Okay. So I am sitting here thinking and I have puzzled myself. I have watched videos of nuclear bombs exploding on YouTube. They tend to make very large bangs and so I got to thinking. When these "big bangs" do explode, some of their energy travels out very rapidly and then reverses course and rushes back to the point of detonation as energy heads skyward.
Now "IF" the "Big Bang" happened, did it have the same reaction? Was there a huge rush of energy into nothing and then back towards the center of the explosion into nothing? And if the "Big Bang" was to have happened like nuclear explosions, then is it not reasonable to expect that the effects reach a certain amount outward and then cease to go forward? And although maybe the shock wave continued throughout nothingness, though hard to conceive of that, would not the universe that came into existence have a definite point of influence just as the effects of a nuclear bomb have a definite sphere of influence?
Just some questions. I have tons more but this is all I am desirous to put to pad at this time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
Luke, I think you need a vacation. :) selahV
God spoke, and BANG it happened. :) (Good thoughts, Luke, but you just blew my little mind).
Mrs. V,
Going canoeing/fishing tomorrow(Lord willing). But I really love this kind of science. Always have.
Byron,
Watch a couple of youtube videos and you'll see what my basis for asking the question is. But I like your little play on words there because explosions or big bangs tend to blow lots of things up and over. They just want me to think that explosions bring things into existence when I rather think they are used to cease the existence of things. Now eat on that for a while.:)
Luke, basically you mean there's a "ground zero" so to speak somewhere in the Universe, and we should be able to see all the effects of the Big Bang pointing back to that center of origin? I've heard conflicting theories: the Universe is expanding, the Universe is not expanding, it will expand forever, it will eventually begin contracting back to a single point. I have no idea what the latest science is on it, though.
I notice you put the Big Bang in quotes and seem to question it. I thought this was already accepted science? Well, just went and looked, and apparently it isn't accepted universally after all. Interesting.
www.big-bang-theory.com
According to this web page, I note three things I found interesting. First, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion so much as an expansion from an infinitely dense point. Second, it didn't begin somewhere in space, but rather contained all space as we know it and expanded to our current universe of space time (though what it came out of if not space is an extremely interesting question at this point to me). And third, they quote an astrophysicist saying, "...I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations..."
Well, my brain hurts.
Byron,
You exposed what so few realize. When we leave the argument of creation vs evolution behind, there are rather involved arguments within each of the distinct thoughts. We see the same thing in Calvinism vs Arminianism. When you leave that argument and head into the separate divisions, there are arguments amongst those who hold to those respective divisions. I use that simply as an illustration.
But back to my point, there is a LOT of disagreement even amongst those who hold to "the big expansion" :) and we should readily exploit that weakness.
Nope. I confess. I do not hold to the "big bang" theory. I pretty much hold to the God said, "let it be" and it was. I don't think it was a let it become. But rather, "bang" or "poof", there it was.
And we have not even brought into this the idea that space may be curved OR that it "shrinks" exponentially and consistently so that you could never actually measure it with standard measurement rulers because everything shrinks at the same rate. Pretty wild huh.
I just get on these kicks and love the thinking and discussing.
Byron,
Oops...I forgot. Yes. I think there would have had to have been a "ground zero" within the big bang construct and that by science and observation, we ought to be able to find the center of the universe.
Luke,
Your thoughts on shrinking are pretty wild, indeed, and fascinating. I've never heard that before. Guess I need to watch some more science shows.
I have a pretty good idea what I believe, but I cannot prove most of it and most of it is, or at least should be, very flexible. My bedrock belief concerning cosmology is that "God exists. The universe exists because God wanted it to. And God has plans for it." Other than that, I'm pretty much an Old Earth Creationist who views Genesis as inerrant but intended subjectively, and not literally. But I could be wrong. I spent a number of years believing in a literal six-day Creation and a young Earth (and Universe), and that is the view which treats the sacred text the most literally. But, I guess I subscribe to the "Big Bang" theory until I find that science disproves it. Ultimately, I think the "Big Bang" theory will be disproved, or at least will be shown to be inadequate.
Space could BE curved, I agree. But I think if space is curved, I'm not sure we would have any way of measuring it. If I'm not mistaken, gravity even affects light. And we still don't know exactly what gravity is. I think I read somewhere that the affect of gravity travels faster than light? I don't know if I remember correctly, but if so, that's a fascinating mystery.
In that line of thought, even though I agree with the possibility you mention of there being a center to the universe, the Universe is so vast, and there are so many things about we still do not adequately understand, that I am not sure we could ever find the center by using science and measurement. I think it's possible that the Earth, despite not being the center of the galaxy, or even the solar system, could indeed be at the center of the Universe. There's no way to disprove it right now, according to that astrophysicist on that website. Of course, the entire Universe could be stored on some giant USB flash drive and we could be living our lives out in fractions of milliseconds, CPU cycles, and RAM memory, until God passes the final judgment and turns the computer off. ;)
Hey Luke. Thought you would respond to my last comment, but I guess not.
Byron,
I have not missed your reply. I was busy over the weekend and have not had to time to give it the thoughtful reply it deserves. Trust me, I've got an answer for you. Just a little more time.
Luke
Byron,
It is readily apparent that you and I are approaching this from two different angles. I do not have to have science to believe the Scriptures where it would seem that you tend to believe science first where it disagrees with Scripture until that science is disproved. "But, I guess I subscribe to the 'Big Bang' theory until I find that science disproves it. Ultimately, I think the 'Big Bang' theory will be disproved, or at least will be shown to be inadequate." Or at least, that is what I draw from your conclusion though as I see it, it is a tenuous conclusion because you don't seem to be rather confident of even that science. And so, that leaves you with a dilemma, trust the Scriptures, which are never wrong, OR trust science, which is often wrong and misunderstood. Not a very viable position.
To ascribe subjectivity to the first 11 chapters of Genesis seems to run contrary to the 3 chapter of II Peter. Peter sees no subjectivity there and neither do I. The reason why science posits millions/billions of years is because that is the ONLY way they can conceivably justify any evolutionary changes. Otherwise, if the millions/billions of years proves in error, then evolution as described by science cannot even remotely be possible. Peter ascribes to a WORLD WIDE flood as a literal event. This literal event explains much that evolution cannot. But never-the-less, Peter holds to a literal understanding of Genesis 1-11. Paul in Romans 5 also holds to a literal understanding of Genesis 1-11. It is the foundation of his understanding of how 1. death entered into the world and 2. that it entered by man. In this single verse, Paul illustrates that MAN brought death in through sin. Thus, no time frame PRIOR to Adam would have the issue of death. It did not enter until Adam sinned. Therefore, I cannot have millions/billions of years of death and dying before man.
Now, that then leaves us with a choice. Do I subjectively dice and slice the Scriptures into that which is believable(provable by science) and that which is unbelievable(not proven by science)? Once I begin down that path, there is no end to the destruction of the Word of God for after all, science cannot raise a man from the dead. That being so, do I trust the resurrection.
All of that aside, my belief in the truthfulness of God's Word does not hinder my love for understanding the creation of God. In fact, many of the early scientists were men who believed in God. Science does not cause me to doubt God. But it sure does cause me to doubt man, who espouses that his understanding of things is better than God's(the Word).
As pertaining back to the epicenter. I still contend that there MUST be one if the "big bang" really happened as many contend. That epicenter MUST be observable and measurable though the exact ability to do so remains at arms length from us. Back to the atomic bomb. If it has effects that are measurable, then surely the epicenter can be observed and measured though it may prove difficult to do so with either frail means or a distance/visual difficulty. To ascribe to the "big bang" necessarily argues for an epicenter or it is faux science. That is, unless, you believe some outside force was bringing all things into existence or at least creating the possibility for existence. And that would lead us directly back to theology.
And finally, gravity and light. Black holes are about the most intriguing items that I notice in space studies. However, I am aware of a passage of Scripture that talks about strong delusions so that those who love not the truth may believe a lie, and so black holes give me great pause since they seem to defy so much of what we know of as true.
Thanks for responding and I apologize it took so long for my own. Life has been busy and is getting even busier over the next two weeks. But that is better than being bored with nothing to do.
Luke
Luke, sometimes I think science should all be viewed in light of the spiritual lives of those scientists who "discover" black holes and such. I think a lot of science is written to discredit God's Word. And so I take a lot of it (as in Darwinism) with as much thought as I do a Big Bang.
What science shows that squares with scripture I can accept. What does not square with scripture, invalidates it in my thinking. I love all of nature and stand amazed at the majestic wonder of the heavens beyond my grasp. All of the mysteries fall under Deuteronomy 29:29 to me. I love the mystery...it makes God all the more Awesome. I am grateful I do not have all the answers; it proves out scripture. It's marvelous to me...I hope you find the black-holes in scripture. That would be sooooo cool.
selahV
Luke, thank you for your reply. I am sorry, though, for not being patient and not realizing you are a very busy guy in ministry and family. I have no life, so it is easy for me to forget that others do.
First, I must confess that lately I have been convicted by the Holy Spirit for believing in science more than God's Word. I realized that the other day and had to repent. I believe that the Scriptures are inerrant in the original autographs and God has not permitted them to be lost over time. Science at its best discovers God's thoughts after Him, and sometimes proposes theories in apparent opposition to the Word of God. If science disagrees with the Word of God, it is wrong. But sometimes, I think that perhaps the Word can be misunderstood and overshadowed with cultural interpretation as well. Perhaps I put too much faith in science, but I have been gently rebuked by God in my private devotion to retain Scripture in its proper place of supreme authority.
Luke, I cannot claim to have it all figured out. But concerning subjectivity, I do not want to toss out Genesis 1-11 and related passages of Scripture so I can lay claim to science. It's a both/and rather than an either/or type of scenario. I held to your expression of belief for a number of years, and now, though I have moved out of the conservative traditional view (so to speak) in America of the Scriptures, I do not wish to abandon or even minimize the Scriptures.
Interestingly enough, I have read that William Jennings Bryan (of the Scopes trial) was an old-earther, and so was J. Vernon McGee in his early ministry until he came to repudiate that position. Josephus seems to also have held to a local flood, though not a Christian believer but apparently a Jewish believer and at least held to our Old Testament to the best of my understanding. So, different views have existed and continue to exist, and not all who hold to these views are heretics in my opinion.
Psalm 104 is an interesting psalm because it is a Creation psalm, and outlines Creation. Verse 9 is key: "Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth." Because the context here is Creation, the phrase "not again to cover the earth" comes into sharp focus. Does this verse deny a global flood? It seems to, but I could be wrong. But I will give a website link I found interesting (I do not endorse everything here, only the part I reference above, as I have not thoroughly reviewed it).
www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
My problem comes from the fact that the "traditional" understanding of Genesis and other science in the Bible leaves so many insurmountable problems for me (species that only exist on continents far removed from Noah and left no fossils anywhere near his country, dinosaurs, lack of evidence of a global flood and unlikelihood of global scientist conspiracy on that, etc). I'm not negating the Scriptures by affirming subjectivity, but I might very well wish to move from a belief of literal interpretation of some texts into what I feel is more congruous with known science without becoming unfaithful to the Scriptures. I've had my conscience pierced on this, so I know I must reject science and affirm Scripture if the two seem to stand opposed. And I have somewhat lost the easy confidence I had in discovering and firmly grasping the truth. Truth can be deeper and more mysterious than I ever dreamed. That's why I rely more and more on the confession that I am not sure how all of Scripture fits together on some matters, such as Creation, and I still study.
About the Big Bang and having an epicenter, if what that website indicated is true, there would be no "epicenter" to speak of, much less find. If it is an expansion, rather than an explosion, and if it contained all space as we know it, rather than appearing in space and simply pushing matter outward, then it is possible an epicenter could be determined by observing the application of forces pushing outward on matter, but an epicenter would not necessarily exist. Sorry for the long sentence. I find this fascinating, though. And yes, thoughts on the Big Bang I think directly lead to thoughts of an "outside force" (more than merely creating the possibility for existing, I think), and that would jump directly into "theology" and focus on God proper, what His nature is and why He would create.
Black holes simply blow my mind. They are Exhibit A that our science has not yet reached the pinnacle of wisdom and knowledge that we need in order to fully understand God's Creation. Perhaps one of their purposes is to humble the pride of man and remind those who know God that He exists and He is sovereign?
Mrs. V,
I am quite positive that when we get to heaven and God removes the "dark glasses" through which we look that we'll find so much was right there underneath our noses. I think that is part of what drives me to learn. I like to "figure" things out. Of course all knowledge and wisdom is given by God and at the same time, we are fearfully and wonderfully made and how those two reconcile blows my mind, I none-the-less absolutely love the search. I also love to just stare up at the stars and look and think. God is really big. Of course, when I look through the eye-piece of a microscope and see the infinite intricacy of the cell, I still think, God is really big.
But space. Why is there so much space in space? Why is there so much space at the atomic level? Guess I'll have to wait for heaven to understand that, but it won't stop me from thinkin' bout it.
Have a great day.
Luke
Byron,
Thank you for your careful response. You have brought to light much about your inner person and that is not a lite thing.
As pertaining to Psalm 104, this Psalm causes no problem that I can see for the world wide flood advocate. In particular, verse 9 simply records the creation of the oceans and lakes and the fact that in their daily ebb and flow, they would be confined to their boundaries. The world wide flood was an exception for the world wide flood was not a rising up of the oceans per se but was rather an extensive rainfall and a cataclysmic opening up of the caverns of the deep(which explain caverns and the like). The world wide flood was a suspension of earthly order that was established by God as seen in verse 9.
Also, Genesis 9:11 addresses the matter as well. "No more flood to destroy the earth" if understood in the local sense would make God a liar because local floods destroy things all the time. This is rather in reference to world wide flood. In spite of the link you offered, I offer these previous 2 simple points to refute their honest attempt, but faulty, at wedding the Bible and Science.
As pertaining to the expansion, there must be a point from which it started and expanded out unless one is going to contend that space is not expanding in all directions equally which then would cause more problems than it would solve. But, like fire sources can usually be pin-pointed though the fire burned rather unevenly, I still think that a point of origin must exist and that if it does exist it can be measured though at present we may lack the tool to do so.
I appreciate the back and forth.
Luke
Luke,
I will have to make this short, and then give you the last word (which I should already be doing, but I persist sometimes in putting my interest on my two cents in).
The problem with an "exception" is that the Psalm 104:9 verse is much more generic in its reference to "waters" and bears much resemblance to Gen 1:6-9, and it seems like a great place to make such an exception explicit (in its context of judgment, which is also missing) rather than implicit, especially when such an exception seems to strive against the very idea that Psalm 104:9 is stressing. And yes, local floods destroy the earth all the time, but they lack one vital element: a clear context of judgment (the Tsunami of 2004 is no exception; just read some of the theological explanations for why some think it occurred, but no one seems to know precisely why). Science and the Bible I believe are wedded together, but I do not understand all that involves.
And finally, imagine yourself inside a giant ballon (the illustration given by the website). There exists no discernible point inside such a structure which can be directly observed to be the "center." Rather, the center, which does exist (I am not denying that), must be ascertained by analyzing the evidence of the full boundaries of the space contained inside the "balloon" since it would be apparent that objects inside (air molecules in the illustration, let's say) move around quite a bit and cannot be used to judge the location of a virtual point of reference called the "center." That's all I was trying to say, but that depends on the website being accurate, and I personally am not a scientist. I do think we probably could not determine the center of the universe because not only can we not find its boundaries but like children trying to understand large numbers, we simply could not count that high. ;)
Byron,
My reason for stating that floods happen all the time is to illustrate that the verse in the Psalm does not refer to floods but rather, the normal operating conditions of the seas/waters ie the tides. In other words, God gave the waters "Order". And therefore, it does not restrict a world-wide flood.
The hot-air balloon would almost work except rather than an epicenter, we end up with an epi-point. And as a result of that illustration, the universe came into being and is expanding outward but not in a spherical manner but rather an oblong manner. But this would make it much easier to locate the point of origin which is what I am contending. That NO MATTER how the point began, it is traceable to that point. And at that point, when once we arrive there, we must eventually ask and answer the question, "who started the motion?" But I do not believe such a point exists because God said "let there be and it was". And it only took Him one day to do so. The Hebrew word for Yom is defined for us as being one evening and one morning. No more no less. One day.
As far as you having the last word, I could not be less concerned about that. I rather enjoy the exchanges and if you want the last word, you'll have to tell me cause I'll keep coming back with something.:)
Luke, I guess I get the last word: I surrender. Thanks for the exchanges. I've enjoyed them. I could be wrong, too, so words that are sweet are easier to eat. I know the Bible has to be true, at least, so we do agree on that!
Oh, Luke, sorry, but I do want to respond to something. It's not that I'm not ready to surrender, but some things you said intrigued me and if you don't mind, I want to ask questions about them. Mainly this is for curiosity's sake.
I don't think the point of the balloon illustration was to imply that expansion is in an oblong shape as opposed to a spherical shape. I think the point was rather that it expands like a balloon from a central point (and does not pop like a balloon, which was another point of the illustration). And since it contains all "space" one must measure a central point from the inside rather than the outside, which I guess is not much harder to do (if at all).
Luke, you said, "But I do not believe such a point exists because God said 'let there be and it was'." OK, not only did curiosity kill the cat by running over it, but then it backed up over the cat again and ran over it a third time to make sure it was dead. Even back when I believed as you did, I believed a point existed because I believe the Universe is finite, and I believed its center was Earth. Oh, maybe I understand, you mean there is no point of origin, not necessarily that there is no central physical point, right? Otherwise, I have no idea what you mean? In my belief, there would also be no central point of origin, because all existing material in the Universe has always existed in as either energy or mass, so the only change has been in form I would think, unless somehow mass or energy has been lost. So, because matter is sometimes "destroyed" by being turned into energy, or sucked into a black hole, which would make finding a center much more difficult, especially due to the HUGE distances and size of the Universe. But I still believe that even though Earth is not the center of the solar system or the galaxy, it might still indeed be the "physical" center of the Universe, assuming the Universe is finite. But that could be wishful thinking on my part. I don't know enough science, physics especially, to even begin to determine how to figure out where a center would exist, or why I would care, since all I know and will probably ever experience is Earth.
I wrote, "In my belief, there would also be no central point of origin, because all existing material in the Universe has always existed in as either energy or mass, so the only change has been in form I would think, unless somehow mass or energy has been lost."
Ugh! I did not mean that I believe the Universe is eternal (in either direction). I meant that I believe all the matter/energy in the Universe existed since the moment of the "Big Bang" assuming that existed and the Universe has expanded outward since then. I need to proofread stuff better.
Luke, I like you thinking about it. It's neat to read how you think. selahV
POINT OF ORIGIN. That's it!!! Now at least you understand what I am swinging at Byron. You figured it out.
Mrs. V,
Sometimes I think I was born in the wrong era. I know God does not make mistakes though. Trying to figure out how I fit in here though is taxing at times.
As far as seeing how I think, I bet there are many Psych classes that would love to test me. Of course, if I knew they were testing me I'd probably try to skew their results just to test them. :)
Luke, that's funny. They most likely have a completely different world view than you do, so if you skewed their results or not, I do not think they could tell the difference. They do not begin with the Bible and use that as their foundation, generally.
Luke, this doesn't help my position, but I wanted to ask if you agreed with a certain belief of mine concerning the Hebrew evening-morning days. I believe they are present in Scripture to show that God's work in Genesis produced a perfect and complete Creation. That is, both plants and animals were created as mature organisms and perfect in design, rather than created in an embryonic or immature form and allowed to grow and develop. So the question of what came first, the chicken or the egg, can be answered affirmatively in favor of the chicken. For my part, I do not believe that these are literal days or necessarily intended to be read as such, though that is possible, but rather that such language is used to show the reader the spiritual reality of God's perfection and completeness in all His work.
Byron,
I agree that God did not create the acorn and wait for it to grow into a great oak. I believe He created the Oak Tree etc. And while I've not thought deeply of it, holding to that belief while not believing in a literal 24 hour day may be a position that is self-defeating.
I am unsure of how someone can exegetically arrive at the conclusion that day in Genesis 1 and 2 are lengthy periods of time and not 24 hour days. The Hebrew word for day used is Yom and it is defined by the phrase "and the evening and the morning were the...". By its own definition, the passage declares what we know of as a 24 hour day.
By the way, I've read more on the website you linked to and I'm trying to decide if I'm going to take the time to respond more in depth to it.
The author's use of "earth" is quite incongruent with the definition and only picks that which is profitable for his position. When in fact, there are many times that the "earth" refers literally to what we know of as the globe. His use of argumentum ad absurdum(reductio ad absurdum) is also quite telling. He cannot believe that the Ark rose above the earth. He says, what--did it levitate? Well, actually, it did. It levitated on water. But that is just one instance where he tries to use an absurd statement to attempt to throw his opposition off track. Didn't work with me anyways.
Well, I guess after typing and thinking, if you hold to God created a literal tree and the day age theory, that your conclusions about science would be contradictory since those who argue for day age typically argue for evolution of a sort and if God created a literal tree, then I don't see anyway that evolution would either be necessary or beneficial. In fact, what is happening is devolution...that is...our DNA is becoming corrupted more and more, not getting purer and purer. That does not fit with evolution.
And to think I started this by thinking about atomic bombs.
Luke,
I am not sure how to reconcile my other beliefs with this understanding of the Hebrew evening-morning days, without being self-defeating.
But, from what I understand, Hebrew is a very literal language. Many times the authors in the OT used very concrete illustrations for spiritual realities. For example, God Himself says in Job 38:4-11 (forgive the lengthy quote, but I think it is relevant):
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
I don't know a person who would take any of this literally, yet it is all true and inerrant that God indeed did do this. I believe that Genesis intends to communicate spiritual reality and not literal scientific truth. It could be literal, because since the Creation event was miraculous by itself, it could have happened exactly as a literal reading would suggest. My problem is not that I want to elevate science above or even equal to the level of Scripture, but that I want to understand why, if Genesis is literally true, that the evidence available to the scientist seems to not favor it. Why is this? Does God purposely deceive scientists? How does that fit in with Romans 1? I know God is not obligated to reveal spiritual truths to unbelievers, but in Romans 1 God has presented evidence of Himself in His Creation. So it stands to reason that if God uses Creation to reveal Himself according to Romans 1, then why would that revelation seem contrary to Genesis if intended literally? That's what I can't get past very easily.
I'm not sure about the whole thing about evolution. I don't necessarily subscribe to the Day Age theory. Like I said, I believe it is intended subjectively, so I think even the idea having a framework of ages for each "day" is optional as well. And I'm not arguing for evolution at all (I do hold to micro-evolution within species, but not macro-evolution, but I'm not knowledgeable about that either). I used to believe we "devolved" after the Fall and until the Flood shown by decreasing lifespans. I am not sure how all my beliefs work out about this, because the global Flood theory fits things so well. Now I do not believe we "devolved" except in a spiritual sense, maybe, but I will have to study more.
Very interesting discussion, and maybe you'll straighten me out before it's done. ;)
Byron,
To be sure, we differ, but as far as me straightening you out...I'll just say that I aim to do nothing more than to present what I believe is truth/true and if the truth sets you free, then I will rejoice. My persuader is not nearly as good as the Holy Spirits.
You have raised an interesting question about why scientists arrive at a conclusion other than God when they study creation. Romans 1 clearly answers that. They don't WANT to find God. They want to find something measurable, something manipulable, something manageable. As we both know, God is beyond being measured, manipulated or managed. Thus, He does not fit the construct of science. Also, we continue to gain knowledge but never come to the truth with science. Man does not hold the key to life. God does. And that frustrates many. It's really hard to convince some "theologians" much less scientists that Jesus was real, walked this earth and was resurrected.
And as to your passage in Job, congratulations on meeting one who takes it pretty literally. While I do agree that God is using human language to communicate to us(Job), I see no reason for not taking the passage as literal. And perhaps that is what you are talking about. Not that there are literal bars as we know them now like a jail cell, but none-the-less, there is something that restrains.
There is, however, no construct in Genesis that even intimates that symbolism is being communicated. Otherwise, trees may not be trees and fish may not be fish and the sun/moon may not really be a sun and moon. The context indicates reality, tangible physical reality, not spiritual metaphors. Otherwise, there may or may not be a devil, tree of life, knowledge of good and evil. There is just no end to the spiritualization of the text if we go that route. Now I firmly believe that God uses pictures for teaching truth, aka Joseph's dreams and his interpreting of the dreams.
I hold to no form of evolution whether macro or micro. I do see adaptation. But that is significantly different than one specie becoming another specie.
I do know this truth from science. A reaction will only go so far as the limiting agent or reagent will allow it to go. In other words, the reaction eventually slows down and ceases. Thus, an atomic bomb ceases its original intensity and though its radiation continues, it does dissipate over time. Thus, evolution cannot be true unless there is an outside force that continues to feed the furnace, so to speak. And if that be the case, then I will once again argue for God. But the reason why the earth does not wind down is not due to science but due to the fact of the sustaining Word of God and I am positive you agree with that.
To conclude, some scientist don't want to find God so they don't look for Him neither do they acknowledge Him when they do see Him. Kind of like Socrates. He sought to disprove the existence of God. But he had an ulterior motive. He was a pederastic homosexual and if there was a God who was morally against this, then he was involved in sin and since he did not want to be involved in sin, he just sought to explain away God.
Ultimately, we all express faith. Some in God, some in man, some in nothing. But none-the-less, all express faith.
Luke,
If you are a literalist on Job 38, then so am I. I believe as you do, "Not that there are literal bars as we know them now like a jail cell, but none-the-less, there is something that restrains." My point was that they are not literally bars, even though something actually exists, acts as a restraint, and is referenced in the text as "bars." This is an intriguing mystery. But apparently you are not a literalist concerning Job 38 either, and you even qualified your literalism with the words "pretty literally." I do not deny that you we can differ on exactly how symbolic the text is, but I thought literalism means either you believe what it literally says or not, to the best of my knowledge. That rules out both of us as being literalists, I think.
Also, micro-evolution is not a change from one species to another as it was explained to me, but rather the "adaptation" (your own excellent word for it) of a species to gain or lose certain characteristics over time. I do not believe in species changing from one to another over time. I can't possibly believe in evolution when I drive out into the country and see some poor folks that evolution hasn't quite gotten to yet. :)
And I agree with you wholeheartedly about the Word of God sustaining the earth (and the entire Universe), though I might take that as a metaphorical truth and try to interpret it subjectively.
Point taken concerning Romans 1. No doubt that the unbelieving scientist does not seek after God or wish to honor Him. But the point remains that if Romans 1 is true, and we both agree that it is, that the evidence of Creation (whatever it is) must remain because God has revealed it. Is there a vast scientific conspiracy to suppress the truth? One can see evidence of Creation all around, but when one begins studying what has been revealed of God, why is it so difficult to find evidence of a literal six-day creation if the very evidence being studied has been revealed by God according to Romans 1? I don't know of any way to get around this, unfortunately. It's not that I want to destroy faith. Quite the contrary, I would like to establish it, not by the scientific method, but using the scientific method as best as I individually can to study the handiwork of God and worship Him for His excellence in Creation.
Actually, we are literalists. We understand that the word "bars" stands for something that restrains like city gates or the like but something that none-the-less exists, whether it be gravity, mountains or some other force God uses. But it is not spiritually symbolic in that it does not exist and was just being used to communicate some ethereal truth. And besides that, who knows, if we could see with spiritual eyes like the servant of Elisha, we might actually see a gate with bars holding back the waters. Heaven will certainly cure us of this dark glass through which we see.
But back to Genesis 1-11, there is nothing in these passages to indicate hyperbole or metaphor or anything of the like. Or at least, you have not given me a passage to indicate such nor an exegesis to indicate such. Thus I still contend, evening and morning make 1 day YOM, just as the Scripture states.:)
Byron,
I forgot the most important, according to the Scriptures, they have been blinded lest the light of the glorious should shine unto them and they be saved. Why were they blinded? They loved not the truth therefore God turned them over that they may believe a lie.
Also, Luke, sorry for the lengthiness but I wanted to add something. I think the scientist realizes that God by definition is beyond being measured, or manipulated, or analyzed. So the scientist instead concentrates on what can be known by analyzing evidence in the material world of its composition and processes. One of the key ideas of scientific study would be the origin of the Universe and its life. The believing scientist (there are still a few of those left, I hope) knows that he or she is not studying God directly, but rather the effects of God's supreme Intelligence and Wisdom in His design. This is what the unbelieving scientist is doing as well, though he or she is ignorant and even unbelieving concerning it.
That takes us to what the evidence being studied presents and many interpretations to explain that evidence naturally arise out of man's reasoning and wisdom according to the flesh. Even though the truth behind Creation is Spiritual, the natural evidence, to the extent it may be known, should reveal what composition and processes were involved, and that is what bothers me is that there seems to be so little evidence of a six-day literal Creation. On the other hand, I used to believe, perhaps wrongly, that God created everything in six literal days, complete and maturity but with the characteristic of only an apparent age, and in such a way to deliberately deceive scientists and hide the truth. I would rather believe that God would have us study the Creation and marvel at His supreme intelligence and wisdom, and worship not the Creation, but the Creator Himself.
Well then did Adam have a belly button? :) and did Eve for that matter? :) :)
Since we cannot and are not studying ANY of the original trees that God directly spoke into existence, the charge that God purposely deceived man is an untenable charge I would contend.
Adam did not look at the tree and say, wow, it must have been here millions of years. Rather, Adam saw the trees and saw God and when God brought the animals forth to be named, Adam didn't seek to know where they came from, he knew, God and he then did what God purposed for him, he named the animals.(I think that is a run-on sentence)
So for a scientist to say it was all a ruse is a ruse itself. He is using that to attack the character of God which we both know is impeccable.
Luke, according to Merriam Webster online, literalism is "adherence to the explicit substance of an idea or expression." According to this definition, we cannot be literalists. If I read "bars" and I am a literalist, then I am expecting literal "bars" because that is explicitly what the text says. If on the other hand, I say it is something other than an explicit bar, but acts like a bar in its restraint and may not even be visible (also unlike an explicit bar), then I am not being a literalist.
And I have no idea what to expect when looking at heavenly, spiritual realities as opposed to earthly physical ones (like you reference with Elisha's servant but concerning bars of restraint), but I doubt that I would just see a glorified version of the physical type and shadow, as that just seems too fantastic for me (sorry, I just cannot believe that).
But, if you acknowledge any metaphor or subjectivity in the Job 38 passage (or Psalm 104), why not Genesis? What distinguishes them, so that we know that in one place metaphor is to be used, and in another it is not? Also, like Genesis 1:17 says, "And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth," that I take to be metaphorical. I guess I have to admit it's the only one that seems to me that way outright, but the "set" I believe is not God physically taking a huge light and setting it in the heavens like some ornament on an invisible Christmas tree. Rather, it's metaphorical language for God designing and placing objects of illumination (and they do not light the entire Earth at one time, either).
Well, this is an interesting discussion but I have got to get ready and be somewhere. God bless!
The problem with you choosing the Gen 1:11 verse is that you pulled it out of the context. Verse 18 explains clearly that the lights had various modes of operation. Some for day, some for night. I don't see any reason why God did not set them there either. For instance, we are just the right distance and tilt from the sun and the moon to give us tides, seasons, light, heat etc. Why this cannot be taken literally is beyond me. And for the life of me, I cannot understand why Adam, as a single entity would not be taken serious. For if that is not the case, Paul's entire exposition of the sinful nature of man is built upon what? Just symbolism? Rather, Paul understands it literally, one man, Adam and thus it was.
And by the way, the two passages, Job and Genesis differ in this way...Genesis is recording how it happened, Job--God is questioning Job about his participation in that creation. By the way, in Job, dinosaurs and fire breathing dragons are mentioned, both of which I take literally as well as the unicorn.
Luke,
I misspoke when I said that I thought Genesis was primarily subjective. I don't think that it necessarily is, as I hold to the idea of Creation as opposed to Evolution, and most likely that it was a literal one though a far older one than the normal YEC position. I also have no problem with a literal Adam, as it seems that the Fall and the Atonement all seem to require it. What I am in doubt concerning the Creation primarily leads up to Adam, in that I don't believe in literal days, and perhaps not even day ages (it's possible that rather than literal days or even divisions of time they are simply spiritual markers or divisions between God's creative acts, making them literary devices to organize spiritual realities, but I do not know).
Having said that, I missed verse 18, and so you are right. But in terms of God setting the two lights in the heavens, the picture that comes to my mind is some great Person physically hanging them in the sky like Christmas ornaments, and my point was, God didn't physically do that. But He did "set" them however that was done, but the "set" verb is not a literal action but nonetheless it is still a real one. But the point I was getting at with literalism is probably best shown by example: if I say the politicians in Washington are all loud-mouthed baboons who would accomplish more picking fleas off each other than serving in politics, then I am not saying that the politicians are literally baboons, and no one would understand my words to have that literal meaning (unless they were extraterrestrials, perhaps). If politicians in Washington are anything other than real, living, loud-mouthed baboons (though the "loud-mouthed" part is open to interpretation), then there is no literal truth to my words, but they have subjective meaning and are communicated with that intent. So back in Job 38, if the seas are shut up with bars, then the author is not saying the sea is being physically restrained by actual bars, but is using colorful and concrete language to express something that is no less true and is truly exists (in some mysterious fashion, whether by physics or chemistry or whatever). With that in mind, you are not a literalist on Job 38 according to your words, and I'm guessing you're not a literalist in Psalm 104 either. But according to how I was understanding your usage of literal, I could very well still be a literalist on the first part of Genesis, because I believe that the "days" really do exist and have meaning, even if it's subjective. But that's why I said I don't believe in literal days, because I don't hold them to be actual days. That's possible, and it doesn't bother me that the Hebrew Yom refers to 24-hour days, because there are so many other concrete word pictures in the Scriptures that aren't taken literally either. For example, I found this:
Psalm 144:5-7
5 Bow thy heavens, O LORD, and come down: touch the mountains, and they shall smoke.
6 Cast forth lightning, and scatter them: shoot out thine arrows, and destroy them.
7 Send thine hand from above; rid me, and deliver me out of great waters, from the hand of strange children;
The heavens don't actually bow. God doesn't actually touch the mountains with a physical hand or foot, and the mountains don't actually smoke, here. God doesn't shoot out arrows like an archer. And God doesn't have some huge physical hand that He uses to swoop down to rescue His servant and scatter His enemies. That language is not meant literally, even though it is entirely true and shows a context of judgment. After all, God is not playing a lifeguard and rescuing His servant from some great body of water, but the reference to water is a figure of speech indicating the mass of enemies collected against him, threatening to "drown" him as it were. That's what I meant by literal. Just because I wouldn't take it literally, doesn't mean I believe it isn't true or that the literal interpretation is the only one (here literalism would be very wooden and artificial).
Words like "dragon" and "unicorn" are subject to translational issues. I don't know for certain, but I imagine it's because the Hebrew might be difficult, or the animal it describes as existing (which I believe did) is unknown in our time. This reminds me of the controversy over the book of Jonah in history where Jonah's plant had been translated as the word "gourd" and a new translation had "castor oil plant" or something like that (the controversy was between Augustine and the Septuagint's "gourd" versus Jerome's Vulgate and the "castor oil plant" translation). I'm not knowledgeable enough to know about "dragon" and "unicorn" but I'm pretty certain these creatures were not the mythological beasts of fairy tales. They might have some resemblance I suppose.
But again, I have listed two places (and I think there are others) where figurative language is used concerning Creation, and it does not sound all that far-fetched from Genesis terminology, yet for sure Genesis must be literally how it happened. Why is that? Granted, I think I am coming at this differently than you are. I am thinking of God the Father as a Spirit, so He isn't literally speaking with a physical mouth in Genesis, though He is commanding Creation to occur by His Spirit. So in my mind, it isn't a literal speaking, but a metaphorical way of expressing what He did. That's why I have no problem reading "bars" in Job 38 and chalking that up to metaphor as well. Hopefully that shows you where I am coming from.
Luke, one other thing: you mentioned persuasion by the Holy Spirit and knowing the truth and it setting you free. Amen! But I believed all of this, almost all if not completely all of what you are expressing, for a number of years. I think I believed in it dogmatically and unshakably, too. I may very well get to heaven and find out I was wrong about everything I've said so far (except for where you have already corrected me, ouch, and thanks). But we do agree on Scriptural inerrancy, so I don't want you to doubt that. So please keep that in mind.
Thanks for the conversation! I think I have filibustered myself. Thank you for being a gentleman and giving me a run for my money. And like Forrest Gump said, that's all I got to say about that.
Luke, I remember reading you had dropped Facebook, but are you on MySpace? And do you plan to ever return to Facebook?
Byron,
I don't plan on returning to Facebook and no I do not have a MySpace.
All I "gots" is my blog and email.
Byron,
I removed your post to hide your email so that autobots don't find it and you get a ton of junk mail.
I am reposting here the link to the website you linked to so that you will understand the only thing I was doing by removing your comment was hiding your email address.
The link to the website is:
http://www.reasons.org/about-us/faq
Thanks, Luke. I'm having to "duh!" myself because I didn't think of that.
Got your back there Byron. At least on the email issue.:)
Post a Comment