Origins and Dark Energy/Matter

[juvenissun]

It can only be called logical if each of your examples (example 1 ... example m) justifiably belongs in the sequence.

Forgive me if I'm skeptical.

No problem. I said they are arguable. But I think I have excellent chance to win the argument.

 

[juvenissun]

Our sun behaves a little strange now and no one on the earth knows why.

And we are so proud of ourselves by discovering that we do not know what 97% of the universe is made of.

If there were no God, then curse the science, and die.

----
Sorry, a little off the topic. Just a strong feeling on the news about the sun spot.

 

[gluadys]

The argument I have put to Mallon and Glaudys ....

I think too, that there is often misunderstanding of a different position. Initial statements often need to be fleshed out and refined to make them clearer and more comprehensive.

Specifically they make the following erroneous claims:

1) They will mostly accept that Jesus is an historical person, lived among us and may even have performed miracles like the feeding of the 5000 or turning water into wine or walking on water. But the Genesis 1-11 account which has always been interpreted historically is not in their view an historical account and can now be reinterpreted to allow them to get on with their science unfettered by any biblical boundaries to what science can say.

Here the problem is a matter of misattributed motivation. I have never seen science as a primary motivation for a non-historical approach to Genesis. The literary approach has made more sense to me since I was a teenager reading C.S. Lewis, several decades before I took any interest in science. And I have discovered over the years that many theologians prior to the 19th century also had non-scientific motives for approaching the early chapters of Genesis as something more than, if not different than, history and not necessarily accepting it as a simple report of events.

In short the theological reasons for differentiating Genesis 1-11 from later stories with a more solid historical backing are stronger and more relevant than any scientific reasons.

Of course, the scientific reasons are relevant as well, but it is not a matter of releasing science from biblical "fetters". In fact, I would be opposed to that---but more of that later.

2) That scripture cannot mean things to us that it could not have meant to its original audience.

That is not quite the case. The scripture can mean almost anything to us that we wish it to mean. The modern biblical teacher and preacher is called on to apply an ancient scripture to our modern situation and give it a meaning for us. And where the original meaning is irrelevant to us (e.g. the instructions for sacrifices in Leviticus), to bring out a meaning that is relevant to us. What, in our lives, is given meaning through this ancient ritual of animal sacrifice?

One of the things this requires is determining what the text did mean to its original author and audience. And this is where I object to finding modern science in the scripture. Usually this comes about because a modern reader is excited about finding a passage in scripture that seems to point to a modern idea. However, that modern reader is often very ignorant of the world-view of the writer and his audience. A word or phrase that means one thing in modern times meant something very different in ancient times.

So it is an error to think of the author--or even God--as planting modern science into the bible. One has to understand the text in its original context first. Especially when looking at what is literal and non-literal.

The modern reader skims over the phrases that say the earth does not move, that it is built on foundations and firmly fixed to them, treating it as non-literal figures of speech. But to the ancient author, this was "science" and literally true---even when mentioned in poetry. And just as the modern reader de-literalizes what was once thought to be literal, they sometimes erroneously literalize what was always intended as symbol, because they don't understand the way language was used symbolically in ancient times--what the conventions were about story-telling and oral history. So we get a literalization of Job's Leviathan and attempts to turn it into a dinosaur. We need to take the original culture seriously to get at the original meaning.

Once we have that meaning--as close as we can--there is nothing particularly wrong with extrapolating from it. I have no problem with someone saying: when I read Hebrews 11:3 about how that which is visible is made from that which is invisible, I am reminded that we are discovering that most of the universe is dark matter and dark energy and is profoundly mysterious to us. I would personally agree that the mystery to which the writer of Hebrews is pointing and the mystery we feel when we contemplate how little we know of dark matter have something in common. I would have no problem with a preacher connecting dark matter allegorically with Hebrews 11:3.

But what he should not suggest is that this is what the writer meant or what the verse was originally intended to say. What the writer meant is determined by the cultural and scientific and theological awareness of the writer.

Nor would it be correct to depict God as tweaking the writer's meaning so that people thousands of years in the future could use Hebrews 11:3 as a proof text that the bible spoke of dark matter long ago. Dark matter is a concept that we bring to the bible. We find it there because we put it there. Not because any author--human or divine--knowingly or unknowingly--planted it there.

3) That historical books and statements cannot have scientific implications. If God is an eyewitness to creation himself and has said there was a beginning then all the theories about eternal recurring doughnuts, cycles , parallel universes injecting into emptiness to create new universes become pure fiction on a par with the "Bible Code".

Historical books and statements certainly can have scientific implications. But you are not pointing to such. You are pointing to theology. The biblical statement that God created is not historical. It is a theological affirmation--a credo.

You are quite right in saying that if there was a beginning to creation, then the scientific implication is that "all the theories about eternal recurring doughnuts, cycles , parallel universes injecting into emptiness to create new universes become pure fiction". The point remains that the statement that there is a beginning to creation is not susceptible to scientific demonstration. Not even with the big bang in place. Those who reject a beginning to creation simply reject that the big bang is the beginning. So we still need to believe in creation by faith, not by evidence.

 

[Terral]

Hi Mindlight:

Somebody with questions! :0)

My questions: 1) How certain can we be about the universe in which we live if we can only observe such a small sample of what is actually there.

Who is ‘we?’ :0) I am very certain about the nature of God, The Word and This Creation (diagram and diagram) made up of visible and very much invisible (Col. 1:16) realms.

2) If dark matter/dark energy is essentially unobservable except in its impacts on the relatively unimportant observable universe is the scientific method, e.g observation and deduction based on observed facts, something that will ever resolve its mysteries. Or are their approaches in modern science which promise to yield more insights?

Obviously there are modern science methods that will promise to yield more insights, but the question remains on just how much they will deliver. Since the Big Bang of Creation Theory is a MYTH (my thread), then many of our so-called expert scientists have much to unlearn, before they can begin again and uncover many of God’s secrets pertaining to Himself, The Word and This Creation (diagram = God on top, Christ Jesus in the middle and Adam on the bottom facing right = spirit witness = heavens). This Creation did not come to exist from any Big Bang, but a previously existing perfect creation (‘eth Erets of Gen. 1:1) was ‘destroyed’ to become ‘formless and void’ (Gen. 1:2) about 13+ billion years ago from our temporal human perspective. There is no such thing as six or seven days of ‘creation’ of this universe, because the original perfect creation was called to exist in the flash of a single instant to begin the perfect ages of Genesis 1:1. The six days of Genesis 1:3-31 are ‘days to God’ reconstituting the elements of the now ‘broken’ universe (heavens, heaven and earth) into what you see in the universe today. Relativity does not reconcile with Quantum Physics today, because we are dealing with a ‘broken’ universe. Those two bodies of knowledge will eventually be reconciled into a single Macrocosm/Microcosm Explanation for everything (heavens and earth = Eph. 1:9-10) summed up in heaven and IN Christ Jesus (The Word). We continue to struggle against the darkness, because Elijah has yet to return to begin the process of restoring all things (Matt. 17:10-11), as the ‘prophet’ of Acts 3:22-23.

3) is it fair to say that the formlessness and emptiness of the original condition in genesis 1 is similar in many ways to the known facts about dark matter/energy. In which case the Genesis days that followed the initial creation of the heavens and the earth could also be seen as a description of the patterns, life, and light which the dark stuff lacks.

Your query is based upon many false notions and MYTHS held by a majority of people led captive by the false dogma of men blinded by the god of this world (2Cor. 4:3-4). There is no formless and void ‘original condition’ of This Creation, because this universe had no heavens, heaven nor earth during the perfect ages of Genesis 1:1 at all. There was no such thing as angels (spirit witnesses) of the heavens or men (water witnesses) of the earth, because that perfect Genesis 1:1 Creation contained hosts represented by the combining of what we know as angels and men today. The original condition of the Genesis 1:1 Creation was ‘maturity and perfection,’ until all of that was made void in Genesis 1:2. Look at dark matter/energy as conduits to a greater heavens host on the far side of ‘heaven’ (Gen. 1:8) called to exist as a firmament (expanse) where those two seas (waters above + waters below) join together and overlap. Your spirit and body overlap to beget your very own soul (blood witness) in the same way that the Father (spirit) and Holy Spirit (water) overlap to beget the “Son” (blood witness) we know as the Lord Jesus Christ. The descriptions of God reconstituting the basic components of the heavens and earth mirror all of the mystery processes for every spirit, blood and water (1John 5:7-8) mystery set in Scripture (diagram and diagram). The man (spirit witness), your offspring (blood witnesses) and woman (water witness) represent a ‘three are into the one’ (1Jn 5:8) mystery set, just like all the other hosts of God’s Living Word.

4) Could hebrews 11 v 3 be conceived as referring to dark matter when it suggests that God formed what is seen from what is not seen with a word of command?

Yes and no. :0) Dark matter is yet another visible component of this physical universe with an ‘unseen’ invisible host standing and testifying in the heavens right this moment as we speak. The woman is the inner ‘weaker vessel’ (1Peter 3:7) part of man ‘and’ a man is the same ‘water witness’ weaker vessel of an angel the very same way. Therefore, if you can follow along, the woman points to the inward part of man ‘and’ man points and testifies about the inward part of an angel in the same way that dark matter is a ‘water witness’ host testifying about something MUCH greater in the heavens realm seeking to be reunited with its shadowy earthly host. When you really start to believe that dark matter is all that large and powerful, then realize every particle of matter in this universe is like the head of a single pin in comparison to God or His Living Word ‘and’ the heavens (angelic) host is FAR greater than the earthly water witness counterpart. God called everything to exist in this now broken universe by looking at the ‘heavens’ (existed long ago = 2Peter 3:5) master blueprint, which should not be a great mystery to anyone. :0) Therefore, everything you ‘can’ see in this physical universe has a much greater unseen heavens counterpart seeking full expression in a ‘heaven’ (blood witness) environment that shall supersede everything called to exist in the heavens and earth. That is what going to ‘heaven’ is all about for men 'and' the angels (1Cor 6:2-3 = diagram. :0)

5) How does dark matter and energy work with gravity and with light for instance. Do its properties include anti-gravity and what is the nature of its darkness. Are these things forces in their own right or merely lacking the qualities of their opposites?

How does dark matter and energy work? :0) Energy and matter are two witnesses testifying about the same dark fluid making up over 95 percent of the known universe. This Creation exists in a ‘seed’ form in preparation for the New Creation of Revelation 21:1+, when components of the universe will bear ‘blue-shift’ natures rather than the current ‘red-shift’ expanding nature seen through telescopes today. By the end of time (1Cor. 15:27-28), then every particle of matter in this universe will again be ‘one thing’ (like in Genesis 1:1) and that one thing will be “Adam.” :0) In short, this universe represents the spirit (heavens), soul (heaven) and body (earth) of just ‘one’ son of God ‘and’ the visible universe (his Eve half) represents only his physical body. Can you know all about a man or humanity by focusing all of your theories on merely his physical existence in a single vehicle of expression? No! Where are your provisions for his soul (heaven) and spirit (heavens) that tell more about the man than by counting his fingers and toes? :0) Physical science focuses FAR too much attention upon the temporal, and not nearly enough on the things that really matter, to be considered credible sources of information on God, The Word or This Creation.

6) Some suggest that the dark matter/energy is the spiritual substance of the universe by which God formed and on which foundation he has based its essential organization. What do you think about that?

No sir. Not by a long shot. Search the ‘heavens’ (spirit witness) for clues about the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘earth’ for answers about the water witness counterparts. Dark matter/energy/fluid is just one more water witness testifying of something MUCH greater in the heavens and something greater still in The Word and in God’s Infinite Realm (diagram = on far left).

7) Why don't we have more clues about the nature of the universe in the bible?

We have MANY clues and many good explanations, but only if you have eyes from God to see. Remember that Scripture is written to be interpreted in over 2000 different ways ‘and’ that there is only one “the truth.” :0) Even if Elijah were speaking to you right now, then his truth would represent just one of 2000 different opinions among men . . .

8) Is it possible that the effects which we attribute to dark matter/energy could have other causes e.g. the impingement of parallel universes onto our own?

No sir. When you begin to grow and realize the true nature of this currently broken ‘triune’ universe, then perhaps the understanding will come that we are living inside a very much self-contained physical body of just one ‘son of God’ (Luke 3:38) within whom all died in preparation of all being made alive IN Christ Jesus. 1Cor. 15:22. Another parallel universe would represent a ‘second’ son of God bearing a name other than that of our father “Adam” and God’s Living Word would be broken.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Tinker Grey]

The book the Bible Code is rubbish fiction but there are undoubtedly dimensions to scripture which remain hidden to the majority of scholars. When Jesus came the first time scholars similarly did not understand that many of the scriptures they had read all of their lives referred to him. People have definite intrepretation of Revelation but these are probably mainly wrong also.

Of course it's rubbish. And, for the record, I didn't say that everyone who is a YEC believes the Bible code. I didn't say most; I didn't say any. I said there is a mindset that wants science or something to prove that they are right.

You will need to explain this accusation a little more cause it sound like nonsense to me in its present format.

It's not an accusation. It is an observation.

What I mean is simlar to what I said above: There is a mindset that wants science or something to prove that they are right.

A TE (on average and to varying degrees) has no need to make science justify the Bible. They recognize that the spiritual value of the Bible is not found in finding a metaphor for dark matter or what have you. It is a valueless exercise that detracts from moral, ethical, and spiritual living.

I have no need to prove the existence of God to you or anyone else for any need in myself.

I didn't ask you to.

I know him personally through Jesus Christ and his Holy Spirit who lives in me.

Good. If you going to claim there is a god who has an interest in humanity and spirituality, then I should think that an aspect of that god that communes with you in some spiritual manner. This is why I've said (prior to my deconversion) that the Holy Spirit is always a higher authority than the Bible is. The Bible is a tool. It may be an inerrant tool. It may be perfect. But spiritual growth will come from that tool used in concert with and thru and by the HS.

Laugh at that at your peril.

Is that a threat?

The argument I have put to Mallon and Glaudys has nothing to do with any attempt to convince others who are godless that they are blind to the ultimate reality in the universe i.e Its Creator.

That's fine. My point, OTOH, was that those that try to validate scripture by finding vague metaphors for dark matter miss the point.

This blindness has to do with sin, hardness of heart and unbelief and will require the grace and mercy of God to change not scientific reasonings.

Really? Is that what you tell yourself? You must not have read too many de-conversion stories. But, hey, whatever gets you to sleep at night.

What I have said is a theological statement that the nature of divine inspiration as revealed in the scriptures as a whole and in the Christian experience of Christ does not square with the TE approach to Genesis.

I'll let them argue with you about it. But, just in case it saves time: WRONG!


Specifically they make the following erroneous claims:

But the Genesis 1-11 account which has always been interpreted historically

Patently false. Read Augustine.

2) That scripture cannot mean things to us that it could not have meant to its original audience.

Once one accepts that the Bible is primarily a spiritual book and not a science text book, one can accept that each of our spirits is unique and responds uniquely to the Bible.

OTOH, that the Bible can mean true things about the physical world that the authors never intended: no, I reject that. It turns the Bible into something akin to a amulet or an augury. The way this approach works reminds me of shaman slitting a sheeps belly and reading the entrails. The entire approach misses the point (and the villager is out a sheep.)

3) That historical books and statements cannot have scientific implications. If God is an eyewitness to creation himself and has said there was a beginning then all the theories about eternal recurring doughnuts, cycles , parallel universes injecting into emptiness to create new universes become pure fiction on a par with the "Bible Code".

The only useful scientific implications are anthropological.

 

[mindlight]

Hi Mindlight:

Somebody with questions! :0)

And finally someone takes them seriously and actually answers them.

I need time to consider what you have said as it is quite densely packed.

 

[busterdog]

1) How certain can we be about the universe in which we live if we can only observe such a small sample of what is actually there.

Dude! That is MY argument!

Here is an example of the absurdity of the position that you are addressing. Presumptively you are addressing the exclusion of creationist ideas from "science." Science is "certain" these ideas have no merit.

Richard Dawkins says maybe we were "designed" by "intelligent beingS"

Check out Richard Dawkins at 5:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsAtc0ezpdc

Essentially that is the same argument: the sample is a couple beers short of a six pack. In evolution, we are lacking the information to explain the many leaps in evolutionary progress. Therefore, since we cannot account mathematically and in the scale of available time (4 billion years) for evolution, we MUST have another explanation. Dawkins says it was ET.

Again, we can say design by intelligent beings, but we cant say a Supreme Being is responsible for "Intelligent Design."

The corollary in cosmology is that there a vast void of data that explains how things happened and how clouds progressed into galaxies. So, we assume (not just the EXISTENCE of dark matter but rather) a specific and sufficient quantity of dark matter to make it all work.

Note the continuing hypocrisy in cosmology. The existence of dark matter is not much of an explanation at all. The problem is that the theory needs a very SPECIFIC QUANTITY of dark matter. The assumption is that the former statement is scientifically sufficient. The latter is against all odds and is unobserved -- like Dawkins' (or Crick's) little green men. Silliness.

This really needs to be emphasized. The quantities are GINORMOUS. They are statistically absurd amounts of variables and levels of power and mass. Yet, scientist think it is science to say the "existence" of some of this stuff is a meaningful comment on whether the quantities could ever be achieved in sufficient proportions to make the theories work. A relative few tachyons is presumed that the number of particles in the universe is like 10 to the 200th more than what we observe.

Thus, the exclusion of ID and the creator as an explanation of unworkable data and missing data is just mind boggling.

2) If dark matter/dark energy is essentially unobservable except in its impacts on the relatively unimportant observable universe is the scientific method, e.g observation and deduction based on observed facts, something that will ever resolve its mysteries. Or are their approaches in modern science which promise to yield more insights?

Yes. There are several approaches. So, when you have "approaches" that have "promise" (but which, for present purposes, suck) you (should) tend to be open minded and let there be a big tent.

Here is a dark energy theory: the energy is dark because it is shielded and hidden by time. In other words, the energy was manifest a long time ago when it electrified plasma and organized matter in a matter of days. That is an "approach" that has "promise" except that the people who talk about it, and their God-associations, are verbotten. That "approach" has "promise".

3) is it fair to say that the formlessness and emptiness of the original condition in genesis 1 is similar in many ways to the known facts about dark matter/energy. In which case the Genesis days that followed the initial creation of the heavens and the earth could also be seen as a description of the patterns, life, and light which the dark stuff lacks.

Its so hard to say, since the lack of data means that we cant extrapolate backwards, except by speculation. The original conditions could have been enormously different. The friend of the evolutionist is uniformitarianism (but its a friend like the brother's from Delta house borrowing Flounder's brother's car for a road trip).

4) Could hebrews 11 v 3 be coceived as referring to dark matter when it suggests that God formed what is seen from what is not seen with a word of command?

It would pretty much have to be. But, what does that say? God's power certainly had some component of energy in the way it was manifested. This is energy that cant be accounted for, but which is required by the data. But, that doesnt tell us what form of energy or when it manifested. So, the connection is very vague.

5) How does dark matter and energy work with gravity and with light for instance. Do its properties include anti-gravity and what is the nature of its darkness.Are these things forces in their own right or merely lacking the qualities of their opposites?

It does whatever it needs to do to make the theory work. Thats how.

6) Some suggest that the dark matter/energy is the spiritual substance of the universe by which God formed and on which foundation he has based its essential organisation. What do you think about that?

Again, there is a vague correlation between the two positions. But, when you say dark energy/matter, you are really saying "something very powerful, in enormous quantities and unobserved." It is so vague, that is why it fits the scripture.

7) Why don't we have more clues about the nature of the universe in the bible?

Would it help? You have the most basic, and really the most obvious, postulate of all and yet God is expelled from the classroom in favor of aliens. How is making it more complicated going to help? We cant even be faithful in small things.

I keep thinking about the notion that the biggest thing there is (God) can be found in what is roughly the smallest particle that there is (Higgs Boson). The language that scientist use about this is bizarre. I am not saying that I am buying into the conspiracy theories. Its just very odd to me that there would be enough fascination such that scientists start using theological language. Could any scripture possibly satisfy such folks? This is not a strident position, but more of a curiosity.

And then, the ability to get it, is in part, like election. It is not earned. It is mysterious. The complete revelation of all truth was never the point of Scripture.

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

8) Is it possible that the effects which we attribute to dark matter/energy could have other causes e.g. the impingement of parallel universes onto our own?

Clearly, there is another reality. There is no dispute about that. But, it cant be quanitifed.

2Ki 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain [was] full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

 

[mindlight]

Who is ‘we?’ :0) I am very certain about the nature of God, The Word and This Creation (diagram and diagram) made up of visible and very much invisible (Col. 1:16) realms.

You have an overview and your diagrams articulate that albeit a little too precisely.
As your diagrams accept there is a great deal we do not know about God and the vast spritual realm.
There may be witness in creation as in the heavens to God but unless what
That is is articulated in clear scriptures we should not speak with so much certainty
About it.

Obviously there are modern science methods that will promise to yield more insights, but the question remains on just how much they will deliver. Since the Big Bang of Creation Theory is a MYTH (my thread), then many of our so-called expert scientists have much to unlearn, before they can begin again and uncover many of God’s secrets pertaining to Himself, The Word and This Creation (diagram = God on top, Christ Jesus in the middle and Adam on the bottom facing right = spirit witness = heavens). This Creation did not come to exist from any Big Bang, but a previously existing perfect creation (‘eth Erets of Gen. 1:1) was ‘destroyed’ to become ‘formless and void’ (Gen. 1:2) about 13+ billion years ago from our temporal human perspective. There is no such thing as six or seven days of ‘creation’ of this universe, because the original perfect creation was called to exist in the flash of a single instant to begin the perfect ages of Genesis 1:1. The six days of Genesis 1:3-31 are ‘days to God’ reconstituting the elements of the now ‘broken’ universe (heavens, heaven and earth) into what you see in the universe today. Relativity does not reconcile with Quantum Physics today, because we are dealing with a ‘broken’ universe. Those two bodies of knowledge will eventually be reconciled into a single Macrocosm/Microcosm Explanation for everything (heavens and earth = Eph. 1:9-10) summed up in heaven and IN Christ Jesus (The Word). We continue to struggle against the darkness, because Elijah has yet to return to begin the process of restoring all things (Matt. 17:10-11), as the ‘prophet’ of Acts 3:22-23.

I am inclined to reject the big bang as irreconciliable with the biblical record and
Unconvincing as a scientific argument.

But you seem to accept that the universe is old but then previously destroyed
And remade. So the formless emptiness that I have associated with dark matter
Is not merely a physical phenomena and represents the residue of a previous creation- there is no evidence for this.

Your query is based upon many false notions and MYTHS held by a majority of people led captive by the false dogma of men blinded by the god of this world (2Cor. 4:3-4). There is no formless and void ‘original condition’ of This Creation, because this universe had no heavens, heaven nor earth during the perfect ages of Genesis 1:1 at all. There was no such thing as angels (spirit witnesses) of the heavens or men (water witnesses) of the earth, because that perfect Genesis 1:1 Creation contained hosts represented by the combining of what we know as angels and men today. The original condition of the Genesis 1:1 Creation was ‘maturity and perfection,’ until all of that was made void in Genesis 1:2. Look at dark matter/energy as conduits to a greater heavens host on the far side of ‘heaven’ (Gen. 1:8) called to exist as a firmament (expanse) where those two seas (waters above + waters below) join together and overlap. Your spirit and body overlap to beget your very own soul (blood witness) in the same way that the Father (spirit) and Holy Spirit (water) overlap to beget the “Son” (blood witness) we know as the Lord Jesus Christ. The descriptions of God reconstituting the basic components of the heavens and earth mirror all of the mystery processes for every spirit, blood and water (1John 5:7-8) mystery set in Scripture (diagram and diagram). The man (spirit witness), your offspring (blood witnesses) and woman (water witness) represent a ‘three are into the one’ (1Jn 5:8) mystery set, just like all the other hosts of God’s Living Word.

Yes and no. :0) Dark matter is yet another visible component of this physical universe with an ‘unseen’ invisible host standing and testifying in the heavens right this moment as we speak. The woman is the inner ‘weaker vessel’ (1Peter 3:7) part of man ‘and’ a man is the same ‘water witness’ weaker vessel of an angel the very same way. Therefore, if you can follow along, the woman points to the inward part of man ‘and’ man points and testifies about the inward part of an angel in the same way that dark matter is a ‘water witness’ host testifying about something MUCH greater in the heavens realm seeking to be reunited with its shadowy earthly host. When you really start to believe that dark matter is all that large and powerful, then realize every particle of matter in this universe is like the head of a single pin in comparison to God or His Living Word ‘and’ the heavens (angelic) host is FAR greater than the earthly water witness counterpart. God called everything to exist in this now broken universe by looking at the ‘heavens’ (existed long ago = 2Peter 3:5) master blueprint, which should not be a great mystery to anyone. :0) Therefore, everything you ‘can’ see in this physical universe has a much greater unseen heavens counterpart seeking full expression in a ‘heaven’ (blood witness) environment that shall supersede everything called to exist in the heavens and earth. That is what going to ‘heaven’ is all about for men 'and' the angels (1Cor 6:2-3 = diagram. :0)

How does dark matter and energy work? :0) Energy and matter are two witnesses testifying about the same dark fluid making up over 95 percent of the known universe. This Creation exists in a ‘seed’ form in preparation for the New Creation of Revelation 21:1+, when components of the universe will bear ‘blue-shift’ natures rather than the current ‘red-shift’ expanding nature seen through telescopes today. By the end of time (1Cor. 15:27-28), then every particle of matter in this universe will again be ‘one thing’ (like in Genesis 1:1) and that one thing will be “Adam.” :0) In short, this universe represents the spirit (heavens), soul (heaven) and body (earth) of just ‘one’ son of God ‘and’ the visible universe (his Eve half) represents only his physical body. Can you know all about a man or humanity by focusing all of your theories on merely his physical existence in a single vehicle of expression? No! Where are your provisions for his soul (heaven) and spirit (heavens) that tell more about the man than by counting his fingers and toes? :0) Physical science focuses FAR too much attention upon the temporal, and not nearly enough on the things that really matter, to be considered credible sources of information on God, The Word or This Creation.



No sir. Not by a long shot. Search the ‘heavens’ (spirit witness) for clues about the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘earth’ for answers about the water witness counterparts. Dark matter/energy/fluid is just one more water witness testifying of something MUCH greater in the heavens and something greater still in The Word and in God’s Infinite Realm (diagram = on far left).



We have MANY clues and many good explanations, but only if you have eyes from God to see. Remember that Scripture is written to be interpreted in over 2000 different ways ‘and’ that there is only one “the truth.” :0) Even if Elijah were speaking to you right now, then his truth would represent just one of 2000 different opinions among men . . .


No sir. When you begin to grow and realize the true nature of this currently broken ‘triune’ universe, then perhaps the understanding will come that we are living inside a very much self-contained physical body of just one ‘son of God’ (Luke 3:38) within whom all died in preparation of all being made alive IN Christ Jesus. 1Cor. 15:22. Another parallel universe would represent a ‘second’ son of God bearing a name other than that of our father “Adam” and God’s Living Word would be broken.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

You have a very thought through world view and I respect the ways in which its various parts and reinforce each other however it seems simplistic to me and not allowing for nuances.
A lot of this stuff you say cannot be known.

You are right that the vast unseen spiritual realm connects with the physical. It also represents further proof of how little weactually know about the seenn unseen and unseeable dimensions of our existence.
I agree there is only one son of God but the notion that all creation is ultimately to be his body just as in its broken state it is Adams body I am unsure about it. God does not have to fit into the ways you have rationalised things.
I think you to be more careful before saying you are qualified to speak with absolute certainty when many of the things you are saying cannot be supported in scripture.

 

[shernren]

The strange atheistic beliefs of Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, invalidate standard cosmology. That's right, folks, busterdog must be an evil neoconservative who advocates nuking the Muslim Middle East to hell because the Crusaders thought so and they, like him, are Christian.

Every society has its fringe elements, busterdog, and quite frankly fringe Christianity has done a hundred cringe-worthy and downright inhuman things for every misquote you can wring from a careless atheist. Be careful when you use sloppy debate tactics.

I'm currently online on battery in Sydney's Chinatown searching and waiting for the perfect egg tart, so I won't be able to make a detailed reply to mindlight as of yet, but here's a thought-provoker:

Should anyone be allowed to drive before they have understood the Three Laws of Thermodynamics and how they pertain to the Otto four-stroke engine used in automobiles? And should they be allowed to drive automatics before understanding the mechanics behind planetary gear-shifters?

Since the obvious answer is yes, why? How on earth can you allow people to take to the streets in machines capable of crippling other people when they understand less than ten percent of its internal workings?

 

[Mallon]

First, I have to apologize to you, mindlight. For some reason, I confused you with marktheblake earlier in this thread. Sorry about that. Must've been the lower-case m-name.
So thanks for answering my question in spite of that. Now back to brass tacks.

God reveals Himself in history. The word becomes flesh. The bible books are given to historical individuals. The whole nature of scripture is that God works in history. We read prophecies that meant one thing in their original contexts as referring to a Messiah whom the original authors did not see in them. Jesus rose from the dead is an historical statement or it is meaningless.

God acts in history. I agree. Are we not presuming that which we seek to know by saying that because God acts in history, the Genesis creation account must also be history, though? Should we not gauge the historical validity of the story based on what it says or how it reads or what the primary Hebrew audience believed about it, rather than imposing a particular hermeneutic upon it a priori? The Bible shows that God employs more than just history to teach His children, after all...

Incarnation is fundamental to the nature of scripture as it is also in the manner in which God reveals Himself to man in Jesus Christ.

Again, I agree completely. I think it is worth considering the Incarnation even further, though, since I think it reveals a lot about God's character. The Incarnation of Christ was an accomodation of God to His people. God took the form of a man so that we could relate to Him. He became that which we could understand and grapple with, all so that we could know salvation. God relates to us as a father relates to his children. He gets down on one knee and speaks to their experiences and limitations.
With the Incarnation as the greatest example of God's accomodating nature, should we really read the Bible as though God was talking over the heads of His primary audience? Should we really be trying to milk Genesis for scientific insight into the history of the Earth? Or should we read the Bible as though it, too, is an accomodation of God's infinite wisdom to the limitations of human beings? Early Hebrew human beings, namely.
I think to expect to read matters of 21st century science -- including dark matter, plate tectonism, or biological heredity -- in the Bible is to completely overlook God's accomodating nature and to impose a very post-Englightenment mindset on a group of pre-literate nomads whose last concern was scientific accuracy. Is that really such a "liberal" position to take?

 

[juvenissun]

but here's a thought-provoker:

Should anyone be allowed to drive before they have understood the Three Laws of Thermodynamics and how they pertain to the Otto four-stroke engine used in automobiles? And should they be allowed to drive automatics before understanding the mechanics behind planetary gear-shifters?

Since the obvious answer is yes, why? How on earth can you allow people to take to the streets in machines capable of crippling other people when they understand less than ten percent of its internal workings?

Simple, the difference is on the worst possible consequence:

Drive without the understanding of car: risk of hitting people (your argument)
Live without the understanding of the universe: risk of making atheist

Besides, even a car engineer could make car accident too. But this is something outside the meaning of your parable.

 

[Terral]

Hi Mindlight:

You have an overview and your diagrams articulate that albeit a little too precisely. As your diagrams accept there is a great deal we do not know about God and the vast spiritual realm. There may be witness in creation as in the heavens to God but unless what that is is articulated in clear scriptures we should not speak with so much certainty about it.

That is nonsense. Scripture says,

“For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches ALL THINGS, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows EXCEPT the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.” 1Corinthians 2:10-13.

So mindlight really thinks that God Himself does not have sufficient knowledge of Genesis and how all things came to exist, which includes ‘dark matter/fluid’ as just one component part. If you want to sit on your hands and wait for the least common denominator to know all about these things, before mindlight is willing to believe, then that has always been your option from the very beginning. The majority here regurgitates denominationalism dogma learned from blind church fathers that came before them, while I am showing you exactly what God Himself has given me to see by His Spirit through His Living Word. 2Tim. 3:16-17. You talk about ‘that what is articulated in clear scriptures,’ but how many verses of Scripture did mindlight use to contradict my testimony above? ZERO. :0) Your comments mirror those of an unbeliever to a Tee . . .

I am inclined to reject the big bang as irreconcilable with the biblical record and unconvincing as a scientific argument.

Of course. That is the reason your Opening Post is filled with so many Big Bang/Creation related questions. :0)

But you seem to accept that the universe is old but then previously destroyed and remade. So the formless emptiness that I have associated with dark matter is not merely a physical phenomena and represents the residue of a previous creation- there is no evidence for this.

The man closes his eyes and ears tightly then complains that there is no evidence. :0) Scripture says that God created the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1. THEN Scripture says the earth was made formless and void in Genesis 1:2. However, God did not make the earth a waste place in the beginning:

“For thus says the Lord, who created the heaven (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the Lord, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18.

Perhaps ‘your universe’ was created a waste place, but the earth of Genesis 1:1 WAS NOT. Period! God Himself is telling you the answer to all your questions by His Spirit and the types and antitypes of His Living Word, but the beginning of knowledge and wisdom is acquired by walking BY FAITH and not by sight (2Cor. 5:7). The common thread linking all spirit witnesses together (saving one) is they all existed LONG before their water witness counterparts like the heavens (spirit witness) and earth (water witness) of this universe described here:

“For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water . . .”. 2Peter 3:5.

The heavens (spirit witness) existed LONG AGO and came ‘first’ like Adam (spirit witness) existed LONG AGO and Eve (water witness) was taken from his side!!!! Gen. 2:20-22. The Father (spirit witness) preexists the Holy Spirit (water witness) taken from His side in the very same way, so that overlapping (the Two becoming One flesh) the “Son” (blood witness) was called into being (like Luke 1:35) as the “Only Begotten Son.” Dark matter/fluid is only one component of ‘the earth’ (this universe) with a ‘heavens’ (spirit witness) counterpart like men (water witnesses) have angelic (spirit witness) counterparts assembled and testifying in the heavens (spirit witness to the earth) right this moment as we speak. I have told you already that ‘the earth’ exists in a ‘seed form’ above ‘and’ must be remade in a series of 490 times, before the Son is subjected back to God (1Cor. 15:27) and God can once again be “all in all.” 1Cor. 15:28 (diagram). Dark matter/fluid is like the husk of the seed that will fall away and disappear, when this universe begins taking on the GLORY of the children of God (Rom. 8:20-22); as the sons of Light (1Thes. 5:5). :0) Scripture says,

“For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation (the earth of Genesis 1:1 made void in Genesis 1:2) waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God (New Jerusalem above is our mother = Gal. 4:26). For the creation was subjected to futility (like Adam, Eve and Christ at Calvary), not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, IN HOPE that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation (seen and unseen realms) groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.” Romans 8:18-23.

This Creation (‘eth Erets = the Earth) of Genesis 1:1 was made void in Genesis 1:2, when the waters above the expanse (heavens) and waters below the expanse (earth) were joined together (made one flesh) to beget ‘heaven’ of Genesis 1:8. David and Solomon taught the differences between ‘heaven’ (Gen. 1:8) and the “Highest Heaven” (Gen. 1:2) from 1Kings 8:26-27, but men even today have great difficulty visualizing what they are even talking about; even after God has handed out His Spirit to ‘sons’ (Rom. 8:14, 19, Gal. 3:26, etc.), being adopted ‘and’ these things (2Peter 3:14-16) are described to you using Scripture and many diagrams.

You have a very thought through world view and I respect the ways in which its various parts and reinforce each other however it seems simplistic to me and not allowing for nuances. A lot of this stuff you say cannot be known.

Please . . . Your reply to me has nothing but mindlight’s unsupported opinion with reasons to remain standing in the stench of ignorance and darkness, while my Scripture-supported explanations are reduced to a mere ‘world view’ according to you. :0) Walking by faith and NOT by sight means jumping out on nothing to land on something that God Himself has placed there for sons diligently seeking Him through His Living Word. My “The Mystery Explained” manuscript (from my signature below) contains about 700 pages without the 80 diagrams and can hardly be described by anyone standing in the darkness as simplistic.

You are right that the vast unseen spiritual realm connects with the physical. It also represents further proof of how little we actually know about the seen/unseen and unseeable dimensions of our existence.

No sir. We have more proof about how little Mindlight can see using his physical eyes amid all the scoffing and mocking. Acts 13:41. The next time you have so many Genesis-type questions, then have the wisdom to thank everyone willing to spend time providing answers and to move on without looking the gift horse so intently in the mouth. :0)

I agree there is only one son of God but the notion that all creation is ultimately to be his body just as in its broken state it is Adams body I am unsure about it.

Scripture says,

“For as “IN” Adam ALL die, so also “IN” Christ ALL will be made alive.” 1Corinthians 15:22.

The believers in our gospel “have received a spirit of adoption AS SONS” (Rom. 8:15) ‘and’ are called the members of the “BODY OF CHRIST.” Eph. 4:12. Is mindlight willing to accept the truth that the sons of God putting on immortality (1Cor. 15:51-53) are the members of “Christ’s BODY” (1Cor. 12:27) that Paul calls “His BODY” Church (Col. 1:24)??? If not, then I have nothing for you; because mindlight cannot accept God at HIS WORD! However, if you can accept this teaching, then perhaps you can wrap your head around ‘the truth’ that EVERYONE in this universe is a member of Adam’s BODY right up and until they become a member of “Christ’s BODY” to be once again “made alive.”

God does not have to fit into the ways you have rationalized things.

This discussion has nothing to do with what God fits into anything. Mindlight asked many questions of the CF.com registered membership ‘and’ is receiving some Scripture-supported answers for which he is in no way prepared to understand. This is like stopping to help a guy with a flat tire on the side of the road, but after much deliberation he is quite happy with the status of his current condition . . .

I think you to be more careful before saying you are qualified to speak with absolute certainty when many of the things you are saying cannot be supported in scripture.

That sounds funny coming from a guy that uses no Scripture to support his lack of faith. :0) The lesson might be that next time I should note the guy on the side of the road and keep on driving . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[mindlight]

Tinker Grey

Thank you for taking the time to write.

A TE (on average and to varying degrees) has no need to make science justify the Bible. They recognize that the spiritual value of the Bible is not found in finding a metaphor for dark matter or what have you. It is a valueless exercise that detracts from moral, ethical, and spiritual living.

I grant you that the primary purpose of scripture is to instruct, guide and build up the believer in their relationship with God. In that sense even though the message may be communicated in the historical events experienced or handed down to the author to focus on those without that relationship first being in place is probably to miss the essential meaning of the text.
Having said that watch any police detective programme on TV or talk to any number of policemen as have I and you will find them reading clues in the stories people tell which were not the primary purpose of those stories. In doing so they uncover facts which were not considered significant to the original author of the conversation yet nonetheless were significant.

My point, OTOH, was that those that try to validate scripture by finding vague metaphors for dark matter miss the point.

Yes and one of the reasons I post on this subject in the Christian forum for it rather than in more general discussion with atheists who believe in evolution is that understanding of scripture is assumed by my audience. So we are free to pursue the detective trail without betraying the essential witness of scripture to a God who loves us.

But the Genesis 1-11 account which has always been interpreted historically

Patently false. Read Augustine.

Augustine had an alternate view. The Jews and Old testament believers and those of the early church had another. This view (the view I hold today) persisted through the full history of the church and was revived during the reformation in the "intellectual church" also. For a time Augustines approach was considered that of the intellectuals but it later proved false. Today most secular and Western Christian intellectuals believe as you do but time will tell the validity of their faith in Old Universe- macro evolution.

Once one accepts that the Bible is primarily a spiritual book and not a science text book, one can accept that each of our spirits is unique and responds uniquely to the Bible.

Sounds like relativism to me and hardly surprisig you ended up deconverting if you held this view of scripture as there would be nothing there to tie you to Him once your subjective impressions of Him had renounced Him. Terral is the opposite extreme to you on this one. He believes he knows everything that the scriptures reveal and has it all nicely systematised. You argue unbelief , he argues faith. I am foolish and even bad because I do not simply lap up what he says. I just need to trust him when he says he knows something. I retain a scepticism about his conclusions and thoughts as I do about yours but consider myself to be in the middle between your two positions. I truly believe what God has definitely said but remain inquisitive and skeptical about what seems to me to be unprovable and is not clearly stated in scripture. My terral is right and I am simply blind at the moment to things he grasped years ago. Again may God open my eyes and transform my heart to receive and live by only to what is true.

OTOH, that the Bible can mean true things about the physical world that the authors never intended: no, I reject that. It turns the Bible into something akin to a amulet or an augury. The way this approach works reminds me of shaman slitting a sheeps belly and reading the entrails. The entire approach misses the point (and the villager is out a sheep.)

Go watch "The Bill" ;-)

The only useful scientific implications are anthropological.

Thats a rather absurd statement really. For example a great darkness came over the land and the sun was blotted out 3 days before Christmas is something an ancient text might read. A scientist could then check and find an eclipse occurred. Similarly there will be other cosmological events experienced by real people which may give clues about the nature fo the universe. Add on to this the fact that there was only one eyewitness to creation and any account about it that claims divine inspiration becomes immensely interesting.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thank you for your response. Let me answer as a TE. It is easier than putting a caveat at each statement.

Tinker Grey
Having said that watch any police detective programme on TV or talk to any number of policemen as have I and you will find them reading clues in the stories people tell which were not the primary purpose of those stories. In doing so they uncover facts which were not considered significant to the original author of the conversation yet nonetheless were significant.

Ok. Maybe the anthropological statement was a little strong. But, to pursue the analogy in your above paragraph, YECs want to rely on the stories and not actually look at DNA of the blood. The universe lies outstretched before us. We've said in the forum before, God wrote 2 books: The Bible and the universe. What YECs want TEs to believe is that the evidence before our eyes is lying to us or that our eyes are lying to us and that muslims, hindus, buddhists, animists, pagans and even fellow Christians are conspiring to undermine the truth of YEC. It is simply unfathomable. God himself laid out the evidence. God himself gave the us the brains to examine the evidence and understand it. God himself gave us the curiosity to want to examine the evidence.

YECs are like detectives who think that merely interviewing people is sufficient to their investigation.

Yes and one of the reasons I post on this subject in the Christian forum for it rather than in more general discussion with atheists who believe in evolution is that understanding of scripture is assumed by my audience. So we are free to pursue the detective trail without betraying the essential witness of scripture to a God who loves us.

See the last sentence above.

Augustine had an alternate view.

*snip*

For a time Augustines approach was considered that of the intellectuals but it later proved false.

And this is why I responded as I did to you. That it has "always been interpreted historically" is false.

Sounds like relativism to me and hardly surprisig you ended up deconverting if you held this view of scripture as there would be nothing there to tie you to Him once your subjective impressions of Him had renounced Him.

If the Bible is a tool (among others) thru which the Holy Spirit touches the heart, then while our responses might be relative but they would be absolutely what God wants (for any heart that is responsive).

As to my deconversion: 1) The primary facet thereof is that convincing myself to believe stuff without evidence became untenable. 2) If my experience of God is not real, why should one expect or even want a mere text to keep me believing in that which I don't experience. This hints of Bibliolatry. 3) If God himself will not make himself real, the Bible is irrelevant. The Bible is only useful if one's experience of God is meaningful.

Terral is the opposite extreme to you on this one. He believes he knows everything that the scriptures reveal and has it all nicely systematised. You argue unbelief , he argues faith.

I haven't been reading Terral's posts. I would suggest that if he believes he knows it all and it is nicely systematized, then he is not arguing faith. Perfect knowledge casts out faith.

I retain a scepticism about his conclusions and thoughts as I do about yours but consider myself to be in the middle between your two positions.

This is good.

Thats a rather absurd statement really.

Let me clarify. I said "scientific implications." I don't think that the Bible can tell us more about science than the evidence itself does. Or, another way to put it, it can't tell us more about the universe than the universe tells us about itself. As any book written in antiquity, the Bible may refer to events that we might be able to substantiate or to locations and cities that we might unearth. By and large, though, it tells us more about the authors and the contexts in which they wrote than about anything else--by a wide margin, I aver.

Again, TEs recognize the work of God in the universe and study the universe to understand the universe (and even some facets of God). They recognize work of God in the Bible and study the Bible to understand the relationship between God and man. One "writing" of God is for understanding the universe (the universe) and the other is for spiritual things (the Bible).

HTH

 

[Assyrian]

The Jews and Old testament believers and those of the early church had another. This view (the view I hold today) persisted through the full history of the church and was revived during the reformation in the "intellectual church" also.

I am sure plenty of Jews interpreted the six day literally, but again this is not the only way it was interpreted. Gerald Schroeder show how prominent Jewish Rabbis through the ages believed the bible taught an ancient earth, that when the bible talks of God showing his love to a thousand generation, that stretched back long before Adam. If we look at first century Judaism, we find allegorical interpretation of Genesis. Josephus took the day of creation literally but believed Moses was talking allegorically about Adam and Eve. Philo believed both the days of creation and the story of Adam and Eve were meant allegorically. When it comes to the OT believers, it is hard to say how they understood Gen 1-3. There is very little reference to either the days of creation or Adam and Eve. Moses looks at the creation and Genesis in Psalm 90, but takes God's day non literally. He is the only OT writer I know who mentions the days of creation. Psalm 104 follows the order of Gen 1 in its study of the creation, but reads it as a framework describing God's creation now rather than seven sequential days at the start of creation. So when God created plants it is to feed the livestock, and birds nest in the trees. God creates the sun and moon to mark the seasons, when it is dark the lions go hunting and when the sun comes up Adam goes out to his work until evening. Then the Psalmist looks the sea teaming with creatures, but there are ships there with leviathan. If we look at Ezekiel we see a figurative interpretation of the serpent not as a literal animal but as a guardian cherub in the Eden of God who sinned and was cast to the ground. There is amazingly little interest in the story of Adam and Eve. The Jews seemed to look to their beginnings in Abraham and Moses rather than Adam.

 

[mindlight]

Should anyone be allowed to drive before they have understood the Three Laws of Thermodynamics and how they pertain to the Otto four-stroke engine used in automobiles? And should they be allowed to drive automatics before understanding the mechanics behind planetary gear-shifters?

Since the obvious answer is yes, why? How on earth can you allow people to take to the streets in machines capable of crippling other people when they understand less than ten percent of its internal workings?

ha , nice try. hope you found a decent egg tart and were able to drive home in a car of whose internal workings you understand 10% through streets whose names you know less 10% of without bumping into any large chunks of dark matter or slipping on any tectonicplates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

The thing about a car is that I can see, touch, smell, taste and hear what I only understand 10% of. Whereas I cannot even see 96% of the universe through even the best possible telescope

 

[busterdog]

The strange atheistic beliefs of Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, invalidate standard cosmology. That's right, folks, busterdog must be an evil neoconservative who advocates nuking the Muslim Middle East to hell because the Crusaders thought so and they, like him, are Christian.

Every society has its fringe elements, busterdog, and quite frankly fringe Christianity has done a hundred cringe-worthy and downright inhuman things for every misquote you can wring from a careless atheist. Be careful when you use sloppy debate tactics.

I would appreciate it if you would retract this inappropriate post.

 

[mindlight]

I think too, that there is often misunderstanding of a different position. Initial statements often need to be fleshed out and refined to make them clearer and more comprehensive

Fair enough

Here the problem is a matter of misattributed motivation. I have never seen science as a primary motivation for a non-historical approach to Genesis. The literary approach has made more sense to me since I was a teenager reading C.S. Lewis, several decades before I took any interest in science. And I have discovered over the years that many theologians prior to the 19th century also had non-scientific motives for approaching the early chapters of Genesis as something more than, if not different than, history and not necessarily accepting it as a simple report of events.

CS Lewis spoke to a different generation as did Tolkein. A generation where the scientific materialism of communism and Nazi eugenics had reduced mankind to something less than human. They recovered a sense of our dignity in the world of art and imagination allowing the human spirit to soar again beyond the planned state and collective. People are not trusting of scientists and their motives today and amongst the new generation there has been an explosion of interest in the occult and the spiritualities of different religions. In this era it is less clear that science is the panacea of all goods and people have become superstitious and will believe any old yarn so long as its a good story. In this context a more rigourous, authentic and historical approach to Christianity becomes more of a witness than previously. We do not tell stories of monkey gods and multi headed hydras - we speak of things that actually happened.

In short the theological reasons for differentiating Genesis 1-11 from later stories with a more solid historical backing are stronger and more relevant than any scientific reasons.

I would agree in differentiating the nature of the story as it something that was passed down and the events of Genesis 1 can only have been witnessed by God Himself as can the story of Cain and Abel. With Abraham and different kind of story begins. What I do not agree with is saying that it cannot be regarded as historical.

That is not quite the case. The scripture can mean almost anything to us that we wish it to mean. The modern biblical teacher and preacher is called on to apply an ancient scripture to our modern situation and give it a meaning for us. And where the original meaning is irrelevant to us (e.g. the instructions for sacrifices in Leviticus), to bring out a meaning that is relevant to us. What, in our lives, is given meaning through this ancient ritual of animal sacrifice?

One of the things this requires is determining what the text did mean to its original author and audience. And this is where I object to finding modern science in the scripture. Usually this comes about because a modern reader is excited about finding a passage in scripture that seems to point to a modern idea. However, that modern reader is often very ignorant of the world-view of the writer and his audience. A word or phrase that means one thing in modern times meant something very different in ancient times.

Some of that sounds like relativism. Each text has a meaning which we need to interpret in the original context but that does not preclude later meanings also.

So it is an error to think of the author--or even God--as planting modern science into the bible. One has to understand the text in its original context first. Especially when looking at what is literal and non-literal.

God is transcendent and inspired the text. That he did it through primatives living in tents will make no difference while reading them on a deck chair on the moon or mars.

The modern reader skims over the phrases that say the earth does not move,

We have discussed this in other threads. The church quite simply misinterpreted these verses

that it is built on foundations and firmly fixed to them, treating it as non-literal figures of speech.

again church got it wrong

But to the ancient author, this was "science" and literally true---even when mentioned in poetry. And just as the modern reader de-literalizes what was once thought to be literal, they sometimes erroneously literalize what was always intended as symbol, because they don't understand the way language was used symbolically in ancient times--what the conventions were about story-telling and oral history. So we get a literalization of Job's Leviathan and attempts to turn it into a dinosaur. We need to take the original culture seriously to get at the original meaning

Once we have that meaning--as close as we can--there is nothing particularly wrong with extrapolating from it. .

Isaiah 53 - first meaning - second meaning

I have no problem with someone saying: when I read Hebrews 11:3 about how that which is visible is made from that which is invisible, I am reminded that we are discovering that most of the universe is dark matter and dark energy and is profoundly mysterious to us. I would personally agree that the mystery to which the writer of Hebrews is pointing and the mystery we feel when we contemplate how little we know of dark matter have something in common. I would have no problem with a preacher connecting dark matter allegorically with Hebrews 11:3.

Hebrews 11 v 3 was probably intended to refer to the primacy of the unseen and spiritual universe. But now that we think we know more about dark matter and energy new possibilities arise to complement that understanding.

But what he should not suggest is that this is what the writer meant or what the verse was originally intended to say. What the writer meant is determined by the cultural and scientific and theological awareness of the writer.

Nor would it be correct to depict God as tweaking the writer's meaning so that people thousands of years in the future could use Hebrews 11:3 as a proof text that the bible spoke of dark matter long ago. Dark matter is a concept that we bring to the bible. We find it there because we put it there. Not because any author--human or divine--knowingly or unknowingly--planted it there. .

Who was this talking about to the original audience?

Isaiah 52-53

52:13 “Look, my servant will succeed!
He will be elevated, lifted high, and greatly exalted –
52:14 (just as many were horrified by the sight of you)
he was so disfigured he no longer looked like a man;
52:15 his form was so marred he no longer looked human –
so now he will startle many nations.
Kings will be shocked by his exaltation,
for they will witness something unannounced to them,
and they will understand something they had not heard about.
53:1 Who would have believed what we just heard?
When was the Lord’s power revealed through him?
53:2 He sprouted up like a twig before God,
like a root out of parched soil;
he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention,
no special appearance that we should want to follow him.
53:3 He was despised and rejected by people,
one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness;
people hid their faces from him;
he was despised, and we considered him insignificant.
53:4 But he lifted up our illnesses,
he carried our pain;
even though we thought he was being punished,
attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done.
53:5 He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds,
crushed because of our sins;
he endured punishment that made us well;
because of his wounds we have been healed.
53:6 All of us had wandered off like sheep;
each of us had strayed off on his own path,
but the Lord caused the sin of all of us to attack him.
53:7 He was treated harshly and afflicted,
but he did not even open his mouth.
Like a lamb led to the slaughtering block,
like a sheep silent before her shearers,
he did not even open his mouth.
53:8 He was led away after an unjust trial –
but who even cared?
Indeed, he was cut off from the land of the living;
because of the rebellion of his own people he was wounded.
53:9 They intended to bury him with criminals,
but he ended up in a rich man’s tomb,
because he had committed no violent deeds,
nor had he spoken deceitfully.
53:10 Though the Lord desired to crush him and make him ill,
once restitution is made,
he will see descendants and enjoy long life,
and the Lord’s purpose will be accomplished through him.
53:11 Having suffered, he will reflect on his work,
he will be satisfied when he understands what he has done.
“My servant will acquit many,
for he carried their sins.
53:12 So I will assign him a portion with the multitudes,
he will divide the spoils of victory with the powerful,
because he willingly submitted to death
and was numbered with the rebels,
when he lifted up the sin of many
and intervened on behalf of the rebels.”


.

Historical books and statements certainly can have scientific implications. But you are not pointing to such. You are pointing to theology. The biblical statement that God created is not historical. It is a theological affirmation--a credo.

You are quite right in saying that if there was a beginning to creation, then the scientific implication is that "all the theories about eternal recurring doughnuts, cycles , parallel universes injecting into emptiness to create new universes become pure fiction". The point remains that the statement that there is a beginning to creation is not susceptible to scientific demonstration. Not even with the big bang in place. Those who reject a beginning to creation simply reject that the big bang is the beginning. So we still need to believe in creation by faith, not by evidence.

God created to be sure ad the affirmatin of Him as Creator is a credo- the scientific implication there is that there was a beginning. We cannot know this to be true for sure except by trusting in Gods word.

 

[mindlight]

First, I have to apologize to you, mindlight. For some reason, I confused you with marktheblake earlier in this thread. Sorry about that. Must've been the lower-case m-name.
So thanks for answering my question in spite of that. Now back to brass tacks.

I wondered at that - but no problem at all.

God acts in history. I agree.

Good start!

Are we not presuming that which we seek to know by saying that because God acts in history, the Genesis creation account must also be history, though? Should we not gauge the historical validity of the story based on what it says or how it reads or what the primary Hebrew audience believed about it, rather than imposing a particular hermeneutic upon it a priori? The Bible shows that God employs more than just history to teach His children, after all...

Given the background of a God who acts in history we can then approach the first 11 chapters of Genesis and ask are these historical also. It cannot necessarily be assumed because there are poetical genres or Jesus parables elsewhere in scripture where specific historical happenings may not have been referred to directly.

The original Hebrew audience almost definitely interpreted this passage historically and dated their calendar from these events. The literature of Christianity refers to the events of creation and flood as literal- historical events. Of course it is more than just history though.

Again, I agree completely. I think it is worth considering the Incarnation even further, though, since I think it reveals a lot about God's character. The Incarnation of Christ was an accomodation of God to His people. God took the form of a man so that we could relate to Him. He became that which we could understand and grapple with, all so that we could know salvation. God relates to us as a father relates to his children. He gets down on one knee and speaks to their experiences and limitations.
With the Incarnation as the greatest example of God's accomodating nature, should we really read the Bible as though God was talking over the heads of His primary audience?

He who did not consider equality to God to be something to be aimed at took the form of a man for us. Born in a stable in a finite human form amongst the poor and the oppressed to whom he gave new reason to hope. Yet hailed by a choir of angels even then who dazzled the locals with things too wonderful for them to understand.

Should we really be trying to milk Genesis for scientific insight into the history of the Earth? Or should we read the Bible as though it, too, is an accomodation of God's infinite wisdom to the limitations of human beings? Early Hebrew human beings, namely.
I think to expect to read matters of 21st century science -- including dark matter, plate tectonism, or biological heredity -- in the Bible is to completely overlook God's accomodating nature and to impose a very post-Englightenment mindset on a group of pre-literate nomads whose last concern was scientific accuracy. Is that really such a "liberal" position to take?

The primary level meaning is about Gods relationship with mankind as Creator, redeemer and Judge. But there are incidental references which mean something and being historical in nature have scientific implications. They are divinely inspired snippets that give us insight into things we could not possibly know otherwise. Some are clear - like there was a beginning to creation others more controversial - e.g. that the mankind that dominates todays earth can all be traced to Adam and Eve at a about the time when most archaeologists today accept that mankind really started to build special civilisations.

So yes God can speak to nomads in tents with a message that would arouse the minds of the best educated people of all time 6000 years later to think and ponder on meanings incomprehensible and irrelevant to the original audience.

Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 52-52 almost to the letter - yet this referred to the suffering servant of Israel in the minds of its original audience. God does not sacrifice transcendence when he becomes a man. How could Jesus have known the things that he knew on so many different occasions - for example the sack of Jerusalem was predicted by him. If we take that transcendence forwards to when he refers to events not yet come to pass then why not also to the past where he affirms Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and Noahs flood and quotes from Genesis 2 as if referring to a literal Adam and Eve.

 

[Assyrian]

The thing about a car is that I can see, touch, smell, taste and hear what I only understand 10% of. Whereas I cannot even see 96% of the universe through even the best possible telescope

How much of the car can you see?