Whether one takes the Bible literally or not, I like hearing all opinions and will not insult someone's spiritual beliefs by saying what they believe about the Bible is wrong. If you believe so be it, if you don't so be it. Let's discuss, not chill, discourse. So, I will continue the discourse.
I have actually thought it interesting the remarkable persistence of the biblical name Noah in totally unrelated peoples and cultures all over the world. This is particularly amazing when you consider the language differences between peoples, and the local distortions which developed in flood legends. Yet the name has survived virtually unchanged in such isolated places as Hawaii (where he was called Nu-u), the Sudan (Nuh), China (Nu-Wah), the Amazon region (Noa), Phrygia (Noe) and among the Hottentots (Noh and Hiagnoh).
Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
I think there are things that went on and that people knew about back then that have been lost to us today. I think we would be astounded.
If you think a flood did happen, you are in good company with cultures all over the world that have written about it. It would explain the lack of genetic diversity in people today. If you knew the reason for a flood (Gen 6:4) concerning Nephilim, DNA, Book of Enoch, etc., the flood makes perfect sense if it were sent by God as a judgment for the horrors that were going on at the time. It would explain why God calls Noah "genetically" perfect. There's that pesky, but important DNA thing again. If Noah's DNA had also been corrupted like the rest of humanity, there would not have been able to be a Savior (you can probably figure out why).
After the flood, mankind stayed together for almost 100-200 years before tongues were confused and people scattered. Then you would have a reason why his name is eerily similar throughout the world.
But the most closely related story to that of the Biblical "Noah" (one that I would contend the Bible myth was derived from) "The Epic of Gilgamesh", names the hero "Ut-Napistem" (or something like that). I think the similar sounding names from the disparate cultures is simply a matter of cherry-picking on the part of the "researchers". Those with a doctrinal axe to grind are going to find evidence, even if none exists (the Kennedy Assassination is a textbook example of this phenomenon).
You've got to wonder just how wonderful and loving a god can be that decides to mercilessly exterminate all the living things on earth, don't you? Yeah, I know, it was the only way.
And if evidence for this dramatic event is what the faithful need in order to stay faithful, what about geological evidence? From what I understand there is ZERO evidence in the geologic record of a worldwide, cataclysmic flood of the magnitude described in The Bible. Let alone all the logistical problems (which are overwhelming in the utter, whacked-out extreme end of the scale).
The fact that a wooden boat has not, and likely could not, be built in that size, the fact that with only eight people on board and MILLIONS of species to attend to, there's no farking way the animals would ever get fed (or their excrement cleaned up) on anything approaching a survivable timetable - even if the humans did NOTHING else (including sleep). And then the minor stuff like how do you keep the tigers from eating the springbucks, how do you get enough bamboo for Panda food, or how could they possibly secure enough clean water to keep everyone and everything clean and hydrated? And then how did all the fish and flora of the ocean survive the unbelievable change in salinity and pressure? How could the populations of any species survive with such a tiny reservoir of DNA? How could anything survive once leaving the ark, given that the earth has basically been sterilized and NO plants or animals (save what was on the ark) are out there to be eaten? And I've only touched on the insurmountable problems that such a feat would produce.
Unless you invoke some sort of miraculous, divine intervention at every turn (at which point one would have to ask, what's the point of getting Noah and the gang involved at all?), it's utterly impossible to make the flood story work. And I haven't even mentioned the atmospheric pressure issues and a gazillion other things that simply would not have allowed such a thing to transpire. Of course, with God, all things are possible.
If one really wants to believe The Bible (and for the life of me, I don't know why anyone would), wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just religate obvious fables such as this to the category of "Parable" or somesuch? I think that's what quite a few of the Jewish sects do. It seems like it would make Buhleeving a whole lot easier, without spending so much time plugging one's ears and going "la,la,la" when inconvenient facts or laws of physics are mentioned...
No my fellow groovy christian - it was your total condescension of everyone else.
Read your post again - do you really not see it?
Calling people confused, warning them, letting them know they people are welcome to their beliefs - well jeez, thank you so much.
You know, we all put up with self-appointed MOGs and their patronization and condescension in TWI.
The doctrinal section here has pretty much gotten away from much of that.
But, I guess occassionally we are reminded...
So, how long do you think man has been on earth? I'd really like to hear your opinion. Feel free to throw some science in there too as many people have already done on this thread. Including me. Did you take a look at my evolution chart of hominids from a non-christian, science evolution website (sorry George, not everyone has their fingers in their ears)? Fascinating stuff.
So, what's your take? How long has man been on earth?
If I want to know about creation, evolution, geology - I go to those sites - and there are many on the net, or read some great books. It is fascinating to see the first fauna and flora - when they died out, follow the story through the geologic rock formations, and then the cambrian "big bang explosion" as science calls it, stored in rock, when all life as we know it today pretty much came at once, out of nowhere - kind of like the big bang theory. I've always loved the stars from childhood when I stood outside in any type weather and found all the constellations. I find Astronomy fascinating - and the things they know today - who could have dreamed?
To me, science comes first if I want to know about certain things. If the Bible happens to fit, good - if not, good too. There are some chapters that deal with some fascinating geology and weather - i.e., Job. Interesting too. But, when it comes to hard science - science is the way to go.
So, if I don't believe the Bible is a history, science or whatever book people want to call it, nor do I believe its one big allegory we can dreamily wax poetic about - too much of that turns it into nothing - fluffy - sounds good, means, well, whatever your imagination would like it to mean. Then, what do I believe it is?
I simply believe it is a book of prophecy. We are told how things were, prefection, destruction, restoration and fall, and what will be - new heaven/new earth - which will not run by the laws we know now. Outside of time and space - light, requiring new bodies to dwell within the light whether in the new heavenlies or on the new earth.
A prophecy of what will be, and why we need a redeemer to redeem the fallen (yes, I do believe mankind is a "fallen" race) and take us there.
The records in Genesis can't possibly be 100% literal. So, the real dilemma, as I see it, is in deciding exactly where to draw the line between literalism and allegory.
I think that's where the Holy Spirit comes in. I just read, if he wants to enlighten me on something (ever had one of those - OMG - I see it now - moments that happen just out of the blue and almost knock you off your chair? That's him :)) go for it, if not, I read for enjoyment. It was after years of just reading I realized its essence is prophecy.
I spent 5 years teaching writing and humane letters at a small Christian classical academy, and some very important things have been overlooked and forgotten since the "Enlightenment" (17th-18th centuries A.D.). One of these things is that ALL language is primarily metaphorical. Even science and history. Mathematics is simply a language adapted to describe quantifiable experiences.
All words, ALL of 'em, have fundamental experiential meanings, and figurative (poetic) meanings drawn from qualities of the original experiences. For instance, the original fundamental meaning of "spirit" ("ruach", "pneuma") is "air (one of the four elements) in motion because it is admixed with fire (another of the four elements)". Since breathing (air in motion) is so closely associated with being alive, "spirit" took on the figurative meaning of "the power of life". I believe that's what it meant to the people who first wrote and read the Bible. After the Crisis of the Third Century, "spirit" took on the neo-platonic meaning of "the substance of of a parallel cosmos inaccessible to the senses". That's how Augustine used it, and generally speaking, how we still think of it today. That's also how Wierwille taught it.
Another example is "the heavens". The heavens are what you see when you go outdoors and look up on a clear night. The heavens are a place of predictable movement. The only things visible are "fiery" so the heavens were the realm of fire. The heavens were considered plural because there are a few heavenly bodies that move at different rates and in different directions from the fixed stars. But the movement of even these "wanderers" is predictable (so each one had its own heaven). The figurative meaning of the heavens is "a place of safety", because they are too high for the turmoils of the earth to reach. That's why the gods (fire elementals, as opposed to the demon air elementals, or the human earth elementals) were supposed to live in the heavens.
And despite what Wierwille taught about "anything from above the ground was from heaven", the heavens didn't begin until the orbit of the moon. Clouds are in the realm of "air", and we always see clouds in front of the moon, never behind it. So the realm of fire, the heavens, began at the orbit of the moon.
The heavens are "a place of safety" because the trouble that afflicts the earth can't reach them. That's why good things are reserved for us in the heavens. They are kept safe there until it's time for them to come down to us from heaven. That's also why the attempt to build the tower at Babel was such an affront.
Augustine conflated the "heavens" also with the neo-platonic parallel cosmos inaccessible to the senses
Soooo... I agree with Sunesis. The purpose of the Bible is not to teach science or history, but to communicate Truth through metaphorical means (which is not always the same as allegory). And one way the Holy Spirit communicates with us is to open the eyes of our understanding to poetic significances in the Bible.
I think that's where the Holy Spirit comes in. I just read, if he wants to enlighten me on something (ever had one of those - OMG - I see it now - moments that happen just out of the blue and almost knock you off your chair? That's him :)) go for it, if not, I read for enjoyment. It was after years of just reading I realized its essence is prophecy.
Wouldn't that make scholastic studies of the scriptures pointless?
Most people read for enjoyment - think, Bible as Literature class.
If someone doesn't believe it, yes, I think studying it scholastically would be pointless. Why study?
There would be so many more interestng things to spend your time studying or reading.
If you believed it, then to that person, it would be an interesting, maybe fascinating topic.
Its like, I don't believe in Confusianism (sic). Its nice to read a book on it, but why would I spend my life studying it? It would be a waste of time and there would be much better things to study - for me.
Wouldn't that make scholastic studies of the scriptures pointless?
I don't think so, waysider. Ephesians 1:16&17 read,
"16 [i, Paul] Cease not to give thanks for you,making mention of you in my prayers;
"17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him [en epignosei autou]."
The word "knowledge" (epignosei) is dative singular.
According to Eric G. Jay's (1958) New Testament Greek; An Introductory Grammar, "To express instrument the dative case is used without a preposition: lithoi 'by a stone', or, 'with a stone'; logchais 'with spears'. In the New Testament, but not in classical Greek, the preposition en may also be used with the dative case to express instrument, en machairai 'with a sword'" (p. 72).
According to Ephesians 1:17, God gives us the Spirit of wisdom and revelation with, or by, the instrument of our knowledge of Him, which come from, among other things, a scholarly knowledge of His Word. The more we know and understand about God's Word, the more inspiration the Holy Spirit can give to guide us in our understanding.
The Spirit and the written Word act as a system of checks and balances. If we magnify the written Word and ignore the Spirit, as TWI did, we fall into pharisaic legalism. If we magnify spirit and neglect the written Word, as CES/STFI did, we fall into emotionalistic spiritualism.
Dale B. Martin shows that Ephesians was not written by Paul, the same
writer of Ephesians also wrote Colossians, funny how that Gnosticism
spirit teachings got into them two books?
In antiquity, nobody wrote in solitude the way we do today. Paul had a group of people around him when he wrote, including the scribe who wrote down what Paul decided to commit to writing, after he had presented it to the group for discussion and feedback.If Paul wasn't personally able to write Ephesians and Colossians, I think his close companions did. I think they replicated what Paul would have said to the best of their ability. This was NOT an unusual practice in the first century. I don't think "that Gnosticism spirit teachings" got into Ephesians and Colossians through inserted forgeries.
The meanings of the word "spirit" changed between the time of Paul and the time of Augustine around the turn of the fifth century, from stoic meanings to neo-platonic. After Theodosius declared everyone except "trinitarians" (as we still understand that term today) to be deranged, insane heretics, writers like Augustine went to town to read "Gnostic spirit teachings" into the language that Paul and others had already written.
The object is not to get rid of the confusion by cutting out the words we don't understand, but to recover an understanding of what they meant when they were originally written and read.
Waysider, thanks for the old Bill C. Noah routine - i just love that - hadn't heard it since i was in grammar school - a nun had it on vinyl and played it for our class.
i lean toward the old earth camp myself, having read some of Hugh Ross' stuff that Sunesis mentioned.
i read a book a long time ago The Harmony of Science & Scripture by Harry Rimmer - read it a few years after taking PFAL. i used to have a more rigid viewpoint of the Bible & science being in absolute agreement - with the Bible being the touchstone for truth & accuracy on any given subject - even science. The doctrines of TWI helped to form this opinion i had.
however, i'm of the opinion now the Bible is a religious book addressing mostly philosophical and moral issues as well as some day-to-day practical issues - and for me personally i hold the Bible to be a great resource for exploring my faith, communing with my Lord and maintaining a moral compass.....but i no longer believe my faith will fall to pieces if there's discrepancies within the Bible or between the Bible and science....my faith is not built on a book but a person....and besides, i usually defer to science if there's a conflict between it and scripture cuz the hard data of science does not lend itself so easily to a variety of interpretations as a religious document does.
i like Hugh Ross' approach on issues - like the ways science figures out how old the earth & cosmos are and then considering viable alternate interpretations of scripture that are complementary. The folks who study things like carbon-dating, physics, thermodynamics, planet/galaxy formation theories, paleontology, geology, genetics, etc.imho afford us with an inexhaustible treasure trove of sublime knowledge about our world and it seems to be ever-growing in accuracy and detail! i also like stuff by Michio Kaku, Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking - not saying i understand it all but stuff about the theory of everything, superstring and other dimensions fascinates me.
i no longer hold to the gap theory in Genesis - but lean towards Ross' idea that there are several summary statements on the creation, followed by the author then giving more details. So, Genesis 1:1 being a summation - in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, verse 2 provides a little more detail on that process. In other words,it's not reading as a linear time-line of events following verse 1 - but may simply be a literary tool jumping BACK in time so to speak, to the period of verse 1 and having the camera zoom in on specific scenes: the creation of the electromagnetic spectrum, planet formation, etc.
Very interesting posts Steve! Where did you learn about what the words originaly meant and how they've been changed? I'd like to learn more.
T-Bone - good to see you again.
I have been reading more of Ross' books. I have a feeling we read the same one - "The Genesis Question." A really excellent book that does a good job of dispelling the "gap" theory, and shows how, the earth and life evolved naturally from the fossil record. Wonderful book.
One thing he said really made me think. If you look at the hominid chart I posted early in this threat, it looks like much "experimenting" going on - lots of different groups, etc. Plus, in the fossil record - creation after creation whether plant or animal, one dies out, another shows up.
But, the point he made is: God is Elohim - The Creator.
After he created, on the 7th day, Creator God - Elohim - RESTED. Think about that. He rested.
God is no longer "creating." He is at "rest." Man now creates. He creates life - millions of babies born every day, he builds buildings, he harnesses energy - Man is now the "creature" who creates.
When does God finish his rest and begin creating again? In Revelation: Behold, I make all things new.
He goes into creation mode again - and we, his redeemed, get to "behold it" and "watch" as he does a "new thing" so no one, neither angel nor new creation will ever again doubt that He is The Creator.
That's why, you have massive creation - then, after Adam - it stopped. God rested on the seventh day - the Sabbath. He is still at rest. There have been no newly created species, animals, plants from Adam's time on. Sure, there have been discoveries of things that have been here, that man never saw, deep in the forests and oceans that he discovers - but the "creating" of new life has stopped. Its in man's hands now.
Also, I still think it was possible for Satan to fall anytime from Gen 1:1 on - before or after the creation of our universe.
Who knows if all of the fossil record were all Elohim's creation.
You may like Ross's "Beyond the Cosmos" dealing with dimensions. God outside of time and space... in that arena, outside of our dimension, he is unlimited. We always seem to want to bring God down to our level.
and yeah, Steve - you may find Ross' "Beyond the Cosmos" book interesting
~~
i mentioned Michio Kaku in my previous post....i caught him a few times on TV talking about creation, other dimensions, and superstring stuff so bought a couple of his books - "Beyond Einstein" and "Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension"....i mentioned in my post the fascination i have with other dimensions & superstring theory.
i feel these authors do a good job explaining such complicated ideas to everyday folks. my christian perspective enjoys this stuff as a fun way to speculate about qualities of the spiritual realm, technical details of miracles and the characteristics of the new heaven and earth....yes, it's all just speculation - which is fun to do - but something i realized a long time ago - learning about the world around me through science seems to have a faith-deepening effect on me.
~~
.....anyway, some ideas from Kaku's "Hyperspace" pages 195 & 196 over the beginning of the cosmos - additional dimensions may be the key to understanding what happened.... i feel it may be thought provoking for this thread:
'....We can say that present-day theories of Creation are built on two pillars: quantum theory and Einstein's theory of gravity. We can say that, for the first time in a thousand years, religious "proofs" of the existence of God are being replaced by our understanding of thermodynamics and particle physics. However, by replacing God's act of Creation with the Big Bang, we have supplanted one problem with another. Aquinas thought he solved the problem of what came before God by defining him as the First Mover. Today. we are still struggling with the question of what happened before the Big Bang.
Unfortunately, Einstein's equations break down at the enomously small distances and large energies found at the origin of the universe. At distances on the order of 10 -33 centimeter, quantum effects take over from Einstein's theory. Thus to resolve the philosophical questions involving the beginning of time, we must necessarily invoke the ten-dimensional theory.
Throughout this book, we have emphasized the fact that the laws of physics unify when we add higher dimensions. When studying the Big bang, we see the precise reverse of this statement. The Big Bang, as we shall see, perhaps originated in the breakdown of the original ten-dimensional universe into a four - and a six-dimensional universe. Thus we can view the history of the Big Bang as the history of the breakup of ten-dimensional space and hence the breakup of previously unified symmetries. This in turn, is the theme of this book in reverse.
It is no wonder, therefore, that piecing together the dynamics of the Big Bang has been difficult. In effect, by going backward in time, we are reassembling the pieces of the ten-dimensional universe.
...Every year we find more experimental evidence that the Big Bang occurred roughly 15 to 20 billion years ago...
end of excerpts
~~
which brings to mind some of what Sunesis was sharing about in the future - in the book of Revelation when God again creates.....heaven and earth will unified - back to a ten-dimensional universe in perfect symmetry.
.....So I thought I'd start with a basic question, so that I can get some input. Was Adam really created about 6,000 years ago, according to Ussher's dates? That's what they way taught, so I always thought the scientific carbon dating and other methods were way out to lunch. Now I have to ask myself, Is that true? So, Doctrinal readers, I'm asking you instead. Is that true? What other doctrines are out there on this topic? or does anyone really know?
I guess a part 2 to this question would be, what about the dinosaurs? Were they around in the "first heaven and earth" as VP taught?
oh yeah, getting back to one of your questions - - i meant to look up the Adam creation date issue in Hugh Ross' "The Genesis Question".
from pages 107, 108:
"....Once the Bible became available in English, some British church leaders busied themselves with figuring out the precise date when God created Adam (and Eve, presumably).Genesis 5, together with Genesis 11, served as the basis for their calculations. The math seemed relatively simple and straightforward. Add the ages of the fathers to the ages of their sons and work backward from the fairly well-established date of Abraham.
Cambridge University's Vice-Chancellor John Lightfoot and the Anglican Archbishop of Ireland, James Ussher, actually became caught up in a race to see who could publish an accurate date first...
...The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 can be misleading to Westerners who know little about Jewish culture and tradition...
...Lightfoot and Ussher in their calculations and Western thinking presumed that Genesis 5 and 11 present meticulously complete genealogical records. Most Jewish scholars never published a date for Adam because they knew their cultural heritage.The Old Testament (and New Testament) genealogies are considered adequate lists on the heroes or notables..."
end of excerpts
~~
Ross adds some additional info to the mix, pages 110, 111 of same book:
"...Bipedal, tool-using, comparatively large-brained primates (called hominids by anthropologists) may have roamed the Earth as long ago as 1.5 million years, but religious relics and altars date as far back as twenty-four thousand years, at most, and art containing indisputable spiritual content just five thousand years...
...With reasonably reliable figures for the natural DNA mutations, rates derived from this research, from another study on the Finnish population, and from more studies currently underway, we can explore dates for the common ancestor of all humans. In 1995 a Y-chromosome research project - one which examined a hundred times more nucleotide base pairs than any previous study - fixed the date for the most recent common ancestor of all human males as somewhere between 35,000 and 47,000 B.C...."
Recommended Posts
teachmevp
How would we know the difference, that is a good point, I think, just my thinking;
the two gardens, their would be no difference in the DNA code machine thing,
making what it made in that garden in the first heaven and the sixth gap, maybe
their would be no difference? It seems that in the fifth gap, that life would be
different from the other two events?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pax
There never was an "Adam."
There never was a "Noah."
There may have been an Abraham (I believe so).
So, the historical part of Genesis starts around Gen. 12.
This is what is taught at Princeton Seminary
and this is what I accept
along with most mainstream biblical students.
Literalists are welcome to their beliefs
but don't get totally into denial that you are
twisting the Bible into knots trying to make
a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 work out.
not to mention a significant confusion of religion and science.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Thanks for the wise advise.
Good to know we're welcome to our beliefs.
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Whether one takes the Bible literally or not, I like hearing all opinions and will not insult someone's spiritual beliefs by saying what they believe about the Bible is wrong. If you believe so be it, if you don't so be it. Let's discuss, not chill, discourse. So, I will continue the discourse.
I have actually thought it interesting the remarkable persistence of the biblical name Noah in totally unrelated peoples and cultures all over the world. This is particularly amazing when you consider the language differences between peoples, and the local distortions which developed in flood legends. Yet the name has survived virtually unchanged in such isolated places as Hawaii (where he was called Nu-u), the Sudan (Nuh), China (Nu-Wah), the Amazon region (Noa), Phrygia (Noe) and among the Hottentots (Noh and Hiagnoh).
Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
I think there are things that went on and that people knew about back then that have been lost to us today. I think we would be astounded.
If you think a flood did happen, you are in good company with cultures all over the world that have written about it. It would explain the lack of genetic diversity in people today. If you knew the reason for a flood (Gen 6:4) concerning Nephilim, DNA, Book of Enoch, etc., the flood makes perfect sense if it were sent by God as a judgment for the horrors that were going on at the time. It would explain why God calls Noah "genetically" perfect. There's that pesky, but important DNA thing again. If Noah's DNA had also been corrupted like the rest of humanity, there would not have been able to be a Savior (you can probably figure out why).
After the flood, mankind stayed together for almost 100-200 years before tongues were confused and people scattered. Then you would have a reason why his name is eerily similar throughout the world.
But, if you don't believe this is all bunk :)
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
But the most closely related story to that of the Biblical "Noah" (one that I would contend the Bible myth was derived from) "The Epic of Gilgamesh", names the hero "Ut-Napistem" (or something like that). I think the similar sounding names from the disparate cultures is simply a matter of cherry-picking on the part of the "researchers". Those with a doctrinal axe to grind are going to find evidence, even if none exists (the Kennedy Assassination is a textbook example of this phenomenon).
You've got to wonder just how wonderful and loving a god can be that decides to mercilessly exterminate all the living things on earth, don't you? Yeah, I know, it was the only way.
And if evidence for this dramatic event is what the faithful need in order to stay faithful, what about geological evidence? From what I understand there is ZERO evidence in the geologic record of a worldwide, cataclysmic flood of the magnitude described in The Bible. Let alone all the logistical problems (which are overwhelming in the utter, whacked-out extreme end of the scale).
The fact that a wooden boat has not, and likely could not, be built in that size, the fact that with only eight people on board and MILLIONS of species to attend to, there's no farking way the animals would ever get fed (or their excrement cleaned up) on anything approaching a survivable timetable - even if the humans did NOTHING else (including sleep). And then the minor stuff like how do you keep the tigers from eating the springbucks, how do you get enough bamboo for Panda food, or how could they possibly secure enough clean water to keep everyone and everything clean and hydrated? And then how did all the fish and flora of the ocean survive the unbelievable change in salinity and pressure? How could the populations of any species survive with such a tiny reservoir of DNA? How could anything survive once leaving the ark, given that the earth has basically been sterilized and NO plants or animals (save what was on the ark) are out there to be eaten? And I've only touched on the insurmountable problems that such a feat would produce.
Unless you invoke some sort of miraculous, divine intervention at every turn (at which point one would have to ask, what's the point of getting Noah and the gang involved at all?), it's utterly impossible to make the flood story work. And I haven't even mentioned the atmospheric pressure issues and a gazillion other things that simply would not have allowed such a thing to transpire. Of course, with God, all things are possible.
If one really wants to believe The Bible (and for the life of me, I don't know why anyone would), wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just religate obvious fables such as this to the category of "Parable" or somesuch? I think that's what quite a few of the Jewish sects do. It seems like it would make Buhleeving a whole lot easier, without spending so much time plugging one's ears and going "la,la,la" when inconvenient facts or laws of physics are mentioned...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It was only a matter of time until someone posted THIS.
Right!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pax
Sunesis,
Sorry my sharing sent you into sarcasm.
Sense, science and sacredness all share a sure story
that isn't self-interested, sophomoric or separate from
supplying solace to a sight-seeking society.
Should such shocking statements be sent from sorry sources
such as share space here, are you sure that sucks?
So, silliness aside, how shall I share with sufficient savior faire
to stop such savants as sometimes soil the 'spot with pseudo-scholarly
scripts from saying, "stay away, Stupid?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
No my fellow groovy christian - it was your total condescension of everyone else.
Read your post again - do you really not see it?
Calling people confused, warning them, letting them know they people are welcome to their beliefs - well jeez, thank you so much.
You know, we all put up with self-appointed MOGs and their patronization and condescension in TWI.
The doctrinal section here has pretty much gotten away from much of that.
But, I guess occassionally we are reminded...
So, how long do you think man has been on earth? I'd really like to hear your opinion. Feel free to throw some science in there too as many people have already done on this thread. Including me. Did you take a look at my evolution chart of hominids from a non-christian, science evolution website (sorry George, not everyone has their fingers in their ears)? Fascinating stuff.
So, what's your take? How long has man been on earth?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Why did Yahweh flood the world, I think the root cause, Satan tricked that machine;
that thread of DNA and RNA shows how to get to the website that shows that machine
at work, trippe stuff.
I don't know how to link, but on "YouTube-DNA replication"
Edited by teachmevpLink to comment
Share on other sites
Pax
Sunesis,
I'd be willing to give my opinion on 'How long man (sic) has been on earth.'
Subtitle: 'When Adam was made.' (This is the much more interesting question to me as it is literary, not historical.)
First though, I think it's significant to note that the Wikipedia article on 'human'
never mentions; "Adam" or "Bible" or "Genesis."
This is for the same reason that professional wrestling results are not reported in newspaper "Sports" sections.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Yes Pax, but I want your opinion. Not Wiki's :)
I do apologize if I spoke hastily.
So, I will tell you this:
I do not believe the Bible is a History Book.
I do not believe the Bible is a Science book.
If I want to know about creation, evolution, geology - I go to those sites - and there are many on the net, or read some great books. It is fascinating to see the first fauna and flora - when they died out, follow the story through the geologic rock formations, and then the cambrian "big bang explosion" as science calls it, stored in rock, when all life as we know it today pretty much came at once, out of nowhere - kind of like the big bang theory. I've always loved the stars from childhood when I stood outside in any type weather and found all the constellations. I find Astronomy fascinating - and the things they know today - who could have dreamed?
To me, science comes first if I want to know about certain things. If the Bible happens to fit, good - if not, good too. There are some chapters that deal with some fascinating geology and weather - i.e., Job. Interesting too. But, when it comes to hard science - science is the way to go.
So, if I don't believe the Bible is a history, science or whatever book people want to call it, nor do I believe its one big allegory we can dreamily wax poetic about - too much of that turns it into nothing - fluffy - sounds good, means, well, whatever your imagination would like it to mean. Then, what do I believe it is?
I simply believe it is a book of prophecy. We are told how things were, prefection, destruction, restoration and fall, and what will be - new heaven/new earth - which will not run by the laws we know now. Outside of time and space - light, requiring new bodies to dwell within the light whether in the new heavenlies or on the new earth.
A prophecy of what will be, and why we need a redeemer to redeem the fallen (yes, I do believe mankind is a "fallen" race) and take us there.
Prophecy - what was, what is now, what shall be.
Simple.
Everything else is nice, but incidental.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The records in Genesis can't possibly be 100% literal. So, the real dilemma, as I see it, is in deciding exactly where to draw the line between literalism and allegory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I think that's where the Holy Spirit comes in. I just read, if he wants to enlighten me on something (ever had one of those - OMG - I see it now - moments that happen just out of the blue and almost knock you off your chair? That's him :)) go for it, if not, I read for enjoyment. It was after years of just reading I realized its essence is prophecy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Well put, Sunesis, very well put indeed!
I spent 5 years teaching writing and humane letters at a small Christian classical academy, and some very important things have been overlooked and forgotten since the "Enlightenment" (17th-18th centuries A.D.). One of these things is that ALL language is primarily metaphorical. Even science and history. Mathematics is simply a language adapted to describe quantifiable experiences.
All words, ALL of 'em, have fundamental experiential meanings, and figurative (poetic) meanings drawn from qualities of the original experiences. For instance, the original fundamental meaning of "spirit" ("ruach", "pneuma") is "air (one of the four elements) in motion because it is admixed with fire (another of the four elements)". Since breathing (air in motion) is so closely associated with being alive, "spirit" took on the figurative meaning of "the power of life". I believe that's what it meant to the people who first wrote and read the Bible. After the Crisis of the Third Century, "spirit" took on the neo-platonic meaning of "the substance of of a parallel cosmos inaccessible to the senses". That's how Augustine used it, and generally speaking, how we still think of it today. That's also how Wierwille taught it.
Another example is "the heavens". The heavens are what you see when you go outdoors and look up on a clear night. The heavens are a place of predictable movement. The only things visible are "fiery" so the heavens were the realm of fire. The heavens were considered plural because there are a few heavenly bodies that move at different rates and in different directions from the fixed stars. But the movement of even these "wanderers" is predictable (so each one had its own heaven). The figurative meaning of the heavens is "a place of safety", because they are too high for the turmoils of the earth to reach. That's why the gods (fire elementals, as opposed to the demon air elementals, or the human earth elementals) were supposed to live in the heavens.
And despite what Wierwille taught about "anything from above the ground was from heaven", the heavens didn't begin until the orbit of the moon. Clouds are in the realm of "air", and we always see clouds in front of the moon, never behind it. So the realm of fire, the heavens, began at the orbit of the moon.
The heavens are "a place of safety" because the trouble that afflicts the earth can't reach them. That's why good things are reserved for us in the heavens. They are kept safe there until it's time for them to come down to us from heaven. That's also why the attempt to build the tower at Babel was such an affront.
Augustine conflated the "heavens" also with the neo-platonic parallel cosmos inaccessible to the senses
Soooo... I agree with Sunesis. The purpose of the Bible is not to teach science or history, but to communicate Truth through metaphorical means (which is not always the same as allegory). And one way the Holy Spirit communicates with us is to open the eyes of our understanding to poetic significances in the Bible.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wouldn't that make scholastic studies of the scriptures pointless?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Most people read for enjoyment - think, Bible as Literature class.
If someone doesn't believe it, yes, I think studying it scholastically would be pointless. Why study?
There would be so many more interestng things to spend your time studying or reading.
If you believed it, then to that person, it would be an interesting, maybe fascinating topic.
Its like, I don't believe in Confusianism (sic). Its nice to read a book on it, but why would I spend my life studying it? It would be a waste of time and there would be much better things to study - for me.
I guess its all relative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I don't think so, waysider. Ephesians 1:16&17 read,
"16 [i, Paul] Cease not to give thanks for you,making mention of you in my prayers;
"17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him [en epignosei autou]."
The word "knowledge" (epignosei) is dative singular.
According to Eric G. Jay's (1958) New Testament Greek; An Introductory Grammar, "To express instrument the dative case is used without a preposition: lithoi 'by a stone', or, 'with a stone'; logchais 'with spears'. In the New Testament, but not in classical Greek, the preposition en may also be used with the dative case to express instrument, en machairai 'with a sword'" (p. 72).
According to Ephesians 1:17, God gives us the Spirit of wisdom and revelation with, or by, the instrument of our knowledge of Him, which come from, among other things, a scholarly knowledge of His Word. The more we know and understand about God's Word, the more inspiration the Holy Spirit can give to guide us in our understanding.
The Spirit and the written Word act as a system of checks and balances. If we magnify the written Word and ignore the Spirit, as TWI did, we fall into pharisaic legalism. If we magnify spirit and neglect the written Word, as CES/STFI did, we fall into emotionalistic spiritualism.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Dale B. Martin shows that Ephesians was not written by Paul, the same
writer of Ephesians also wrote Colossians, funny how that Gnosticism
spirit teachings got into them two books?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
In antiquity, nobody wrote in solitude the way we do today. Paul had a group of people around him when he wrote, including the scribe who wrote down what Paul decided to commit to writing, after he had presented it to the group for discussion and feedback.If Paul wasn't personally able to write Ephesians and Colossians, I think his close companions did. I think they replicated what Paul would have said to the best of their ability. This was NOT an unusual practice in the first century. I don't think "that Gnosticism spirit teachings" got into Ephesians and Colossians through inserted forgeries.
The meanings of the word "spirit" changed between the time of Paul and the time of Augustine around the turn of the fifth century, from stoic meanings to neo-platonic. After Theodosius declared everyone except "trinitarians" (as we still understand that term today) to be deranged, insane heretics, writers like Augustine went to town to read "Gnostic spirit teachings" into the language that Paul and others had already written.
The object is not to get rid of the confusion by cutting out the words we don't understand, but to recover an understanding of what they meant when they were originally written and read.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Cool stuff, it was a trip hearing Dale B. Martin teach what he taught. I thought it was
wild how the book of Ephesians had no tile, it was up to the person to put a name on
it, some of the old greek copies of Ephesians, have where Ephesians should go, blank?
I think a workman of the word, should cut out mans teachings from the word, but that
is my thought, cool stuff Steve, thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
great thread, What About It.
Waysider, thanks for the old Bill C. Noah routine - i just love that - hadn't heard it since i was in grammar school - a nun had it on vinyl and played it for our class.
i lean toward the old earth camp myself, having read some of Hugh Ross' stuff that Sunesis mentioned.
i read a book a long time ago The Harmony of Science & Scripture by Harry Rimmer - read it a few years after taking PFAL. i used to have a more rigid viewpoint of the Bible & science being in absolute agreement - with the Bible being the touchstone for truth & accuracy on any given subject - even science. The doctrines of TWI helped to form this opinion i had.
however, i'm of the opinion now the Bible is a religious book addressing mostly philosophical and moral issues as well as some day-to-day practical issues - and for me personally i hold the Bible to be a great resource for exploring my faith, communing with my Lord and maintaining a moral compass.....but i no longer believe my faith will fall to pieces if there's discrepancies within the Bible or between the Bible and science....my faith is not built on a book but a person....and besides, i usually defer to science if there's a conflict between it and scripture cuz the hard data of science does not lend itself so easily to a variety of interpretations as a religious document does.
i like Hugh Ross' approach on issues - like the ways science figures out how old the earth & cosmos are and then considering viable alternate interpretations of scripture that are complementary. The folks who study things like carbon-dating, physics, thermodynamics, planet/galaxy formation theories, paleontology, geology, genetics, etc.imho afford us with an inexhaustible treasure trove of sublime knowledge about our world and it seems to be ever-growing in accuracy and detail! i also like stuff by Michio Kaku, Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking - not saying i understand it all but stuff about the theory of everything, superstring and other dimensions fascinates me.
i no longer hold to the gap theory in Genesis - but lean towards Ross' idea that there are several summary statements on the creation, followed by the author then giving more details. So, Genesis 1:1 being a summation - in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, verse 2 provides a little more detail on that process. In other words,it's not reading as a linear time-line of events following verse 1 - but may simply be a literary tool jumping BACK in time so to speak, to the period of verse 1 and having the camera zoom in on specific scenes: the creation of the electromagnetic spectrum, planet formation, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Very interesting posts Steve! Where did you learn about what the words originaly meant and how they've been changed? I'd like to learn more.
T-Bone - good to see you again.
I have been reading more of Ross' books. I have a feeling we read the same one - "The Genesis Question." A really excellent book that does a good job of dispelling the "gap" theory, and shows how, the earth and life evolved naturally from the fossil record. Wonderful book.
One thing he said really made me think. If you look at the hominid chart I posted early in this threat, it looks like much "experimenting" going on - lots of different groups, etc. Plus, in the fossil record - creation after creation whether plant or animal, one dies out, another shows up.
But, the point he made is: God is Elohim - The Creator.
After he created, on the 7th day, Creator God - Elohim - RESTED. Think about that. He rested.
God is no longer "creating." He is at "rest." Man now creates. He creates life - millions of babies born every day, he builds buildings, he harnesses energy - Man is now the "creature" who creates.
When does God finish his rest and begin creating again? In Revelation: Behold, I make all things new.
He goes into creation mode again - and we, his redeemed, get to "behold it" and "watch" as he does a "new thing" so no one, neither angel nor new creation will ever again doubt that He is The Creator.
That's why, you have massive creation - then, after Adam - it stopped. God rested on the seventh day - the Sabbath. He is still at rest. There have been no newly created species, animals, plants from Adam's time on. Sure, there have been discoveries of things that have been here, that man never saw, deep in the forests and oceans that he discovers - but the "creating" of new life has stopped. Its in man's hands now.
Also, I still think it was possible for Satan to fall anytime from Gen 1:1 on - before or after the creation of our universe.
Who knows if all of the fossil record were all Elohim's creation.
You may like Ross's "Beyond the Cosmos" dealing with dimensions. God outside of time and space... in that arena, outside of our dimension, he is unlimited. We always seem to want to bring God down to our level.
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hi Sunesis - good to see you too!
yeah, i like Ross' stuff - his website is cool too:
http://www.reasons.org/
and yeah, Steve - you may find Ross' "Beyond the Cosmos" book interesting
~~
i mentioned Michio Kaku in my previous post....i caught him a few times on TV talking about creation, other dimensions, and superstring stuff so bought a couple of his books - "Beyond Einstein" and "Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension"....i mentioned in my post the fascination i have with other dimensions & superstring theory.
i feel these authors do a good job explaining such complicated ideas to everyday folks. my christian perspective enjoys this stuff as a fun way to speculate about qualities of the spiritual realm, technical details of miracles and the characteristics of the new heaven and earth....yes, it's all just speculation - which is fun to do - but something i realized a long time ago - learning about the world around me through science seems to have a faith-deepening effect on me.
~~
.....anyway, some ideas from Kaku's "Hyperspace" pages 195 & 196 over the beginning of the cosmos - additional dimensions may be the key to understanding what happened.... i feel it may be thought provoking for this thread:
'....We can say that present-day theories of Creation are built on two pillars: quantum theory and Einstein's theory of gravity. We can say that, for the first time in a thousand years, religious "proofs" of the existence of God are being replaced by our understanding of thermodynamics and particle physics. However, by replacing God's act of Creation with the Big Bang, we have supplanted one problem with another. Aquinas thought he solved the problem of what came before God by defining him as the First Mover. Today. we are still struggling with the question of what happened before the Big Bang.
Unfortunately, Einstein's equations break down at the enomously small distances and large energies found at the origin of the universe. At distances on the order of 10 -33 centimeter, quantum effects take over from Einstein's theory. Thus to resolve the philosophical questions involving the beginning of time, we must necessarily invoke the ten-dimensional theory.
Throughout this book, we have emphasized the fact that the laws of physics unify when we add higher dimensions. When studying the Big bang, we see the precise reverse of this statement. The Big Bang, as we shall see, perhaps originated in the breakdown of the original ten-dimensional universe into a four - and a six-dimensional universe. Thus we can view the history of the Big Bang as the history of the breakup of ten-dimensional space and hence the breakup of previously unified symmetries. This in turn, is the theme of this book in reverse.
It is no wonder, therefore, that piecing together the dynamics of the Big Bang has been difficult. In effect, by going backward in time, we are reassembling the pieces of the ten-dimensional universe.
...Every year we find more experimental evidence that the Big Bang occurred roughly 15 to 20 billion years ago...
end of excerpts
~~
which brings to mind some of what Sunesis was sharing about in the future - in the book of Revelation when God again creates.....heaven and earth will unified - back to a ten-dimensional universe in perfect symmetry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
oh yeah, getting back to one of your questions -
- i meant to look up the Adam creation date issue in Hugh Ross' "The Genesis Question".
from pages 107, 108:
"....Once the Bible became available in English, some British church leaders busied themselves with figuring out the precise date when God created Adam (and Eve, presumably).Genesis 5, together with Genesis 11, served as the basis for their calculations. The math seemed relatively simple and straightforward. Add the ages of the fathers to the ages of their sons and work backward from the fairly well-established date of Abraham.
Cambridge University's Vice-Chancellor John Lightfoot and the Anglican Archbishop of Ireland, James Ussher, actually became caught up in a race to see who could publish an accurate date first...
...The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 can be misleading to Westerners who know little about Jewish culture and tradition...
...Lightfoot and Ussher in their calculations and Western thinking presumed that Genesis 5 and 11 present meticulously complete genealogical records. Most Jewish scholars never published a date for Adam because they knew their cultural heritage.The Old Testament (and New Testament) genealogies are considered adequate lists on the heroes or notables..."
end of excerpts
~~
Ross adds some additional info to the mix, pages 110, 111 of same book:
"...Bipedal, tool-using, comparatively large-brained primates (called hominids by anthropologists) may have roamed the Earth as long ago as 1.5 million years, but religious relics and altars date as far back as twenty-four thousand years, at most, and art containing indisputable spiritual content just five thousand years...
...With reasonably reliable figures for the natural DNA mutations, rates derived from this research, from another study on the Finnish population, and from more studies currently underway, we can explore dates for the common ancestor of all humans. In 1995 a Y-chromosome research project - one which examined a hundred times more nucleotide base pairs than any previous study - fixed the date for the most recent common ancestor of all human males as somewhere between 35,000 and 47,000 B.C...."
end of excerpts
~~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.