What does Jesus Christ have in common with the sun?

[spectrum49]

Someone I know here recently asked: "Does true science align with the Bible?" The simplest answer I can give is derived from 1Tim 6:20b "...avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called".

Obviously, there's science that isn't worthy to even be called that, which should be avoided. (In the Greek, it's literally "pseudo-science".) This alludes that "true science" is something NOT to be avoided, provided there "really is such a thing" to begin with. So, is there?

This has been debated by notable theologians and scientists alike for a very long time! Now, I won't promise what I say will "absolutely prove" a correlation actually exists between the natural and supernatural realms. But (by providing examples) I'll show how God uses the things he made as "stepping stones" toward understanding the Scriptures. Then the reader can decide whether or not God has linked science and Scripture together.

Here's a key verse to keep in mind: Ro 1:20 "For the invisible things [spiritual realities] of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

God said there's no excuse for not believing in "his eternal power", because he placed indicators throughout nature so anyone can clearly see things concerning the supernatural. Without considering the things God made, those "invisible things" remain hidden.

Case in point: In Genesis 1 we read that God "made the stars". So, just what can be understood about the invisible realm by considering those? Among them all, only two are called "great lights": Gen 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Let's consider the sun, which is the greater of the two:

As we know, the sun provides light to the earth; and without it, there's no natural life here. Interestingly, the same is also true concerning Jesus Christ: 1Jn 5:12 "He that hath the son hath life; and he that hath not the son of God hath not life." Because of Jesus Christ, we can have spiritual life. By itself, that verse doesn't seem to carry much weight; but at least it's a start. So, here's another:

Jn 8:12a  "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world..." Now, one might suppose I'm reading into the Word, but I assure you it's the other way around!

Throughout the Bible, only one man is ever described by the term "great light". And that just happens to be Jesus Christ! So from that, one might suppose a connection exists between him and the only star in the entire universe which God called "great light". (Although the moon is also called "great light", we know from science it has no light of its own; it merely reflects sunlight.)

And this is why Jesus Christ could say "I am the light of the world." Now, I'm not indicating that Jesus is actually "a mass of burning hydrogen in space" --- how ridiculous!  But (in a figure) we can appreciate that there "just might be come connection" between the two.

Let me say that what the sun provides for the earth in the physical sense parallels what Jesus Christ provides in the spiritual sense. Without Scripture references, consider the sun as a source of energy and power. Surely, we've read how Jesus is also a source of energy (Gk: enérgeia) and power (Gk: dunamis, exousia and kratos, among others).

The "scriptural evidence" along this line is vast! Now, anyone can use a concordance to look deeper and appreciate even further what the Bible's Author is helping us to clearly see, which otherwise (as I said earlier) remains hidden.

Here are some other "indicators":

Is 9:2 "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined…(6) For unto us a child is born..."

Rev 21:23 "The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for...the lamb [Jesus Christ] is its lamp."

Acts 22:6 "And it came to pass, that, as I [Paul] made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. (7) And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (8) And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest."

Lk 2:32a [Simeon, describing Jesus] "A light to lighten the Gentiles..."

So ask yourself: "Might there be some mysterious connection with the science of astronomy and the written Word of God?" If it would be of help, consider this quote from someone who also noticed a connection existing between the natural and supernatural realms: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein!

There's certainly a lot more to this! Considering I've given an ample amount of information to ponder already, I'll pause here. Depending upon how this Topic goes, we might investigate it even further. 

Edited October 18, 2017 by spectrum49
punctuation

[Bolshevik]

Interesting topic.  Einstein quotes are often taken out of context.  I would be cautious.

You might look into Jean Piaget.  I've heard he spent his career trying to to "solve" the relationship between science and religion.

 

[Tom Geiger]

You might want to do a little research on that quote form Einstein.

[spectrum49]

4 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

Interesting topic.  Einstein quotes are often taken out of context.  I would be cautious...

Actually, I had looked into what others thought of Einstein's quote; and there's much on both sides. You guys are sharp! Please excuse me for supposing that quoting Einstein would add "clout" to my post.

So (excluding that one remark) what have you to comment concerning the rest of my post, except to merely say it's interesting?

[Raf]

It's very poetic.

[Bolshevik]

1 hour ago, spectrum49 said:

Actually, I had looked into what others thought of Einstein's quote; and there's much on both sides. You guys are sharp! Please excuse me for supposing that quoting Einstein would add "clout" to my post.

So (excluding that one remark) what have you to comment concerning the rest of my post, except to merely say it's interesting?

Yes.  

You've made a lot of analogies.  But I believe you're trying to hammer a deeper point.  

Are you intending for science and the natural world to mean the same thing?

[spectrum49]

6 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

Yes.  

You've made a lot of analogies.  But I believe you're trying to hammer a deeper point.  

Are you intending for science and the natural world to mean the same thing?

Yes. But only to the extent that science agrees with God's design of "the natural world", as opposed to "pseudo-science" (aka: "science falsely so called"). And yes again, I truly am alluding to something deeper. (How astute of you to "pick up" on that!) As for "hammering": Sorry, but I don't quite see it that way; I was merely doing what I could to explain the point enough to cover those who "just don't get it right away", like you seem to.)

Edited October 19, 2017 by spectrum49
punctuation

[Bolshevik]

13 hours ago, spectrum49 said:

Yes. But only to the extent that science agrees with God's design of "the natural world", as opposed to "pseudo-science" (aka: "science falsely so called"). And yes again, I truly am alluding to something deeper. (How astute of you to "pick up" on that!) As for "hammering": Sorry, but I don't quite see it that way; I was merely doing what I could to explain the point enough to cover those who "just don't get it right away", like you seem to.)

Perhaps "touching upon" would have been a better to say than "hammering".

I will agree with you that the Bible itself is a natural occurring phenomenon, among others.  It is an expression of the natural world.

 

 

[Bolshevik]

I just found the other thread that inspired this one.  I haven't read up on that one and don't intend to at the moment.  Although I have read the end of your last post.

I'm also assuming this Sun-god and Son-god idea is fairly common knowledge.  There are numerous interpretations as to why that is.

 

[rrobs]

On 10/17/2017 at 4:25 PM, spectrum49 said:

Someone I know here recently asked: "Does true science align with the Bible?" The simplest answer I can give is derived from 1Tim 6:20b "...avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called".

Obviously, there's science that isn't worthy to even be called that, which should be avoided. (In the Greek, it's literally "pseudo-science".) This alludes that "true science" is something NOT to be avoided, provided there "really is such a thing" to begin with. So, is there?

This has been debated by notable theologians and scientists alike for a very long time! Now, I won't promise what I say will "absolutely prove" a correlation actually exists between the natural and supernatural realms. But (by providing examples) I'll show how God uses the things he made as "stepping stones" toward understanding the Scriptures. Then the reader can decide whether or not God has linked science and Scripture together.

Here's a key verse to keep in mind: Ro 1:20 "For the invisible things [spiritual realities] of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

God said there's no excuse for not believing in "his eternal power", because he placed indicators throughout nature so anyone can clearly see things concerning the supernatural. Without considering the things God made, those "invisible things" remain hidden.

Case in point: In Genesis 1 we read that God "made the stars". So, just what can be understood about the invisible realm by considering those? Among them all, only two are called "great lights": Gen 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Let's consider the sun, which is the greater of the two:

As we know, the sun provides light to the earth; and without it, there's no natural life here. Interestingly, the same is also true concerning Jesus Christ: 1Jn 5:12 "He that hath the son hath life; and he that hath not the son of God hath not life." Because of Jesus Christ, we can have spiritual life. By itself, that verse doesn't seem to carry much weight; but at least it's a start. So, here's another:

Jn 8:12a  "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world..." Now, one might suppose I'm reading into the Word, but I assure you it's the other way around!

Throughout the Bible, only one man is ever described by the term "great light". And that just happens to be Jesus Christ! So from that, one might suppose a connection exists between him and the only star in the entire universe which God called "great light". (Although the moon is also called "great light", we know from science it has no light of its own; it merely reflects sunlight.)

And this is why Jesus Christ could say "I am the light of the world." Now, I'm not indicating that Jesus is actually "a mass of burning hydrogen in space" --- how ridiculous!  But (in a figure) we can appreciate that there "just might be come connection" between the two.

Let me say that what the sun provides for the earth in the physical sense parallels what Jesus Christ provides in the spiritual sense. Without Scripture references, consider the sun as a source of energy and power. Surely, we've read how Jesus is also a source of energy (Gk: enérgeia) and power (Gk: dunamis, exousia and kratos, among others).

The "scriptural evidence" along this line is vast! Now, anyone can use a concordance to look deeper and appreciate even further what the Bible's Author is helping us to clearly see, which otherwise (as I said earlier) remains hidden.

Here are some other "indicators":

Is 9:2 "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined…(6) For unto us a child is born..."

Rev 21:23 "The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for...the lamb [Jesus Christ] is its lamp."

Acts 22:6 "And it came to pass, that, as I [Paul] made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. (7) And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (8) And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest."

Lk 2:32a [Simeon, describing Jesus] "A light to lighten the Gentiles..."

So ask yourself: "Might there be some mysterious connection with the science of astronomy and the written Word of God?" If it would be of help, consider this quote from someone who also noticed a connection existing between the natural and supernatural realms: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein!

There's certainly a lot more to this! Considering I've given an ample amount of information to ponder already, I'll pause here. Depending upon how this Topic goes, we might investigate it even further. 

One thing I'm wondering is what popped in the mind of the average person who lived 2, 4, or 6 thousand years ago in the Middle East upon hearing the word "science." Probably not what we think of it today. It probably would have been easy enough to see the stars and make some connection between them and the nature of God (Rom 1:20), but they had no clue as to the existence of DNA for example. Is there any allusion to DNA in the scriptures? I think so. Genesis 1 says several times, "after it's/his kind." So while they may not have known about DNA per say, they could in fact understand the basic concept. When we treat genetic disorders, we use high tech methods. That is what we have come to believe is the only way to cure such diseases. With God, it is only a matter of believing (Matt 17:20) to cure them. Both work, but God's method is simpler (at least once the difficult part of actually believing is accomplished), not to mention cheaper. Unfortunately, hard to really believe and bring into concretion. Hard is putting it mildly. But that doesn't affect God one bit, just us.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2017 by rrobs

[spectrum49]

rrobs:

At this point, it seems you're still fighting the notion that the laws of science (which govern nature) might be in harmony with Scripture. You seem to be implying that the two are "separate and opposing forces". But that's quite all right...God is patient, and so am I.

[In another place, you asked: "So is science the missing ingredient to our knowledge of  "life and godliness" or is it the nemesis, man's logic/wisdom holding us back from believing the word?" I seem to think you presently side with the latter.]

However, you DO seem to be on the right track by mentioning "after it's kind" in connection with DNA, because the word for "kind" is "genos", from which we derive "genetics". And (from other wording on the third day in Gen 1) one might even appreciate the notion of "botany" in relation to how vegetation actually grows.

We must step back and really ask ourselves if science and nature are truly "a nemesis" (archenemy, foe, opposing force) to God. If we believe that God created the physical things of the universe (nature) and the laws of science which govern it, we might give serious consideration before we dare suppose he designed all of that merely "to hoodwink us poor humans" and distract us from the Scriptures...toward something so beautiful, and yet "evil". God forbid!

There seem a thousand ways to elaborate on this. Let me pick a verse: (Prov 6:6) "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise." I speak as a fool: "How dare God make ants (which are part of this evil world we live in) and then tempt me by saying I can gain wisdom by learning all about them...instead of reading my Bible! I believe I can be wise enough without studying silly things, such as ants."

To properly "consider the ways of ants" (as God had requested) one can learn quite a bit by perusing books on entomology, if he likes --- because the Bible itself provides very little about ants compared to what a person might find in a library. Okay...here's another:

Job 12:7-9 "But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?"

What do you suppose God means by encouraging us to "speak to the animals, birds and fish"? Is that not the same as what I said about "studying ants"? Might it be a good idea to look into zoology, ornithology and ichthyology at times --- in ADDITION to studying the Bible?

Personally, I enjoy astronomy. And the more I learn about it, the greater I appreciate God's magnificence, because God made the stars for GOOD reasons. There are many wonderful books which expand upon this from a Biblical perspective. One is "The Witness of the Stars" by EW Bullinger. And I also learn of many amazing details about things in the universe by watching The Science Channel.

But if one likes, he can have "a little morsel" on the subject by reading Job 38:31-33 which merely mentions Pleiades (the "7 Sisters" in Taurus), the belt of Orion, Mazzaroth (the 12 constellations of the zodiac), and the Great Bear with it's cubs (the Big and Little Dippers). Sorry, but my appetite is larger than just for "a little snack".

All in all, I believe the things in nature "harmonize" with scriptural truth. To me, they aren't "parts of an evil nemesis". Instead, God designed them so we humans might relate to (invisible) spiritual truths via "things we can see" --- which we can study and gain wisdom from, right along with Scripture itself.

Above all else, let's remember what God declared right after he made that which comprises nature (like the stars, fish, birds, and animals, etc.): Gen 1:31b "...behold, it was very good!"

[rrobs]

18 hours ago, spectrum49 said:

 

 

Quote

rrobs:

At this point, it seems you're still fighting the notion that the laws of science (which govern nature) might be in harmony with Scripture. You seem to be implying that the two are "separate and opposing forces". But that's quite all right...God is patient, and so am I.

I guess I wasn't clear, but I was trying to say that science and the Bible do agree. I used DNA as an example of how detailed the scriptures are with regard to science. Obviously, the ancient Middle Eastern man didn't know about the double helix, but they did understand the whole idea of plants/animals who had seed within itself.

[In another place, you asked: "So is science the missing ingredient to our knowledge of  "life and godliness" or is it the nemesis, man's logic/wisdom holding us back from believing the word?" I seem to think you presently side with the latter.]

I was trying to say that science can to easily take precedence over the word. Evolution comes to mind. The scientists often disregard what the scriptures have to say about it. They could easily harmonize if given a chance (evolution with genus), but science ignores the Bible and goes into la la land. Would have been more accurate to say that the scientists, not science, can become a nemesis. On the other hand, there are Christian scientists who do just the opposite. They use their science to glorify God.

However, you DO seem to be on the right track by mentioning "after it's kind" in connection with DNA, because the word for "kind" is "genos", from which we derive "genetics". And (from other wording on the third day in Gen 1) one might even appreciate the notion of "botany" in relation to how vegetation actually grows.

We must step back and really ask ourselves if science and nature are truly "a nemesis" (archenemy, foe, opposing force) to God. If we believe that God created the physical things of the universe (nature) and the laws of science which govern it, we might give serious consideration before we dare suppose he designed all of that merely "to hoodwink us poor humans" and distract us from the Scriptures...toward something so beautiful, and yet "evil". God forbid!

There seem a thousand ways to elaborate on this. Let me pick a verse: (Prov 6:6) "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise." I speak as a fool: "How dare God make ants (which are part of this evil world we live in) and then tempt me by saying I can gain wisdom by learning all about them...instead of reading my Bible! I believe I can be wise enough without studying silly things, such as ants."

Excellent example. I have often thought about ants while working. I believe it has made me a better worker.

To properly "consider the ways of ants" (as God had requested) one can learn quite a bit by perusing books on entomology, if he likes --- because the Bible itself provides very little about ants compared to what a person might find in a library. Okay...here's another:

I never went to a library or read about ants. I just watched them and I often remarked to my wife how the little guys are ineradicable workers. Single minded also. Tough little guys. I live in the middle of nowhere, so I have lots of time for things like watching ants.

Job 12:7-9 "But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?"

Pretty simple English there.

What do you suppose God means by encouraging us to "speak to the animals, birds and fish"? Is that not the same as what I said about "studying ants"? Might it be a good idea to look into zoology, ornithology and ichthyology at times --- in ADDITION to studying the Bible?

As a matter of fact, I have a biology book sitting in the bathroom that passes time while I pass waste material! Obviously not hard core studying, but I enjoy it and time after time I'll say something to my wife like, "How in the world can someone believe that the eye of a moth came about by chance?" In other words, it makes me appreciate God and his creation more. I'm not sure reading about it is necessary. As you pointed out, God just told the believers to watch them. They didn't have any books on the subject. Still, I understand that you are just saying that reading about it increases appreciation for the things of God, as I related with the moth eye.

Personally, I enjoy astronomy. And the more I learn about it, the greater I appreciate God's magnificence, because God made the stars for GOOD reasons. There are many wonderful books which expand upon this from a Biblical perspective. One is "The Witness of the Stars" by EW Bullinger. And I also learn of many amazing details about things in the universe by watching The Science Channel.

I have an 8" Celestron. And yes, how in the world did God figure out where to put the trillions of stars and in which direction/velocity to make them move so as to keep it all together? And he even knew which ones would explode, change orbit, etc. But they still worked perfectly. Fascinating. I also have a microscope and enjoy looking at  the near and small along with the far and large. I have and I've read Bullinger's Witness of the Stars. I do believe there used to be a class on it at the Way, but I could be mistaken about that. I was blessed enough to take pretty much every class they had at least once, and I seem to remember that as being one of them.

But if one likes, he can have "a little morsel" on the subject by reading Job 38:31-33 which merely mentions Pleiades (the "7 Sisters" in Taurus), the belt of Orion, Mazzaroth (the 12 constellations of the zodiac), and the Great Bear with it's cubs (the Big and Little Dippers). Sorry, but my appetite is larger than just for "a little snack".

All in all, I believe the things in nature "harmonize" with scriptural truth. To me, they aren't "parts of an evil nemesis". Instead, God designed them so we humans might relate to (invisible) spiritual truths via "things we can see" --- which we can study and gain wisdom from, right along with Scripture itself.

Above all else, let's remember what God declared right after he made that which comprises nature (like the stars, fish, birds, and animals, etc.): Gen 1:31b "...behold, it was very good!"

Have you ever looked at the words "good" and "evil?" I think many times it is too easy to give those words a moral meaning. Hitler is evil, Mother Theresa is good, and such. I understand that the ancient Hebrews did not think in abstract terms. To them "good" (tov) meant something that was functional or worked. "Evil" (ra) meant something that was non-functional or did not work. A car that runs is good in the sense that it functions and one that doesn't run is evil in the sense that it does not function. My (and everybody else's) actions either serve to enhance life or to diminish it. When people act against the word it doesn't make them evil in some monstrous sense. It just means they are not adding to the overall quality of life on this planet. There actions are non-functional and produce fruit accordingly.

When God made the earth everything was good in the sense that it functioned, it worked. Adam of course started a whole chain of actions that were non-functional and didn't work the way God intended.

I hope that clears a few things up. I've not seen anything you've said that I would say is against the word at all. I've pursued this line of reasoning in the past. Thanks for bringing it to my attention again. It's great stuff!

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by rrobs
Content

[Bolshevik]

Science and the Bible not agreeing could simply mean the wrong area of science has been applied.

*bites tongue and runs away*

[spectrum49]

rrobs:

First, a general note on how you and & communicate: Overall, I think it's going well. Obviously, (after all) you're in agreement that (true) science is in line with Scripture. However, you hadn't made that quite clear by the way you've been wording some things. (And that's okay; as I said earlier, I try to be patient.)

You might have noticed how "I'm not so quick to judge", as when I said "...it seems you're still fighting the notion...". This method was rather ingrained into my thinking while I was an air traffic controller. (And since you were a pilot, you can relate.) We said things like "Agar 27, you're wheels appear up." And that wording "protects" the controller in the event he's actually mistaken.

Nevertheless, I see we're (basically) "on the same page" concerning the relationship between "science and Scripture". (Whew!)

Second, I like the way you "quote" my entire post at times and then (in between, in red) insert your reply. This method helps a lot, because it rather "streamlines" the dialogue. I might try that too. (Thanks!)

I'll continue "our discussion" HERE in a future post. (I'll be "back in a few"...)

[spectrum49]

rrobs:

You said: "Still, I understand that you are just saying that reading about it [science, as in ants or the moth eye] increases appreciation for the things of God..."

And that's precisely my point. If (in some little way) I can relate Scripture with (true) science, then my awe of God increases. And as a result, there's a "little more reverence" behind my daily devotions to him.

I see you have an 8" Celestron. Impressive! (I bet it's worth $2k or so.) And no doubt, having read Bullinger's book Witness of the Stars has enhanced your appreciation for God's magnificence and splendor.

Now, answering to your reply (but not "in order"):

You said: "Adam of course started a whole chain of actions that were non-functional and didn't work the way God intended."

Not to pick, but there's a slight flaw in that logic, because everything truly does function according to God's design! Granted though, it's a fact that events don't exactly flow according to his best wishes. However:

Despite that (within God's original, perfect design) he had already made provision for "these deviations at times" in what I consider as his contingency plan --- so that his "primary will" basically continues onward (precisely as planned), despite the "slight interruptions along the way". Case in point:

Certainly, God didn't intend Lucifer to "mess up the earth" by starting the war in heaven. However, God had already planned for such an event, and dealt with it accordingly. (Basically, he "restored the earth", etc...and "the whole story" continues with the record of Adam in Eden.)

Another "interruption" (as it were) was the Great Flood of Noah's time, which was not God's original intent. Yet again, God had that all thought out ahead of time; and the story continues developing as we read further.

SO: Ultimately, God's original intent prevails, despite the slight delays at times. Consider this one verse: Is 45:7 "I [God] form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Interesting, huh? Yet God himself is not evil, but "good always"; and he certainly understands how to "fight fire with fire". Enough on that for now.

You asked me, Have you ever looked at the words "good" and "evil"?

Despite how the ancient Hebrews may have viewed good and evil (according to "tov" and "ra", as you elaborated on) I prefer to view both of these terms in the ultimate sense --- just as though they're equivalent to light and darkness. And this is simply because of Gen 1:4a "And God saw the light, that it was good...".

In closing, I reiterate your having said: "I hope that clears a few things up." And finally (for what it's worth) --- Thanks for calling my stuff great. Humbly,  it's simply the best I think to know thus far.

Edited October 20, 2017 by spectrum49
punctuation

[rrobs]

40 minutes ago, spectrum49 said:

rrobs:

You said: "Still, I understand that you are just saying that reading about it [science, as in ants or the moth eye] increases appreciation for the things of God..."

And that's precisely my point. If (in some little way) I can relate Scripture with (true) science, then my awe of God increases. And as a result, there's a "little more reverence" behind my daily devotions to him.

I see you have an 8" Celestron. Impressive! (I bet it's worth $2k or so.) And no doubt, having read Bullinger's book Witness of the Stars has enhanced your appreciation for God's magnificence and splendor.

Now, answering to your reply (but not "in order"):

You said: "Adam of course started a whole chain of actions that were non-functional and didn't work the way God intended."

Not to pick, but there's a slight flaw in that logic, because everything truly does function according to God's design! Granted though, it's a fact that events don't exactly flow according to his best wishes. However:

Despite that (within God's original, perfect design) he had already made provision for "these deviations at times" in what I consider as his contingency plan --- so that his "primary will" basically continues onward (precisely as planned), despite the "slight interruptions along the way". Case in point:

Certainly, God didn't intend Lucifer to "mess up the earth" by starting the war in heaven. However, God had already planned for such an event, and dealt with it accordingly. (Basically, he "restored the earth", etc...and "the whole story" continues with the record of Adam in Eden.)

Another "interruption" (as it were) was the Great Flood of Noah's time, which was not God's original intent. Yet again, God had that all thought out ahead of time; and the story continues developing as we read further.

SO: Ultimately, God's original intent prevails, despite the slight delays at times. Consider this one verse: Is 45:7 "I [God] form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Interesting, huh? Yet God himself is not evil, but "good always"; and he certainly understands how to "fight fire with fire". Enough on that for now.

You asked me, Have you ever looked at the words "good" and "evil"?

Despite how the ancient Hebrews may have viewed good and evil (according to "tov" and "ra", as you elaborated on) I prefer to view both of these terms in the ultimate sense --- just as though they're equivalent to light and darkness. And this is simply because of Gen 1:4a "And God saw the light, that it was good...".

In closing, I reiterate your having said: "I hope that clears a few things up." And finally (for what it's worth) --- Thanks for calling my stuff great. Humbly,  it's simply the best I think to know thus far.

The light was good, it functioned in that it made the rest possible. It was useful. It worked correctly. That's why God called it good. We think in terms of morality when we hear good and evil. Morality has nothing to do with the material universe. Remember, whoever wrote the words as they were moved by God could only use those that he understood. It is important to understand what they meant by good and evil. The Bible is written on there terms, not ours.  Otherwise I'd try to hide from God because I am supposed to "fear" him.

This world is not completely non-functional. True enough. We are the lights of the world and so there is always some good (tov) to stop the whole thing from melting into oblivion because of the evil (ra). There is the verse in Genesis that says every thought of man was continually evil (ra). "Every thought" and "continually" are pretty strong words in that context. Noah was the only thing going for God. I would say the world at present is non-functional, at least as compared to the world to come which will be totally functional, the opposite of the world right before the flood of Noah.

God does talk about the heavens and earth which are now as opposed as those to come. The former has some non-functionality in it, enough to some day blow it to smithereens. The latter will be pure good. I don't think our minds can grasp anything that is pure, but we will when the time comes. In that sense I guess, like you said, God is in control and has a plan which is perfect and right on target. Actually I don't "guess" that. I know it!

I got the Celestron used for about $600 about 20 years ago. It was used in name only as it hadn't been out of the box, so a killer deal to be sure.

[spectrum49]

rrobs:

Okay, I agree with your point concerning "good vs evil". In this world, there ARE varying degrees of each. Even concerning the time of the flood, you mentioned "every thought" and "continually" as being strong words in describing the state of the world at the time.

And that certainly didn't happen all at once, did it? It was actually a gradual decline, until "God couldn't stand it any longer"; and something finally had to be done. (Hence, the flood.) So of course, things weren't "exactly perfect" between the fall of man and the flood, were they?

And even Noah wasn't "perfect" either. However, he was a far cry from the rest of the world; and that made all the difference, or we just wouldn't be here! It is written: "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." (Gen 6:8). So in a sense, it might be said that Noah (and the other 7) were "saved by grace"...and I rather like that connection!

Yes indeed, God inspired people to use words in their own vocabularies (including their idioms and customs, etc). So, we should endeavor to comprehend what's written in light of their understanding. (By the way, good example of "fearing God"!) But I like to also take that just a step further, and ask myself: "What was God himself trying to convey to us, even by all of that?"

In answering, I like to compare what God said in one place and see how that agrees with what he says in other places. It's sort of like this: In a general sense, we can say that "God spoke the entire Word": 2Tim 3:16a "All scripture is God-breathed..." [lit: "out of the mouth of God"].

BUT! There are also places where God himself is speaking; and I believe these "direct quotes" should carry more weight than "what others were inspired to say upon his behalf" --- merely "as though" God himself was speaking. (ie: And God said: "xxx". I hope that's clear.)

Also is the notion of the order of the words used. In a general sense, we might consider Scripture as being "in perfect order", because (as we perceive) it all fits together without contradiction.

However, there are places where God takes the time to actually number things in order. And I tend to put more weight upon those special orderings than the rest, which is already in order to begin with (ie: first day, second day...seventh day).

Question: Do these "two conventions" (putting extra emphasis on direct quotes by God himself and things numbered in order) sound valid to you? (If so, then we might put those to use.)

[GoldStar]

Hi Spectrum49,

I just found this thread by browsing the site

I agree with your basic premise that there is a correlation between the natural world and the supernatural world

Basic logic:

God (supernatural spirit) created the heavens and the earth (natural), which correlates the natural and supernatural

But I see Genesis 1:16 ~ (TWO great lights, not one Great Light, but one Light is Greater)

"And God made two great lights; the Greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

Greater Light (Rules Day) = Sun

lesser light (rules night) = moon

fits more naturally with the scriptures as they are written:

SUN / MOON

GOD / LAMB (Jesus Christ)

"And the city had no need of the SUN, neither of the MOON, to shine in it: for the glory of GOD did lighten it, and the LAMB is the light thereof." ~ Revelation 21:23 (CAPS for easier viewing of correlation)

(By the way, the quote of Rev 21:23 in your original post omits a few very important words, including the word God, which affects the conclusion)

So:

There are 2 Great lights according to Genesis 1:16

But one is a Greater Light

Logic (Logos):

TWO great lights

ONE is the Greater Light

The Sun is Greater than the Moon

The Sun is the Greater Light

The Moon is lesser than the Sun

The Moon is the lesser light

God is Greater then Jesus

Jesus is lesser than God

So I cannot see Jesus being The Great Light

Both God and Jesus are Great Lights

But Jesus is the lesser light

God is The Greater Light

Just to let you know, my interest on this particular idea will not sustain very long, drawn out posts or conversations

I prefer to see the principal points & scriptures

I do follow the principle of Occam's Razor

God Bless

[Taxidev]

On 10/20/2017 at 6:35 PM, spectrum49 said:

If (in some little way) I can relate Scripture with (true) science, then my awe of God increases.

The way I see true science is that it merely explains what already is.  It doesn't discover anything, because it's already in front of us.  And it doesn't define anything new, because it is God that creates.  A scientist may discover something he didn't know, but the facts have always been there, because God already put them there.

So it is axiomatic that true science will always agree with scripture, because God created it all.  He set the physical and chemical laws in place.  If it doesn't agree with scripture, then the test and analysis is corrupted in some human way.  This is done frequently with statistics, to be able to support one's argument.  But that is not true science, that is manipulated science.  

So, how's your awe now?

[Rocky]

6 hours ago, Taxidev said:

The way I see true science is that it merely explains what already is.  It doesn't discover anything, because it's already in front of us.  And it doesn't define anything new, because it is God that creates.  A scientist may discover something he didn't know, but the facts have always been there, because God already put them there.

So it is axiomatic that true science will always agree with scripture, because God created it all.  He set the physical and chemical laws in place.  If it doesn't agree with scripture, then the test and analysis is corrupted in some human way.  This is done frequently with statistics, to be able to support one's argument.  But that is not true science, that is manipulated science.  

So, how's your awe now?

Granted that natural, physical laws already exist and to our knowledge do not change. However, it seems to me that you may not be using the word "discover" according to its dictionary definition/meaning.

Some definitions include:

• n. a productive insight
• n. something that is discovered
• n. the act of discovering something
• n. (law) compulsory pretrial disclosure of documents relevant to a case; enables one side in a litigation to elicit information from the other side concerning the facts in the case

 

A productive insight. To the person who obtains that productive insight, they come to know something they didn't know before. There's a helluva lot of that that's been going on in the history of the human species.

The entire set of knowledge known to mankind, at least about how time and space and matter work, has been gained after the fact. After those laws were put into operation.

However, discovery of human culture not only is evolving, but so is the human culture that can be subject to discovery.

Wouldn't you agree?

True science? Anthropology, archeology and sociology are true sciences. But they're not in the same category as astrophysics or organic chemistry or geology.

Edited March 13, 2018 by Rocky

[Taxidev]

1 hour ago, Rocky said:

A productive insight.

Yes, this is the definition I was utilizing.  And the insight they gained was to grasp a scientific concepts that already exists but they were unaware of until that moment.

 

1 hour ago, Rocky said:

However, discovery of human culture not only is evolving, but so is the human culture that can be subject to discovery.

Wouldn't you agree?

True science? Anthropology, archeology and sociology are true sciences. But they're not in the same category as astrophysics or organic chemistry or geology.

Yes, these are sciences.  And, from what I have seen, also fit my description of science.

Anthropology - not that I follow this science as closely as others, but so far I have not seen or heard anything that contradicts anything in the bible.  It may contradict what some "Christians" say, but so does the bible.

Archaeology - this one has actually proved many things in the bible, like findings of buildings talked about in the bible, artifacts that support the lifestyle in biblical times.

Sociology - I used to be extremely interest in psychology, which I found to be a bit bizarre, but never delved into this one, so my understanding of it is infinitesimal.  But - and please correct me if I'm mistaken - this is something than can only take place currently to have any accuracy.  The past can only be speculated on, not actually studied, as far as human interaction goes.  We do have some records in the bible that demonstrate mob mentality, both in the old and new testaments, but I wouldn't call that an actual study.

[Rocky]

11 hours ago, Taxidev said:

Yes, this is the definition I was utilizing.  And the insight they gained was to grasp a scientific concepts that already exists but they were unaware of until that moment.

 

Yes, these are sciences.  And, from what I have seen, also fit my description of science.

Anthropology - not that I follow this science as closely as others, but so far I have not seen or heard anything that contradicts anything in the bible.  It may contradict what some "Christians" say, but so does the bible.

Archaeology - this one has actually proved many things in the bible, like findings of buildings talked about in the bible, artifacts that support the lifestyle in biblical times.

Sociology - I used to be extremely interest in psychology, which I found to be a bit bizarre, but never delved into this one, so my understanding of it is infinitesimal.  But - and please correct me if I'm mistaken - this is something than can only take place currently to have any accuracy.  The past can only be speculated on, not actually studied, as far as human interaction goes.  We do have some records in the bible that demonstrate mob mentality, both in the old and new testaments, but I wouldn't call that an actual study.

Well, I guess if we wanted, we could argue semantics till the cows come home. I will simply say this, I essentially disagree with your interpretation of the concept of discovery.

Further, sociology is not necessarily limited to studying what's currently happening. Perhaps drawing from interdisciplinary cooperation, sociologists research past and present.

Sociology is the scientific study of society, including patterns of social relationships, social interaction, and culture.^[1][2][3] It is a social science that uses various methods of empirical investigation^[4] and critical analysis^[5] to develop a body of knowledge about social order, acceptance, and change. Many sociologists aim to conduct research that may be applied directly to social policy and welfare, while others focus primarily on refining the theoretical understanding of social processes. Subject matter ranges from the micro-sociology level of individual agency and interaction to the macro level of systems and the social structure.^[6]

The traditional focuses of sociology include social stratification, social class, social mobility, religion, secularization, law, sexuality and deviance. As all spheres of human activity are affected by the interplay between social structure and individual agency, sociology has gradually expanded its focus to other subjects, such as health, medical, economy, military and penal institutions, the Internet, education, social capital and the role of social activity in the development of scientific knowledge.

The range of social scientific methods has also expanded. Social researchers draw upon a variety of qualitative and quantitative techniques. The linguistic and cultural turns of the mid-twentieth century led to increasingly interpretative, hermeneutic, and philosophic approaches towards the analysis of society. Conversely, the end of the 1990s and the beginning of 2000s have seen the rise of new analytically, mathematically and computationally rigorous techniques, such as agent-based modelling and social network analysis.^[7][8]

Social research informs politicians and policy makers, educators, planners, legislators, administrators, developers, business magnates, managers, social workers, non-governmental organizations, non-profit organizations, and people interested in resolving social issues in general.

 

 

[Taxidev]

2 hours ago, Rocky said:

sociologists research past and present

That definition sure sounds current to me, especially after mentioning the 1990s and 2000s.  Certainly not biblical times.

 

2 hours ago, Rocky said:

I essentially disagree with your interpretation of the concept of discovery.

So what is your interpretation of it?

Here's an example of scientific discovery that lines up beautifully with the bible regarding the birth of Christ.  And this is definitely NOT from TWI.

http://www.askelm.com/star/index.asp

What they discovered was something that already existed.

Edited March 14, 2018 by Taxidev
New information

[Rocky]

44 minutes ago, Taxidev said:

That definition sure sounds current to me, especially after mentioning the 1990s and 2000s.  Certainly not biblical times.

 

So what is your interpretation of it?

Here's an example of scientific discovery that lines up beautifully with the bible regarding the birth of Christ.  And this is definitely NOT from TWI.

http://www.askelm.com/star/index.asp

What they discovered was something that already existed.

Again, that's arguing semantics. Discovery relates to human learning.

[Taxidev]

56 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Discovery relates to human learning

We are saying the same thing.