How Christians should respond to new space images

Skye1300 said:

It's a grand delusion. I can't figure out if it's the ones peddling the delusion that's behind it or some other force is behind it and the science believers are just as deluded and the ones they are deluding.
Man has no heaven or hell to put you in so not believing in a Big Bang that man tells you to believe won't send you to hell, but who knows where believing in a Big Bang will lead you as far as God is concerned. I'll take my chance believing the Word of God over what man says. Humans can't even cure COVID so what do they think they know about the age of the universe?

Click to expand...

The only sound foundation for us to endure, Christ said:

24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

Wonderfully, we learn what is the only crucial thing for whether we endure!

So long as a Christian listens to Christ's teachings (in the 4 gospels) and does as He says, then they will endure anything that comes against them.

And if they do not do as He said, then they will collapse with a great fall, He said.

The new discoveries of ancient galaxies doesn't overturn Big Bang cosmology.

Bob8102 said:

I watched the video. Next you are going to tell me that Jesus was an old-earth evolutionist. (And, no doubt, a Mason, as well!) Ellen G. White was not the first to say the world was created in six days. Moses said it when he wrote the book of Genesis.

Click to expand...

Moses did not write the book of Genesis. That is a traditional attribution but like all traditions, it's subject to revision. The best evidence is that the Torah is a compilation of various oral and written traditions going back thousands of years, and it was put together some time during the Exile, wher the Jews had to give an account of their nation's history to the Persian empire.

myst33 said:

We do not need to fight against science. Before science, there have been a plethora of different views of Genesis.

But there is no need to go against evidence, when we already have it and to choose a view that is obviously contradictory to what is already known.

Click to expand...

Some Christians in the ancient and medieval period believed in Aristotilian abiogenesis, that life originated from non-life through a natural process. Indeed, the first chapter of Genesis is compatible with that notion, since God merely commands that the Earth bring forth life, without explaining how. It is only in the Jahwist account in chapter 2, in the second retelling of the story of creation, that God is described acting anthropomorphically. And classically, Christians have never understood anthropomorphism as being literally true, but only as symbolic.

myst33 said:

Watch the video, please, to understand that the issue is a bit more complicated.

Click to expand...

Where did you get your doctorate in Astrophysics?

David's Harp said:

As I said before, I'm not anti-science. My main problem with it is that it has been proven wrong, so I have difficulty placing my faith in it. Indeed, is that not what proper science is: trying to gather evidence and proving or disproving the current thesis. Sadly, with a lot of current science, I don't see much, if any, of the disproving going on.

And when it comes to the realms of what is able to be tangibly measured - in the context of space - what real evidence do we have above theories involving mathematics?

Click to expand...

Science isn't proven wrong, it is refined over time. If I took a picture of an elephant rear end and said, that's an elephant, then that's all you'd know until more pictures came to light. Was the original picture wrong? No.

You do have faith in science every time you flip a light switch expecting it to turn on.

DarkForest said:

Where did you get your doctorate in Astrophysics?

Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

myst33 said:

What are you talking about?

Click to expand...

Bachelors? Associates?

DarkForest said:

Bachelors? Associates?

Click to expand...

Why? I need a doctorate from astrophysics for posting a video about the origins of YEC ?

myst33 said:

Why? I need a doctorate from astrophysics for posting a video about the origins of YEC ?

Click to expand...

If you want to attack a major the Big Bang theory you ought to have some education in astronomy and physics.

I do not go around judging art or making appraisals.

DarkForest said:

I do not go around judging art or making appraisals.

Click to expand...

I think it's hard for anyone to respond because it's hard to know what you mean (at least for me!).

For example, the youtube video about various YEC theories and their origin isn't really judging in the first few minutes I was willing to watch, but more like describing (laying out details).

(e.g. -- Is it that you are saying that that some YEC theories are more like creative art, and therefore not to be judged as if just a theory?)

------
This is a 2nd topic, but often important, about what we can judge and what we are not to judge. -- We can judge actions themselves, and things, and ideas, once we learn enough (and it's best to refrain until then, but people aren't always wise right).
So, in principle we can judge YEC theories that are meant to be like full fledged cosmologies, etc. -- we are allowed to judge actions, ideas, theories, things. We need simply to judge them carefully, and not jump to conclusions on the basis of appearances: John 7:24.

What we cannot judge ever: we are not allowed to judge people themselves as people: Matthew 7:1-2, and even if we wish to help someone we need to first look at ourselves very much to find our own wrongs: Matthew 7:3-5. Only God is able to correctly judge people as persons/souls (that is, in such a total way).

Bob8102 said:

Just this morning, on MSN, I saw an article that was about how Christians should feel about new images of space, such as those from the James Webb telescope. The article includes an interview with a woman scientist who apparently is also a Christian. She seems to believe in the Big Bang and old ages of the universe. A brief reference is made in the article about some pastors 'forcing their congregations to accept young universe notions.' While I respectfully disagree with this lady's loyalty to standard cosmology, she at least referred to the universe and its wonders as God's creation. I see no reason for anyone to have to maintain loyalty to the Big Bang and old universe assertions of the mainstream scientific community. I have written a treatise called "Big Bang Busted." It is available on my website, COSMINISTRY - Cosmos Ministry

If you go to this website, please do not click on the "discussion" link because I am not maintaining this website and the discussion forum link is now inoperable. But please do go to the article entitled "Big Bang Busted." This website is best viewed on a desktop PC or laptop, not on a mobile device.

To those Christians who want to reconcile the assertions of the mainstream scientific community about origins and natural history with the Bible, I say the two views are distinctly different and cannot be matched up. To these Christians, I say, what? Did God lack the power to create the cosmos in six days, about 6,000 years ago, or did He choose NOT to do so? The Bible, if you don't want to play debilitating interpretation games with it, straightforwardly asserts that the infinite God has the power to have created the universe in six, calendar days. And He used that power, to His glory.

Here is a link to the MSN article I read this morning:

How should Christians feel about the new images of outer space?

Click to expand...

Why do some people insist upon literal interpretations in ancient literature?

DarkForest said:

If you want to attack a major the Big Bang theory you ought to have some education in astronomy and physics.

Click to expand...

Your posts really do not make much sense to me, sorry. Either you are mistaken about what you replied to or you are not communicating your thoughts clearly enough.

Where does the Bible state that the earth is 6000 years old? ...
A preexisting previously destroyed earth and cities populated by life forms other than human is backed up in Jer. 4:23-28...
Also God told Adam and Eve to not plenish (fill up) but to replenish (refill) the earth!

Click to expand...

The Jeremiah passages has been responded to a few times. But no one has corrected the statement regarding "replenish". The Hebrew word used can be used for both "filling" and "refilling". The vast majority of times the word in its context in the Old Testament means "to fill". Very few English translations have chosen to render it "to refill". The KJV is one such translation. However, the NKJV chose to correct that rendering and uses "to fill".

FireDragon76 said:

Moses did not write the book of Genesis. That is a traditional attribution but like all traditions, it's subject to revision. The best evidence is that the Torah is a compilation of various oral and written traditions going back thousands of years, and it was put together some time during the Exile, wher the Jews had to give an account of their nation's history to the Persian empire.

Click to expand...

I could never understand this opinion when I first heard it in Bible college. The Pentateuch and elsewhere in the Bible clearly state multiple times Moses wrote the first five books. For example, Numbers 33:2 "Now Moses wrote down the starting points of their journeys at the command of the Lord. And these are their journeys according to their starting points:" And Jesus words in Mark 12:26 "But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"?" Or is your point that the age of the extant manuscripts does not go that far back? That's completely different.

Bob8102 said:

Just this morning, on MSN, I saw an article that was about how Christians should feel about new images of space, such as those from the James Webb telescope. ...

To those Christians who want to reconcile the assertions of the mainstream scientific community about origins and natural history with the Bible, I say the two views are distinctly different and cannot be matched up. To these Christians, I say, what? Did God lack the power to create the cosmos in six days, about 6,000 years ago, or did He choose NOT to do so? The Bible, if you don't want to play debilitating interpretation games with it, straightforwardly asserts that the infinite God has the power to have created the universe in six, calendar days. And He used that power, to His glory.

Here is a link to the MSN article I read this morning:

How should Christians feel about the new images of outer space?

Click to expand...

This kind of topic is often a subtle trap that Christians always seem to fall into. It assumes that there is a difference between science and the Bible. As if they are mutually exclusive. But it is Science with a capital "S" which has coopted the topic and has set itself up as the opponent of the Bible. While the Bible is not a book about science, all topics that relate to scientific information are presented accurately or current scientific understanding eventually corroborates those details.
So nothing about the new images from any of the space telescopes has me worried or changing my feelings about anything. It's just much more evidence of how the scientific principles God has constructed are in place. After all, all truth is God's truth.

EclipseEventSigns said:

This kind of topic is often a subtle trap that Christians always seem to fall into. It assumes that there is a difference between science and the Bible. As if they are mutually exclusive. But it is Science with a capital "S" which has coopted the topic and has set itself up as the opponent of the Bible. While the Bible is not a book about science, all topics that relate to scientific information are presented accurately or current scientific understanding eventually corroborates those details.
So nothing about the new images from any of the space telescopes has me worried or changing my feelings about anything. It's just much more evidence of how the scientific principles God has constructed are in place. After all, all truth is God's truth.

Click to expand...

Ah, I'd better be careful not to accidentally use a capital S for science in the middle of a sentence then, as I definitely mean merely the human effort to understand nature, a work in progress, full of partial and incomplete understandings and lots of competing hypotheses and theories, but also having found some beautiful jewels of nature in physics (where also our understanding is only very partial, incomplete). Nature is quite beautiful, and just like Genesis 1 says: "very good".

Bob8102 said:

Did God lack the power to create the cosmos in six days, about 6,000 years ago

Click to expand...

Did God lack the authority to use a non-literal account to echo his redemptive plan?

The Hebrew word EL are the characters aleph and lamed which are also pictographs of an ox and shepherd's crook. The ox represents power as the ox was a powerful animal. the crook represents authority, as he who had the crook was in control of the sheep, to this day royalty holds a scepter as a symbol of their authority which is rooted back to the shepherd's crook. Together they are power and authority and this is the image of God the ancient Hebrews understood. You seem fixated on God's power over all that it has blinded you to God's authority over all. Just as he may manifest his power as he wills, he also may manifest his authority as he pleases and he has the authority to ordain non-literal accounts.

The creation account is a salvation metaphor that should be pretty obvious as soon as light is spoken into darkness which is one of the most powerful symbols used in the bible for good over evil (even outside the bible). But the creation account is more than just a light/darkness contrast. Each day is paralleled. day 1 with 4, day 2 with 5, and day 3 with 6. In the first 3 days God is organizing and separating and in the last 3 days he fills up that which he organized. This too points to salvation, we start in darkness and light is spoken into us which starts a work of putting to death the old and rising in the new, seed is sown, and there is growth and a filling that leads to multiplication. When this work is finished it ushers in day 7, which is God's rest. Another powerful metaphor of salvation but also other layers like foreshowing Christ, or the restitution of all things.

Day 7 has its own parallel as it is the antithesis to before light is spoken and contrasts things like light/dark, filled/empty, complete/incomplete, rest/chaos. This is Biblically revealed as a metaphor too in 2 Cor 4:6. 2 Cor also refers to this process as the new creation (2 Cor 5:17) which should be a giant hint of how we should be looking at the creation account with a spiritual focus over the literal.

the creation account has literal inconsistencies as light is before the sun or other luminaries but with a spiritual focus makes complete sense as the source of the light is direct from God and nothing else. if the sun were first, then the sun would be the source of light that overcame the darkness and so there would be a risk of elevating the sun to heretical levels. The Sun is indeed the source of natural light but it is not the source of spiritual light and that alone shows us this account is a reference to the spiritual not the natural.

Did God create the earth in 6 days? Did he instead use a non-literal account? does it matter? no. God can do what he wishes (because he has the authority to do so), but one thing I do know is the literal is the most uninteresting and unimportant part of the account and it should never overshadow the spiritual. I get there are non-negotiables like God is the source behind all things but with or without the literal the account still points to the same thing, which is God's light and that's the part we should be putting our focus on.

myst33 said:

Most Christians world wide really do not care about Young Earth Creationism that originated in the USA in the Seventh Day Adventist church, from the visions of Ellen G. White.

So they do not need to "respond" to the new images in any specific way and they do not need anybody to tell them how they should "feel" about it.

Click to expand...

How sad for those who do not believe in creation; its the bases of the gospel and the the new world to come.
They are missing out on a lot of interwoven scriptural beauty.
7 day creation originated in scripture. Anyone who reads scripture plainly can see it teaches seven day creation from start to finish. Don't need any church fathers, 'movements' or any Ellen G. White's input, approval or teachings to see it either, just scripture.

coffee4u said:

How sad for those who do not believe in creation; its the bases of the gospel and the the new world to come.
They are missing out on a lot of interwoven scriptural beauty.
7 day creation originated in scripture. Anyone who reads scripture plainly can see it teaches seven day creation from start to finish. Don't need any church fathers, 'movements' or any Ellen G. White's input, approval or teachings to see it either, just scripture.

Click to expand...

I worry at times about young earth creationists (YEC) if for example faith-based scripturally sound old earth creationism may be correct, and a YEC believer one days finally sees YEC theory fail, when they suddenly realize/learn that earth is old, but in a scary way, not from a fellow believer, but instead from such as an atheist who wishes to destroy their faith.... will the YEC believer's faith in God be shaken, if/when the YEC theory belief collapses...?

We hear Christ teach to us what determines whether we will endure the storms that will come onto us in life (at the end of this key passage):


We hear Him saying to us verses 24-27 -- and there we see whether or not an individual person will endure/make it....

While we all fall short of perfection, we hear the clear wording we must be doers of Christ's commands to us -- that we love one another, forgive all our brothers and sisters (over and over), that we do for others in all situations (like enemies we might encounter, people we might not at first like, or whomever, illegal immigrants, etc.) -- that we do for others as we would want others to do for us. (But though we all stumble at times into sins, wonderfully with amazing grace we are forgiven and renewed as soon as we confess: 1rst John 1:8-10)

If we are loving all our brothers and sisters, forgiving others, doing to others as we would have others do to us....then we will endure, even all that happens in this life.

No matter what happens to us, even if everyone we know is killed in an earthquake, or any other thing that can happen, we will endure if we are doing as Christ instructs us to do.