Religion II

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah...I may discard the "science", alright, but I don't discard the genealogies in scripture. And the genealogies say this little 'ol planet ain't quite as old as the high priests of scientism dogmatically state it is. How old exactly? I don't know because I have not personally studied the genealogies but have read extra-biblical works of people who have. The age of the universe is not of paramount importance to me; for there are too many other truths in scripture that are.

Oh yeah...and about B'reishit bara Elohim thingy, I settle on the interpretation that best fits the immediate context (foremost) of a passage and/or the larger context of scripture. My interpretation best fits the immediate context of the creation account for reasons I have stated previously. And the primary reason is that Time is a creation of God, and it wasn't created until the fourth day which was when God finished up constructing the rest of the celestial bodies of the universe to keep planet earth's inhabitants from from dying from boredom when looking up into the blackness of night.

Have a nice evening, Mr. Halv.

Schroeder comes up with an explanation for how the genealogies are consistent with the age of the earth, essentially referencing the first six days as God's time - a different measure of the actual time that passed during the six days - and the time of the genealogies in accordance with what we know as time. So when Adam was 130 when he fathered Seth, he really was 130 years as we understand the time period, but before Adam and Eve time was kept as a different measure. Schroeder understands the Hebrew and he understands the physics and whether you buy it or not, he reconciles the time line with science. But the important point is that it is his interpretation of events based on his knowledge of the Hebrew in Genesis. He is far more qualified in that regard than you or any of your kabbala.

One of the things physicists note is that it is far easier to deny the explanations for the physical observations in the universe when you don't understand the physics. In other words, willful ignorance serves an important purpose for the literalists. You cannot explain so many things that we know about the universe (and specifically our part of it) using the Genesis story, and that satisfies you because you aren't burdened by an understanding of the science.

The other interpretations of the first line of Genesis also fit the context of the creation account, and if you don't believe me just look them up. The point is that the Jewish scholars are not trying to refute the Creation account, but to understand the words within the context of creation. As Lewis Black notes, it i their book. There are a number of accounts that discuss the issue of time, including Schroeder's that I already mentioned. I'm sure you won't read any. Ignorance, as they say, is bliss.

You can believe what you want for whatever reason, but to believe yours is the only version that can be true is the epitome of hubris. There might be a few verses about that somewhere.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

... it is far easier to deny the explanations for the physical observations in the universe when you don't understand the physics.

Quotable!

Love it!

[Hank]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Schroeder comes up with an explanation for how the genealogies are consistent with the age of the earth, essentially referencing the first six days as God's time - a different measure of the actual time that passed during the six days - and the time of the genealogies in accordance with what we know as time. So when Adam was 130 when he fathered Seth, he really was 130 years as we understand the time period, but before Adam and Eve time was kept as a different measure. Schroeder understands the Hebrew and he understands the physics and whether you buy it or not, he reconciles the time line with science. But the important point is that it is his interpretation of events based on his knowledge of the Hebrew in Genesis. He is far more qualified in that regard than you or any of your kabbala.

One of the things physicists note is that it is far easier to deny the explanations for the physical observations in the universe when you don't understand the physics. In other words, willful ignorance serves an important purpose for the literalists. You cannot explain so many things that we know about the universe (and specifically our part of it) using the Genesis story, and that satisfies you

The other interpretations of the first line of Genesis also fit the context of the creation account, and if you don't believe me just look them up. The point is that the Jewish scholars are not trying to refute the Creation account, but to understand the words within the context of creation. As Lewis Black notes, it i their book. There are a number of accounts that discuss the issue of time, including Schroeder's that I already mentioned. I'm sure you won't read any. Ignorance, as they say, is bliss.

You can believe what you want for whatever reason, but to believe yours is the only version that can be true is the epitome of hubris. There might be a few verses about that somewhere.

Unburdened completely unburdened

[Light]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

So when Adam was 130 he fathered Seth

Wish I could do that.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Hank

Unburdened completely unburdened

Of course, I'm unburdened! Praise God that I'm unburdened! For Jesus did promise to set his people free -- free of their sin burden, free of the deceitfulness of sin, free from the darkness of this world, free from their former ignorance, etc., etc.

John 8:31-32
31 Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
NASB

And,

John 8:36
36 "If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.
NASB

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Schroeder comes up with an explanation for how the genealogies are consistent with the age of the earth, essentially referencing the first six days as God's time - a different measure of the actual time that passed during the six days - and the time of the genealogies in accordance with what we know as time. So when Adam was 130 when he fathered Seth, he really was 130 years as we understand the time period, but before Adam and Eve time was kept as a different measure. Schroeder understands the Hebrew and he understands the physics and whether you buy it or not, he reconciles the time line with science. But the important point is that it is his interpretation of events based on his knowledge of the Hebrew in Genesis. He is far more qualified in that regard than you or any of your kabbala.

One of the things physicists note is that it is far easier to deny the explanations for the physical observations in the universe when you don't understand the physics. In other words, willful ignorance serves an important purpose for the literalists. You cannot explain so many things that we know about the universe (and specifically our part of it) using the Genesis story, and that satisfies you because you aren't burdened by an understanding of the science.

The other interpretations of the first line of Genesis also fit the context of the creation account, and if you don't believe me just look them up. The point is that the Jewish scholars are not trying to refute the Creation account, but to understand the words within the context of creation. As Lewis Black notes, it i their book. There are a number of accounts that discuss the issue of time, including Schroeder's that I already mentioned. I'm sure you won't read any. Ignorance, as they say, is bliss.

You can believe what you want for whatever reason, but to believe yours is the only version that can be true is the epitome of hubris. There might be a few verses about that somewhere.

Oh..so Schroeder has the secret code that unlocks the deep hidden meanings of scripture, eh? Wow! I guess God must be very biased against the poor, downtrodden, uneducated, undereducated and all non-science oriented minds. But I have better explanation: Schroeder has backfitted the presuppositions of his worldview into the bible. Any moron can do that, by the way...

Now a brief detour since you brought up the first line of Genesis. What if I wrote this sentence:

In the beginning, all the flooring had to be torn up, the old appliances removed and the old wiring stripped out.

If the context of that sentence was me describing a renovation project of a handy-man's special house I bought, I don't think many people would understand the phrase "in the beginning" as meaning the beginning of time. More likely it would be implicitly understood that I was saying "in the beginning of the project we..." or in a broad generic sense, "in the first place", as in "first in order [of things]". The element of time would never enter anyone's mind. And so it is with the Gen 1:1. My interpretation best fits the context because the creation of the universe was a project that was completed in stages. This is made very evident by the six days of WORK God did to complete his "construction" project.

Additionally, by definition, a universe consists of the whole body of things -- a systematic whole. Yet, the whole body of things -- everything in totality, in terms of the cosmos, did not exist until Day 4, including Time itself.

Below is a link wherein the writer of the article postulates why God created the rest of cosmos on Day 4, most especially the sun. He raises a couple of interesting points, I hadn't even thought of. But...the main error so many people seem to make when trying to understand and interpret the creation account is that most (including many Christians) fail to see the great underlying and profound spiritual truths in the account. People get so materially-minded because the account deals with the physical universe that they're usually totally oblivious to these underlying spiritual truths -- to the ultimate reality undergirding the temporal.

http://www.creationdefense.org/103.htm

[boxcar]

It has just occurred to me that there is additional biblical precedence (over and above previous OT examples previously provided) for interpreting "in the beginning" in Gen 1:1 as meaning chief or first in place, order or rank. This phrase is also translated this way in the NT.

John 1:1-2
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.
NASB

The "Word" in v. 1 is Christ and "He" in v. 2 is also Christ. Since Christ always existed and God has always existed, "in the beginning" cannot possibly mean in the beginning of time. It can only mean "first or chief" in rank.

The Gr. term is archee (Strong's 746) which is translated "beginning" and this term, like it's Hebrew cousin also means "chief (in various applications of order, time, place or rank). Rank is the only correct understanding because the Son is co-equal with the Father. In fact, Jesus even prayed to his Father at the end of his earthly ministry that the Father would restore the former glory that he had with the Father before he took on flesh.

John 17:5
5 "And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.
NASB

Just as there is no time in eternity, likewise there was no time in Gen 1:1 until it was created on Day 4.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh..so Schroeder has the secret code that unlocks the deep hidden meanings of scripture, eh? Wow! I guess God must be very biased against the poor, downtrodden, uneducated, undereducated and all non-science oriented minds. But I have better explanation: Schroeder has backfitted the presuppositions of his worldview into the bible. Any moron can do that, by the way...

Now a brief detour since you brought up the first line of Genesis. What if I wrote this sentence:

In the beginning, all the flooring had to be torn up, the old appliances removed and the old wiring stripped out.

If the context of that sentence was me describing a renovation project of a handy-man's special house I bought, I don't think many people would understand the phrase "in the beginning" as meaning the beginning of time. More likely it would be implicitly understood that I was saying "in the beginning of the project we..." or in a broad generic sense, "in the first place", as in "first in order [of things]". The element of time would never enter anyone's mind. And so it is with the Gen 1:1. My interpretation best fits the context because the creation of the universe was a project that was completed in stages. This is made very evident by the six days of WORK God did to complete his "construction" project.

Additionally, by definition, a universe consists of the whole body of things -- a systematic whole. Yet, the whole body of things -- everything in totality, in terms of the cosmos, did not exist until Day 4, including Time itself.

Below is a link wherein the writer of the article postulates why God created the rest of cosmos on Day 4, most especially the sun. He raises a couple of interesting points, I hadn't even thought of. But...the main error so many people seem to make when trying to understand and interpret the creation account is that most (including many Christians) fail to see the great underlying and profound spiritual truths in the account. People get so materially-minded because the account deals with the physical universe that they're usually totally oblivious to these underlying spiritual truths -- to the ultimate reality undergirding the temporal.

http://www.creationdefense.org/103.htm

You should simply create a standard response. I'm right, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. That includes Hebrew scholars, physicists, biologists, cosmologists, and other learned theologians. That's all you ever say anyway. I'll stick with my opinions that (1) there are a number of completely logical explanations for Genesis 1, not just one (2) nobody knows exactly which interpretation is definitive or exactly what happened, and (3) no god tried to fool us about the age of the universe. It really is 14-15 billion years old, give or take a billion years. It is unimaginable to me that any god could create a universe that is understandable and with physical laws that are unchanging, and at the same time expect people to completely ignore it in favor of a story that is only "provable" with circular logic. I can only say what I said before. You should never actually learn the science or become a Hebrew scholar because that could leave you unable to continue to accept the unacceptable. I've also said that the truly intelligent are smart enough to realize how much they don't understand. You are also not burdened in that way.

Old joke. How does an economist make a cake? First, assume two eggs.

[Hank]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

You should simply create a standard response. I'm right, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. That includes Hebrew scholars, physicists, biologists, cosmologists, and other learned theologians. That's all you ever say anyway. I'll stick with my opinions that (1) there are a number of completely logical explanations for Genesis 1, not just one (2) nobody knows exactly which interpretation is definitive or exactly what happened, and (3) no god tried to fool us about the age of the universe. It really is 14-15 billion years old, give or take a billion years. It is unimaginable to me that any god could create a universe that is understandable and with physical laws that are unchanging, and at the same time expect people to completely ignore it in favor of a story that is only "provable" with circular logic. I can only say what I said before. You should never actually learn the science or become a Hebrew scholar because that could leave you unable to continue to accept the unacceptable. I've also said that

Old joke. How does an economist make a cake? First, assume two eggs.

You can say that again.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

You should simply create a standard response. I'm right, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. That includes Hebrew scholars, physicists, biologists, cosmologists, and other learned theologians. That's all you ever say anyway. I'll stick with my opinions that (1) there are a number of completely logical explanations for Genesis 1, not just one (2) nobody knows exactly which interpretation is definitive or exactly what happened, and (3) no god tried to fool us about the age of the universe. It really is 14-15 billion years old, give or take a billion years. It is unimaginable to me that any god could create a universe that is understandable and with physical laws that are unchanging, and at the same time expect people to completely ignore it in favor of a story that is only "provable" with circular logic. I can only say what I said before. You should never actually learn the science or become a Hebrew scholar because that could leave you unable to continue to accept the unacceptable. I've also said that the truly intelligent are smart enough to realize how much they don't understand. You are also not burdened in that way.

Old joke. How does an economist make a cake? First, assume two eggs.

Yeah...when you personally think you've come up with a logical explanation for the creation account, be sure to share that with us, will ya? Until...then, I'm satisfied with my interpretation because of all the reasons I have stated.
No circular reasoning involved.

And I'm very comfortable relying on the numerous teams of very learned biblical language scholars for making my interpretations bases on their work of translations.

And just for your further, I'm not like many Catholics. Scripture teaches that it is self-interpretative. Science has no part in any of my heremeneutical principles.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Hank

You can say that again.

Only the wise of the world are wise in their own eyes.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course, I'm unburdened! Praise God that I'm unburdened!

You can thank being delusional for your "unburdenedness"

My opinion solely from interacting with you on this thread. It could all be an act on your part, in which case, BRAVO!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You can thank being delusional for your "unburdenedness"

My opinion solely from interacting with you on this thread. It could all be an act on your part, in which case, BRAVO!

Your opinion is less than worthless, for what what would you know, Mr. No Answers!? You couldn't find your rear end if both your hands were plastered to it.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Actor

How do you know that's the right one? Why not Zeus or Odin or Shiva?

Still waiting for an answer.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah...when you personally think you've come up with a logical explanation for the creation account, be sure to share that with us, will ya? Until...then, I'm satisfied with my interpretation because of all the reasons I have stated.
No circular reasoning involved.

And I'm very comfortable relying on the numerous teams of very learned biblical language scholars for making my interpretations bases on their work of translations.

And just for your further, I'm not like many Catholics. Scripture teaches that it is self-interpretative. Science has no part in any of my heremeneutical principles.

I gave you Schroeder's explanation. You can also look it up. Your response is to make fun of a guy who is more qualified than you or your learned scholars on the interpretation of the Hebrew and the physics of the universe.

Whether physics has anything to do with Biblical interpretations is not the point. The point is that somehow the universe got to be 15 billion years old, and that's close to a scientific fact. What you don't have the ability to understand is that even allowing for the existence of your God, you have to deny all the work he has presented to us to believe it was six literal days. You have to deny physics, biology, cosmology, and a few other -ologies.

Yup. No problem for you.