Metaphysical and epistemological questions about Gods Word, Bible, and God.

[Carl Emerson]

Maybe one man who believes the bible is objective truth, and another man who doesn't are both still have pure motives and are seeking the creator with all their heart, and both even going to heaven. While i agree the objectivity of scripture is a good medium size fish. Maybe we have even bigger fish to fry!!

The biggest fish is coming to repentance, giving Him control, and receiving His indwelling presence to guide us unto truth.

 

[Jipsah]

If bible and gods word are objective truth, then knowledge of characters and events described in Gods Word / Bible must be available to us through some means, and we could also use the same means to obtain knowledge of early native Americans and even know every fact in reality about Columbus.

That doesn't follow logically at all. A Calculus text is generaly filled with objective truths, but has little if any bearing on anything other than Calculus. You can't gain information on Native Americans or Columbus from the Bible any more than you could from a Calc book. That isn't what they're talking about.

this is an attempt for me to understand things metaphysically and epistemologicly related to understanding God/ Gods Word/ Holy Spirit / facts about God. I really would like to tackle objectivity/ subjectivity, the nature of spacetime in relation to how we know facts about God and reality. Thank You for participation and help. God Bless.

Kinda broad goal there, sems like. Can you narrow it down a little from Life the Universe and Everything and be a bit more specific about what you're looking for? Can you give a quick and dirty explanation of your ideas on Epistemology? I'd be keen to know if we're using the same words the same way.

 

[Michael Garrett Andrews]

That doesn't follow logically at all. A Calculus text is generaly filled with objective truths, but has little if any bearing on anything other than Calculus. You can't gain information on Native Americans or Columbus from the Bible any more than you could from a Calc book. That isn't what they're talking about.

Kinda broad goal there, sems like. Can you narrow it down a little from Life the Universe and Everything and be a bit more specific about what you're looking for? Can you give a quick and dirty explanation of your ideas on Epistemology? I'd be keen to know if we're using the same words the same way.

On your first point. I'm talking about knowing/interpreting the absolute truth/language of the creator, not necessarily man made objective truth. Maybe i mean objective truth in it's most pure sense. It would be like an absolute objective way for us to know the objective truths from the calculus book in their true essence outside the agreed upon parameters of the calculus book. Just knowledge/reality in its true sense outside of human language, even if we have to use some form of human language to interpret it and explain it.

 

[Michael Garrett Andrews]

This may sound dumb, but my point is. If the bible is objective absolute truth, then the characters/bible stories must be able to relay this to us in some way! I would think we could use this same method to understand other things from history/obtain other objective facts as well. This makes a lot of assumptions, and at the end of the day, if i believe the creator spoke words to other humans, I'm excited and ready to learn , Let's Go , Sure i have some initial dumb questions to start, but that means the answers are there, we should be able to get to them!!

 

[Michael Garrett Andrews]

That doesn't follow logically at all. A Calculus text is generaly filled with objective truths, but has little if any bearing on anything other than Calculus. You can't gain information on Native Americans or Columbus from the Bible any more than you could from a Calc book. That isn't what they're talking about.

Kinda broad goal there, sems like. Can you narrow it down a little from Life the Universe and Everything and be a bit more specific about what you're looking for? Can you give a quick and dirty explanation of your ideas on Epistemology? I'd be keen to know if we're using the same words the same way.

To your second question. Ok, this is tough. I'm fascinated by how we know things, I'm coming at this from a philosophical perspective. To start at the beginning, I believe there is a Creator. Then things get complicated. Many philosophers and religions say, that anything our finite mind and language can use to describe the Creator, the Creator is not that. It is Infinitely outside of that, much more. Which makes perfect sense. So i agree with that, We simply can't know the Creator in the sense that we know other things such as that we think therefore we are! But we still try, and then here comes the bible and God's spoken words and Jesus to either bring some clarity to this situation or further muddy the waters! So i'm willing to go to any extent to try to make sense of how the Creator came to earth, and how that really applies to us, without us lying to ourself. And we have a lot of explaining to do. One of my examples of this is how native Americans knew Creator / Jesus before Columbus! I pretty much got to the bottom of this ( i can explain if needed) And also how the North Sentinelese peoples on the island outside of India know the Creator now, with no outside influence. And even we could conduct some experiments involving raising kids on deserted islands controlling all variables and observing how they perceive Creator with God's written word and without. I believe with these experiments we could put this baby to bed once and for all.

 

[chad kincham]

And such evidences of certain sciences can actually be found in scripture! Take the testimony of Hugh Ross for example. While in college, Hugh committed himself to faith in Jesus Christ. After his study of big bang cosmology convinced him of a Creator's existence, curiosity led him to test religious "holy books" for scientific and historical accuracy. Only the Bible passed the test, therefore persuading him of Christianity's validity.

Regardless, I'm still curious as to why these matters are of important to you? Is your background in any of the field of studies you mentioned in your original post?

Hugh Ross claims the global flood was actually only a local flood.

 

[GenemZ]

Hugh Ross claims the global flood was actually only a local flood.

The global flood is what we see in Genesis 1:2. In God's judgment it destroyed the angelic prehistoric world.

Noah's flood was only needing to be local, because the Lord was out to destroy man, not the entire planet.

Man was in his infancy at the time of Noah. Most likely, man herded in an area not that big. After all, all men at that time had to hear the warnings and preaching of Noah before God could judge, because God's judgment is preceded by His grace. God does not judge what was not given a chance to decide.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello again @Michael Garrett Andrews, there is another teaching series that's going on right now at Dr. Sproul's broadcast website, Renewing Your Mind. The teacher for this 6-part series (on the Canon of Scripture) is historical theologian, Dr. Michael Kruger (President of the Reformed Theological Seminary .. he is also one of the theologians who speaks on the movie I posted for you earlier in this thread).

They are these same short broadcasts/webcasts, like the last one of Dr. Sproul's, because they are made to fit into 30 min commercial radio slot. Still, it is a look at the Canon and how and why it was formed that may answer some of your questions, or at give you a better understanding and point you in the direction of better information for your study.

If you'd like to check them out, go here: Archive | Renewing Your Mind (and just FYI, this series begins with the broadcast called, The Problem of Canon).

God bless you!

--David

 

[St_Worm2]

The global flood is what we see in Genesis 1:2. In God's judgment it destroyed the angelic prehistoric world.

Hello Genez, so the "angelic prehistoric world" was a "physical" world w/o light? While it may be true that angels do not need light to see, why would an angelic/spirit being live on a planet, rather than in Heaven in the presence of God?

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.​

Also, where does the Bible tell us about the existence, rebellion, judgment and final destruction of these beings who formerly made the planet that we now occupy their home?

Thanks

--David

 

[GenemZ]

Hello Genez, so the "angelic prehistoric world" was a "physical" world w/o light? While it may be true that angels do not need light to see, why would an angelic/spirit being live on a planet, rather than in Heaven in the presence of God?

Two different races of angels are revealed in Job 38:5-7.


Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God (angels) shouted for joy?

Lucifer means "light bearer." And, only some angels were called "morning stars." Not all angels were light bearers.

First three days in Genesis was without any sun giving light. The Lord gave the light of those first few days!

That is why we can know the Lord used to provide the light of the days in the prehistoric creation.

Lucifer used to bring in the morning light.

And, the morning stars used their power to move animals around to herd them on the planet, like today we see some birds fly south for the winter.

 

[chad kincham]

The global flood is what we see in Genesis 1:2. In God's judgment it destroyed the angelic prehistoric world.

Noah's flood was only needing to be local, because the Lord was out to destroy man, not the entire planet.

Man was in his infancy at the time of Noah. Most likely, man herded in an area not that big. After all, all men at that time had to hear the warnings and preaching of Noah before God could judge, because God's judgment is preceded by His grace. God does not judge what was not given a chance to decide.

Except...

Noahs flood.

1. If the flood was only local, then God had Noah spend 100 years building an ark, when he could have just left the area.
2. If the flood was only local, then a local flood somehow managed to cover the tops of the highest mountains.
3. If the flood was only local, then God had 2 of every animal walk into the flood area and be put on the ark, when they could have just stayed away or left the area.
4. If the flood was only local, then Noah spent a year on the ark waiting for local floodwaters to go down.
5. If the flood was only local, then God lied when He created the rainbow as a sign that He would never again destroy the whole earth with water - since local floods happen all the time.
6. If the flood was local then God raised the mountains and lowered valleys to contain local floodwaters, and put a boundary for them so that local floodwaters wouldn’t again cover the earth. Psalm 104:6-9

Shalom.

 

[GenemZ]

If the flood was only local, then God had Noah spend 100 years building an ark, when he could have just left the area.

If Noah left, they would have never heard Noah's preaching! They would not have been warned by the Spirit for 120 years.

if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood
on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others." 2 Pet 2:5

​

If the flood was only local, then a local flood somehow managed to cover the tops of the highest mountains.

Only one mountain range is mentioned in Genesis.

I once spent a day in a library learning of all the higher mountain ranges around the world. Genesis gave the exact height above the named mountain range. Some other ranges were much higher. So?

If the flood was only local, then God had 2 of every animal walk into the flood area and be put on the ark, when they could have just stayed away or left the area.

God's sovereign choice. And ,it was only animals designated to live in the same spot on earth as where man was living. For, if every species of animals we find on the earth were to be saved by Noah? He would have had to build a very large fleet of Arks. Its one reason why secular scientist smirk at the universal flood concept for Noah's flood. Its makes them feel justified for rejecting God.

Not to mention... If all the salt water merged with the massive fresh water... marine life of all kinds would have been greatly destroyed. Many would have been made extinct.

If the flood was only local, then Noah spent a year on the ark waiting for local floodwaters to go down.

God heaped up the waters as seen in the parting of the Red Sea. God can heap up water and keep a very high flood line contained within a certain area.

God revealed this ability of His more than once. Not just with the Red Sea...

See, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth
will go into the Jordan ahead of you. Now then, choose
twelve men from the tribes of Israel, one from each tribe.
And as soon as the priests who carry the ark of the Lord
—the Lord of all the earth—set foot in the Jordan, its waters
flowing downstream will be cut off and stand up in a heap.” Josh 3:11-13​

God could heap up massive waters and control the flooding within boundaries by His own power.

If the flood was only local, then God lied when He created the rainbow as a sign that He would never again destroy the whole earth with water - since local floods happen all the time.

Read Genesis 11:1-2 tells us..

Now all the earth used the same language and the same
words. And it came about, as they journeyed east, that
they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.​

What constituted the "whole earth" in the ancients thinking was where man was found living. It that case, the "whole earth" was living on one single plain. The whole earth gathered onto one plain.

Now all the earth used the same language and the same
words. And it came about, as they journeyed east, that
they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.​

If the flood was local then God raised the mountains and lowered valleys to contain local floodwaters, and put a boundary for them so that local floodwaters wouldn’t again cover the earth. Psalm 104:6-9

I covered that when I explained how God heaped up waters and contained them and confined the waters to a defined space on earth.

grace and shalom .....

 

[Michael Garrett Andrews]

Hello again @Michael Garrett Andrews, there is another teaching series that's going on right now at Dr. Sproul's broadcast website, Renewing Your Mind. The teacher for this 6-part series (on the Canon of Scripture) is historical theologian, Dr. Michael Kruger (President of the Reformed Theological Seminary .. he is also one of the theologians who speaks on the movie I posted for you earlier in this thread).

They are these same short broadcasts/webcasts, like the last one of Dr. Sproul's, because they are made to fit into 30 min commercial radio slot. Still, it is a look at the Canon and how and why it was formed that may answer some of your questions, or at give you a better understanding and point you in the direction of better information for your study.

If you'd like to check them out, go here: Archive | Renewing Your Mind (and just FYI, this series begins with the broadcast called, The Problem of Canon).

God bless you!

--David

Thank You. I'll check these out. I have not watched the documentary yet. I will have to purchase it. But that's ok, the preview really looked like there was some knowledge in there.

 

[St_Worm2]

Thank You. I'll check these out. I have not watched the documentary yet. I will have to purchase it. But that's ok, the preview really looked like there was some knowledge in there.

It's 90 minutes, and you will learn A LOT, but chances are you will also be like me, wishing there was much more.

The good news is, there is much more from the same cast, so if you decide you want more after watching the movie, just let me know and I'll post the link (the movie is always the place to begin however).

Try free TubiTV. It looks like they have The God Who Speaks on their network right now.

The God Who Speaks (2018)
​

--David

 

[Michael Garrett Andrews]

He tries so hard to make that one little point he's making , that is essentially irrelevant to anything practical at all, Ignoring relevant information along the way. He's so one sided in his presentation

It's 90 minutes, and you will learn A LOT, but chances are you will also be like me, wishing there was much more.

The good news is, there is much more from the same cast, so if you decide you want more after watching the movie, just let me know and I'll post the link (the movie is always the place to begin however).

Try free TubiTV. It looks like they have The God Who Speaks on their network right now.

The God Who Speaks (2018)
​

--David

Ok, im watching now, thanks.

 

[Michael Garrett Andrews]

Around the ten minute mark, they make a big deal about how god introduces the ten commandments, what about the code of hammurabi? this even ties in with mike krugers talk on the canon, when he says irenaeus got his info from somewhere else! they don't point that out here! we would have to come down hard on actual dates, if we're going to support scriptures version, otherwise i have no problem, with moses story being handed down.

 

[Michael Garrett Andrews]

Just some further thoughts on the documentary. When they start talking about Jesus. They make some very good points. Some of the strongest i've ever seen.
And , when they start presenting their case for new testament writings, It actually brings me down to reality a little bit in my thinking. I did not expect that. After listening to them, i definitely need to focus my studies and questions more toward the new testament in order to keep me grounded. I'll make a lot more progress that way.

 

[chad kincham]

If Noah left, they would have never heard Noah's preaching! They would not have been warned by the Spirit for 120 years.

if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood
on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others." 2 Pet 2:5

​

Only one mountain range is mentioned in Genesis.

I once spent a day in a library learning of all the higher mountain ranges around the world. Genesis gave the exact height above the named mountain range. Some other ranges were much higher. So?




God's sovereign choice. And ,it was only animals designated to live in the same spot on earth as where man was living. For, if every species of animals we find on the earth were to be saved by Noah? He would have had to build a very large fleet of Arks. Its one reason why secular scientist smirk at the universal flood concept for Noah's flood. Its makes them feel justified for rejecting God.

Not to mention... If all the salt water merged with the massive fresh water... marine life of all kinds would have been greatly destroyed. Many would have been made extinct.



God heaped up the waters as seen in the parting of the Red Sea. God can heap up water and keep a very high flood line contained within a certain area.

God revealed this ability of His more than once. Not just with the Red Sea...

See, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth
will go into the Jordan ahead of you. Now then, choose
twelve men from the tribes of Israel, one from each tribe.
And as soon as the priests who carry the ark of the Lord
—the Lord of all the earth—set foot in the Jordan, its waters
flowing downstream will be cut off and stand up in a heap.” Josh 3:11-13​

God could heap up massive waters and control the flooding within boundaries by His own power.




Read Genesis 11:1-2 tells us..

Now all the earth used the same language and the same
words. And it came about, as they journeyed east, that
they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.​

What constituted the "whole earth" in the ancients thinking was where man was found living. It that case, the "whole earth" was living on one single plain. The whole earth gathered onto one plain.

Now all the earth used the same language and the same
words. And it came about, as they journeyed east, that
they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.​

I covered that when I explained how God heaped up waters and contained them and confined the waters to a defined space on earth.

grace and shalom .....

Now explain away the Rainbow covenant.

Get the thousand page book, The Genesis Flood, by Whitcomb and Morris.

There was plenty of room on the ark for the number of animals needed.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello @Michael Garrett Andrews, here's a new thread that I thought may be of interest to you.

Proving the Bible Is God's Word​

--David
p.s. - I'm sorry to be so slow in my replies to you, but I've been dealing with some unusual problems for a couple of weeks now. Hopefully things will get back to normal in about a week (Dv) as my gallbladder (the apparent source of my problems) is being removed on Wednesday

 

[St_Worm2]

He tries so hard to make that one little point he's making, that is essentially irrelevant to anything practical at all, Ignoring relevant information along the way. He's so one sided in his presentation.

Part of the problem is the format. The teaching fellows at Ligonier have about 22 minutes to make whatever points they are going to make in each broadcast/webcast. Guys like this, Sproul included, choose to not be theological encyclopedias (in part because of the time restriction) who just hand out facts. Rather, they leave it to us to discover many of the facts on our own, knowing that we will discover much more than that along the way/as we study, so I believe that their intent is to motivate us to learn more than just the facts/to take a deeper look than we otherwise would if they just handed the facts that we were after to us. I know how frustrating it can be when you are just looking to get a question answered, but in the end, their approach is still the best way to learn (IMHO).

--David