- Status
F
fms
Guest
I think you missed the point (further strengthening the argument that there is a giver of a message, the message itself, and the receiver of the message - in this case, you missed my message…)
I think it’s obvious that from time immemorial, people have described the sun rising and setting (and this across languages) because this is what they see…
Galileo comes and we have an understanding how it is the sun rises and sets but we still continue to use the language of rising and setting…
I think it’s obvious that from time immemorial, people have described the sun rising and setting (and this across languages) because this is what they see…
Galileo comes and we have an understanding how it is the sun rises and sets but we still continue to use the language of rising and setting…
B
BrJuniper
Guest
OK, but as it relates to understanding Scripture the point becomes what WAS meant by rise and set in 600bc, not what we now know. Thus, because human knowledge was incomplete, they thought it was the sun rising and setting and we maintain that as connotation. This does not detract from God’s revelation as God created both the sun and the earth, it is we humans who don’t get it. However, at no time did the Sun ever rise or set so there are those who do, and will, misunderstand.
G
Gblat
Guest
Wow. I’d like to see generational dates on that next to each name. Reading some of the test makes i sound like and exasperating effort to get it straight. And people actually use that to justify a “young Earth?” The legends of bedouins vs the geological record. Amazing. But like that lady said, “God writ the Bible in English, so it’s good enough for me!” Like FMS said: “Galileo comes and we have an understanding how it is the sun rises and sets but we still continue to use the language of rising and setting…” That is profound and revealing. I’ll stop; that is material for othe threads.
G
gentle_atheist
Guest
How so? What did I say that “got your goat,” so to speak?
OK. No argument there.
But if the author is God Himself then there is no “trying” about it. An omniscient God knows exactly how His words will be understood. And an omnipotent God has no difficulty in knowing which words to use to be understood as He intends.
So it is with the creation story in Genesis. According to the Jewish Virtual Library: “The vast majority of classical Rabbis hold that God created the world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay. This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder Olam, which was based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis.”
Didn’t God foresee that “the vast majority of classical Rabbis” would understand the creation story literally? Of course He did. To say otherwise is to deny God’s omniscience.
Couldn’t God convey the creation story in such a way so that “the vast majority of classical Rabbis” would understand that it was not to be taken literally? Of course He could. To say otherwise is to deny God’s omnipotence.
So God knew that the creation story would be taken literally, He could have changed it if He wanted to, but He chose not to do so. Should we reprimand God for intentionally leading “the vast majority of classical Rabbis” into believing a falsehood? Of course not. To do so would be to deny God’s truthfulness.
Thus we are left with only two options. We can accept the creation story as being literally true and reject the scientific evidence to the contrary. Or we can accept the scientific evidence as being true and reject the claims that God is the author of the creation story in Genesis.
That’s why I admire young earth creationists such as one of the posters on this forum, Buffalo. They understand what is at stake. Those who wish to have both their modern science and their Bible, too, haven’t really thought things through.
Well, that’s how I see it. Am I missing something?
N
Nat682
Guest
From what you have conjectured, one could state that the Calvinist belief in Predestination is the only logical conclusion. This is how I see the situation:
Anyone who has studied theoretical quantum physics ought to know that, every time a decision is made, the universe is split into multiple parallel universes, so that each possible choice happens in a different universe. Which universe we continue in is, of course, determined by the choice that is ultimately decided upon.
God is, as you stated, both omniscient and omnipotent. He created every single parallel universe that has ever existed and will ever exist – infinitely many, but our omnipotent God can do it. In his omnipotence, he also created humans and gave them free will to make their own choices and determine for themselves which of God’s parallel universes they venture into. God could choose to already know what decisions will be made and thus whether we will be predestined to Heaven or to Hell, but that would be depriving us of our free will, which God, in his omnipotence, chooses to let us have.
God gave the Israelites the Torah, which begins with the story of creation. His text says that creation occurred in six days. God gave us free will, and he entrusts us to use this free will to interpret his Word. God is not making any attempt to force a single interpretation on us. The Bible is a book of religion and Sacred Scriptures; it is neither a scientific treatise nor a mathematics textbook.
I don’t expect you to post your answer publicly, but think about this: Based on your reasoning and your understanding of this theology, why does God allow sin? If he is fully omnipotent, why didn’t he create humans so that they were incapable of offending him?
F
fms
Guest
Thank you! There has been some convergence…
F
fms
Guest
Thanks!
R
remnant7X7
Guest
I’m new to this thread and CAF. My first question is: Are any of you knowledgeable about Time Dilation, Space Time, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. And if so can anyone discuss the theory that from God’s perspective in relating the 6 days of creation, it was six days. Since time is dependent on the density of the Universe, time was originally much faster. And the First day would have been 8 billion years long from our perspective, the second day would have been 4 billion years, etc. From our perspective the earth’s time is dependent on the rotation of our planet in relation to our sun. Which is much slower than the background radiation of the first creation of the Universe which allows us to measure what time was at the point of creation. So let me know what you think.
C
chosen_people
Guest
Even those who would take a scientific rationalist view, i.e. that this is not the word of God from 1250 c.e.but a book of Jewish scriptures, inspired by the Jewish concept of God but written by men (see source P) dating from 900 c.e. we are still looking at a remarkable document, perhaps no less valuable or intriguing. The major creation story myth at that time is the Babylonian creation story the Enuma Elish. The Jewish creation story is a powerful polemic which by using as its basis the Babylonian myth turns it on its head. It begins with a statement and challenge to the entire world, there is one God and one God alone. He and He alone is the creator of all things. If God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish nation it was His and His alone to give. For the first time we do not have a God who is born and who dies or who is transformed but a God that has always existed and will forever exist. For the first time things are not created through violence and enmity and clashes but by the quiet will of this one omnipotent being, where every completed step is given a moral equivalent of goodness.How so? What did I say that “got your goat,” so to speak?
OK. No argument there.
But if the author is God Himself then there is no “trying” about it. An omniscient God knows exactly how His words will be understood. And an omnipotent God has no difficulty in knowing which words to use to be understood as He intends.
So it is with the creation story in Genesis. According to the Jewish Virtual Library: “The vast majority of classical Rabbis hold that God created the world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay. This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder Olam, which was based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis.”
Didn’t God foresee that “the vast majority of classical Rabbis” would understand the creation story literally? Of course He did. To say otherwise is to deny God’s omniscience.
Couldn’t God convey the creation story in such a way so that “the vast majority of classical Rabbis” would understand that it was not to be taken literally? Of course He could. To say otherwise is to deny God’s omnipotence.
So God knew that the creation story would be taken literally, He could have changed it if He wanted to, but He chose not to do so. Should we reprimand God for intentionally leading “the vast majority of classical Rabbis” into believing a falsehood? Of course not. To do so would be to deny God’s truthfulness.
Thus we are left with only two options. We can accept the creation story as being literally true and reject the scientific evidence to the contrary. Or we can accept the scientific evidence as being true and reject the claims that God is the author of the creation story in Genesis.
That’s why I admire young earth creationists such as one of the posters on this forum, Buffalo. They understand what is at stake. Those who wish to have both their modern science and their Bible, too, haven’t really thought things through.
Well, that’s how I see it. Am I missing something?
Incidentally, according to Torah, God created the world in 7 days ( the Sabbath is an integral and necessary part of the creation story).
S
Stumblesalot
Guest
Hi,
I believe there is a possible interesting study in here using Einstein’s theories on time dialation. Since time-space was created at the point of the theoretical ‘big bang’, then surely this is the time ‘clock’ we would take as a reference. Since, according to Einstein, time runs at a slower rate when subject to gravity; then six days in the initial rate of time progression could possibly equate to the millions of years we measure today in our temporal reference frame. I must admit to having never done the math on this possibility though ha ha.
God bless
I believe there is a possible interesting study in here using Einstein’s theories on time dialation. Since time-space was created at the point of the theoretical ‘big bang’, then surely this is the time ‘clock’ we would take as a reference. Since, according to Einstein, time runs at a slower rate when subject to gravity; then six days in the initial rate of time progression could possibly equate to the millions of years we measure today in our temporal reference frame. I must admit to having never done the math on this possibility though ha ha.
God bless
F
fms
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
No, that’s it. Based on previous posts and threads that are related to creation, there seems to be a strong desire to deny that God has any power whatsoever to do as He wills, and a demand for evidence that the creation of the world and man occurred as written. In extreme cases, a few writers have come out and said - basically - that if the Church via comments made by others here, does not accept the scientific account as it currently stands, they’ve either lost their faith because of it, or just left the Church.How so? What did I say that “got your goat,” so to speak?
OK. No argument there.
But if the author is God Himself then there is no “trying” about it. An omniscient God knows exactly how His words will be understood. And an omnipotent God has no difficulty in knowing which words to use to be understood as He intends.
So it is with the creation story in Genesis. According to the Jewish Virtual Library: “The vast majority of classical Rabbis hold that God created the world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay. This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder Olam, which was based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis.”
Didn’t God foresee that “the vast majority of classical Rabbis” would understand the creation story literally? Of course He did. To say otherwise is to deny God’s omniscience.
Couldn’t God convey the creation story in such a way so that “the vast majority of classical Rabbis” would understand that it was not to be taken literally? Of course He could. To say otherwise is to deny God’s omnipotence.
So God knew that the creation story would be taken literally, He could have changed it if He wanted to, but He chose not to do so. Should we reprimand God for intentionally leading “the vast majority of classical Rabbis” into believing a falsehood? Of course not. To do so would be to deny God’s truthfulness.
Thus we are left with only two options. We can accept the creation story as being literally true and reject the scientific evidence to the contrary. Or we can accept the scientific evidence as being true and reject the claims that God is the author of the creation story in Genesis.
That’s why I admire young earth creationists such as one of the posters on this forum, Buffalo. They understand what is at stake. Those who wish to have both their modern science and their Bible, too, haven’t really thought things through.
Well, that’s how I see it. Am I missing something?
Thanks to buffalo, and a few other posters here, I’m now looking for truth regarding the scientific claims, as opposed to simply accepting them without my own investigation, and I’m encouraged that even a few nonreligious people are looking for the truth as well.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
I’m very familiar with the science but in no way see how any of that applies. Do we really know why there is a cosmic background radiation? Have you seen the last Hubble deep space photograph? In it, even though it supposedly goes back a very long time, we can still see faint galaxies further out.
If you read the Book of Genesis, you will note that the writer included the words morning and evening, so that the supposedly “simple” people reading the text would understand 24 hour days. The Catholic Church is undecided about the time frame - it is not sure if it was thousands or billions.
Are you aware that there are objects in space that are moving at superluminal (faster than the speed of light) speeds? This can only mean one of two things: our understanding of redshift is completely wrong or they are actually moving faster than light.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
God did not want to create beings that were robots. Can you force anyone to love you or do good for you? By giving everyone a free will, they could choose to love God or not. Just as another person chooses to love you back, you can now enter into a relationship where love is given and received mutually and freely. You could make slaves that loved you, but would you take a person as a slave to do your will or would you rather that they freely chose to love you, bringing happiness to both of you?
Peace,
Ed
- Status