is that in string/M-theory, the strength of the gravitational force we observe in our three extended dimensions represents an interplay between two factors. One factor is the intrinsic, fundamentalstrength of the gravitational force. The second factor is the size of the extra dimensions. The larger the extra dimensions, the more gravity can spill into them and the weaker its force will appear in the familiar dimensions. Just as larger pipes yield weaker water pressure because they allow water more room to spread out, so larger extradimensions yeild weaker gravity, because they gie gravity more room to spread out."

Golly gee, Greene seems to be saying the same thing Odenwald was. What a shock. There is only theory, no observational evidence. Come back when you get some and live up to the advice you gave me to look for a critique of your position. When you do that, maybe I will pay attention to you.

Now, what is the status of the search for extradimensions with gravity? This is from a 2001 paper, something you fail to tell your readers about. I wonder why?

Motivated by higher-dimensional theories that predict new
effects, we tested the gravitational 1/r2 law at separations
ranging down to 218 μm using a 10-fold symmetric torsion
pendulum and a rotating 10-fold symmetric attractor. We
improved previous short-range constraints by up to a factor
of 1000 and find no deviations from Newtonian physics.

What did they say? No evidence. My my. Why don't you tell your readers this? You look a bit like a YEC to me.

And this from 2003, which even reduces the limits above.

String theory is the most promising approach to the long-sought unified description of the four forces of nature and the elementary particles, but direct evidence supporting it is lacking. The theory requires six extra spatial dimensions beyond the three that we observe; it is usually supposed that these extra dimensions are curled up into small spaces. This 'compactification' induces 'moduli' fields, which describe the size and shape of the compact dimensions at each point in space-time. These moduli fields generate forces with strengths comparable to gravity, which according to some recent predictions might be detected on length scales of about 100 µm. Here we report a search for gravitational-strength forces using planar oscillators separated by a gap of 108 µm. No new forces are observed, ruling out a substantial portion of the previously allowed parameter space for the strange and gluon moduli forces, and setting a new upper limit on the range of the string dilaton and radion forces."

And this from a 2004 paper (and you say I should get a critique of the critique--maybe you should read the literature).

Some of the strongest constraints on the large extra dimension scenarios come from
astrophysics, in particular from the fact that just as axions could lead to a too fast cooling
of supernovae, since gravitons are also weakly coupled particles they could also transport a
significant fraction of the energy within a supernovae.

kofh2u

March 22nd 2005, 02:40 AM

grmorton

March 22nd 2005, 07:55 AM

hello mr grmorton,
You did an excellent job here, though you had already stated the basic points before.

I must admit that I, as Lusca, have not really kept up with the literature.

I sensed that string theory was suspect in the quest for a unified theory mainly because it put the cart of mathematics before the horse of physical discovery.

It searched for mathematical dimensions which were suitable to possible solutions of complex equations, promising a mathematical answer where other dimension presented failed solutions.

I sense that by such means, the "measurement" or mathematical support for an idea like this, GUT, is NOT support. That is, that the math works, is really not support that the undone physical facts are confirmed. If the math works, then the physical explanation of the math follows, we have theoretical physics. Essentially, we have the math, then we "invent" the physics.

That is recursive and exactly arse backwards for physics. We ought have facts and discover by measurement their relationships.

Now, I hope you differ with me here and take the effort to correct me. This is because I really wonder what an educated, well read physics person like you might think about my observation.
GUT that seems already available to us.

Euler's Equation, e^ipi -1 =0 relates the three fundamental transcendental numbers to one another... AND, forms the basis for all mathematical analysis.

In this, forming the foundation of our math, it de facto, unites all we might conceive of in the universe which submits to the abstraction of our mathematics.

Is this really any different than first find a mathematical solution to string equatiins by choosing arbitrarily... no, chosing dimensions CALCULATED to let the math explain the world we have not yet physically observed?

Theory plays a big role in nature. But theory does not always work out in practice. I would point to the advanced solutions in electromagnetic theory which, are theoretically justified, but so far no one has every observed one. For those who don't know, advanced solutions to the electromagnetic wave equation would allow transmission of information from the future to the past.

While Wigner may have written a paper entitled, "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences." I heard a counter lecture by a mathematician at the 2000 Nature of Nature conference in which he argued that there is so much more mathematics that seems to have no bearing on reality that one must wonder whether Wigner just notices the math that works and ignores the math that doesn't work. This would be similar to a follower of a medium who remembers the successful predictions but forgets the unsuccessful. And I think that is my response to your question about Euler's equation.

lucaspa

March 22nd 2005, 09:48 AM

One of the reasons I pretty much ceased interacting with you is that I don't think you are very objective. If Ekpyrotic theory is based upon M-theory and M theory is wrong, what on earth do you think that would mean for E theory?
And here I thought you stopped interacting because you were just a mean person. Now, if M theory is wrong, it would mean that ekpyrotic is wrong. However, that isn't how you initially phrased it. You equated ekpyrotic with M Theory. They are not the same thing. Ekpyrotic started out as 1) a deduction from M Theory and 2) as a means of support of the BB. Turok thought that the math would show ekpyrotic to be impossible, thus eliminating another possible alternative hypothesis to BB. It didn't work out that way.

Secondly, there is so far NO observational evidence of extra dimensions. Your faith in E theory is just that--faith.
Please go back and look at all the posts. I have been saying all along "if ekpyrotic is correct". I have never said that it is correct. I have seen that (and posted in one of the first posts I mentioned ekpyrotic on this thread) ekpyrotic predicts different gravity waves from BB. So, someday it will be testable. It may turn out to be correct or to be falsified.

Now, look at my other posts on the web. I have always stated that M Theory has, at present, no observations that are unique to M Theory. That is, so far M Theory is being formulated so that it is consistent with observations we already have. This is why M Theory has gone thru so many iterations: the earlier forms were not consistent with the universe we have already observed.

In that vein, I can't see that M Theory would be formulated so that energy would disappear into the rolled up dimensions. After all, from our 4 D perspective, that would be a violation of the First Law of Thermo. Energy would be "destroyed" -- disappear. All our observations in the universe say this doesn't happen. So formulating M Theory such that energy would disappear into the rolled up dimensions would conflict with observations we already have.

Remember, Glenn, we were playing a "what if" game if ekpyrotic turned out to be correct.

You tell me to go get a critique of the critique, but you fail to live by your own standard.
Here is from Brian Greene (surely no physics slouch) in a 2004 book.

By trapping three of the four fources, the braneworld scenario significantly relaxes experimental constraints on how big the extra dimensions can be, but the extra dimensions ren't the only thing this approach allows to get bigger."

How large must the dimensions be? Well they can't be very big.

"This is one of the most striking realizations of the last decade. Using the three nongravitational forces, we can probe down to about a billionth of a billionth (10-18 ) of a meter, and no one has found any evidence of extra dimensions. But in the braneworld scenario, the nongraviational forces are impotent in searching for extra dimensions since they are trapped on the brane itself. Only gravity can give insight into the nature of the extra dimensions, and, as of today, the extradimensions could be as thick as a human hair and yet they'd be completely invisible to our most sophisticated instruments." [/quote]
So you don't like M Theory. You seem to be fighting your own strawman -- that I have declared M Theory to be absolutely correct.

"The reason is that in string/M-theory, the strength of the gravitational force we observe in our three extended dimensions represents an interplay between two factors. One factor is the intrinsic, fundamental strength of the gravitational force. The second factor is the size of the extra dimensions. The larger the extra dimensions, the more gravity can spill into them and the weaker its force will appear in the familiar dimensions. Just as larger pipes yield weaker water pressure because they allow water more room to spread out, so larger extradimensions yeild weaker gravity, because they give gravity more room to spread out."
This does get closer to what I asked. However, this isn't from a proponent of M Theory. I am still wondering whether Greene is also making a strawman argument about M Theory.

Golly gee, Greene seems to be saying the same thing Odenwald was. What a shock. There is only theory, no observational evidence.
And Gish says the same thing Morris does. Both make the same strawman arguments, don't they? You still haven't shown me this is a strawman. Also, this only says that, above a certain size (if they are accurately representing the theory) gravity will look different from what we see. BUT, if I read this correctly. as long as the 'branes are below a certain "size", this won't happen. Thus, the "falsification" you posted earlier would not be.

Come back when you get some and live up to the advice you gave me to look for a critique of your position. When you do that, maybe I will pay attention to you. Now, what is the status of the search for extradimensions with gravity? This is from a 2001 paper, something you fail to tell your readers about. I wonder why?
Where did you get so bitter that you can't have a civil conversation? Probably because I haven't seen the paper.

Motivated by higher-dimensional theories that predict new
effects, we tested the gravitational 1/r2 law at separations
ranging down to 218 μm using a 10-fold symmetric torsion
pendulum and a rotating 10-fold symmetric attractor. We
improved previous short-range constraints by up to a factor
of 1000 and find no deviations from Newtonian physics.

What did they say? No evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. :smile:

They said no deviation from Newtonian physics. But now I'm confused. We know that GR has deviations from Newtonian physics at the extremes. My question would be: is this sensitive enough to test for the the differences predicted by current versions of M Theory? That's an honest question. I don't know and I don't have immediate access to the full paper to find out from the Discussion section. Is it sensitive enough? Oops, never mind. In looking at your following abstract, M Theory can only be detected about 100 µm, and these guys are 2x above that.

I think you and I use "no evidence" differently. For me, no evidence is falsification only if we have looked in all the places the evidence could be -- searched the entire search space. I think for you, no evidence means that there is evidence actually against the theory. For instance, I think you would say there is no evidence for Flood geology. I would say "There is evidence that actually falsifies Flood geology and all the evidence "for" it can be explained by other hypotheses."

In this case, what we have is a theory/hypothesis for which we have no evidence that can only be explained by the theory. So far, M Theory only covers what we have already observed and either other theories also cover that evidence or we don't have instruments sensitive enough to detect the predictions made by M Theory -- such as the gravity waves predicted by ekpyrotic.

I do know there is an alternative theory, called Loop Quantum Gravity. The Jan 2004 issue of Scientific American had an excellent
And this from 2003, which even reduces the limits above.

String theory is the most promising approach to the long-sought unified description of the four forces of nature and the elementary particles, but direct evidence supporting it is lacking. The theory requires six extra spatial dimensions beyond the three that we observe; it is usually supposed that these extra dimensions are curled up into small spaces. This 'compactification' induces 'moduli' fields, which describe the size and shape of the compact dimensions at each point in space-time. These moduli fields generate forces with strengths comparable to gravity, which according to some recent predictions might be detected on length scales of about 100 µm. Here we report a search for gravitational-strength forces using planar oscillators separated by a gap of 108 µm. No new forces are observed, ruling out a substantial portion of the previously allowed parameter space for the strange and gluon moduli forces, and setting a new upper limit on the range of the string dilaton and radion forces."
Glenn, this doesn't falsify M Theory. Notice the "might be detected". Also notice the "setting a new upper limit on the range of the string dilation and radion forces". These guys aren't throwing M Theory out, but are saying that it is going to have to be modified.

And this from a 2004 paper (and you say I should get a critique of the critique--maybe you should read the literature). This doesn't obviate what I said. Critiques don't get a free ride, Glenn. They too get criticized to see if they are accurate. So far, Odenwald's initial critique doesn't hold up, because the measurements weren't sensitive enough. They were not at the 100 µm distance, because these guys are the first ones to do so!

Some of the strongest constraints on the large extra dimension scenarios come from
astrophysics, in particular from the fact that just as axions could lead to a too fast cooling of supernovae, since gravitons are also weakly coupled particles they could also transport a significant fraction of the energy within a supernovae.
This doesn't falsify M Theory, either. It does apparently falsify "the large extra dimension scenarios". However, like the abstract above, they set an upper limit on the "size" of the extra dimensions.

All in all, Glenn, it appears that you 1) constructed a strawman argument by failing to read carefully the tentativeness I had been using in regard to ekpyrotic to begin with -- thinking I was saying it was absolutely correct when I'm not and 2) failing to read carefully the abstracts you used to see that they don't support your contention that M Theory is falsified.

It leaves M Theory where I always knew and stated it was: a theory that is neither falsified nor strongly supported. So we can continue to play "what if" theological games. IF ekpyrotic is correct, then what is the effect on the theological statement "God created the universe"?

lucaspa

March 22nd 2005, 09:53 AM

That is recursive and exactly arse backwards for physics. We ought have facts and discover by measurement their relationships.
They are doing science correctly. Science is hypothetico-deductive. Hypotheses/theories are made by an imaginative process -- which is what the M theory is. Then you go looking for measurements to test, with the intent to falsify, the theory. What you have above is the old version of how science is done: induction. But that isn't really how science is done.

lucaspa

March 22nd 2005, 09:59 AM

Theory plays a big role in nature. But theory does not always work out in practice. Which is why we test theories with hte intent to falsify them.

While Wigner may have written a paper entitled, "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences." I heard a counter lecture by a mathematician at the 2000 Nature of Nature conference in which he argued that there is so much more mathematics that seems to have no bearing on reality that one must wonder whether Wigner just notices the math that works and ignores the math that doesn't work. This would be similar to a follower of a medium who remembers the successful predictions but forgets the unsuccessful. And I think that is my response to your question about Euler's equation.
In The Science Gap, Dispelling the Myths and Understanding the Reality of Science, Rothman has a chapter devoted to the relationship of math and science. He notes that sometimes theoretical physicists, his example was Dirac, get too fascinated by the beauty of the equations and say the universe must conform to them.

That is doing science backwards. Or rather, not doing science. The mathematical equations are a form of hypothesis: they might explain parts of the physical universe. BUT, in order to say that they do, you must do what always must be done in science: test against the physical universe.

lucaspa

March 22nd 2005, 12:34 PM

Glenn, I've been looking at the Nature 2003 article. I'm finding some very interesting statements in it:

"Many scenarios of compactification, symmetry breaking and mass generation are still viable, so although the possibility of observing new forces at millimetre scales is exciting, such experiments cannot currently falsify string theory."

There is a lengthy description of the apparatus and controls used. Reading the text, it is unclear to me just how high the background "noise" level is with respect to the signal they are expecting. It appears that thermal noise is quite high. Perhaps you will understand the text better in this area.

"For the ADD theory with two large extra compact dimensions, we do not quite reach the limit on the size of these dimensions already set in refs 11 and 12." They are not at the limit?

"Besides forces from extra dimensions, two other ideas have suggested new weak forces at submillimetre scales. The cosmological energy density needed to close the universe, if converted to a length by taking its inverse fourth root (in natural units where h . c . 1), corresponds to about 100µm. This fact has led to repeated attempts17–19 to address difficulties connected with the very small observed size of Einstein’s cosmological constant by introducing new forces with a range near 100µm. Our result is the best upper bound on a in this region, but we have not quite reached gravitational sensitivity."

"Finally, the oldest of these predictions, still out of reach, is the very feeble axion-mediated force20,21. The axion is a field intended to explain why the violation of charge-parity symmetry is so small in quantum chromodynamics, the theory of the strong nuclear force.
Experiments of the sort reported here constrain string-inspired scenarios by setting very restrictive limits on predicted submillimetre forces. Of course, the actual observation of any new force would be a major advance. Because several theoretical scenarios point especially to these length scales, it is an important goal for the future to reach gravitational strength at even shorter distances, perhaps down to 10µm. Experiments attempting to reach such distances will confront rapidly increasing background forces, especially electrostatic forces arising from the spatially non-uniform surface potentials of metals22. Electric fields due to surface potentials can be shielded with good conductors, but because of the finite stiffness of any shield they still cause background forces to be transmitted between test masses. Stretched membranes (as used by the Washington group) are more effective than stiff plates at the shortest distances, but it remains to be seen down to what distance the background forces can be effectively suppressed."

Now, I can't find a conclusive refutation of M theory in this paper. Instead, I see restrictions imposed by this data (assuming their apparatus and experiment is valid) and admission that the measurements are still not on the appropriate scale. Perhaps I missed the falsification. Would you please point it out to me?

kofh2u

March 22nd 2005, 12:58 PM

Theory plays a big role in nature. But theory does not always work out in practice. I would point to the advanced solutions in electromagnetic theory which, are theoretically justified, but so far no one has every observed one. For those who don't know, advanced solutions to the electromagnetic wave equation would allow transmission of information from the future to the past.

While Wigner may have written a paper entitled, "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences." I heard a counter lecture by a mathematician at the 2000 Nature of Nature conference in which he argued that there is so much more mathematics that seems to have no bearing on reality that one must wonder whether Wigner just notices the math that works and ignores the math that doesn't work. This would be similar to a follower of a medium who remembers the successful predictions but forgets the unsuccessful. And I think that is my response to your question about Euler's equation.

What you say is true.

Nevertheless, we must remember the centuries when -1^1/2 seemed to have no physical or mathematical meaning, finally being understood as a door into this very century of practical applications.

To the mystery of manipulating senslessly in Imaginary Numbers, just for fun, over centuries no practical or physical application a ked for, we can add the math of Boolian Algebra.
This was merely a mathematician's game until it was recognized as the thinking which preceeded the discovery of transistors and logic gates.

Base two math seemed similar. Only nerds played with it, until it was recognized as the language of the computer, a digital expression of everything.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to my faith, an intuitive sense of truth, that the "useless math" to ehich you refer might find physical identity in the reality, ultimately. Like my examples, those mathematics that do not seem to relate to the real world, this Creation into which we have been created, ignors that we have been made in the image of the Creator. As we think, in truth, so do we image the mind of God.

I see the "trinity" of e, i, pi as basic foundation for analogy with the irreducible triad of Strong Force, Weak/Electromgnetic Force, and Gravitational Force, the trinity of our physical reality.

If Einstein searched for a mathematical equation which summed to one Grand Unifying Force, Father of all reality, then I believe he missed the powerful intuitive input of Trinity which might have convinced him, as am I convinced, that Euler already had that math.

It is from Euler that we have our whole of the present analysis. And, it is the "pattern" of that mathemaical analysis which we lay upon the Temple of God, the heavens of his throne and the footstool of reality, here on Earth.

Of course...IMO...

grmorton

March 22nd 2005, 11:12 PM

And here I thought you stopped interacting because you were just a mean person. Now, if M theory is wrong, it would mean that ekpyrotic is wrong. However, that isn't how you initially phrased it.

No THIS is why I quite corresponding with you. You don't seem to be able to parse other people's statements. Said

"If Ekpyrotic theory is based upon M-theory and M theory is wrong, what on earth do you think that would mean for E theory?"

If you are unable to draw a conclusion from that, then that is not my problem.

You equated ekpyrotic with M Theory.

No, I didn't. Once again your inability to parse sentences.

Remember, Glenn, we were playing a "what if" game if ekpyrotic turned out to be correct.

I don't beleive you really understand that you ARE playing a what if game.

Where did you get so bitter that you can't have a civil conversation? Probably because I haven't seen the paper.

With you? When you kept claiming I said things I didn't say.

I think you and I use "no evidence" differently. For me, no evidence is falsification only if we have looked in all the places the evidence could be -- searched the entire search space. I think for you, no evidence means that there is evidence actually against the theory.

No evidence means no evidence IN FAVOR OF THE THEORY. After all you are spouting on and on about ekpyrotic theory. It seems to me that you should present observational evidence that it is indeed the case. Falsification is NOT the same thing. Once again, this is your inability to parse a sentence, which is why this will be my last word to you again for a very long time.

For instance, I think you would say there is no evidence for Flood geology. I would say "There is evidence that actually falsifies Flood geology and all the evidence "for" it can be explained by other hypotheses."

The two are entirely different. One can believe that there are little green men on other planets. There is no observational evidence for their existence. But there is also nothing which shows that they can not exist. No evidence means no evidence FOR the proposition.

I do know there is an alternative theory, called Loop Quantum Gravity. The Jan 2004 issue of Scientific American had an excellent
And this from 2003, which even reduces the limits above.

You still have no evidence FOR your hypothesis--i.e. in favor of it.

Glenn, this doesn't falsify M Theory.

For pete's sake, I am NOT talking about falsification. Theories aren't believed because they can't be proven false. THey are beleived because observational data is consistent with them. There is no verification of your hypothesis.

Notice the "might be detected". Also notice the "setting a new upper limit on the range of the string dilation and radion forces". These guys aren't throwing M Theory out, but are saying that it is going to have to be modified.

This is a red herring because that wasn't my point at all. This is another example of your inability to parse sentences.

This doesn't falsify M Theory, either.

Not trying to do that. There is no evidence IN FAVOR, repeat IN FAVOR of your theory.

All in all, Glenn, it appears that you 1) constructed a strawman argument by failing to read carefully the tentativeness I had been using in regard to ekpyrotic to begin with -- thinking I was saying it was absolutely correct when I'm not and 2) failing to read carefully the abstracts you used to see that they don't support your contention that M Theory is falsified.

All in all, I think you entirely are unable to understand the criticism and you change the defintion of 'no evidence' to something it clearly isn't. I think this is your standard argumentation style.

Good bye again Lucapsa

grmorton

March 22nd 2005, 11:15 PM

What you say is true.

Nevertheless, we must remember the centuries when -1^1/2 seemed to have no physical or mathematical meaning, finally being understood as a door into this very century of practical applications.

To the mystery of manipulating senslessly in Imaginary Numbers, just for fun, over centuries no practical or physical application a ked for, we can add the math of Boolian Algebra.
This was merely a mathematician's game until it was recognized as the thinking which preceeded the discovery of transistors and logic gates.

Base two math seemed similar. Only nerds played with it, until it was recognized as the language of the computer, a digital expression of everything.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to my faith, an intuitive sense of truth, that the "useless math" to ehich you refer might find physical identity in the reality, ultimately. Like my examples, those mathematics that do not seem to relate to the real world, this Creation into which we have been created, ignors that we have been made in the image of the Creator. As we think, in truth, so do we image the mind of God.

I see the "trinity" of e, i, pi as basic foundation for analogy with the irreducible triad of Strong Force, Weak/Electromgnetic Force, and Gravitational Force, the trinity of our physical reality.

If Einstein searched for a mathematical equation which summed to one Grand Unifying Force, Father of all reality, then I believe he missed the powerful intuitive input of Trinity which might have convinced him, as am I convinced, that Euler already had that math.

It is from Euler that we have our whole of the present analysis. And, it is the "pattern" of that mathemaical analysis which we lay upon the Temple of God, the heavens of his throne and the footstool of reality, here on Earth.

Of course...IMO...

You are absolutely right about i and binary math. And you MIGHT be right about all the other useless math today. It too might find a place in the description of nature. But hope is not fact. It will only become fact AFTER there is actually an application for it. One shouldn't presume that the future will verify one's personal interpretation of nature. That is what the YECs do when they say that we shouldn't draw conclusions about the lack of evidence for the global flood because all knowledge is not known.

maudman

March 23rd 2005, 01:35 PM

You are absolutely right about i and binary math. And you MIGHT be right about all the other useless math today. It too might find a place in the description of nature. But hope is not fact. It will only become fact AFTER there is actually an application for it. One shouldn't presume that the future will verify one's personal interpretation of nature. That is what the YECs do when they say that we shouldn't draw conclusions about the lack of evidence for the global flood because all knowledge is not known.

Amen

A Beautiful Truth

March 26th 2005, 02:48 AM

Remember, we have two theories: Big Bang and ekpyrotic. BB has a singularity, ekpyrotic does not. BB comes from General Relativity. Ekpyrotic comes from String Theory.

Lucaspa, I've given what you said much, much thought. I've decided that I will wait until such things are confirmed scientifically before I give them any more thought. What you say may or may not affect Christian theology. I don't as yet see how God can be ruled out as creator of the membranes. But such discussions require more metaphysics and I don't have the time to take "what if" games that far, especially when they cross over into such weird theology so as to make Jesus mistaken about who His Father is and the uncertainty of the foreknowledge Christ could have had regarding His prophecies concerning the end, etc.

Are you sure it was voluntary? However, remember this when you hear some creationists say Jesus talked about the Flood or even when you have Jesus saying that God created. Those are limitations of the knowledge of the people at the time. As you said, Jesus is limited.

The flood would be different. The flood can be seen as a parable, a moral story to teach God's truth. What truth is understood by saying God is creator when God is not the creator. I don't think creator of Israel is good enough.

:smile: I hope you realize that you have just provided a good reason to question the absolute authority of scripture. If Jesus is limited to the knowledge of the time, then Jesus is not an authority on the historicity of Adam and Eve or of Noah's Flood. He is limited to the knowledge and beliefs of the humans at the time.

I don't think it is necessary to believe that since Jesus mentioned Adam and Eve that He thought of them as historical. He taught in parables as well, does that mean that He believed in an historical sower, etc? God being creator is an attribute of God, and if Jesus was mistaken about an attribute of God, that means that He did not really know His Father. See the difference?

Resurrection, yes. Translated into another realm called Paradise? No. But then, I see nowhere in the gospels where this is said.

Luke 23:43, "And He said to him, 'Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.'"

:blush: The Bible is contradictory on souls. The ideas you are giving above came about during the Intertestament period and outside the Bible later. I don't know about heaven. Jesus talked about the Kingdom of God, not heaven.

Christ did speak of Heaven. So was Christ wrong about Heaven, too, since He was so limited in understanding God? Who should I believe has a better understanding of God, you or Him? Can a modern education more than compensate for the Holy Spirit?

Instead of arguing against God and trying to impose your view of what you think God should know and be able to do, I suggest you accept the evidence God left you in His Creation and instead of denying God, try to figure out why God created a universe where even He can't know everything. What was His purpose?

One, you don't know God's abilities enough to know what He can and can't do. Second, you are not even sure about paradise and heaven so how can I trust you have truly considered the theological import of what you bring up here? You are imposing your view of what you think God can't know or is not able to do. This imposition comes not from scripture, but from your human understanding. Some of these aspects you impose go directly against what Jesus spoke.

I don't think so. Because I'm not sure where you get the idea of God "come in aond out of the natural realm at His own will". I'm not sure where you are getting the idea of God being absent from nature. Standard Christian theology has God sustaining nature, and therefore not being absent from it.

The attributes we understand from scripture are that God worked before the beginning of time, this attribute puts Him outside of our time. Also, that God has intervened in time. So He is the creator of time, outside of it, and He also moves in our time, so He can be inside.

No, but the Holy Spirit doesn't restore the qualities of God that you want Him to have in regard to this universe. It seems you are insisting because you want God to be a certain way. I want God to be Who He is. I just want to understand that Who. God's Creation tells me that God cannot be omniscient with regard to our universe. OK, if God wants it that way, that's up to God. What I want to do is figure out why God wants it that way. Not argue that God has to be a certain way because 1) I say He is or 2) other people (authors of the Bible) say He is.

Obviously we disagree. I hold the God-views of the authors of the Bible above my own views of God. In thinking of theology, I say it is safer to say that I am wrong than to say the Bible authors were wrong.

If the Bible says God was "all-knowing" then I have contradictory data about God. I have God in His Creation telling me He is not all-knowing and I have the people who wrote the Bible telling me He is all-knowing. Which should I trust? God or the people? I choose God. What I don't understand is why you don't.

Because I could be wrong in ways I don't yet know, and I think you can be, too, because we are limited. I'd rather put my trust in the view the Bible gives of God (for I believe in the Holy Spirit and inspiration of the scriptures), than the view I can come up with.

So, faced with what is in the Bible -- written by humans -- and what you find God has told you in His Creation, you will believe the humans, not God.

When rightly understood, I don't believe it has to be either/or. I don't think we know enough about the nature of God to say what He can or can't do. The God we understand through nature is not the fullness of God, this is why God has communicated via the scriptures. The Bible tells us what is lacking in our understanding of Him through nature. Nature cannot explain the super nature so without the Bible, you have not a right understanding of God. Without the super nature, you can not know Him rightly.

But, God isn't limited that way in general revelation. He can wait until we have acquired the experience and understanding. So I am the opposite of you: general revelation is more important than special revelation. General revelation comes directly from God, but special revelation has to be filtered thru the limitations of humans receiving inspiration.

And how did you learn of Christ, general or special revelation? Special revelation answers our hearts, general revelation puts the questions there in the first place.

. As for the "fulfilled" prophecies, they were written after the event. It's easy to prophecy after something has happened.

So they were liars?

Charleen, I didn't introduce the topic of prophecy. You did. In the context of QM and knowing about the future.

… Now, if the prophecies of the return of the son of Man come true (Matthew 24), then you have very powerful objective evidence for the existence of God. But, since they haven't happened, you don't.

Do you believe the prophecies of the return of the son of Man will come true?

2. Look below for a description of ekpyrotic. If you still have these questions, ask them again.

Again, thank you for working with me on this, I appreciate it.

The Hebrews knew Yahweh as Creator: the creator of Israel. Out of nothing. There is no doubt that the ancient nation of Israel was created by Yahweh. Not only by giving them land, but also by creating an entire culture and national identity: all those laws and rules in the Torah.
Do you believe God is the creator of these things, lucaspa?
If I didn't, I couldn't be Judeo/Christian.

How about the laws and rules in the Bible, do you believe those were created by God?

And Jesus was deceived in this as well? Could not the Holy Spirit keep Him from such a gross misunderstanding?

How? How could the Holy Spirit do this and keep the limitation of Jesus being a human of his time? Everyone believed this, it was part of the general background "knowledge" of the time. How was Jesus going to tell them different?

Nobody believed lame people walk and blind people see, either, and yet the human Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, healed them. He has the Holy Spirit without measure. He was not limited by other people’s understanding.

So I disagree. If the Holy Spirit can heal through Christ then no, I don’t think it unreasonable to assume the Holy Spirit kept the human Christ from gross misunderstanding of God. Besides, how much misunderstanding could He have had about God, He knew enough about His own place in the trinity to accept worship and knew He had the power to forgive sins.

Trinity says Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Now, speaking as a human to his fellow humans, what do you expect him to say? He wasn't speaking directly to you. He had to be understood by the people of the time so that they would believe and then write what he said down. You have general revelation that the people of the time lacked. Why won't you use it?

The general revelation you want me to use is only now an unobserved guess (Ekpyrotic), but it is a guess that puts doubt in God as being creator. Additionally, you would have me use a human understanding of general revelation to doubt Christ’s ability to accurately foretell future events as He did. Those are big things to doubt, I think.

We are not talking about theological knowledge. Unless you classify "God as Creator of the universe" as theological knowledge.

I believe it is.

If I run up against something God left in His Creation that contradicts what the Bible writers "seemed to think", you already know which I'm going to choose. I'll choose God instead of the writers.

Beware that you are not choosing man’s filtered knowledge of general revelation over special revelation. Ekpyrotic is not general revelation as of yet. If it turns out to be verified, I’ll reconsider.

Jesus the human with human limitations vs God in His Creation. Which do you think we should choose?

How can a divided house stand? There is no “verses” between the two! I do not have the dilemma of having to choose one over the other; that is impossible.

It mostly had to be for their benefit. Otherwise, they would not have written it down. Now, you say "they did not understand the fullness". Why not? I say because of their human limitations. Which in turn limited God in conveying understanding about Himself. What do you say?

Some of what they wrote was for the benefit of those who would come after. What did David mean when he said “the Lord said to my Lord”. It was a mystery, but it was answered in Christ.

I disagree. As a human, Jesus' affirmation of the OT, just by itself, is nothing more than affirmation of what he was taught as a human child.

God affirmed His O.T. by "creating Israel", as you say, having Christ born of Israel, under the Law, living it, teaching it, fulfilling it.

Normally, I would agree that God as Creator is a theological truth. However, in the context of this conversation that stops being a theological truth and becomes a material question: did God really create the universe?

Because it is an attribute ascribed to God, I say yes.

If Jesus is fully human, then he makes mistakes.

Can not the fully God part compensate? It is not 50/50 but 100/100. It is impossible wrt general revelation, so we understand it solely through special revelation.

Good points. We are talking, however, about the understanding of the audience. The audience thinks that God is creator. Again, what is the point that Jesus is trying to make? Is it that God is creator? NO! The point of the speech is that there will be tribulations before the end, tribulations greater than have ever been seen. Jesus emphasizes the magnitude of the tribulations by referring to something the audience "knows" -- that God created in the beginning. The point is the tribulations, not the creating.

I agree the point is about the tribulations. However, if Jesus was intimate and One with His Father, He would have more knowledge than the audience. His conception of God was not based on the knowledge of the audience. Indeed, if it were, we would not have a new covenant.

Heaven as in a wonderful place we go to after we die? I don't know. Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God, and that doesn't seem to be heaven in the traditional sense. Angels? Too much inconsistency in scripture on them and too much of what we believe comes from outside special revelation for me.

What Bible are you reading? Mine has Christ mention Angels and Paradise and Heaven.

Since you believe in Christ's resurrection, I am sure you believe in the believer's resurrection as well?

So, in general, I think the power to destroy is a lot easier than the power to create. So, the theological truth that God "knowing the end of the universe" (as in destroying it) could be true without God having created the universe. What do you think?

Sure. But with such control, why could it not have been Him that caused the fluctuation or whatever to determine this particular "cycle" of the universe?

But, read literally, they meant the earth does not move. What matter that it is in the middle of a poem? You used a verse in the middle of a poem above -- Hebrews 1:11-12 -- as tho it was literal. How is your use different from that?

These verses in Hebrews speak of the awesomeness of God, they are giving us a special revelation into His attributes. The angels worship Him, His throne is forever, He rules in righteousness, The Father has anointed Him, God is responsible for creating heaven and earth (does not say how, but that He did it), that they will come to an end, they will be changed, but He does not change. There is a lot of theological truth spoken in such poetry. Because I take the theological truth do I also have to take the writer literally in His poetic description of the heavens being "rolled up" or that God's literal hands formed the heavens? Was this the intention of the author? Since it was obviously not the intention of the author here in Hebrews to give a literal description of how God made the heavens and how He will destroy them, but rather a giving of theological truths about His attributes, am I still to accuse the writer of such poetry of being riddled with human misunderstanding about how stars are formed and how the universe cannot be literally "rolled up"? Bible critics do this so much, and it is unfair to the scriptures.

Thank you for making 2 of my points so well:
1. Verses get reinterpreted. You just did.

Reinterpreted is what you did when you demanded it to be literal when the intention was a poetic description of His attributes. We learn theology from such writing, but you think it needs to be understood literally to be understood rightly. This is a shallow understanding of the different qualities of scripture.

2. Verses must be taken in context. Unfortunately, you are not so good at that.

So you take scripture in context as you believe the Bible to declare, in context, that the earth is flat. But a flat earth has no bearing on an attribute of God, and giving a poetic description of God's attributes is clearly the context. So, it is not me who is so bad at taking verses in their proper context.

3. When general revelation contradicts what we think special revelation says, we choose general revelation. But you say you do the opposite.

Ekpyrotic is far from being general revelation. Don't accuse me of not accepting general revelation. Ekpyrotic is not at that level. Because I don't accept it does not mean I do not accept general revelation as it is widely understood. I am no YEC. I accept general revelation as it is confirmed and validated. Ekpyrotic is not there and I am free to not put it into the equation.

In plain Hebrew, the verses say the earth does not move.

In plain Hebrew the universe will be rolled up. Is this truly a Hebraic science statement? Don't be so unfair to the writers, they were not making a case for a flat earth any more they were for a universe that could literally roll up.

You are missing the point. YOU insist on a literal meaning and try to deny data that doesn't fit. Go see our discussion on QM. You even said that "special revelation" should be taken over "general revelation". That is exactly what those Christians did. They took their literal reading -- special revelation -- over general revelation. And tried to deny the data.

You are mistaken. Special revelation is not the equivalent of "their literal reading". Some Christians believe their literal interpretation is what is called "special revelation", but that does not make it so.

Now, is it the scriptures fault that you insist they be "authoritative" and more important than general revelation -- "It is not as important as special revelation, but general revelation is nonetheless important." Why are you convinced that you are not misinterpreting scripture?

And why are you so convinced that you are not misinterpreting general revelation? You said yourself science changes. I know some things are very certain, and I don't argue with the facts. I even go with some things that are not as certain but that are pretty certain. I do this because I believe general revelation does not lie and I don't think that it is God's intention to lie in nature (which I believe He created). This is why I am not a young earth creationist, this is why I am considering evolution. God does not lie, either in special revelation, or general revelation. As I said, if observational evidence presents itself for Ekpyrotic, I'll put it into the equation. Right now it has not that merit.

I'm reminded here of specks, eyes, and beams.

:hi: