Cosmogony of Cosmogony

[Jack777]

Jesus is the Creator of the Universe. He is the reason we are here, why there is a topic "cosmogony" and "cosmology" to discuss. He is the Word and he is God. It would make sense that he knew and knows if the Bible is the Word of God. When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness by Satan, Jesus quoted Scripture. To deny the Word of God as being The Word of God is what the Higher Critics do and so think they know more than God. Interestingly, the blend of Higher Criticism and the Theory of Evolution worked in tandem and are cited by John Spong in his new book as reasons why he says that Jesus is an outmoded idol and completely rejects the Bible now. No slippery slope argument as of today, the book is hot off the presses and reflects why there is so much apostasy and people are misled. Jesus is God and He Himself delivered the Word of God to Moses. Jesus is the Bread of Life and He is the Word of God.

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Matthew 4:1-11

Jesus came to establish for the Age of Grace that we now live in that He is God, He is the Word, and that it is by Him that people come to the Father. There is no other and the Scriptures that we now have called the Old Testament are attested to by Him. He said that He did not come to change the Law, the Torah, but to fulfill it. People got off track and He came to set things straight and make sure Salvation would go forward into this Present Age. Those who are His know Him and He knows us.

Jesus said "I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending."

That statement may not have the intuitive impact now that it would have upon His contemporaries during His earthly visit. The fact that Jesus is the Word is also important and had more meaning for those familiar with its full import. Long before, it was known that the Word is the primary cause. Over a few thousand years, people had corrupted that knowledge and substituted idols and gods for the real identity of God. Most likely this was in part due to the use of logograms, rebuses, and ideograms as mnemonic devices after more abstract symbols gradually replaced them with letters composing words that had been represented by one picture. Even the letters started as pictures and would have been a shift in the way people viewed what was represented. Mer was part of a rebus that stood for "chisel." This was part of a royal seal standing for the king in Egypt around 3100 BC for instance. Mer is the root for "word" in Hebrew and the late Babylonian language, "Chaldee."

The letter "a" is aleph in Hebrew and began as the head of an ox. The horns on the ox represented strength and power, most likely related to the queren horns that also represented rays of light a symbol of deity. We know that the head of a bull is found with religious association denoting chief or primary power in Çatal Hüyuk from about 6200-6500 BC, Egypt in about 3200 BC, the Harappa civilization of the Indus River Valley about 3000 BC, and of course later religions such as Hindu. The Sanskrit "a" or "aum" retained the meaning associated with expressed knowledge as being understood as the primordial sound.

Keeping things brief, the original Revelation as represented in symbols as different kinds of written language people got their eyes off of God and worshipped astral deities as the knowledge was lost. For the Hebrews the Kingdom of Judah was about all that was left with a formal government and they ended up substituting the message of God with animals, stars, planets, and other things so that God judged them for it as Ezekiel describes. Check out chapters 8,9 of the Book of Ezekiel. In the following brief synopsis, you can see for yourself the meanings letters and words took on over time, corrupting the original meaning in some cases, yet retaining somewhat what they meant. Jesus came to set the record straight.

A

Primal cause, Cone, mountain, one, pyramid, sun, three beams of light (trinity), The Aged-Unaging, Unchangeable First Cause, Aditi, Akra, Arka, Aum, (Om), Christ, Kristina, Cadi, caliph, which means Great A (one) or Aleph1

Ab

Father, chief, forefather2

Brahm,

In Hinduism the absolute divine primordial essence, supreme soul of the universe, self-existent and eternal, from which all things emanate and to which all things return. The active force in creation. …Name resolving into bur-aum, i.e. fiery sun or solar fire; identical with Brahma, and Abram; source of Abraham…3

A

Sumerian: Father, water; watercourse, canal; seminal fluid; offspring; ; tears; flood4

Mer

(Ishkur, Mermer, Mir, Mur)

In Sumerian mythology son of Enlil, by whom he is given control of the winds. God of lightning. He is known by the title of Bir, and is the prototype of Adad and Yahweh.5

Mer

Same as Rimmon (Assyro-Babylonia)

Also known as Adad-Rimmon, Barku (Syrian), Mer (Akkadian), Tessub (Cassite). God of storm and lightning. He is similar to Adad, Adonis, Teshub. He is identified with Hadad or Addad. Hadad, Ha’dad, Haddad (Phoenician, Semite, Syrian).

Also known as : Adad, Addu, Aleyn-Baal, Baal, Martu (Amorite), Rimmon.

Storm God. Originally, Hadad was a Syrian deity but in cuneiform text he was called Addu, who was a chief diety. Later, he was known as Rimmon,. A thunder god of air and storm. He is said by some to be the son of Dagon. In one version, his mother/wife is Asherah. In another, he was said to be the father of the fate goddess Seimia.

Nabataens worshipped Hadad as a thunder god. In later times he appeared in their culture under the guise of Zeus. Hadad resembled Reseph in his thunder god guise. Some say he is identical with Balmarcodes.6

Origen noticed that the first two words of Genesis "In Beginning," (the definite article "the" is not in the Hebrew) refer to Jesus, the preincarnate Christ Jesus. God spoke and there was light. By Jesus were the worlds planned and designed and made. Jesus is the Creator and Jesus is the Word. Jesus the man said that the Scriptures were written about him.

In John 1:1 it is understood that Jesus is the Word.

The Word (ho logos). Logos is from legō, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logos is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikos logos for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Proverbs 8:23.

And the Word was God (kai theos ēn ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ēn ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in I John 4:16 ho theos agapē estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.7

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:1-3

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Psalm 33:6

To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Psalm 136:5

The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.

Proverbs 3:19-20

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:3

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds

Hebrews 1:2

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Hebrews 11:3

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

II Peter 3:5

1, 3, 5 Gertrude Jobes, Dictionary of Mythology Folklore and Symbols, Part 1, NY, NY: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 1962 Ó Gertrude Jobes 1961.

2 James Strong, New Strong’s Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek words [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996.

4 John A. Halloran, Sumerian Lexicon Version 3.0, http://www.sumerian.org (http://www.sumerian.org/)

"A logogram is a reading of a cuneiform sign which represents a word in the spoken language. Sumerian scribes invented the practice of writing in cuneiform on clay tablets sometime around 3400 B.C. in the Uruk/Warka region of southern Iraq. The language that they spoke, Sumerian, is known to us through a large body of texts and through bilingual cuneiform dictionaries of Sumerian and Akkadian, the language of their Semitic successors, to which Sumerian is not related. These bilingual dictionaries date from the Old Babylonian period (1800-1600 B.C.), by which time Sumerian had ceased to be spoken, except by the scribes. The earliest and most important words in Sumerian had their own cuneiform signs, whose origins were pictographic, making an initial repertoire of about a thousand signs or logograms."4

6 Charles Russell Coulter and Patricia Turner, Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities, Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, Ó 2000 Patricia Turner and the estate of Charles Russell Coulter.

7 Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, e-sword.net

[George Murphy]

Interestingly, the blend of Higher Criticism and the Theory of Evolution worked in tandem and are cited by John Spong in his new book as reasons why he says that Jesus is an outmoded idol and completely rejects the Bible now. No slippery slope argument as of today, the book is hot off the presses and reflects why there is so much apostasy and people are misled.

Jack -

I don't want to get into debate with you but would like to know what book of Spong's you're speaking of &, if possible, an actual quote that says what you've indicated he does. Note - it wouldn't surprise me (sadly) if he did say such things & I have no interest at all in defending him (or, for that matter, in reading any more of his stuff than I have to). It's quite obvious that he went off the deep end some time ago. But I would like to have specifics.

Shalom,
George

[rogero]

Jack,

Back at it again, I see. Well, better luck this time around.

What is your take on those of us who believe that the Logos Christ is the Creator or Primary Cause and yet accept the laws of nature and cosmic and biological evolution as secondary or mediate causes? Are we all to be lumped in with Spong in your simplistic bifurcation?

R

[Jack777]

George Murphy,

It is his latest, http://secure.agoramedia.com/spong/index_spong2.asp?sc=1&promo=8E8054FA-64A6-4100-9B08-37F4592A6F13&email=

I was quoting him from an interview where specific comments were read from the book. He ranks above Bishop Pike by far.

Good to hear from you.

rogero,

I am not the one who lumps. Lumping is too close to judging. Besides who would claim the title of "Lumper?" You don't know what I think about evolution and I think it is best that way and it will stay that way. I notice on matters of science facts do not matter to you. To me scientific fact is fact, not something to twist about for some strange end. Bugs, lizards, great stuff, have at it.

[rogero]

George Murphy,

It is his latest, http://secure.agoramedia.com/spong/index_spong2.asp?sc=1&promo=8E8054FA-64A6-4100-9B08-37F4592A6F13&email=

I was quoting him from an interview where specific comments were read from the book. He ranks above Bishop Pike by far.

Good to hear from you.

rogero,

I am not the one who lumps. Lumping is too close to judging. Besides who would claim the title of "Lumper?" You don't know what I think about evolution and I think it is best that way and it will stay that way. I notice on matters of science facts do not matter to you. To me scientific fact is fact, not something to twist about for some strange end. Bugs, lizards, great stuff, have at it.

Care to explain yourself here, Jack?

I don't know everything about what you think about evolution because you haven't had the courtesy to clarify yourself in the numerous threads here. If you don't mind, have another go at the Ga+ biosphere thread were you left us dangling. In fact, for your convenience, I will bump it for you so it will be near the top of the list.

Why do you say that facts on matters of science do not matter to me? I'm challenging you on this, Jack -- please clarify this or apologize.

As is your custom, I noticed that you didn't answer the question in my last post in this thread. Do you ever feel the least bit embarrassed about how silly you look?

R

[Jack777]

Oh for goodness sake, I didn't mean to cause this much fuss. I need to think a bit more before I say whatever pops into my head.

What I mean to say is that you have presented yourself to believe in evolution and deny that it is a religion, a belief system. Your beliefs trump facts for you. That may be and probably is a function of the demands of your belief system and I did not mean to personalize it. I am glad it does not seem to interfere with your Faith anymore than it does. I just like facts, that is all.

[rogero]

Oh for goodness sake, I didn't mean to cause this much fuss. I need to think a bit more before I say whatever pops into my head.



This is perhaps the most profoundly correct statement you've ever made!



What I mean to say is that you have presented yourself to believe in evolution and deny that it is a religion, a belief system.



Yes, I do deny it is belief system -- at least the science of cosmic and biological evolution, which have plentiful factual support. Like the typical creationist, you tacitly confused ontological and methodological naturalism -- but you do it in the most perverse way I've ever seen.



Your beliefs trump facts for you.



That is absolutely false. My beliefs in what? God manifested as the Logos Christ as Creator? The free gift of salvation for all by the grace of Christ? The belief that the Creator doesn't lie and deceive in the record left behind for cognitively-abled creatures to study?

It's much more apparent that your beliefs trump facts for you, else you would be able to explain the scriptural and scientific questions posed to you.



That may be and probably is a function of the demands of your belief system and I did not mean to personalize it. I am glad it does not seem to interfere with your Faith anymore than it does. I just like facts, that is all.

I just explained my belief system.

If you like facts so much, please check out the Ga+ Biosphere thread in the Natural Sciences area and attempt to answer questions -- with facts of course!

[Jack777]

Okay then.


Do you think all the people on the planet evolved from a lower hominid to the present species? If yes, proof. You know, facts.

If you think there are exceptions, proof. Fact.

[rogero]

Okay then.


Do you think all the people on the planet evolved from a lower hominid to the present species? If yes, proof. You know, facts.

If you think there are exceptions, proof. Fact.

Do I think there are exceptions to what?

Come to the Natural Science (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47758) thread and address this. You will find a lively discussion will most likely ensue with people who actually understand this subject fairly well.

Also, you should "support" rather than "proof" for the assessment of evidence, you know, facts. "Proof" is only properly used for deductive reasoning, whereas investigative science is mostly inductive. The "fact" that you pose your questions this way is indicative of your weak general knowledge of science and scientific method. You may know some very specific areas of palyno-paleontology well, but you are apparently very weak in your general science knowledge.

BTW, the facts in support for H. sapiens having a common ancestry with other homind forms are from the basic categories of genetics, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, and fossil anatomy. If you want a good discussion of this, I would ask that you return the Ga+ biosphere (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47758) thread and proceed with your questions and debate. Can you do that, Jack? I think will help dispel the notion that you are a stubborn crank that only wants to talk to himself.

R

[Jack777]

rogero,


I have said it before and I will say it again. You do not know what I know and you do not know what you are talking about.

Proof...facts,, you have none, end of story.

Besides what I started the thread with is not really related to your obsession.

[rogero]

rogero,


I have said it before and I will say it again. You do not know what I know and you do not know what you are talking about.

Proof...facts,, you have none, end of story.

Besides what I started the thread with is not really related to your obsession.

All I know about you is from what you post here. It's clear to me that you know little about science -- either its content or its methodology.

You didn't address my last post about the proper scientific terminology, and a fortiori continue to show your ignorance with the "proof" reference.

Do you want to learn about the modern theory of biological evolution or not? You have a golden opportunity here on Tweb where you have a number of experts in their respective fields who are more than willing to regale you with their expertise -- even though the forensic interaction may be painful at times -- especially for a prideful know-it-all like yourself. Humility has its rewards, and is infinitely more desirable than brittle pride for personal edification. I'm learning this the hard way here. :blush:

Would you like me to start a Natural Sciences thread where we can discuss your difficulties and misunderstandings of what constitutes evidence in support of a common ancestry of humans with the rest of the biosphere?

Oh, here's a question for you -- do you think that human beings are made physically in the image of God? Do you think that's what's meant in the Genesis story? If not, then I'm curious as to why you would balk at the notion of human evolution to the point of refusing even to discuss the evidence in an open forum.

R

P.S. In reference to the bolded quote, I don't know why you started this thread (what do mean by "what I started it with?). I'm pointing out that Christians such as me also believe that Jesus Christ in the form of the pre-existent Logos is the Creator as well. That being said, I now have no idea to whom you are addressing this thread.

[Perry]

Rogero perpetuating humility! And from such a lofty position!

[Jack777]

I think humility is always good. I will have to study up on the posts. I had one all ready to post and now I have to revise. There is always a new set of questions. I have postponed several posts as the objections and problems with understanding appear to change each time. Let me look into this more carefully. Humility is good.

[Jack777]

rogero,

Okay, I put the best person I could find on this to answer some of your questions and respond to some of your stated concerns. I chose me. Ta-da.

I am still way behind and may have to hire a team of writers to answer all of the others, but this is the best I can do for now.
rogero wrote,

"All I know about you is from what you post here. It's clear to me that you know little about science -- either its content or its methodology."

Jack777 replies,

Guessing will not help or making assertions as you have evidenced above.

rogero wrote,

"You didn't address my last post about the proper scientific terminology, and a fortiori continue to show your ignorance with the 'proof' reference."

Jack777 replies,

Proof is proof. You have none. How about another word for proof, what would you like me to say? Ends up the same.

rogero wrote,

"Do you want to learn about the modern theory of biological evolution or not?"

Jack777 replies,

Learning facts is great. Making much over fairy tales is a bit silly though. I get the overall idea the modern theory of biological evolution says God is a liar and I have no patience for accusations against Him. I also do not like people to talk bad about Him or lie about Him to make insecure scientists happy.

rogero wrote,

"You have a golden opportunity here on Tweb where you have a number of experts in their respective fields who are more than willing to regale you with their expertise"

Jack777 replies,

Regale me, regale me.

rogero wrote,

-- even though the forensic interaction may be painful at times --

Jack777 replies,

Really now?

rogero wrote,

"especially for a prideful know-it-all like yourself."

Jack777 replies,

Well, I guess I am in for a real treat then.

rogero wrote,

"Humility has its rewards, and is infinitely more desirable than brittle pride for personal edification. I'm learning this the hard way here."

Jack777 replies,

I understand.

rogero wrote,

"Would you like me to start a Natural Sciences thread where we can discuss your difficulties and misunderstandings of what constitutes evidence in support of a common ancestry of humans with the rest of the biosphere?"

Jack777 replies,

Not really.

rogero wrote,


"Oh, here's a question for you -- do you think that human beings are made physically in the image of God? Do you think that's what's meant in the Genesis story?"

Jack777 replies,

Adam was made in the image of Elohim, the Trinity.

Have you noticed that Yahweh appears in physical form in the Old Testament? He wrestled with Jacob for instance. Did you notice the Father is Spirit. He has thoughts. What happens with thoughts if expressed? Have you noticed that the pre-incarnate Christ is the Word? A word expresses thought. The Word is God. His expression of thought we call the Universe is the Creation. The Word is not the same as Creation. The universe is an expression of the thought of God. However that is not a pantheistic notion I am referring to, quite the opposite. Jesus holds the Universe together, all of it. The Creation is a tabernacle for the Word too. The Word is the Kingdom of God. The Word and the Thought are the same. Did you notice the Holy Spirit hovered over the earth, even though the Father is Spirit?

Adam was made physically in the image of God.

Originally he was perfectly reconciled to Elohim. God took a rib from Adam and made Eve. She was made physically in the image of God and is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. They were made in the image of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Have you noticed they navigated around in the Garden of Eden and it was no great shocking thing to walk around talking to God in person? Nobody can go to the Garden of Eden now, even though it is still there. No one has reported in thousands of years of ever seeing it. If you and I went there when Adam and Eve were in it, we likely would not see it. They were so much like God that they knew no other way to be. When they disobeyed they were suddenly aware of being physical. They became different. By the time Moses was around, the people noticed when he was even near in the presence of God that his face shown and had to wear a veil over his face. The people could not even touch the bottom of the mountain they were so different from God. Moses could not look at the front or back of God, only his shadow. I say they were made physically in the image of God and mean that. That does not mean that they were not made in His image in other ways too. They are not mutually exclusive. Have you ever noticed that we do not know how long Adam and Eve existed before getting the heave-ho from the Garden of Eden? Do you think that "time" was the same for them as it is for you and I? Do you understand what I mean by "Now is the Dwelling Place for the Great Spirit?" That saying is conformable with the Revelation of God to us and to what many think about time and what the Hebrews understood time to be. Do you know the difference between "time" and Eternity? Did you ever understand that "time" is not the same now as it was a second ago? Did you ever understand that "time" is not the same now as it was a billion years ago? Everything except God is a variable.

Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

II Corinthians 3:17-18

rogero wrote,

"If not, then I'm curious as to why you would balk at the notion of human evolution to the point of refusing even to discuss the evidence in an open forum."

Jack777 replies,

Oh well oh well, now you know.

rogero wrote,

"P.S. In reference to the bolded quote, I don't know why you started this thread (what do mean by "what I started it with?). I'm pointing out that Christians such as me also believe that Jesus Christ in the form of the pre-existent Logos is the Creator as well. That being said, I now have no idea to whom you are addressing this thread."

Jack777 replies,

Well, read the first post to see what I wrote. I don't see what you do not understand.

[rogero]

Rogero perpetuating humility! And from such a lofty position!


Hello my little Hillbilly friend! How's it goin'?

Question for ya: are you interested in participating in a reasoned discussion or do want to merely stink up this forum with your childish peanut-gallery commentary? Have you answered any the questions put to yet -- e.g., the clearly different erosional ages of the Appalachians and the Himalayas?

Your buddy,

Rojjji

[rogero]

...
Jack777 replies,

Learning facts is great. Making much over fairy tales is a bit silly though. I get the overall idea the modern theory of biological evolution says God is a liar and I have no patience for accusations against Him. I also do not like people to talk bad about Him or lie about Him to make insecure scientists happy.



This is another Jack ipse dixit. Evolution does not make God a liar anymore than nuclear fusion does. You really don't understand science do you?




rogero wrote,

"Would you like me to start a Natural Sciences thread where we can discuss your difficulties and misunderstandings of what constitutes evidence in support of a common ancestry of humans with the rest of the biosphere?"

Jack777 replies,

Not really.



I really think you should -- unless you want to continue to wallow in your ignorance. I think I will start an evidence of evolution thread in your honor, since you haven't had the coconuts to answer for yourself in the Ga+ biosphere thread. Truly embarassing...



rogero wrote,


"Oh, here's a question for you -- do you think that human beings are made physically in the image of God? Do you think that's what's meant in the Genesis story?"

Jack777 replies,

Adam was made in the image of Elohim, the Trinity.

Have you noticed that Yahweh appears in physical form in the Old Testament? He wrestled with Jacob for instance. Did you notice the Father is Spirit. He has thoughts. What happens with thoughts if expressed? Have you noticed that the pre-incarnate Christ is the Word? A word expresses thought. The Word is God. His expression of thought we call the Universe is the Creation. The Word is not the same as Creation. The universe is an expression of the thought of God. However that is not a pantheistic notion I am referring to, quite the opposite. Jesus holds the Universe together, all of it. The Creation is a tabernacle for the Word too. The Word is the Kingdom of God. The Word and the Thought are the same. Did you notice the Holy Spirit hovered over the earth, even though the Father is Spirit?

Adam was made physically in the image of God.

Originally he was perfectly reconciled to Elohim. God took a rib from Adam and made Eve. She was made physically in the image of God and is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. They were made in the image of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Have you noticed they navigated around in the Garden of Eden and it was no great shocking thing to walk around talking to God in person? Nobody can go to the Garden of Eden now, even though it is still there. No one has reported in thousands of years of ever seeing it. If you and I went there when Adam and Eve were in it, we likely would not see it. They were so much like God that they knew no other way to be. When they disobeyed they were suddenly aware of being physical. They became different. By the time Moses was around, the people noticed when he was even near in the presence of God that his face shown and had to wear a veil over his face. The people could not even touch the bottom of the mountain they were so different from God. Moses could not look at the front or back of God, only his shadow. I say they were made physically in the image of God and mean that. That does not mean that they were not made in His image in other ways too. They are not mutually exclusive. Have you ever noticed that we do not know how long Adam and Eve existed before getting the heave-ho from the Garden of Eden? Do you think that "time" was the same for them as it is for you and I? Do you understand what I mean by "Now is the Dwelling Place for the Great Spirit?" That saying is conformable with the Revelation of God to us and to what many think about time and what the Hebrews understood time to be. Do you know the difference between "time" and Eternity? Did you ever understand that "time" is not the same now as it was a second ago? Did you ever understand that "time" is not the same now as it was a billion years ago? Everything except God is a variable.

Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

II Corinthians 3:17-18



What a inconsistent conflated mess, Jack. So, do you think God is a great big man then? Kinda like Santy Claus? Oh, wait He's triune as well -- that makes an even bigger problem. It appears you're conflating theophanies with the transcendent supernatural God. No wonder many people think that Christians are nutcases.



rogero wrote,

"If not, then I'm curious as to why you would balk at the notion of human evolution to the point of refusing even to discuss the evidence in an open forum."

Jack777 replies,

Oh well oh well, now you know.



I know what? That you're a big coward who only wants to bore everyone with his longwinded opinionated gibberish? If you're going to attack science, I will continue to hold your feet to the fire.




rogero wrote,

"P.S. In reference to the bolded quote, I don't know why you started this thread (what do mean by "what I started it with?). I'm pointing out that Christians such as me also believe that Jesus Christ in the form of the pre-existent Logos is the Creator as well. That being said, I now have no idea to whom you are addressing this thread."

Jack777 replies,

Well, read the first post to see what I wrote. I don't see what you do not understand.

And I don't understand why you didn't respond to my statement that I and many TEs also believe in the Logos Christ as Creator. Unlike you, I don't believe that He's a deceiver in the evidence left behind to study in Creation. Now, do you want to go to Natural Sciences and discuss these evidences?

R

[grmorton]

This is another Jack ipse dixit. Evolution does not make God a liar anymore than nuclear fusion does. You really don't understand science do you?

The thought just struck me here that it would be extremely important to know whether or not God WAS a liar. I mean, if God is a liar, we can't trust anything he says and such information would be very very important to know. Why would someone NOT want to determine that?

But, the way the YECs act, they make sure that they can never answer this important question because they twist facts, use logical fallacies, and incoherent, self-contradictory assertions to make sure that God can never lie. Everything we see in the world can be false but they will never let their view of what God said be wrong because they can't possibly envision that their view of what God says is flawed, or that maybe what God said IS wrong. Thus they man the barricades to make purple appear as orange, to make up appear as down, to make east be west, to change the laws of physics willy-nilly and to make existing reality not real at all. All of this in the name of maintaining the veracity of the deity.

I don't want anyone to mistake my view here. I don't think God is a liar, but he can't be saying what the YECs say he does.

[Jack777]

Sometimes I think you do not understand a word I say rogero.

grmorton,

I will keep a sharp eye out for the YEC people and report back if I spot any.

[rogero]

Sometimes I think you do not understand a word I say rogero.

grmorton,



You got that right, Son. The more relevant question is "who does understand a word (or is it Word) of what you say?".



I will keep a sharp eye out for the YEC people and report back if I spot any.

The differences between you and the most fideistic dogmatic YECs are minimal. I sure as harwell can't tell much difference.

R

[Jack777]

Unpack that for me rogero, about how I am just like a YEC? I will wait with great diligence for an enlightening response.

[rogero]

Unpack that for me rogero, about how I am just like a YEC? I will wait with great diligence for an enlightening response.

You both have a hyperliteralist interpretation of Genesis. You both ignore scientific evidence contrary to your POV.

Now, as far as I can tell of your origins view from your posts (which BTW favor quantity over quality and clarity) you hold to a literal 6day/24hr/6-10Ka Creation week historico-grammatical interpretation of Genesis 1.

Your view, AFAICS is very similar to the Scofield Gap/Chaos view, with the exception that you fit in all of geology (as far your limited understanding of it, that is) into the "gap" between Ge 1:1 and 1:2. You differ from YECs in that you deny a literal global Deluge, although you haven't engaged any YEC here on your evidence for denying the Flood.

You appear to be intentionally obtuse and confusing on your science views (although this hasn't stopped you from blowing your own horn about your qualifications) and often have stated that you "could care less"(sic) about science as opposed to the "Word of God", which you sanctimoniously trumpet your inerpretations and gleanings ueber alles. Apparently you fashion yourself to be some kind of misunderstood maverick who has access to some special wisdom from God.

Overall, you are an extremely frustrating, annoying, and tiresome gentleman. I don't even know why I bother to oppose you. I suppose it's just a personal distaste for self-professed know-it-all blowhards who don't really have a clue.

Now, if you'd like to try to change my opinion (and perhaps many other lurkers') of you, then please come to Natural Sciences and defend your scientific issues against biological evolution. Here's a hint: you can't disprove the theory of biological evolution by philosophical/theological/socio-political arguments, any more than you can disprove nuclear fusion by crowing about the potential political misuse of thermonuclear weapons. Capiche, Jack?

R

[grmorton]

Sometimes I think you do not understand a word I say rogero.

grmorton,

I will keep a sharp eye out for the YEC people and report back if I spot any.


I just spotted one you didn't----YOU!

I agree with Rogero. There is not a sliver's worth of difference between you and a YEC.

[Jack777]

rogero,

I do think there was a literal world flood, it was a long time ago, about 12,000 years ago.

There were two floods that happened that encompassed a huge area due to tectonism in the last 10,000 years. One filled in the Mediterranean the other where the Black Sea is.

I don't know why you oppose me either rogero, especially when I can tell you know I am right. grmorton has as much as said he realizes I am correct and he is wrong about almost everything he thinks. Come on you big Kahunas, admit it for the sake of everyone else. Shucks

[Perry]

You both ignore scientific evidence contrary to your POV.

Scientific evidence? How about "scientific evidence". The quotes help.

[rogero]

rogero,

I do think there was a literal world flood, it was a long time ago, about 12,000 years ago.

There were two floods that happened that encompassed a huge area due to tectonism in the last 10,000 years. One filled in the Mediterranean the other where the Black Sea is.

I don't know why you oppose me either rogero, especially when I can tell you know I am right. grmorton has as much as said he realizes I am correct and he is wrong about almost everything he thinks. Come on you big Kahunas, admit it for the sake of everyone else. Shucks

This is probably the least understandable of your confusing and logic-deficient posts. You've outdone yourself, Jack!

What on God's green earth do you mean by your first two paragraphs? What tectonism in the last 12Ka could have led to a global submergence? The Mediterranean Sea was filled in something like 5.5 Ma. Doesn't a geological expert like you know this? -- or "could you care less" about the geology? FYI, if you're considering the filling of the Med to be a "global" flood, then you're much closer to your archenemy Glennn's views -- cogitate on that for a moment, oh Wise One. :lol:

The bolded sentence in your quote is just a load of chest-thumping posturing. I know you're wrong. :blush: That's why I oppose you -- got it? :wink:

Please provide some evidence for this drivel.

[rogero]

Scientific evidence? How about "scientific evidence". The quotes help.

I know this will be fruitless, but could you explain your post? Is there just the slimmest outside chance that are you interested in discussing science?

[Jack777]

rogero,


Read the posts carefully.

You wrote:

What tectonism in the last 12Ka could have led to a global submergence?


I did not say it involved global submergence. I suppose you are aware the Mediterranean filled in are you not. This was in my local newspaper when I was a kid I think. I have referred to this event and supplied a reference to it.

The one in the Black Sea was the subject of a study which I provided references to several months back. National Geographic covered the results as they unfolded. These are common things to know.

This was not a global event either and I did not say either was.

The oldest one is the global one. I mentioned three.

[Jugulum]

What tectonism in the last 12Ka could have led to a global submergence?

I did not say it involved global submergence.
Jack, you really, really need to work on clarity. Here's exactly what you said:
I do think there was a literal world flood, it was a long time ago, about 12,000 years ago.
You said there was a "literal world flood" "about 12,000 years ago". So what did rogero have wrong? Doesn't "literal world flood" "about 12,000 years ago" (your words) translate into "a global submergence" "in the last 12Ka" (rogero's words)?

That said, rogero did misunderstand you on the Mediterranean and Black Sea floods. You're right, you didn't say they were global. You said they each "encompassed a huge area" and took place "in the last 10,000 years". Apparently the first two paragraphs bled together in his mind. That was a mistake on his part.

However, he also argued, "The Mediterranean Sea was filled in something like 5.5 Ma." That does not spring from his misunderstanding. You did in fact claim that it happened "in the last 10,000 years". And apparently, that claim is a fact not in evidence. If you have reasons for placing it at that time, you need to present them.

[rogero]

rogero,


Read the posts carefully.

You wrote:

What tectonism in the last 12Ka could have led to a global submergence?


I did not say it involved global submergence. I suppose you are aware the Mediterranean filled in are you not. This was in my local newspaper when I was a kid I think. I have referred to this event and supplied a reference to it.



I understood that you mentioned three flooding episodes -- the earliest being a "world" (global?) flood.

Then what is your proposed mechanism for a global flood 12Ka? I thought you had mentioned several months ago that you didn't believe in a global deluge? What evidence can you offer of such an event at all, but more particularly in this timeframe?



The one in the Black Sea was the subject of a study which I provided references to several months back. National Geographic covered the results as they unfolded. These are common things to know.



Ok, the Black Sea flooded from the Med circa 8Ka. No problem here...



This was not a global event either and I did not say either was.

The oldest one is the global one. I mentioned three.

I understand. But, you're wrong about the date of the Med flood, it was circa 5.4 Ma, according to this reference:


...

The first solid evidence for this came in the summer of 1970, when geologists aboard the deep sea research and drilling ship Glomar Challenger brought up drill cores containing gypsum, anhydrite, rock salt, and various other evaporite minerals that only form from drying of brine. One drill core contained a wind-blown cross-bedded deposit of deep-sea foraminiferal ooze which had dried into dust and been blown about by a sandstorm and ended up in a brine lake. These layers were alternated with layers containing marine fossils, indicating the different drying and flooding periods. Other evidence of drying comes from the remains of many (now submerged) canyons that were cut into the sides of the Mediterranean basin by river action when it was dry. The area underwent repeated flooding and dessication over a 700,000 year span. About 5.4 million years ago at the start of the Pliocene period the barrier at the Strait of Gibraltar broke, permanently reflooding the basin. (emphasis is mine - RO)

...

[grmorton]

grmorton has as much as said he realizes I am correct and he is wrong about almost everything he thinks.

:lmbo::lmbo::lmbo:
: :rofl: :rofl: :lmbo: :lmbo::rofl::rofl:

The above is :spam:

and you, Jack, are living where this cat lives: :cheshire:

Isn't self-delusion wonderful Jack? The world is so nice, the world is as you want it to be, birds sing, butterflies flit about, the sun always shines and everyone bows down to your great wisdom and worships your intelligence.
What a nice self-delusional world. The God-Jack knows everyone loves and adores him. The God-Jack knows that everyone knows he is right. The God-Jack LIVES!

[Jack777]

My,

Thanks for the feedback.

[rogero]

My,

Thanks for the feedback.

And your substantive comment is...?

I wasted a few thousand heartbeats (don't know why, maybe it's just too much fun!) going back in the TWeb archives to find out your views on the Noahic Deluge. For the record, I was wrong a few posts back (admitting you're wrong when you actually are is wonderfully cathartic for the soul -- you should try it sometime, Jack) when I recalled incorrectly that Jack didn't hold to a global (world??) deluge.

The following post from a half-year ago shows the Jackster's views on recent Earth history.


...
Becuz the earth is 1.5 billion years old or whatever does not remove the fact that the Bible is true. I am convinced there are at least three flood epochs of "Biblical" proportions based on actual scientific research, the last the Flood of Noah, none of which account for the rock record, only the alluvial record. I am well aware of Geology but science does not preclude the truth of Scripture. I am not a YEC. I happen to know within a few hundred millions of years how old the earth is for instance. Evolution is simply not fact and will increasingly prove to be faulty. I am a palyno-paleontologist and the evidence is not there for evolution as it is touted. Evolution is a shill in some ways. Having said all of that the Bible is literally true. I just do not happen to see Creation from the YEC perspective as it is not there to see.



Jack -- do you think the "alluvial record" supports (not "proves" as you have incorrectly used before when referring the scientific method) a global deluge 12Ka? Could you 'splain what you mean by this? Perhaps you could start a new thread in Natural Sciences and regale us with your expertise and accumulated references?

Given your bold statement about evolution (do you mean biological evolution here? -- it really facilitates discussion when you're clear...) not being fact (again a possible misuse of terminology in scientific method?) could you deign to grace us all with your presence in Natural Sciences, e.g., the Ga+ biosphere (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47758) thread and explain carefully your scientific objections to biological evolution?

R

[Jack777]

The Word is Jesus and He is the Creator. I had hoped the thread would stay near on topic before posting this, but oh well.

Notice that the pre-incarnate Christ is revealed early on in the Bible. I cite the first two below because they are so obvious.

The Word of the LORD is a phrase that occurs 242 times in the Old Testament. I have included a few of the verses that demonstrate that the Revelation of God to us that people could and still can know from the Old Testament that there are two persons of the Godhead presented in these passages. The first example is supported by scholarly opinion with comparisons made to the Chaldee language. The word "Memra" recognizes this by its use in Targums. However, without one Targum, the Scripture stands on its own merit demonstrating that the Word of the LORD is intended to be God, whether the "W" is uppercase or the "w" lowercase letter in the text of an English translation. Once you see this, you begin to recognize something that I believe is very important and useful in growing in the knowledge of our LORD. To me it is exciting and it is with joy that I share this. If anyone would like all of the Bible passages, please ask and I will e-mail them to you. Some refer only to the words without specifying the Person. A brief commentary is provided on Genesis 15:1 at the end of the verses below.
After these things the Word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I, thy shield, thy exceeding great reward.

Genesis 15:1

And, behold, the Word of the LORD, unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

Genesis 15:4

Notice the Word of the LORD came to Abram saying. The Word is a person, that person is most likely the Second Person of the Trinity. That Word is God. Yahweh is God. Two persons, One God.

The Word of the LORD, the Word of Yahweh, appears to Abram. The Word obviously is the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. The Word speaks to Abram, the Word of the LORD...saying.

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven

Genesis 19:24

You may have noticed that Yahweh is the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ and the Word is the pre-incarnate Jesus. Noted in the above verse Yahweh rained brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven, two Yahwehs.

Another example that is in Scripture of the Word of the LORD being God follows. It can be taken as a double entendre as well:

And Balaam answered and said unto the servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the Word of the LORD my God, to do less or more.

Numbers 22:18

If you notice there are examples besides the Pentateuch that follow.

Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, neither was the Word of the LORD yet revealed unto him.

I Samuel 3:7

And the LORD appeared again in Shiloh: for the LORD revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the Word of the LORD.

I Samuel 3:21

Then came the Word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,

I Samuel 15:10

For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the Word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

I Samuel 15:23

And it came to pass that night, that the Word of the LORD came unto Nathan, saying,

II Samuel 7:4

For when David was up in the morning, the Word of the LORD came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying,

II Samuel 24:11

And he cried against the altar in the Word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.

I Kings 13:2

And he gave a sign the same day, saying, This is the sign which the LORD hath spoken; Behold, the altar shall be rent, and the ashes that are upon it shall be poured out.

1Ki 13:3

For so was it charged me by the Word of the LORD, saying, Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou camest.

I Kings 13:9

For it was said to me by the Word of the LORD, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest.

I Kings 13:17

The word of the Lord came unto Abram - This is the first place where God is represented as revealing himself by his word. Some learned men suppose that the דבר יהוה debar Yehovah, translated here word of the Lord, means the same with the λογος του Θεου of St. John, John 1:1, and, by the Chaldee paraphrases in the next clause, called מימרי meimeri, "my word," and in other places מימרא דיי meimera daiya, the word of Yeya, a contraction for Jehovah, which they appear always to consider as a person; and which they distinguish from פתגמא pithgama, which signifies merely a word spoken, or any part of speech. There have been various conjectures concerning the manner in which God revealed his will, not only to the patriarchs, but also to the prophets, evangelists, and apostles. It seems to have been done in different ways.

1. By a personal appearance of him who was afterwards incarnated for the salvation of mankind.

2. By an audible voice, sometimes accompanied with emblematical appearances.

3. By visions which took place either in the night in ordinary sleep, or when the persons were cast into a temporary trance by daylight, or when about their ordinary business,

4. By the ministry of angels appearing in human bodies, and performing certain miracles to accredit their mission.

5. By the powerful agency of the Spirit of God upon the mind, giving it a strong conception and supernatural persuasion of the truth of the things perceived by the understanding.

Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision; Christ, the essential Word, appeared to Abram in an human form, visible to him, and with an articulate voice spoke unto him:

John Gill, John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

After these things - After that act of generous charity which Abram had done, in rescuing his neighbours, God made him this gracious visit. After that victory which he had obtained over four kings; lest Abram should be too much elevated with that, God comes to tell him he had better things in store for him. The word of the Lord came unto Abram - That is, God manifested himself to Abram, in a vision - Which supposeth Abram awake, and some sensible token of the presence of the divine glory, saying, Fear not Abram - Abram might fear lest the four kings he had routed, should rally and fall upon him. No, saith God, fear not: fear not their revenge, nor thy neighbour's envy; I will take care of thee. I am thy shield - Or, emphatically, I am a shield to thee, present with thee, actually defending thee.

John Wesley, John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible

[rogero]

The Word is Jesus and He is the Creator. I had hoped the thread would stay near on topic before posting this, but oh well.

Notice that the pre-incarnate Christ is revealed early on in the Bible. I cite the first two below because they are so obvious.

The Word of the LORD is a phrase that occurs 242 times in the Old Testament. ...

Oy! We're back to square one. Why do the Bible translators use the lowercase "w" for these 242 references in the OT? Are you still claiming you know more than them? Are you still making the blasphemous equation of the Pentateuch with the Logos Christ? What does any of this have to do with the origins issue, in particular how God creates (this is Cosmogony after all...)?

BTW, when are you going to answer the questions I posed in my previous post? In partcular why do assert a Med flood in the last 10Ka when scientists assert it occurred circa 5.5Ma? What evidence do you profer for a global "world" flood 12Ka (which, BTW, is not "a long time ago" if you believe that Earth is 1-1.5 Ga -- in fact it's the last second of the day, if you consider 1.5Ga to be modelled by a 24hr day.)?

[rogero]

Jacko,

You've got so many threads going that I think you messed up and wanted to post your last message in the Word of God thread. Is this correct?

R

[Jack777]

rogero wrote:

"You've got so many threads going that I think you messed up and wanted to post your last message in the Word of God thread. Is this correct?"


Actually no.

I am attempting to introduce the reality of the Christ in relation to Cosmogony as I think it is crucial. Talking off topic is fine I think, it is just that I would like to get feedback that pertains to what I am presenting and how it relates.

As far as square one, if you had read my last post you would have the answer to the question about the lower and upper case.

This is important to catch on to. Please read and do not pretend you do not understand. If you read the post and really do not understand, please ask.

[rogero]

rogero wrote:

"You've got so many threads going that I think you messed up and wanted to post your last message in the Word of God thread. Is this correct?"


Actually no.

I am attempting to introduce the reality of the Christ in relation to Cosmogony as I think it is crucial. Talking off topic is fine I think, it is just that I would like to get feedback that pertains to what I am presenting and how it relates.

As far as square one, if you had read my last post you would have the answer to the question about the lower and upper case.

This is important to catch on to. Please read and do not pretend you do not understand. If you read the post and really do not understand, please ask.

I do understand you, Jack. You are an egotistical bloviating gasbag who thinks he knows everything about everything -- when in fact he know little about almost nothing,

I did read your last post, and I didn't get the answer about the upper and lower case "w". I assert that you think you know more than the Bible translators on this issue, ergo, that you are either an egotistical gasbag (probably the correct option) or a blasphemous biblidolator.

R

[Jack777]

I would like to point out that your shrewd and scholarly observations as regards my post seem lacking in a certain respect. If I might, let me point out that if you do not understand what you have read, you may just say so. I am trying not to be a mind reader here. Give me something to go on.

[rogero]

I would like to point out that your shrewd and scholarly observations as regards my post seem lacking in a certain respect. If I might, let me point out that if you do not understand what you have read, you may just say so. I am trying not to be a mind reader here. Give me something to go on.

Ok, Li'l Buddy -- I know this is repetitive, but why do you insist on the capital "w" when referencing the word of God as in the Targums, or whatever, but not when referring directly to the Logos Christ (as per John 1:1)?

In particular, are you asserting that you know more than the Bible translators?

Is this focused enough for ya, little fella?

R

[Jack777]

Goodness,

All of the Bible translators were likely a lot smarter than me. I have agreed to that already one of the last few times you have said this. I am not the point, the Bible translators are not the point.

Do you see that the Logos is shown in the verses I posted? If so, or if not, which or all?