Reconstructions are in some respects a matter of interpretation. I got to meet paleo-artist Viktor Deak at the American Museum of Natural History. They use the same techniques that police use when they find a skeleton and need to know what the victim looked like.
1 Like
Their is 6 episodes of about 1h. they cover a lot of things. I just gave an small element of one of the episodes.
1 Like
here is the podcast series, @Rohan
1 Like
Somebody correct me if Iām wrong about this, but isnāt the language used in Genesis only talking about God? I understand that elohim can be in reference to multiple deities or angels, but I though that the surrounding verbiage is singular.
1 Like
The idea of āourā comes from āimā, the plural form in Hebrew. I know there are commentaries on the subject but Iāve taken their word that āā¦imā is plural.
Adding Hebrew examples also gives an empirical picture of lord of my lord so to reference some one not the king as lord is not uncommon.
1 Like
From The Unseen Realm by Michael Heiser
So why would entities that are not God be called elohim?
1 Like
Could you inform me about this ācertaintyā?
Like God. Nothing changes. There is nothing new under the infinity of suns from eternity. In an infinity of universes. From eternity. Within God or no. Itās all the single greatest, prevenient, axiomatic truth.
All you have to do is see it. Like social justice through a single land tax.
If you have a more elegant, simpler alternative, please let me know.
Your point then is that faithfulness reinforces your faith (validates it). Would you agree that there are times when there is no faithfulness? E.g. a prayer is not answered or a terrible thing happens in spite of your hopes? Does your faith ābend toward scienceā? To the 2 concepts, Faith and Science, Klax has had good thoughts as well. So if we stipulate the 2 sides (there are many different ways to characterize them for sure), then when they are incompatible, one must bend to the other or else we cannot believe in them both. Soā¦ letās be more specific about issues relating to Christianity, rather than lumping them all together. I will offer my opinions regarding whether or not each (of my arbitrary) facet is bent toward the other or not based on my hunches about it being considered fact/science by >90% of Christians:
Belief in God? Not bentā¦He is a necessary entity to have begun this universe.
The virgin birth? possibly bent, but perhaps the hand of God
The resurrection? likely bent, but possibly a true miracle. It could have been a figurative conclusion to an unexplained empty tomb
Power of Prayer? Bent for sure. Everything He created at the beginning has allowed such a perfect evolution (due to omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence, that there has been no need for His intervention or modifications).
Belief in God is both necessary and sufficient for salvation? Bentā¦too much room for individual opinions.
There is a heaven? Bent
There is a hell? Bent
If there is a hell, is there eternal hell-fire and damnation and suffering? Bent
The Bible is inerrant? Bent
The Bible is the inspired word of God? Probably bent but not so sure.
Adam and Eve existed? Bent
Miracles were performed by Christ? I am truly torn on this one. If miracles are defined as events that are incompatible with physics, then it is bent.
Created "in his image"? Clearly bent, because we cannot agree on what this even means.
Good works are important, even though Grace does not require it? The most bent of them all. Good works are so valuable, the goodness of people so necessary, that I cannot imagine ignoring them. But the Grace of God clearly does not demand it.
Without the Crucifixion and Resurrection, we could not be saved? Absolutely bent. God could have taken this action by any number of arbitrary means. And besides, if it was necessary, what about the ~500M who died before Christ? Are they doomed?
So as I list these out specifically and individually, it seems that I (mostly) agree that (almost) all of Christianity is bent. A few beliefs are not.
I will. What could be simpler than the obvious creation of the only universe we know, our current single universe, consistent with (almost) all science of today 13.8 Bya? He put in place the chemical and biologic ingredients and processes that allow for our evolution, from a single LUCA into the 3 domains of life as we know it today. The elegance of that is manifested in both its beauty and simplicity. What is āelegant or simpleā about a contrived notion of multiple universes, only one of which we have evidence for?
I think you already answered in contrast to the above claimā¦
What happens when both sides miss the boat, can one demand the other to bend because it was found faulty? Many times science was on the wrong side such as thinking a thousand years is but a day to the lord as nonsensical trash. Then came Einstein.
I have the same concerns. But that is what science is all about. We theorize, then hypothesize, then test it. When we discover inconsistencies or errors, we re-think it and test again. That is a beautiful thing. Even today we learn that the W boson has more weight than all previous calculations predicted, so the search continues. As you probably know, the 2 Wās and the Z bosons are totally responsible for the weak force, 1 of the 4 known in physics. The only force missing to āunifyā all four is gravity, and the search for dark matter. It may all come together soon.
Some great questions Becky but I am hesitant to reply to any.
My reason is based on your possible intent for asking them. Many were not open questions but already answered as resolved and I am not allowed to resolve one unless you make me resolve all of them before you would even consider reconsidering.
Instead, I believe the true answer is in the following verseā¦
All scripture is given by inspiration [a clear view] of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
~2 Timothy 3:16
And proper interpretation has the same requirement. When we finally look at it right, the answer becomes obvious. An in this I concur with your frustration as many Christians repeat claims that sound good and right but they donāt fully understand why, and then become frustrated that others are not as willing to accept pretty words.
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. ~Proverbs 25:2
But the glory is not just the resultā¦
For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what one does not have. ~2 Corinthians 8:12
Yes, but then again it is our perspective of God (or our parents) that reveals the answer. Mom didnāt cook what I wanted, does she want me to starve?
Dad let me try to ride a bike knowing that I donāt know how. He knew I would eventually skin my knee and he didnāt protect me like a parent is supposed to. The perspective is how I want it to be, I want dad to hold me up wherever I go. Or maybe, Dad is right, Itās better I to learn to stay up myself. Skinned knees will certainly get your attention if my instructions donāt. And calling me a bad dad wonāt get your way. And you will never figure out why I do the things the way I do if you keep that perspective, insisting on how bad I am. Your list of examples will nev er end until then. [a very crude example].
Mom and dad gives us what we truly need for our sake and only sometimes what we want. We ask for some stupid things sometimes. Sometimes they may use us, not for our benefit, but for the sake of another, āplease pick up your brother on your way home?ā. Whoās prayer is being answered, not ours. When it comes to prayers or requests, it has to be something they agree is right or best. God answers prayers that are according to his will and purpose. Sometimes it is the right request, but the timing isnāt right. Iāll make us something better than that when we get home, be patient.
The end of a matter is better than its beginning, and patience is better than pride. ~Ecclesiastes 7:8
The questions are not the problem. Our perspective can blind us from simple truths. In fact Iāve come to learn, if the answer is not obvious, Iām not looking at it right. It is much harder and confusing trying to answer the wrong question.
If we are at the game and a pillar is blocking part of our view, reason alone wonāt remove it, moving and finding a clearer viewpoint will. Recognition trumps conclusion and scientific test results will trump all theories. The difference between understanding (reason and conclusion) and knowledge (experience, āI know because I was thereā).
May I suggest a simple switch. Assume the word is right, and instead examine the validity of our questions. Much of my growth came from reframing my questions until the light came on. When I started looking at it in the right light.
Why wouldnāt they, is my answer. They were chromosomally compatible with 23 pairs each. Hybrids are rather common at any rate, even when reproductively isolated. And even the female horse with 64 chromosomes can mate with a male donkey with 62. But this only addresses your question if it was biologic rather than questioning Godās role.
What if God who considers death but a scratch sacrifices us for the sake of another and rewards us later?
Also, the error gets our attention and deepens our understanding far better than a lucky shot. Whic is more important, the shot or the understanding to do it differently as needed next time? Do not poo-poo struggle, sometimes it is the only way we listen.
Itās called Kolmogorov Complexity. A single universe is infinitely more complex than an infinity of universes from eternity. It really is scientifically that simple. If God is a superset of that, Heās simple too, compared with a God who did nothing or something else for eternity before He did a single universe. And and of course He didnāt. God does not change. He is immutable. That is theology 101. And He does not have to āput in place the chemical and biologic ingredients and processes that allow for our evolution, from a single LUCA into the 3 domains of life as we know it todayā either. Nature does that from quantum perturbations on up. On trillions of worlds throughout our mediocre universe. Heās THAT smart. That elegant.
And thanks for the mention above. Iāll PS here later.
Sorry, thought I gave my answer Billā¦
Adding Hebrew examples also gives an empirical picture of lord of my lord so to reference someone not the king as still lord over them is not uncommon. Such as being lord of the house.
Sorry, I must be missing something.
As am I. I have no idea what you are trying to say. What does elohim being the plural form mean to you?
If indeed plural, I interpret it as the heavenly host. Partly because of my view of angels have charge over their tasks.
So I answered and spoke to the angel that talked with me, saying, What are these, my lord? ~Zechariah 4:4
No, they were truly open questions. I only offered my humble opinion as an fwiw, in no way meant to imply correctness or consensus.