Is Science and scientific theory against God and Theology? Is it God versus science?


(Theophilus Book) #1

It was God who told us to look at the smallest of things, to build a basis for our Faith - “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” In other words, explain the Atom, without God! Explain Mesons, quarks, molecules, all smaller than the unaided eye can see, yet form the foundation of all that is.

Then, God told us He is not only NOT against nature, He is God
"BY NATURE." Remember when he spoke about ignorant men who worshipped and served those who “BY NATURE ARE NO GODS;” He is telling us He is the only God who IS GOD BY NATURE.

So to continue the fight as though God and nature are antagonists, when in reality, it is the minutia of Men’s minds that make the fight.

Did God create the world? He thinks He did. Did the world EVOLVE over time? God never said otherwise. In fact, it was God who described “one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day,” which to me, explains how things that appear to have developed over possibly millions of years, (a thousand years of thousand year days), And science and God agree on almost everything, if you know how to look for it.

Then you have some very fine minds looking for genetic code with a view toward building something in science, that seems similar to something God built, or created, or developed. But Man is constantly trying to imitate God’s efforts, to somehow better understand the creator? I think there is a deeper motive, but since I cannot read hearts, I will leave it at that.

But if you want to see the code develop from a source that doe snot have it to begin with, look at any newborn infant, who does not ever realize the significance of what it is seeing with its own eyes, then watch as that infant begins to formulate code by which it attains knowledge, awareness, acknowledgment. Finally, it reaches a stage in its own development, in which it can contribute to its own education. It reaches for a toy, It thoroughly analyzes what is feels in its grasp, tastes, smells, looks, all aspects of investigation; and smiles.

THAT is the beginning steps of learning desire, intent, messaging, code, language, communication. And no child ever becomes a genius scientist without following most of that pattern. Some may skip a step or possibly two, but most of it is basic requirements, for a non-code entity learning to develop communication. And the next giant step is to build something new.

What say ye?


#2

I must say that I’m jolted by your use of the words “In other words.” The phrase implies that the passage can be paraphrased (if not directly translated) as “Explain the Atom without God.” I just don’t see it.

The passage explains the nature of faith. It says nothing about atomic structures. Origins are mentioned in verse 3, but only to illustrate faith itself, not to explain the universe and cosmology. . If I were writing a commentary on Hebrews 11 I would say:

Faith is what we see tangibly expressed in actions that have a basis in things which other people cannot see. For example, I may be confident that my son is coming for a visit. But other people have no way to see that confidence-faith inside of me. But if they saw me changing my daily routine in order to make preparations for his visit—such as by removing bulky items stored in his old room and making the bed so that everything is ready for him—the “invisible” faith starts to become more tangible and evident. The unseen becomes seen. The “hoped for” becomes more tangible and visible. So while nobody can DIRECTLY observe and know my thoughts or see my faith and confidence in particular truths, as my faith is lived out in my actions it becomes more substantive. So my unseen faith becomes evidenced by the results of my faith.

@Theo_Book, it depends upon what you mean by “explain.” I can certainly explain the definition and behavior of the atom without God. Scientific journals do that on a daily basis. But if you mean “explain the ULTIMATE ORIGINS of the atom”, then it depends upon whether you are talking about the Proximate Causation which is explored by Science or the Ultimate Causation explored by theology and philosophy. But either way, I simply don’t see any connection of any of physics with Hebrews 11:1. Moreover, if one reads the rest of Hebrews 11, I see my explanation confirmed with many examples in the lives of some of the best known of God’s people. It seems anachronistic to draw physics lessons from Hebrews 11.

So it is very possible that I misunderstood your statements. Perhaps your focus is on verse 3: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”

I can see why many consider this an EX NIHILO creation proof-text.

As the verse is written, I find it hard to tell if the author meant to communicate (1) that God didn’t start with prior VISIBLE materials to make the universe,or (2) that God didn’t start with prior existing materials at all. But what certainly is clear is the fact that just as we all accept God’s role as Creator BY FAITH, so were the various heroes of the faith mentioned in Hebrews 11 motivated by faith.

The heart of the chapter seems to be the much memorized verse: “6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

Yes, that is a common interpretation. However, I just can’t justify it in my mind because nothing about the context implies that the author wanted to deliver a physics or geology lesson. Also, it would appear to justify a deceiving God who implants a false historical account into creation itself. Why would God do that? Is even every data packet of starlight a false history of a star which never actually happened?

Instead, the text is simply saying that God exists outside of time, the temporal boundaries, just as he exists outside of spatial boundaries. Humans are bound by time and space and so we are subject to the arrow of time. God is not. So God doesn’t have to wait on anything. God is omnipresent in every day and every second of human history just as he is omnipresent in every geographical location on the planet. That is why God IS the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not “was”. We experience a day and a thousand years very differently. God does not. I can’t find any justification for turning “a day to the Lord is as a thousand years” into “1 DAY = 1000 YEARS” as a description of “historical relativity” as one pastor described it to me. Of course, that day-and-years formula has absolutely no scientific significance either.

When people complain, “Where is the promise of his coming?”, it reminds me of a small child complaining “Are we there yet? Please! Please! When are we going to get there?” People complain about waiting on the arrow of time because we want something that is in the future, a future from our perspective, not God’s. But God doesn’t complain about waiting and delays because God is entirely outside of time constraints and is not imposed upon when there are so called delays. A delay or one day or a thousand years is of no problem for God because God is “already” in the future because he is omnipresent in every time as in every place.

I used to shock my students (or at least those who hadn’t heard the idea before) by telling them that while humans consider one day at a time as “today”, God doesn’t (except when he’s communicating or interacting with humans.) For God, “today” is no more June 8, 2016 than “today” is the day that the Red Sea was parted. It MUST be that way if God created the universe—because time is simply a dimension and attribute of the matter-energy universe. (Without matter and energy, how can we define time and its passage? We can’t.) So there is no reason to treat God’s omnipresence in the spatial dimensions with God’s omnipresence in the temporal dimension.

This is a very hard concept to fully grasp because we are time-bound creatures. Yet, I believe so many difficult theological concepts involving everything from election and free will to so much else would be solved if we were capable of seeing time as God sees time.

You’ve raised many important topics here and I hope you will develop them further. I’m very interested in your further explanations of the views you expressed—and, of course, any defects you find in my reasoning. This has long been one of my favorite topics.


(George Brooks) #3

I’m not really sure what is expected to come out of a thread with the title… is scientific theory AGAINST God?

Is there really ANYTHING that a superstitious mind can’t DEMAND to be God’s…

What do we do with Tribes who think it’s God’s will that they eat the brains of their sick relatives?

What do we do with Tribes who think it’s God’s will that pregnant women should eat mud to fortify their unborn child?

If your view of God INCLUDES the idea that God is not interested in scientific observations and study, you are already halfway to CRAZY TOWN! And there is no saving you and your family from that…


(Theophilus Book) #4

The scripture does not say “evidence not seen by others,” as though it is simply a matter of perspective. It says “Evidence of things not seen.” To my uneducated mind, that means things I cannot see, and You cannot see, and others cannot see, serve as evidence of a basis for faith.

[quote=“Socratic.Fanatic, post:2, topic:5323”]
The passage explains the nature of faith. It says nothing about atomic structures.[/quote]

It speaks of “things not seen.” I see that as a reference to the fact, the world is comprised of particles too small to see. Yet we do not fail to bounce around upon the frailest of creations, simply because we do not see the frailty itself. To my thinking, it appeals to the sense of minutia being the basis of the grand.

I think rather it is due to my own inability to properly express the depth of the graphic appreciation of how small things are that remain the base of such large results.

I see the smallest of created particles serving as the inexplicable platform upon which the greatest of planets, even star systems, relies upon for its substrata of being.

Does any of that make sense? It drives me.

But I see God telling us from the very beginning, that time changed in its reference, from “And the evening and the morning was the first day” after telling us there was no sun, moon, stars, or any other means of measuring that which comprised the “1st day.” It is simply a reference to some time within which light and dark became separated by virtue of activity by one who references Himself as “God.”

Then, we come to day “2” in which there became a separation between waters and waters, and atmosphere (heavens) and firmament. and that also could involve thousands of thousand year days.

Then day “3” - a real “WoW!” day in which the land and the water below the firmament were separated, such that “Dry land appeared.” And in that same day ("#3"), green life also came into being. I am not one who believes all creation happened in six twenty-four hour days. I think it happened just as described throughout God’s word, in that days changed as to length, Creative evolution brought about development of whatever would soon “be.”

[quote=“Socratic.Fanatic, post:2, topic:5323”]
nstead, the text is simply saying that God exists outside of time, the temporal boundaries, just as he exists outside of spatial boundaries. Humans are bound by time and space and so we are subject to the arrow of time. God is not.[/quote]

Here is where it gets just a tad difficult to express, but it still should be considered; God never existed “outside of time” as most perceive it. NOTHING can 'BE" if there is no TIME in which “To be.” I have heard all of my life that “God is outside of time,” and it still does not make any sense whatsoever. If that were true, God would never use a verb of “being” because “being” implies TIME in which “TO BE.”

Even the opening phrase is a reference to time Being - i.e., “In the beginning” - a reference not to a beginning of time, but “In beginning the creation, God did such and so.” And when we plug into that segment, another reference to a “TIME” prior to creation, when activity took place, then it makes my perception of time focus evidently differently than everyone else’s.

“The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.”[Proverbs 8:22-31]

So God continues to tell us of “TIME” prior to the beginning of creating."
And in that time prior to the beginning of creating, God interacted with Wisdom, bringing her forth as in birth pangs. (I was brought forth x2 mentions). That serves to explain how “Elohiym” spoke of “Let US make man in OUR image;” i.e., Elohiym God and Elohiym Wisdom, brought forth from God. It does not support a triune Deity, it supports exactly what the written record claims.

As for God not being subject to time, I have a different perspective than that which you have expressed (surprise), because God is the one who tied time to feast days, and Sabbaths (seventh day) commitments by both Men and God who makes the demands. He has placed demands upon Men,. but in so doing, committed Himself to those same segments of time.

[quote=“Socratic.Fanatic, post:2, topic:5323”]
we want something that is in the future, a future from our perspective, not God’s.[/quote]

Then why did God tell Abraham “I will (future) make thee a Father of many nations?” God recognizes and binds Himself by that same time reference to which He binds men, and makes promises in accord with the same understanding He gave to Men pertaining to those things. It was God who told us, not we who told Him.

Then, to demonstrate His commitment to His promise, in the very next verse, by f\virtue of saying “I will make thee a Father…” He declared “I have made thee a Father of many nations.” [See Gen 17:4-5]

In verse 4, God uses a middle verb, developed by God for the express purpose of prophecy; it is not active because it has not taken place; it is not passive; because it has not happened; it is middle because it is prophecy. In verse 5, the verb is active, because God has now committed Himself to a promise that Paul describes this way; “He speaks of things not yet, as though they were.”[Rom 4:17] This tells us God’s word is as good as done because He spoke it, so be it.

It is God who developed communication with Man, and in that communication God expresses what He wants us to understand about Him and Who and What He is. And He expresses words that describe future events, while He is still in the past of that future event.

“I will be your Father, You will be my son” is a past prophesy of a future event, related to the resurrection of the Man Jesus. And it is not I who make the connection, it is God, by f\virtue of the connective trail of His words; for example, we have God prophesying in the Psalms, then reminding us of that prophecy in its fulfillment in Acts 13; and finally reminding us again twice in Hebrews, thus;

FUTIRE
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. -Psalm 2:7
FULFILLMENT
"Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. 27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. 28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. 30 But God raised him from the dead: 31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. 32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. -Acts 13:26-33

REMINDER
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? -Heb 1:5

REMINDER
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. -Heb 5:5

So it is God who ties this “begotten son” to the resurrection, where Jesus became firstborn from the dead, a new type of created being, and all within the framework of “TIME” as delineated by God Himself.

And I find no “defect” in your reasoning. I do find differences in perspective, but since we have different life-experiences, different education experiences, different aunts by different names, and a host of other “differences” I would be more amazed if I find myself in agreement with one other person.


(Theophilus Book) #5

WoW! You got that from MY post?

“Is Science and scientific theory against God and Theology?”

Do you recognize that?

THAT IS A QUESTION! It was NOT a conclusion. It is a title of an article inviting discussion.

From that you derive a “Superstitious mind?”

WoW! AGAIN -


(George Brooks) #6

@Theo_Book

In my brief post, I was trying to tackle the problem head-on … with YEC’s as the main opposition.

YEC’s are the primary source of the accusation that the pursuit of Science is to contend against God.

And the reason they YEC’s come up with this conclusion is fundamentally no different from all the other nations and time periods where SUPERSTITIOUS mind-sets dominate one’s worldview completely.

  1. We’ve seen it in the Victorian period, with the SINCERE revival of the flat-earth society.
  2. We’ve seen it in the periodic revivals of interest in FAIRIES and humanoid forest people.
  3. We’ve seen it in people who use Tarot cards to interpret their futures.
  4. Or reading tea leaves.
  5. Or interpreting goose intestines.

Scoffers be warned … you hate their god of make-believe.


#7

As a linguist, I find that claim shocking, as “being” implies the very opposite of time. (And “I am that I am” hammers home that timelessness.) Are you aware that Ancient Hebrew lacks the time-based emphasis found in the English language? (In other words, I can PERHAPS see how you might develop your hypothesis if Genesis was originally written in English. But your argument falls apart in Hebrew.)

Without the matter-energy universe, how is time existent? How is it expressed? (How was it measured?)

Please don’t confuse my analogy to explain faith with the definition of faith.

Unless you accept polytheism and a pantheon where a deity called “Wisdom” existed, the reader is forced to recognize a very symbolic presentation with poetic elements. And that should tip us off that lots of anthropomorphisms are likely to appear. We must be careful about drawing too much from them. Yes, the Bible often has to speak in our limited frames of reference. Again, that involves things like analogies.

I don’t know exactly what “committed Himself to those same segments of time” mean----but that doesn’t change the fact that God could not be BOUNDED and CONTROLLED by something he created as an attribute of the matter-energy universe.

It is like saying that because a cartoonist establishes a particular situation for his characters in time and space, the cartoonist thereby becomes BOUND to that time and space and subject to its measurements and scope. No. And God is far more transcendent than any cartoonist, even though both are creators.

The KENOSIS refers to Jesus emptying himself of various attributes in order to take on the limitations of humans, including being subject to the arrow of time and being constrained to the same pace of time as all other humans. But God the Father is not described in terms of kenosis.

If God was bound by time, he would be “I was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”, not “I am”.

I definitely think you’ve brought up some very important topics here which are well worth talking about.


(Theophilus Book) #8

Explain “YEC”


(George Brooks) #9

Explain YEC?

YEC: “God says the Earth was created in six days. There is no point in trying to contradict God’s revelation by assembling information that tries to demonstrate God’s word as false.”


(Theophilus Book) #10

“BEING” is a verb describing the action of existing. Nothing can “exist” if there is no time in which to exist. Look at the scriptural language that describes God; "eternal in the heavens. “Eternal” is an adjective used to tell of a time so distant in length as to be uncountable. Do you see it? “TIME” uncountable. ETERNAL.

The fact that God rules in eternity says nothing about “outside of TIME.” That conclusion required scholars for originization. Not scripture. ETERNITY is a reference to a very long TIME.

Look at the note after Micah 5:2 - “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” {everlasting: Heb. the days of eternity}

The “DAYS OF ETERNITY.” Even eternity is a reference to uncountable days; therefore of TIME. There is no verse of scripture anywhere that intimates God created time. He created Sun, Moon, Stars for the purpose of Measuring time, but time was already ticking when He made them. Life BEING is activity, requiring time.

“I am that I am” is simply “I am the being” in the Hebrew idiom instead of the Greek idiom. They reference the same thing. The “Being” of God.

I don’t think I will touch your “cartoonist” explanation. I will leave it to the readers.

As for “KENOSIS” - Jesus emptied himself AS A MAN, not as pre-creation activist. Look at the verb tenses, Present active tells nothing about past activity.

Then you have a problem with Philippians 2:5 “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:” - You see that little word “WAS?” Not in the GREEK of the verse. It is supplied by the translators who are trying desperately to support their man-made Trinity; implying eternal Jesus did something before the world existed. But there is no Greek word supplied form which to honestly derive “WAS.” “Let this mind be in you which is also in Christ Jesus” follows the earlier language of Paul as he encout\rages the saints to humble theirselves and follow Jesus’ example by emptying their own selves.

Jesus was born to be king; was able to command angels if His Father sends them; but emptied himself of all the pomp and glory of kingship; gave up command of angels, and washed the disciples feet (Jn 13)-

John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? {Peter saith: Gr. he saith}
7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.
8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.
11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.
12 So after he had washed the13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.
15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.
17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

How do I know Jesus did not take on Humanity? Because it was Jesus who told us "True worshippers will worship the Father [John 4:23]
Then he told us why - “God is spirit.” [John 4:24]; Then Jesus tells us “Spirit does not have flesh and bone but “I” (Jesus) am flesh and bone” - [Luke 24:39]

Jesus’ own words put the lie to the entire doctrine of "Incarnation of prehistoric spirit “becoming flesh” to produce “God/Man” or “God in the flesh.” And all lf that to somehow prove a trinity, despite God’s own words to the contrary.

[quote=“Socratic.Fanatic, post:7, topic:5323”]
If God was bound by time, he would be “I was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”, not “I am”.[/quote]

That is not the reason for the wording of His remark. He is showing that he IS not the God of the dead, but of the living. "I am the God of Abraham… tells us that having died, Abraham still has a God, and it is relevant to who and what Abraham is, just as Jesus is something God is not- God is not the God of the dead; Jesus is Lord of both the living and the dead.

And there are other differences, but for brevity’s sake, I will save that for another time.


(Theophilus Book) #11

I have not tried to demonstrate God’s words to be false. I have tried to educate you to the fact Man’s comprehension is lacking. There is no way MAN can conclude that the first three days were 24 hour days. THAT can only be true if we have a way of measuring time, and there was no such methodology available till after the heavenly bodies were created and displayed, and there was a Man to see them; because the animals and trees cared not for Man’s keeping of time.

You really need to stop trying to catalogue me as some kind of kook.


#12

Sorry. Restatement does not make it so. And the argument defies everything I ever learned in both general linguistics and Hebrew exegesis.

Many would start with Genesis 1:1.

Explain how an attribute of the matter-energy universe can exist before matter-energy. And how is it measured without reference to matter-energy?

Did width, height, and depth also exist before the creation of the universe? There is no verse of scripture which claims that those attributes didn’t exist prior to the creation. What is special about the time dimension which caused it to exist prior to the other dimensions?

What other attributes of the matter-energy universe existed prior to the universe itself? Is there a list of such things or is time alone in that regard?

Your exegetical conclusions are quite foreign to mine. I will leave it at that.

I think these are fascinating topics and thank you for posting.


(George Brooks) #13

@Theo_Book,

Ah… I owe you an apology! It wasn’t so much that I was cataloguing you as a Kook… I was trying to figure how much we disagree with each other…

So here’s the rub: if we can’t get YEC’s to accept that the first three days could be MILLIONS OF YEARS LONG … (because the Sun, which measures out our Earthly days, didn’t exist until Day 4) … then how do you expect to convince them of ANYTHING?

BioLogos is really here for the NON-YEC Christians … so that the voice of Science AND Religion, in harmonious accord, is not absent from the world.

I waffle on the YEC thing a couple of times a year. I think I need to resolve not to worry what the YEC’s think … and focus on what to tell relatively superstition-free Christians … so they know what to tell their children, and children’s children.


(Theophilus Book) #14

Restatement is not designed for “Making it so.” Restatement was a tool used by the Apostles for explaining things the hearers may have missed with the first telling, or may have needed some clarification.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Peter’s repeating a theme in other words did not make it so, it clarified issues for some hearers.

[quote=“Socratic.Fanatic, post:12, topic:5323”]
Many would start with Genesis 1:1.

Explain how an attribute of the matter-energy universe can exist before matter-energy. And how is it measured without reference to matter-energy?[/quote]

That’s an easy one. It has been mislabeled as an attribute of the matter-energy universe. And there is a reason for it. Scholars, in their infinite wisdom, decided God existed outside of time, therefore had to invent a beginning for time.

But if you think a living, thinking, planning, and intending God does not constitute activity, I cannot help you. Activity requires time. There is no RATIONAL reason for saying there was a time in which time did not exist. It is a contradiction in logic and in language. Even “There was a time before time, in which time did not exist.” Gets crazier the more you try to tell it.

Time has been an active element of being, as long as God has BEEN around. And since God is from eternity, so is time, of which Eternity speaks.

As for your remark “as a linguist” you find “I am the being” to be opposed to time, I would question your instructors as to their acumen. How can a verb that is used to describe the activity of existing in time, possibly be considered contrary to that same concept?

Just as there has to be time in which God can be, there also has to be “place” in which God can “be.” As for the shape of that “place,” I would have to consider why it is labeled “impossible” for time, and space to exist. It does not require matter and energy, but the opposite is true, time and place are necessary for matter and energy.

And it also makes the error of assuming there is no Energy in God’s “Just Being.” And no matter in spirit, based upon our inability to perceive it with the eye.

“Pneuma” is translated both “Spirit” and “wind.” I cannot see the wind, but it certainly can build up to tremendous outpouring of energy, and can serve as a very destructive force against matter we CAN see.

And until we can both discern and demonstrate the limitations of spirit power, I think we need to stop making assertions as to what we know, when the reality is, we don’t know any such thing. I do not say you have done this, I say some who teach others, say this.

[quote=“Socratic.Fanatic, post:12, topic:5323”]
Your exegetical conclusions are quite foreign to mine. I will leave it at that.[/quote]

Are you telling me you think “Was” should be included in the language of translation, when it is not in the language being translated? Based upon what? Our need for a proof-text that agrees with our conclusion? I can think of no other such powerful need, that translators can translate in such a way as to control universes and Gods.

Another “proof-text” that does not prove is found in John 17:5 in which the translators again provide a past event when it is a present active verb, but the present active verb contradicts the narrative, so they run with their own tools of misinformation.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

“Was” is nowhere in the language of the sentence. All it is referencing is glory Jesus had IN PROPHECY, before the world. And “Before the world” is used in the same sense as “Peter stood BEFORE the gate.”

That means Peter was out in front of the gate, it doesn’t mean Peter stood, and after that, the gate stood.

All the effort translators have put into misleading and controlling men’s minds, forms a sad commentary on the value of communication between the Greek and the English translation. All it requires to understand it is a little basic honesty.

As for “exegesis” - I learned it from the same professors I defeated later in debate. You “Exegete” what is IN the original language, not in the doctrines and creeds.


#15

Equivocation fallacy. And such an obvious one that I’ve become very very cautious. I’m starting to get the impression that I’m being pranked.

That’s all I’ve got to say on that subject.

When boasts are made of debates won against professors, I make a gracious exit. I think it wise that I keep my further hunches private.

I wish you a pleasant day. Perhaps others will pick up on the thread and demonstrate that my apprehensions were misplaced. That would be great.


(Theophilus Book) #16

So Jesus should have stopped preaching when he was not believed by the Pharisees and scribes?

Paul should never have preached to the audience in Acts two, then proceeded “with many other words” to try to convince them?

I think most folks are honorable people, and simply have been misled by Scholars who enjoy being important. This stuff is way too easy to corroborate by simply looking at the argument and comparing it with the original language. And the beauty of it is, you don’t have to know a foreign language to see the difference. Just determine which Greek word the translator used to obtain a particular corresponding thought in any other language.

The usual “explanation” used is, “We translate it that way to aid in understanding.” Right! Good old “understanding” THAT covers a multitude of sins.

I was raised a Catholic, taught and debated Trinity doctrine for years, until I examined every one of my “proof-texts” and found none of them, not one, PROVED what was claimed for it in the doctrines.

Look for example at the claim for Micah 5:2, as to what it proves, then look at what it actually references;

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

This has been used by Trinitarian scholars for centuries to teach that Messiah’s “goings forth” were predicated upon determinations decided prior to the Earth’s creation.

The truth is very different. Micah is talking about the death of Jesus, as foretold in prophetic utterance from before God created the world.

If you examine that little word “Goings forth” you will fine the basis for that is the Greek word “exodooi” - the plural of “Exodus.” Upon taking a little trip through the New Testament to see where “exodus” or “exodoi” is found, it is speaking of “decease” or “death.”

As a matter of fact, it is found once speaking of Jesus’ “decease” or “Exodus” and again speaks of Peter’s “Decease” or "death."
Luke 9:31 & II Pet 1:15.

And Jesus’ death was prophesied from the foundation of the world -
"…The lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

All manner of doctrines and creed fail and fall when properly “exegeted” if you will take the time to investigate it. TIME not existing till created by God is just one of the issues about which this is true.


(George Brooks) #17

We aren’t Jesus. Our sights should be reasonable and practical.

We need to teach the LESS SUPERSTITIOUS Christians…
… the YEC’s are a lost generation and aside from a few exceptions every couple of years… they will always be.


#18

Very interesting thought. I can think of so many events and interactions which concur with that. I come from that background so I very much care for and have often felt driven to try and calm their anger. It is a path which leads to so many negative results. (So many YEC friends from long ago that I worshiped alongside are now very discouraged and bitter people.) Yet, I have to ration my dealings with them or it pulls me down with them.


(Theophilus Book) #19

Equivocation? NOPE! Comparison in the use of “before” meaning something other than “prior to.”

Pranked?

Bye!


(Christy Hemphill) #20

Greek has an optional copula. In (standard) English a copula is obligatory, so one has to be supplied in translation. Languages never map perfectly to one another grammatically, semantically, or pragmatically. This is a pretty basic concept in linguistics and translation theory.

Have you ever studied Koine Greek? The historical present is a well-documented discourse feature of narratives in Koine Greek. It is used throughout Mark and John. This is information you could easily verify in an introductory Greek text.

You have to understand how the source language works though. Translators have put a lot of effort into actually learning Greek and the target language and understanding where they do things differently. It seems like you have mostly spent time comparing an interlinear gloss with actual translations in an attempt to find “mistakes.” It doesn’t seem like you grasp how languages or translation works, so your interpretations are pretty suspect.