tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81584600227065880162024-03-13T14:51:18.332-07:00Places of GodMy profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-71112280208134080112016-07-09T00:57:00.002-07:002016-07-09T00:57:53.187-07:00Restoring the sight of the watchmaker<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcSF8JV02Xi5oI-vpoXTp-pCKoPoqQROlxI8Z8lCWpFsJsdEH_xnchrFqJS7Qxns7AZFdglluvBphvgz9sqDK09jvqnlcugBeXH4UoiwFD241uMyvb6Cv2jF-rBINByFztMuG17qBZGYKK/s1600/watchmaker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="315" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcSF8JV02Xi5oI-vpoXTp-pCKoPoqQROlxI8Z8lCWpFsJsdEH_xnchrFqJS7Qxns7AZFdglluvBphvgz9sqDK09jvqnlcugBeXH4UoiwFD241uMyvb6Cv2jF-rBINByFztMuG17qBZGYKK/s400/watchmaker.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>In 1802, William Paley
posed the eponymous Paley Watchmaker argument as a rebuttal for evolution.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It
was elegantly simple and many still use it in apologetic defenses.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>He argued</b> that if on a walk, you found a rock, you might say the rock was always
there. But if you later came across a watch, you would reach a different
conclusion: that it shows such elegance of design and complexity there must have
been a watchmaker. Same for the universe.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>An interesting observation</b> is that such ideas were typically also used
throughout history, to characterize God (think of the parables). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Britain then was the leading
watchmaker and it gave her strategic advantages. However, industrialization led
to a production line with 13 component being made by other makers. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As such, “the Watchmaker”,
only made some of it but assembled all of it. He had to know how to make a
watch so he could set a design standard and ensure quality. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>How does that inform us about God?</b> Well broadly speaking he made the laws of the universe
and initiated the processes that drove the development of the universe. He also
got involved in specific aspects, but generally outsourced a lot of it to the forces
of matter.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The Paley argument has
supposedly been refuted, and as such I have tended to skirt use of it … until I
read the refutations. So, using a well-written paper by Frederick Bendz<sup>1</sup>
that summarizes and supports the dissident view, I thought I would find out for
myself.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Refutation 1 - contradiction: </b>Paley said, "Every indication of
contrivance, every manifestation of design that existed in the watch, exists in
the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being
greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The refutation argues
that Paley first differentiates the watch from nature (which I am not quite
seeing) and then states that the universe is so complex it had to also have
been created. Actually that is not what Paley is saying at all. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He is saying the watch
is complex and we know it was made, but natural systems are more complex and
the universe infinitely more so. Using an A fortiori principle he is saying, if
the reasonable man deems the watch to be made, why should he not extrapolate
that view to the universe?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Refutation 2 – shoemakers. </b>Bendz then argues that if I later found a shoe,
would I then argue that there must be a shoemaker. That is a non-sequitur. The
point of the analogy is that complex things imply design and deliberate
construction, be it by a watchmaker or a shoemaker. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It is an argument
against random selection. That said, I will hasten to add that within certainly
laws, random selection does happen. I am a product of the random mix of my
parent’s genes and that mix makes me uniquely different to my siblings. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It is too narrow to
say that randomness or natural volition is impossible. That would make science,
alchemy, new products, cultivars of roses and breeds of dogs impossible. Nature
offers design latitude, which enables mutations and micro adaptations. Its moot
beyond that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Refutation 3 - the watchmaker’s father. </b>Bendz debates what theists also debate, namely “where
did God come from?” It’s a spurious argument. If there is a generation before
God, we don’t know that and as any court would hold, it cannot be led into
evidence.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Motor manufacturers
outsource their tyres, electronics and screeds of other componentry, but sell
the package as a whole. We never demand to know who made the components. We
accept that, for our purposes, it all started at the BMW factory. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Similar assumptions
are common to science, because so much is still unprovable as in the
wave-particle duality of light or the observable insides of the atom. We deduce
from effects. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I have no information
that predates God and it is irrelevant to my life. I accept that God was the
factory gate. Besides, if we want a father, that father would ultimately be God
or the same mystery that we cannot get beyond and which we now call God. It is
self-defeating logic. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Refutation 4 - watches out of nothing. </b>Bendz says that the Christian view is that God
created from nothing, ex nihilo. Well that is really self-defeating. The notion
that the universe could evolve from total disorder and chaos, or potentially
nothing, is not a defensible rebuttal. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, Christians do
not say it came from nothing. Genesis 1 says the earth (the universe) was
without form and void. Without form meant it was unformed but substantial, a
clay lump waiting for a potter. It was void is not a contradiction. God was
saying it was both.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It had and still has
pockets of matter within a vast void. The generally acceptable Big Bang theory model
argues that the universe expanded from a singularity of matter. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Maybe some theists see
God as a wand-waving magician, but that is not the biblical perspective and it
is not supported by reasonable believers. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Refutation 5 - the Blind Watchmaker. </b>Richard Dawkins is doing such a fine job for
Christianity by sustaining such a poor contrast to theism that theism is
amplified by his subjective objections. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In the Blind Watchmaker
argument, the title of a book by Dawkins, he argues that the universe evolved
without purpose. It randomly developed. It was blind to reason. That is not an
argument, but an opinion and, though he states it as fact, it is still called a
theory. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I quote: “Natural
selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered,
and which <b>we now know?</b> is the
explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has
no purpose in mind. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no
foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in
nature, it is the blind watchmaker.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That is a circuitous argument.
It allows nature to be a proxy for God, to randomly select at its whim that which
we ascribe to God and it supposedly does so from chaos and disorder along a
rational continuum, yet achieves that rationality, irrationally. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So I gather that the
idea that the universe can move from irrational chaos to order, is acceptable
to him. His sole objection then lies in putting a face to that process. That’s
a personal issue. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Yet he is found out.
Advances in stem-cell research follow the simple fundamental notion, that
stem-cells will replicate their inherent code. They do not act randomly. They
follow a blueprint. Same again for plant hybridization or GMO foods. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Refutation 6 - false analogy. </b>Now those who blithely say that theists are
losing ground to the superior arguments of evolution and are now pinning their
desperate flagella to the watchtower of Paley, show why they are so blinded by
their own arrogance.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I quote again, else
you won’t believe me:<o:p></o:p></div>
<ol start="1" type="I">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">Leaves are complex cellulose structures<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">Leaves grow on trees<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">Money bills are also complex cellulose structures<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">Therefore money grows on trees (which, according to the idiom, they
don't).<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
That
is what they argue that we argue, but it is contrived. We all know that money
is processed from cellulose materials, other chemicals and mechanical
processes, to become the paper on which the mint prints the stuff that gives
that paper value. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
I
can similarly take metal and make cars and planes. So the argument is just
trite. It assumes that because we say the watch is complex and has a
watchmaker, that the universe is more complex and has a universe-maker, and such
thinking is disingenuous. Nonsense. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
<b>Refutation 7 - the empirical argument. </b>The last section starts by saying that we
deem everything to be created. In a sense it was and that is what the bible
says. We say the same of BMW cars being made by BMW, which is only at best
half-true.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
God
at least made matter or, if he didn’t make it, he expanded the matter in the singularity
to fill the universe. He also made the laws that define that universe and
science accepts that the 4 primary laws of matter emerged within the first
second of the Big Bang event.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
It
suggests from the outset that the universe had rational beginnings, which is
replicated in every building block of nature: the atom, the gene, molecules,
light and so on. They are never random, always predictable in their nature and
governed by universal laws. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
That
results in specificity: Hydrogen is consistently different to Helium, by virtue
of one proton. Likewise Mercury is liquid and always will be, but lead with two
more protons is thick, heavy and inert. Similarly humans are humans and apes
are apes, each species of its own type.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FEFFEF; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
The
problem, in working through Bendz’s empirical summation, is that he assumes
that we believe creation to mean a completed work in all respects, which
extrapolates to the ridiculous notion that God also makes BMW’s. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
Genesis
supports that in general, let alone at the bizarre extreme. It shows discrete
evolutionary steps that are ordered and rational, and build on preceding steps.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
That
supports all that we empirically observe in black holes, stars, our solar
system and so on. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
<b>In conclusion. </b>So, having so long skirted the Paley
argument because I presumed it had been adequately invalidated, I find that simple
as the idea is, it is still holds court. It may have holes, sure, but atheists
are not filling them very well. Does that beat the Bendz.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(254, 255, 239); text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-indent: -18pt;">http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="background: #FEFFEF; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(c) Peter Missing @ Bethelstone.com</div>
My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-90900690072964380332016-06-05T23:54:00.001-07:002016-06-06T05:11:07.405-07:00Seven reason why we should accept millions of years - Part 7 - radiometric dating is not unreliable<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUUHm9G0c9OqjMPeB_5jqTZx2v2UPy1MdaBOUIqWRfNTCf4ZICSH1A_ZzF8AprLAKD8VOcta_zTqdD7nLQR_NFcCM4G0z-8VqXQdD_FYgxyvpSVhrRCDHRPgYKU3j5YH8li31cKVLZZjw0/s1600/earth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUUHm9G0c9OqjMPeB_5jqTZx2v2UPy1MdaBOUIqWRfNTCf4ZICSH1A_ZzF8AprLAKD8VOcta_zTqdD7nLQR_NFcCM4G0z-8VqXQdD_FYgxyvpSVhrRCDHRPgYKU3j5YH8li31cKVLZZjw0/s320/earth.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b></b><br />
<a name='more'></a><b>100% reliability is moot</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Daily weather
forecasts are not reliable, yet we rely on them because they are more right than
wrong. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The D-Day landings relied on a favorable meteorological report, but they
still had choppy seas and gloomy skies. So what, the campaign was successful.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Tests for cancer and
other human biological conditions are known to require confirming tests and are thus
only relied on as markers, but we use them anyway because they are efficient.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A substantial body of
science remains unproven or un-provable with instruments currently available to
us. Thus we can’t yet see inside an atom or hold light still for long enough to study the inner workings of such things. Instead we base our science on
effects. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>God also expects us to deduce from effects</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is a
cornerstone biblical argument. In Romans 1:20 we read that the invisible things
of God are clearly seen and understood by what is made. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It means that God does
not provide definitive proof of his existence, but evidence of his being and of
his passing vests in the worlds that he made. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Job confirmed that idea
in Chapter 12:7-8, with his words, “speak to the earth and it will teach you”. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The irony of the argument
proposed is that New Earth thinkers cannot provide any proof of their position. They merely narrowly quote what the scriptures supposedly say, which is also not as
trusty as we would hope. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Hebrew language
uses far fewer words than we use, so a word can have different meanings,
depending on context. Thus, the instrument used to assert a seven calendar day
creation week, is as “unreliable” as any other of the tests we now apply to our
physical world. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I am not saying the word
of God is shaky. Never. I stake my life on it. But, the first principle of
hermeneutics is to look at context. The context of the days of creation was a
world that determined time differently to the way we do so now. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The proof of that is
in Genesis 1. The days and nights that we use as time markers only appeared on
Day 4. I put it to you that heaven’s perspective of time is still totally
different to ours. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It works in “event horizons”, not to a timepiece. As such, God's "and the evening and morning were the nth day" has no concept of God's relative frame of reference. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As such, his day
was better described as the dawn and sunset of a season or major event. The
ancient of days is not bound to a clock, but as the lamb of God he does open the
seals of the book and initiate the seasons that we experience down here. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>About radiometric dating</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Carbon 14 dating has certainly always been limited. The Carbon-14
radioisotope has a 5,000 year half-life, which is hopelessly inadequate for proving
an old earth. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, there are as
much as 40 different tests that confirm each other, like potassium 40 which
decays into argon 40 over a period of 1.248 x 10<sup>9</sup> years. That is a
far longer time frame than for Carbon-14. It is also used for gases trapped
inside molten igneous rock. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Because gases escape freely into the atmosphere, we
can know that what is trapped was trapped when the rock was formed and did not pre-date that event.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The many tests available
to science now are surely not definitively reliable. No one claims that. But they are
the best we have. Every test requires a lot of contextual adjustment resulting
in batteries of tests and the use of standard deviations to confirm a reliable
mean. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Would I have said that Everest is not tall for lack of a reliable instrument? Never. It is tall. Maybe I did not know how tall until we could measure it, but most suspected it was the tallest mountain in the world. So, since when does an unreliable instrument detract from observed evidence?</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>All those tests point
to an old earth of over 4 billion years</b><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even if none of the above science is reliable, we have cosmological instruments that can witness the birth of
distant events because of the limited velocity of light. What I mean is that it cannot travel faster than 3.00×108 m/s. As such, we are only now seeing events that
happened a long time ago.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is not difficult to
measure how far away they are, so that then leaves us with a simple conclusion
about the age of such events. And they are all very old. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why then would the
same creator, create his universe over billions of years and then haul out his
wand to make a more complex biosphere in seven days? And why, if he could do
that, was he so slow? Why not do it all instantly?<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The arguments about
radiometric dating are rather weak. There are many contextual tests used to
validate ageing tests, such as glacial stratification, tree rings,
sedimentation and so on, including cosmological tests. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unless they add up,
scientists reject radiometric tests and sample again. Thus, whenever a particular rock sample was found to be unreliable they searched
for new material. They are academics, subject to robust scrutiny, which
precludes wild guesses.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Conclusions</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I find Dr
Mortenson’s arguments are once again hoist by their own petard. Its time for
our faith to stop playing the God of the gaps. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Christian philosophers
are holding their own in the scientific community with powerful and valid
arguments, and as such they are no longer ridiculed the way dark-age
theists once were in their foolish attempts to bend science to religious dogmas. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, Christians
generally hold the high ground against the buffoonery of men like Dawkins, who
is as rabidly dogmatic as dark age clerics were. And he regularly runs out of
road. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The evidence for God
is overwhelming. It is almost impossible to refute. Nuances and subtleties will
always puzzle us in the word and in scientific observation, but I see little
wisdom in defending a new earth which divides our house against an already skeptical
scientific community.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is not essential to
anyone’s faith to defend a new-earth model. It is of far greater consequence to
simply stand together in our reasonable defense of a created world. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So I close by simply
reflecting on a the consequences for all of us of such a weak line of
reasoning. It leaves us tarred with the same old brush of irrelevance and dogmatism. That robs us of a voice and, without a shot being fired, hands our greatest
enemy a self-fulfilling victory. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<br />
(c) Peter Missing @ Bethelstone.comMy profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-7942691009432283802016-05-15T23:56:00.002-07:002016-05-15T23:56:58.823-07:00A refreshing case of intellectual honesty from an agnostic, border-line atheist<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://futurism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Origin-of-Life.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://futurism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Origin-of-Life.jpg" height="300" width="400" /></a></div>
<h1 style="background-color: white; color: #382110; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 20px; line-height: 24px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px 0px 2px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #181818; font-family: "merriweather" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"><a name='more'></a>"Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.” ~ </span></span><a class="authorOrTitle" href="https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/72837.David_Berlinski" style="color: #333333; font-family: Lato, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; text-decoration: none;">David</a><a class="authorOrTitle" href="https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/72837.David_Berlinski" style="color: #333333; font-family: Lato, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; text-decoration: none;"> Berlinski</a><span style="color: #181818; font-family: "merriweather" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">,</span><span style="color: #181818; font-family: "merriweather" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"> </span><span id="quote_book_link_1645044" style="color: #181818; font-family: "merriweather" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"><a class="authorOrTitle" href="https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1639458" style="color: #333333; font-family: Lato, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; text-decoration: none;">The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific</a> </span><a class="authorOrTitle" href="https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1639458" style="color: #333333; font-family: Lato, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; text-decoration: none;">Pretensions</a></h1>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px 0px 2px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.4px;"><i>Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University,[3] and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) inAustria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford University, Rutgers University, The City University of New York, the University of Washington, the University of Puget Sound, San Jose State University, the University of Santa Clara, the University of San Francisco, San Francisco State University, and taught mathematics at the Université de Paris. He defies evolution, but is also a secular Jew, who is defiantly agnostic to the origins of life.</i></span></span></div>
<div class="leftContainer" style="background-color: white; color: #181818; float: left; font-family: Lato, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; padding-right: 10px; width: 625px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="quotes">
<div class="quote" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(215, 215, 215); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; overflow: hidden; padding: 10px 0px; width: 625px;">
<div class="quoteDetails" style="float: left; margin-right: 12.5px; width: 518.75px;">
<div class="quoteText" style="font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; padding: 0px 5px 10px 0px;">
<span style="background-color: transparent;">(c) Peter Missing @ Bethelstone.com</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-21359237431528516872016-05-13T07:04:00.003-07:002016-05-13T07:04:38.339-07:00Seven reason why we should accept millions of years - Part 6 - the wrinkles tell it all<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.earthage.org/images/Young_Earth_with_grass_3B.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.earthage.org/images/Young_Earth_with_grass_3B.jpg" height="311" width="400" /></a></div>
<span lang="EN-ZA"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">Doctor
Mortenson’s 6<sup>th</sup> argument is undoubtedly the weakest.</span></div>
<span lang="EN-ZA"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">The
sweeping generalization that evidence for millions of years was not rooted in
science, but in atheistic and philosophical thought dating back to the 18<sup>th</sup>
century, is naïve.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">Its like saying that my guess of my grandma's age, based on wrinkles, hair color, her recollections of history or her grandson's birth certificate, is pure speculation. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">I dare not now also speculate about the age of a Model T Ford. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><b>But let's look beyond such contentions</b></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">Let’s not
even open a reference work for a while and do what the bible
permits: deduce the nature of our creator from the visible things that are
clearly seen and heard.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">Let’s also
ignore sciences like geology, geography, astronomy and physics as potential
conjecture. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">That would
potentially leave me with the earth in its current state and a lot of questions
about how it got there. But, well with no science to support any hypothesis, I need to gaze up into the heavens and ask some more contemporary questions. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">After all the
heavens are alive and changing, plus the speed of light is such that I can
actually observe the past with a high degree of reliability. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><b>So, let’s haul out Galileo’s old friend and observe
that.</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">Aside
from Galileo, the Maji also used the stars above to trace the advent of Jesus.
They may have been pagan, but their projections were spot on, validating, at
least in part, that the heavens present sufficient consistency to make such
measurements possible. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">Standing on
their shoulders we find Edwin Hubble, who was not an atheist and certainly no
abstract philosopher. He observed that the heavens are dynamic, expanding, and
so on. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">The Hubble
telescope or Kobe satellite observe all that data every day of the week, so do
earth based observatories all over the earth. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">All their
observations point to a pretty old universe. Nope I did not dig into the
earth’s geology to assert that – it is out there and signs of life dating back
to the inception of our universe are still reaching us every day.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><b>There is
little speculation involved. The past can be seen and objectively quantified. </b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">By a
relatively simple method, current expansion trends can be traced back to a common
point of inception dating back to around 13.8 billion years back. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">We can also use simple trigonometry, by observing a distant galaxy at
two moments on our annual solar orbit, to accurately determine our distance
from that galaxy and so deduce how long it took to be visible to us. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">That is not
even sophisticated stuff. Hardly in the reams of speculation and totally
permitted by the scriptures, as said earlier. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">Ah, not
enough I can hear them cry. So then we can use spectrometers to observe the
chemical composition of such remote objects so we can derive their age based on
isotope decay rates. That might not be conclusive, but it can at least confirm ages greater than millions of years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">Of course
using radiometric instruments to measure age can also be used to age the earth.
A differentiation between Potassium 40 and Argon 40, into which Potassium
decays, can provide a sound basis for measuring the age of a rock sample. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">That was
used to age the earth at between 3 and 5 billion years. But new earth thinkers dispute
that too. </span>They would also dispute the more trusted dating of zircon crystals in
Australia.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>What about meteorites</b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">I suppose
they would also dispute the relative objectivity of meteorite ageing and yet,
like observing space, meteorites are a valid objective yardstick. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">Meteorites
were not influenced by our timeline, but to be embedded in our earth the earth
had to have been there to hit. That confirms other dating methods that place
the earth’s age at around 3 to 5 billion years. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">It seems
they might feel James Usher’s unsophisticated genealogical dating method might
be more trustworthy than the ramblings of some well-schooled scientists. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">Another
method for ageing the universe is to look at massive stars that are still
burning and to then extrapolate from the rate of burn, to determine how old
such objects are. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">Needless to
say, few if any large bodies contradict the notion of an old universe. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">We can also
observe the mean density of the universe, for which space probes were built.
The mean density is a valid measurement of age. Logically, if expanding from a
singularity, the universe went from infinite or near infinite density, to its
current density. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">How long
did it take to get there? Well it is theoretically straightforward to compute
but we can generally deduce that its current density could only be reached over
a considerable lapse of time. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><b>Of course
we can go on. </b></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">However, the argument that some ill-equipped quacks invented the
age of the universe, to detract from the creation story, is dubious. So, now
space offers an objective set of tools for confirming that they were, in fact,
on the right course. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">How the work of past scientists came to be antagonistic to the creation story is beyond
me. My faith is not diminished by one iota for accepting that the earth or the
universe is pretty old. Indeed, my intuition accepts that as a reasonable
conclusion of my faith.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">Actually, I
find that defiance of science, to the extent implied by Mortenson, undermines my
faith more. It removes all reasonability from the creation story, which collapses it
all into the very fairy tale that atheists accuse us of. It also detracts from
the long history of God’s engagement of man.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA">That leaves me with little explanation for the protracted waits that God imposed on so many souls throughout the biblical narrative, so in contrast to the instantaneous God.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-ZA"> </span> </div>
(c) Peter Missing @ Bethelstone.comMy profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-29237203754169582592016-04-30T04:37:00.002-07:002016-05-13T06:21:18.893-07:00Seven reasons why we should accept millions of years - Part 5 - no more death and dying<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/extinction-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/extinction-2.jpg" height="283" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Doctor Mortenson takes us
right back to the first objection: why is it such a big deal to insist on a new
earth vs an old earth. It doesn’t detract from God’s glory one bit.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Indeed, I think that
making him into a wand-waving magician detracts from all that he has ever been
to those who have known him. It is completely out of character.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It also detracts from
the journey to redemption, by reducing that to a sham that could have been
avoided or circumvented by the same wand. It makes the cross pointless.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What Mortenson now
argues is that belief in a world dating back millions of years, detracts from
the biblical idea of death and God. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I am at a loss to get
that, but Dr Mortenson is at pains to defend the point.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>After the fall, man was cursed, as was the earth.
Death became the new reality</b> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, arguing that
death never existed before that is not confirmed by the bible. It says, or
implies, that man would die spiritually by being separated from God through
sin.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That played out as an
expulsion from the garden. Something about the hothouse-biosphere of that
garden did preserve life. The tree of knowledge did not deny that, expulsion
did.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The tree of knowledge
only instilled the knowledge that initiated self-awareness, the crux of all
sin. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In expelling them, God
cursed the soil so that it would be harder to work. Viruses and bacteria probably
also mutated, so new ways to physically die went with the deal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, even that did
not stop them living really long lives. So disease and weeds did not specifically
cause death – go ask Methuselah.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Oxidation did that.
They were exposed to a harsher biosphere that resulted in them ‘rusting’,
decaying and corrupting. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Okay, that is the first observation. The next
is as important. <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
No one in science ever
argued for a large scale elimination of species through weeds or infection. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, death was
patently possible, even for Adam and Eve. The biosphere of the garden may have
precluded decay and oxidation, but mechanical death was not excluded.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
If Adam had felt sufficiently
immune to death to leap off a cliff, I suspect he would have died, not because
of a curse, but because the human body was not meant to fly.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, the ice-age argument,
of which at least 5 are claimed by science, would account for major decimations
of earth species. That may have been essential to creation.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In the early stages
only vegetation occurred, so no animal life was present. That would have brought
rampant growth, because of substantial greenhouse conditions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But God had to first
grow the plant-life to provide living creatures with what they needed to
survive – the critical elements of oxygen, proteins and starches, and water. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Only on day 3 was all
the essence of life created, but even then the engine that drives
photosynthesis, only happened on day 4.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
There is no doubt that
sunlight was already evident on day 3, else plant life was nonviable. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, it was either
just a murky, misty experience of day and night, or as some have argued a frozen hydrogen layer in the
atmosphere facilitated perpetual light.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, whatever, the
appearance of animals only happened in days 4 and 5. By then the earth’s
biosphere was stable enough to support life. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But what then? The
environment was still harsh and hostile, but it probably also needed some heavy
lifting, some serious landscaping.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I am speculating here,
but large herbivores and the counter-balancing carnivorous lizards, might have
been the only life-forms that could survive that era. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
They may well have
helped in the distribution of seeds and the tilling of the earth.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Any ice-age, a natural
enough phenomenon in a formative biosphere, may have removed redundant species
to allow more refined species to take over. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
A thin atmosphere (prior to proliferation of organic life) and an undeveloped magnetosphere, are just two factors that could have triggered extinction events. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, as was always God's way, setbacks are normally progressive, so extinctions would have
culminated in more familiar land, sea and flying creatures. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, even man may have been "formed" as Genesis 2:7 says, through a longer process, involving the elimination of prototypes who left their marks in primordial caves. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>That is controversial
and detracts from the main argument, so I won’t go there.</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Suffice to say, that the
argument that death started with the fall, is not supported by scripture, per se. It is a spurious argument that does not support its intended thesis.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The fact is that death
and decay was always around, had to be. Plants don’t die and revive each year
because of sin, but to provide the earth with nitrogen rich humus.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I do accept that the garden
itself was so flourishing that if allowed to stay there, life would have
multiplied exponentially. How that would have played out I don’t know.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I also accept,
according to Genesis 1:29-30, that all life at that stage was vegetarian, so in
that sense the blessing of life held until the fall. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Animals were not
threatening to men and men did not eat animals, but probably because they didn’t
have to compete for food. Thus they may have had different impulses and
instincts.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Again, I can only
infer from scripture, notwithstanding evidence in science that carnivores did
exist. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well-fed animals are
still relatively mild-mannered, so that is at least possible. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, the argument
that death never happened or that death detracts from an old earth, is very
speculative and not supported by the bible.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
(c) Peter Missing @ Bethelstone.comMy profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-61357827834743719062016-04-22T02:32:00.001-07:002016-04-22T02:32:17.166-07:00Seven reasons why we should accept millions of years - part 4: Jesus was not a new earth thinker<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFO46lzDlJ7tWFS9Q8J-huG1Ut4A_ZvAW608EIjoOHkbZhYr8G0_GolfzZ1IzXSuvRWQDTDakcr7-f8IqhAmSwA5EFvmZwJiQdectsRD-cuxzavIw1YyJLfipBhdRLsguQR25Q3fZcBTNR/s1600/blowing-in-the-wind.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFO46lzDlJ7tWFS9Q8J-huG1Ut4A_ZvAW608EIjoOHkbZhYr8G0_GolfzZ1IzXSuvRWQDTDakcr7-f8IqhAmSwA5EFvmZwJiQdectsRD-cuxzavIw1YyJLfipBhdRLsguQR25Q3fZcBTNR/s400/blowing-in-the-wind.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
Mortenzon's argument that Jesus was a New Earth Thinker is about as thin as
watered down soup made from the dung of a pigeon that had been starved to
death.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
There are precisely two verses in the whole bible that in any way
support the argument, aside from which Jesus was silent on the subject.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
New Earthers of today are outspokenly defensive … not the
kind of attributes I would ever associate with Jesus. So, New Earther’s don’t
flatter yourselves.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:1, not two occasions just two records of
the same occasion, Jesus said once, “From the beginning, God made them male and
female”. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So now, having built a monolith on the
pretext of a literal interpretation, they ignore their
first cause or that Adam and Eve appeared on the 6<sup>th</sup> day,
to argue that they were from the beginning.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The sequitur is simple …. if they were from the very beginning (oh,
sorry Job, its just you who wasn’t there), and if they were in that
beginning, the earth must be young.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
How does a learned argument even attempt to hold water in such a sieve?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Jesus did not say, “from the beginning, he made Adam and Eve”, but “from
the beginning, he made them male and female”. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That is a rule of biology. It is supportable too. Even the humble atom
has a duality, a kind of male (proton) and female (electron), although they are
not quite equal opposites.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Every plant, creature and person required a union between the two
genders to spark life, ostensibly to ensure that there was a two-part decision
to create that life. It reflects the two-part Jewish Mizpah, used by Jacob, to hold two agreed parties true to their commitment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It ensured that procreation would an act of biological volition, by which animals and humans can and do suppress breeding when
conditions are unfavorable. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That hardly proves that Adam and Eve were in it from the outset. Indeed
it doesn’t even support the idea that plants and animals made it to the first
show.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>So what else can we go on?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
John 1 confirms that Jesus was in the beginning. That I concede. He was
there, but if he was there, why did he choose not to comment on what he saw?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Because he already did, adequately. The bible gave us many insights into the
creation event and, as he said to the rich man: “they have the law and
prophets, let them hear that”.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He also provided enough evidence in creation itself, as Paul confirmed
in Romans 1, namely: “the invisible things of God are clearly seen and
understood by what is made”.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
John 1: 3 and Colossians 1:6, confirm that the worlds were made by him
and nothing was made without him. He is
the author of all things and by him the worlds consist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
There never was a greater creation authority in all biblical history,
than Jesus. He did it all and the father reviewed his works objectively by
saying, “it is good”.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But now Jesus, the creator, the supreme authority on such things,
leaves us one seemingly small yet significant clue about how that all went
down.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In John 3:8, contextual to the recreation account at the foundation of the New Testament, Jesus said, “The wind blows where it wants to”. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It is a single, obscure verse, sure, but its implications are
significant. Contrary to the view of literal thinkers, God does not
micro-manage the universe.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He gave it laws that govern how it changes or evolves, then wound up the
clock and let it run. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
If that is true of the wind, it is true of the weather,
which depends on the wind. If so, then it is true of the tides, our orbit
around the sun, our rotation and so on.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Trace that back logically, as C S Lewis did, and eventually you will run
out of cascading causes and reach the first cause: the creator himself. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Don’t think God is not into randomness. The lot system used in Israel
was like dice. It introduced randomness into their affairs and distanced him
from any direct implication. Thus, a random lot decided that Asher or Naphtali got
the lands they got.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That randomness was bracketed. He first settled the three eastern
tribes, Reuben, Gad and Manasseh. Then He set Judah in the south. Everything
else was randomly decided.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He was silent on the choices, but prophetically Joseph foresaw at least
some of what would happen, a process no one could manage without today’s
cartographic systems.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It was also used for the replacement of Judas and to weed out Achan. The
Urim and Thummim, the two “Yes/No” stones, were carried in the high priest's breastplate.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, it was totally consistent for God to lay the foundations of the
world and to simultaneously define a foundation principle: that whatever
happened would be underwritten by Jesus, who was slain (or set aside for death)
from the foundations of the earth. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Accordingly, the idea of a universe rapidly expanding from a singularity
and using various moments of that to create heavier elements and, eventually,
galaxies and their sub-systems, is not in conflict with the character of God. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Accordingly, if anything, Jesus quietly supported an Old Earth
viewpoint. That said, he still remained silent on the issue. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, he was not silent about the literal Sadducees who were like today's New Earthers, yet he was as censuring of the Lateral
Pharisees who stretched truth too far. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
All his life, he walked the middle road of balance, which is where we will find him now. Otherwise, well Bob Dylan got it right, for the answers are "blowin in the wind".</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
(c) Peter Missing @ Bethelstone.comMy profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-46647819723516515572016-04-07T08:11:00.002-07:002016-04-07T10:21:58.732-07:00Seven reasons why we should accept millions of years - part 3: the flood did not destroy the evidence<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigq9vtTGMLaO9yi6Kk56k4w_MBx3dgRZhzm145ouBU5cGTRz47pWxmmCSXms9EfEg2afMbqnLHfgpecTHy8Prb0f-vvFOS2XmZbFZqW2bDBCr2Yyvb852tFbZTRWDVqaLNI_9DAK3e6tKh/s1600/great+flood.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigq9vtTGMLaO9yi6Kk56k4w_MBx3dgRZhzm145ouBU5cGTRz47pWxmmCSXms9EfEg2afMbqnLHfgpecTHy8Prb0f-vvFOS2XmZbFZqW2bDBCr2Yyvb852tFbZTRWDVqaLNI_9DAK3e6tKh/s400/great+flood.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<a name='more'></a><span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN-GB">Dr Mortenson’s 3rd argument is that the
flood washed away all evidence of the earth’s history. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">He starts by saying that evidence of the
flood is overwhelming, which I fully accept, although we cannot be sure of how it all
happened. Certainly there is geological evidence of a deluge and supporting evidence in the parallel chronicles of other near east cultures. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">But we can't use science to make the argument
here, as it would be a non-sequitur. It must recuse itself from self-defense.
What I mean is if we say there was a flood and that wiped away the evidence, then
geological evidence either supports one view or the other.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">However, using scripture to convince me
that the flood was universal also doesn’t cut it. It was translators who made
that “the whole earth”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-GB">Peter
was not convinced of a whole earth flood</span></b><span lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">He said: “<i>The land was formed out of water and by water, through which the world <b>at that time</b> was destroyed, being
flooded with water</i>” (2 Pet 3:5-6).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">He spoke of the “known world” not the
entire earth: a political idea not a physical one. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The word translated as earth, is Erets and
it has broader applications, for example:</span></div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "symbol"; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;"> </span></span><i style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and filled with
violence</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="text-indent: -18pt;">. (Genesis 6:11) – that speaks of the
world. The earth can’t be corrupt.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><i style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all
flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="text-indent: -18pt;">
(Genesis 6:12). Same again.</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Kol Erets is the Hebrew for “whole earth”
or what was used to make that point, but it has far wider applications too, far
too many to mention. Here is a sample.</span></div>
<br />
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><i style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">Thus for every [kol] piece [erets] of your property, you are to
provide for the redemption of the land</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="text-indent: -18pt;">. (Leviticus
25:24) - The law did not address the entire earth.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><i style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">Behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there
is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all [kol] the ground [erets]… </span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="text-indent: -18pt;"> (Judges 6:37) - hardly the whole
earth.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><i style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">Then Saul blew the trumpet throughout[kol] the land [erets], saying,
"Let the Hebrews hear."</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="text-indent: -18pt;"> (1 Samuel 13:3) -
That was not for all the earth. </span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Kol Erets does not imply the entire earth.
The word for that is Tebel (Strong's H8398), which appears 37 times, but never
in connection with the flood. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-GB">Now
for some counter-controversy</span></b><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">I fully accept that the flood happened. I
doubt completely that it covered the earth by 15 cubits (6m or 21 feet) above the highest
mountain. That is bizarre if they included Everest, possible if they spoke of local mountains which were just hills.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The heavens could not have contained all the water involved in the flood. The bulk came from below, but voiding
the earth with enough water to flood to a depth of over 10 kms, would have imposed 10,000 tons on each square meter, which would have destroyed the hollowed mantle.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">We generally analyse scriptures to derive a good
exegesis, by referencing context. That has been practiced
throughout theological history. Thus, where Paul said women should cover their hair, context tells us that street women wore their hair loose. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">If context floors an interpretation, we go
back and keep searching until it all fits - same with science. Well, it is not improbable, but
impossible to flood the earth to a 10 km depth. Arguing that the ark ended on top of Ararat is as fallacious as olives don't grow to that height. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">It is thus, reasonable to ask whether you
interpreted the text correctly, because the argument made is so unreasonable it damns the whole thesis. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">I can, however, concede that flood
phenomena were not limited to Mesopotamia, for the geophysical conditions that led
to the flood, were universal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The mists that covered the earth imply the
existence of sufficient greenhouse conditions to support a high level of
saturation in the atmosphere. Not enough for the full force of the deluge, but
enough to trigger substantial precipitation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Evolutionary theory also buys that in principle. So does
the Genesis 1 creation sequence, because for whatever time before the flood, the earth
was still hot enough to suspend water. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Thus, while I reject a flood of 10km depth,
I also reject a universal depth of any form. But scripture
and evidence of global silt deposits, leans to the idea of a global climactic
event. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">It may well have surged in pockets, where the
crust was thin enough. It would not have raised the oceans directly, only
through subsidence and the oceans may have been shallower. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN-GB">Evidence of inland seas abound all over the
earth and where I live. Could that explain it?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-GB">We
are stretching things a bit<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Whatever happened, for Mortenson to argue
that every possible geological vestige of the earth’s formation was erased by the
flood, is desperate logic.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Furthermore, to argue that a recent flood
can account for very old geological formations that can be traced back on a far
longer continuum, is naive. Thus, the Colorado left enough geological
striations to extrapolate the timeline of the Grand Canyon, to eons.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Besides all that, other dating methods are
available, plus many other reasonable arguments. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-GB">We
have a misconception of God<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">An old earth theology does not contradict the
bible, it contradicts the myopic view that God can only possibly be a
wand-waving magician who spoke the world into being in a week, yet couldn’t do
it any quicker, despite his preferring to be known as wise, not mighty.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">However, new earth thinking does detract
from scripture by portraying the kind of power that would have obviated the
elapse of history, the cross and everything in between. If instant could do it,
it should have. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">A new-earther argued that Jesus changed the
law, based on a misconstruction of: “a change of priesthood necessitated a
change of law”. He added that Matthew 5:18, where Jesus said, “not a jot or
tittle of the law will fail”, saw Jesus seemingly change the law. Actually he
just clarified.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">That is not a sound exegesis. The moral law
never changed. The fundamental ten commandments stand. The right understanding
is that Jesus reconciled us to the law. If he could change the law, he would have
and that would have made him a reformer, not a savior.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well that applies to creation thinking too.
We don’t bend truth to suit our prejudice, we reconcile truth to reality. Thus,
the invisible things of God are seen and understood by what is made. That is
good theology and it is good science.</div>
<br />
(c) Peter Missing @ Bethelstone.com<br />
<br />
Reference: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.htmlMy profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-39881719545926516282016-04-03T22:24:00.005-07:002016-04-07T08:14:38.966-07:00Seven reasons why we should accept millions of years - part 2: it fits Genesis 1<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGdWbWbWJhSzZdjqz6GFXD98qfAGB6yNZf__EV8BNsRtJFOl9uynWTsausHvJ6gHlp3exEFPbF_bMVveT5pvjb9ZWzwFRb4DmqMY2esBlybIlDtMk5eoZJ8-1RFLWgjsnOw4M1IaXfeAxk/s1600/7+days+of+creation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGdWbWbWJhSzZdjqz6GFXD98qfAGB6yNZf__EV8BNsRtJFOl9uynWTsausHvJ6gHlp3exEFPbF_bMVveT5pvjb9ZWzwFRb4DmqMY2esBlybIlDtMk5eoZJ8-1RFLWgjsnOw4M1IaXfeAxk/s320/7+days+of+creation.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The second reason given by Dr Mortenson for a new earth, is that "Exodus 20:11 blocks all attempts to fit millions of years into Genesis 1". The scripture referred to says, "for in 6 days the Lord God made the heaven and on the 7th he rested".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That is hardly scientifically robust. It is a non sequitur that takes a verse that says the same thing as Genesis 11 and holds that up as proof. It is not an objective standard. That's like pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. <br />
<br />
Contrast that with God's way, which used the gospels to cross-reference and independently witness the life of Jesus. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The operative word in Exodus 20:11, is Yom, which New Earth thinkers say is only ever used to describe a single 24-hour event, but which scripture does not support. So, if Dr Mortenson is going to use scripture to prove scripture, so will I. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is an over-simplification of Hebrew to ever assume a single meaning of any word. The language is truly rich. In English, "now" may only mean "this moment", but in Hebrew words generally have layered meanings. Greek was the same. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The reason is because the Hebrew lexicon was limited to about 8,000 words from 1,500 roots, compared with 170,000 in English. So it had to allow for multiple meanings of words. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980, Moody Press) argues that Yom can denote:</div>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify;">A period of light (as contrasted with a period of darkness), which allows for the light of creation itself to be the time-piece of Genesis 1. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">A period of twenty-four hours.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">A vague "time" - as in an era, a season, etc. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">A point in time.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">A year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, bases the word on an an unused root, meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term).</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Yom can equal Time.</b> 67 verses in the Old Testament, translate Yom as "time." Genesis 4:3, says "And in process of <b><i>time</i></b> it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." Here, Yom refers to a season, probably several months. In Deuteronomy 10:10, it refers to a <i><b>time</b></i> of forty days. In I Kings 11:42, it says "And the <b><i>time</i></b> that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Isaiah 30:8 says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the <b><i>time</i></b> to come for ever and ever." Here, Yom denotes "forever." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yom can equal a Year. Four times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "year." In I Kings 1:1, "David was old and stricken in years..." In 2 Chronicles 21:19, "after the end of two years" and in the very next verse "Thirty and two years old." Finally, in Amos 4:4, "...and your tithes after three years." In each case, Yom represents years, not days.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Yom can mean Age.</b> Eight times in the Old Testament, Yom is translated "age." These range from sentences like "stricken in age" (Genesis 18:11 and 24:1; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2). Genesis 47:28 refers to "the whole age of Jacob," therefore yom here refers to a lifetime. In Zechariah 8:4, it says old men and women will sit in the streets of Jerusalem, "each with cane in hand because of his age."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Once Yom is translated as "ago." 1 Samuel 9:20 says "As for the donkeys you lost three days ago." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Four times Yom translates as "always," in Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23, and 2 Chronicles 18:7. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Three times Yom means "season". In Genesis 40:4, "...and they continued a season in ward." Again, in Joshua 24:7, "dwelt in the wilderness a long season," and in 2 Chronicles 15:3, "...a long season Israel hath been...". In each case yom represents a multi-month period.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When used in conjunction with the word dâbâr, Yom means "chronicles" (27 times).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When used in conjunction with kôwl, yom is translated as "continually" (11 times). Once, in Psalm 139:16, it is translated continuance (without the kôwl).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Nineteen times Yom is translated as "ever", of which 16 cases are expressed as for ever. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In one case Yom is used in conjunction with kôwl, to translate as "evermore." Deuteronomy 28:29, "...and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even in the creation account, Yom is used in 3 different ways:</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Genesis 1:5 "<i>And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." Here, it indicates a 24 hour day"</i>. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Genesis 2:4 "<i>...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Here it indicates the entire creative week"</i>.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">In the summary for each of the six creation days, "<i>and there was morning and evening the first day</i>", Yom denotes a finite, long period of time. </li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To show support for this, consider the uses of Yom by Moses:</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Genesis 4:3 already mentioned, denotes a season. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Genesis 43:9 "<i>...then let me bear the blame for ever</i>", denotes eternity.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Deuteronomy 4:40 "<i>...that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God gives you, for ever</i>" denotes a lifetime,</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Deuteronomy 19:9 "<i>...to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in His ways...</i>" denotes a lifetime. </li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Young Earthers insist that Yom, in conjunction with a cardinal, denotes 24 hours. However, in Zechariah 14:7-9, "one day" refers to a period of time when the Lord shall be king over the earth. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Back to Genesis 1. Moses said "and there was evening and morning the nth day". That cannot be actual evenings and mornings, as that was only possible on the 4th day and a consistent time reference is implied for the whole creation cycle. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It implies that morning and evening refer to event horizons, not to 24 hour periods. Besides, the scriptures do not demand that we should reduce the interpretation to a 24 hour period. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Morning and evening is used figuratively in Psalm 30:5, Psalm 49:14,15, Psalm 90:6, without denoting a physical day. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
An interesting thing happens in Numbers. Forty years elapses without any record. Nothing of what happened in the 40 years between their turning back at Kadesh Barnea and the resumption of their journey 38 years later. Nothing. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Is it possible then, that God deliberately left out a mound of data and limited the Genesis account to a simple record of the sequence of creation. That is exactly what happened and, as such, there is no conflict between a 13.7 billion year old universe and Genesis 1. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He had no need to go into the finite details that made up those eons. He only felt it necessary to explore the patterns of creation, which are consistent with science: the only real objective witness that God could use as no one else could witness it, as happened with the gospels.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Indeed, once the voice of New Earth dogmatist falls silence, the Word speaks eloquently for itself in harmony with science and geological evidence.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Conclusions</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is not only naive and unnecessary to reduce creation days to a 24 hour period, it also creates significant theological problems, let alone conflicts with science. Conflicts with science matter, because it reduces a great story to a parody without objective support.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The simple question arises: if God could do it all in an instance, why bother with a 4,000 grueling journey to the cross? Why not just resolve it all upfront? Or rather, why not just un-create sin and the Devil in a similar moment? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It all becomes illogical and cumbersome. Yet, accepting an old earth removes all those dilemmas and helps us to see God as one who fashioned solutions, not as a wand-waving magician.<br />
<br />
It was not his outstretched arm of raw power that saved us, but his eternal wisdom. The patience and wisdom of creation was as fundamental to that conclusion, as human history was.</div>
<br />
(c) Peter Missing @ bethelstone.com<br />
<br />
Sources:<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-small;">Word Study: Yom by Greg Neyman © 2007, Old Earth Ministries. Published 16 March 2005</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-small;">Television Show and Transcript, "Are the Genesis Creation Days 24 Hours or Long Periods of Time," The John Ankerberg Show, 2005</span></span></li>
</ul>
My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-31975910969627314292016-04-02T02:28:00.004-07:002016-04-03T10:34:35.290-07:00Seven reasons why we should accept millions of years - part 1<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqhnldCNUhNAAqjRT5jJC9JGOSHGvCSGjo9kCrdhUUGM0YTD8HQLEpr0nAbztW2AVsaf0KgcK7mp0EeW2SoTq4lHwvApAIjhl5x8OLbM_Rcska7Ja3q34hyphenhyphen4pgtEmmcLkIQxc_KpCJ37PV/s1600/creation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqhnldCNUhNAAqjRT5jJC9JGOSHGvCSGjo9kCrdhUUGM0YTD8HQLEpr0nAbztW2AVsaf0KgcK7mp0EeW2SoTq4lHwvApAIjhl5x8OLbM_Rcska7Ja3q34hyphenhyphen4pgtEmmcLkIQxc_KpCJ37PV/s320/creation.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
An article by Dr.
Terry Mortenson on July 17, 2006; last
featured March 28, 2016, entitled “Seven Reasons Why We Should Not Accept
Millions of Years”, demands seven good responses. I can only do one
response at a time.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Assertion 1: The Bible clearly teaches that God created in
six literal, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago.<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Actually it doesn’t.
Earth time was only defined on Day 4. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, it was
impossible to mark a day of 24 hours for the first three days. Nor, indeed, was
it required. Nothing in the scriptures demands that interpretation. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Further, if days 1 to
3 are a different measure of time, given the absence of a fixed frame of
reference, we must assume that the consistency of biblical language implies a
similar time marker for all the other days. That is “literal” and logical. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
A day is as a thousand
years, implies relativism. It all
depends on your frame of reference. For all we know, “a day” could have been a
solar day, a single orbit of the sun or a galactic
reference to our solar system’s transition through the Milky Way. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
More likely, it referenced the light of creation and was thus measured as a divine event-horizon. That idea fits better with Jesus being described as the "bright and morning star" and in Revelations, as the one who loosens the seals of the book. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What I mean is that He is the time marker and the cross was the divine sundial of history.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, until there was an earth-based timepiece, time had to reference
another marker, but as it was God speaking we must assume that he used his own
marker.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Besides anything else,
Dr Mortenson confirms that “yôm” (the Hebrew for day in Genesis 1) has more than one literal reference, which
allows for multiple meanings. A good list of qualified references defines the
word first used in Genesis 1 as meaning severally:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Period of
twenty-four hours.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">General term
for time as in "when" or "when that happened".</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">A discrete point of time.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Sunrise to sunset.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Sunset to next sunset.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">A year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.).</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Time period of unspecified length.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">A long, but finite span of time - age - epoch - season.</span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Mortenson further
insists that Genesis 1:14 confirms yôm as being expressed in reference to the
heavenly bodies. Now, which body would that be Doctor? The Sun? But it says “lights”, so what lights of reference were confirmed here?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The signs and seasons alluded to were well used in
Jewish folklore to track important prophetic events, as the Magi did in search
of Christ’s birth. Thus God also
referenced the skies, as in “like the stars of the sky for multitude”.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
A great prophetic example in Rev 12:1, pointed
to the birth of Christ in the night sky. It alludes to the moon, the stars, and
various astronomical signs, such as the conjunction of Regulus, Jupiter and Venus,
which caused the bright star over Bethlehem.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Here are a few popular
biblical references that New Earth thinkers use.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "symbol"; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "symbol"; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Mark 10:6
“In the beginning … was male and female”. The argument goes that the
universe cannot be older than humankind, because we were there in the
beginning. God doesn't agree, for he asked Job, “where were you, when ..?” </span>Besides, if we are being literal, then be literal and read that man was
created on the 6<sup>th</sup> day. The principle of male and female, as in
equal opposites, was defined at the outset as a building block. It
defined all organic life.</li>
<li><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Luke
11:50-51, then speaks of the sufferings of humanity from the foundation of the
world. In any dictionary, 'world' and 'earth' are deemed to be more definitive of
the hardware and software of creation. </span>Thus,
God will judge “the world”, as in the nations, not “the earth” as in the
innocent biosphere in which we live.</li>
<li><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Exodus
20:11 records that Moses said, “in 6 days God created the heavens and the
earth”. Well that is a non sequitur, for Moses also wrote Genesis 1 and thus
knew that there was no measure of time until day 4.</span></li>
<li><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Luke 13:14
speaks of 6 days of work and a 7</span><sup style="text-indent: -18pt;">th</sup><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> day of rest. That is then used to
confirm that days meant logical days. Not so quick. The Sabbath principle was
far broader than that. Every 7</span><sup style="text-indent: -18pt;">th</sup><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> year was a Sabbath year, every 49</span><sup style="text-indent: -18pt;">th</sup><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">
year was a Sabbath cycle.</span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Rabbinical exegetic principle sees 4 layers of meaning,
namely Peshat, which is superficial and literal; Remez, which adds more meaning; Derash, which implies a deeper symbolic and
prophetic meaning; and Sod which conveys mystical meaning. </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj25dDQ1nPajzZtXyTjCQk-c4JLEp6I0wffpJ6F-k9J-EwA1G8MI2fPoD6fhub4My83m5TEmk3BCIi8YNQrGPSHmWSZrOZiqI9vH1nuHHZCyYLt9SQfQ3WAJCTaBb_-DtpTSyfUy_YJnk9K/s1600/creation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj25dDQ1nPajzZtXyTjCQk-c4JLEp6I0wffpJ6F-k9J-EwA1G8MI2fPoD6fhub4My83m5TEmk3BCIi8YNQrGPSHmWSZrOZiqI9vH1nuHHZCyYLt9SQfQ3WAJCTaBb_-DtpTSyfUy_YJnk9K/s320/creation.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;">
Thus,
when Jesus said, “You will say to this mountain, be cast into the sea”, he did
not imply a literal interpretation that would have seen us casting mountains
around the place, but he expected us to read more deeply into his words for
meaning.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;">
Similarly,
when he said, “Except you eat my flesh and drink my blood”, he did not mean
that we should literally do so, an interpretation that led to error. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align: justify;">
Hebrews 4 says “there remains a rest”, which has Sabbath
connotations but does not allude to a 24 hour period. Why would we settle for a weekend of rest after all our trials in this life?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I close with a reference
to Rabbinical thought. I concede that many orthodox Rabbis hold to a literal
interpretation, but remember that in Jewish thought there was always a literal
(Sadducean) and lateral (Pharisaic) worldview. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That tension was also
evident in Jewish interpretations of scripture. Thus the Sadduceans may have
been literal, but could not get the resurrection. That negated every purpose
of their religion to “let’s eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die”. So much for literalism.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Medieval Rabbi Rashi
reconciled the two views by saying that the Torah is not
chronological, and that the two stories were really one. Another classical
rabbi, Maimonides, asserted that the Torah wasn’t meant to be taken literally,
but interpreted in accordance with science.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
My view: if God could
do it in 24 hours, why not in a moment – who would have been any the wiser?
However, that would have reduced the cross to a sham, for if God could
instantly create he could also instantly un-create – and who would be
any the wiser. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
(c) Peter Missing @ Bethelstone.comMy profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-28334622598309719302016-03-21T09:15:00.002-07:002016-03-21T09:15:34.522-07:00Is morality and religion an evolved vestige of our past?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcpUxSXCoHHpMb_GaZQHllLijofLKVngGDxX9DvZ-selRVXvlwzV8ntRE2oHSANm-r-gBkixxtYpapFUj7D0BVMSIhZXtiOtmDnAFmDfO6u80NiTCAAhmto6h0KlPz3FN_mq9MTI5xwbrU/s1600/c+s+lewis+quote.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcpUxSXCoHHpMb_GaZQHllLijofLKVngGDxX9DvZ-selRVXvlwzV8ntRE2oHSANm-r-gBkixxtYpapFUj7D0BVMSIhZXtiOtmDnAFmDfO6u80NiTCAAhmto6h0KlPz3FN_mq9MTI5xwbrU/s320/c+s+lewis+quote.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Some argue that faith and morals are evolutionary, that we acquired a
conscience as a vital part of our survival package. They assume that it is
vestigial: a relic of our march to human maturity, no longer required – and yet
it was never more needed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Others argue that religion is redundant as it only causes conflict. Yet
atheism is evidently
a far greater threat to our survival, with Stalin and Mao claiming more lives
than all the wars combined. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Paganism was never far behind that and
while it had a form of religion it really was a man-made ethos not worship of
an independent creator. As such, it was filled with far more esoteric hocus-pocus than was
ever attributable to theism.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The final chapter of humanity will see the rise of a world religion,
because global planners know that we need to believe to survive, so
they will regulate what we believe. It happened before, under
Constantine, so watch this space.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>If faith and morality is evolutionary, we would not know it was so</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
We
would just be that way. Yet we are aware of moral choice. That is not an
evolved state. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
When a snake attacks a mouse, it does so instinctively, coiling,
preparing, pausing and completing a myriad calculations that result in a
strike. It never asks whether the mouse has a family to go home to or if it was
a poor, downtrodden, orphan mouse.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Its only moral consideration relates to its need to survive. Hence moral
choice is not selective to evolution. It is not needed. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The core hypothesis of evolution is survival of the fittest. As such, the
more intuitive instinct and the highest required moral selector, is survival
and that would then opt for expediency over aestheticism. It would kill or
subdue to gain the advantage.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
C S Lewis argued that we are more inclined to evolve negatively - C. S.
Lewis. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He saw that evolutionary naturalism seemed to lead to a deep and
pervasive skepticism and to the conclusion that our unreliable cognitive or
belief-producing faculties cannot be trusted to produce more true beliefs than
false beliefs. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Charles Darwin had similar reservations as he wrote in <span lang="EN-GB">a letter to William Graham in 1881: </span><i>But then with me the horrid doubt
always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed
from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value. Would anyone trust in the
convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?</i><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Renowned philosopher,
Alvin Plantinga, developed his thesis on naturism and evolution in 1993. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
His argument began
with the observation that our beliefs can only have evolutionary consequences
if they affect behavior. Thus natural selection does not select for true
beliefs, but for advantages. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He distinguished the
various theories of mind-body interaction into four categories:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Behavior that is not caused by beliefs at all.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Beliefs that influence behavior but not by
virtue of their semantic content. </span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Beliefs that affect behavior, but where we don’t adapt, as in “I am scared to go there, but I won't take steps to manage the cause of my fear”.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Beliefs
that affect behavior and are adaptive, but may still be false.</span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, his ideas are
complex to grasp, let alone convey.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>C S Lewis had the
epiphany that turned him to faith</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He argued, cynically, that the universe is
cruel, then asked, “But how do I sense that?” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
His question was
honest. If we are evolved then we would be evolved to that level of utility
that serves our need for survival. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The ant lives in a
smaller universe than ours. His world is limited to a heap and a sizable
community, whose collective consciousness relates to food and seeing off their
enemies, and in both of those pursuits that seem to be altruistic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
They care about the
community because the community is their life and only through its
collectiveness will they survive. There is just too much to do to go it alone. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, that is as
far as it goes. They have no sense that the world around them is cruel. They
don’t care. They only have their own world and that works. Awareness of the wider
world or the anteater or other threats is incidental. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In a sense we are also
in an ant-heap. We know enough to make that work for us and that should be
enough. Who cares about life beyond us, be it green men from Mars or a creator?
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
If we are only in this
to exist, then we will only worry about such things if they pose a threat to
our continuation. Yet we are aware of our world in its universal context, we
have a need to explore that and we have a deep spiritual and moral awareness.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Thus we do know that
the universe is harsh and we also know all about love, justice, peace, mercy,
life and death. We have those values because God set them in us.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>There is such universality
to the essential moral code</b> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
We must presume an external influence. Even remote societies favor honor, fidelity and respect for life. Those values are
written into the fabric of our created being from birth. Paul confirmed it in
Romans 1 and 2. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, the choices relating
to all that are ours to make and so we do, whether to kill or let live, to
steal or to give back, to grow or cut down, we are equipped with the means to
choose and that is something no other species has. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
No other creature has
evolved such sentience. By species we remain specific. Breeding across species
is impossible. “That which we are, we are”, to quote Tennyson’s Ulysses. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
We are “One equal
temper of heroic hearts, made weak through time and fate, yet strong in will to
strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield”. We are the crown of creation, full
of value, intuition, wisdom and ingenuity, way beyond the essence of survival.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
(c) Peter Missing @ Bethelstone.com<br />
<br />My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-10988233429921089962016-03-11T03:55:00.001-08:002016-03-11T03:55:26.665-08:00Wisdom vs Power<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBGz_a2PCHOYeM_8UGIWXcerqeYRmf1tLjtS3cgYcQSJw7AFMSVbXIX_WelamWGaf3XKBhgx_vwi-2GorWWLQ8RrtKofv06rA5_RTv1thjcQm4WHcg6bpWyMNUUvo21gl5beGgPjSxYs3n/s1600/Oh+the+depths.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBGz_a2PCHOYeM_8UGIWXcerqeYRmf1tLjtS3cgYcQSJw7AFMSVbXIX_WelamWGaf3XKBhgx_vwi-2GorWWLQ8RrtKofv06rA5_RTv1thjcQm4WHcg6bpWyMNUUvo21gl5beGgPjSxYs3n/s400/Oh+the+depths.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Okay, I have said some
radical things about God’s power. Strangely, whenever Christians bring
Christianese expressions about this mighty God, I feel like Cinderella, like I
was somehow not invited to the party or missed the boat. Maybe I am a bit dull.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I have yet to see
evidence of this “mighty God”. Of course I am talking in the contemporary
sense, not with respect to a pretty awesome creation. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The thing that gets me
with the Sadducean world of New Earth thinkers, is that God is not even
interested. He sees no reason whatsoever to prove His power. He could have
called ten thousand angels to the cross, but knew that wisdom would claim the day.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Oh sure, when He has
stretched out His hand, awesome things have transpired, but in truth a lot of
that could be attributed to His omniscient knowledge and the power that gave
Him to foresee and anticipate things with such exquisite timing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
New Earth thinkers do
a disservice to God. They mean well, but it is misguided. He has no need to be
defended as it is, but even so, He would far, far rather be known for His wisdom
than for His might. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He will bring down His enemies in His own timing, without
force. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I suppose He could
have taken Satan and crushed Him with His little finger, instead with His
little finger He brought the house of darkness to its knees, through the weakness,
nakedness and frailty of a skin-covered, bone-filled, bloodied son.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
There were no miracles
in His greatest hour and only for that hour did He say, “remember me”.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He sought no memorial,
except the simple act of a travelling supper.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
No shrines were ever
set up at His behest.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>He shunned the limelight</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He did nothing to
prevent the most visceral act of history, the impaling of His own, beloved son
on a cruel cross at the behest of a brutal occupying force. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He shunned any
opportunity to lead a rebellion against them or to stage a coup or to stand for
political office. He wanted none of the trappings of power.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Indeed, Satan tempted
Him with power and mastery of the world, and He flat-out denied it. He was only
concerned with doing His Father’s will.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The cross was far, far more court-case drama
than a show of might</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Indeed, it was a show
of apparent weakness, yet He made an open show of His enemies and triumphed over them (Col 2:15).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In His weakness,
He finished the courtroom debate started
in the Wilderness, His pretrial, where He was deemed worthy of Calvary - not
that Satan grasped that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Then in His trial
before the Romans and the Sanhedrin, He removed any speculation about any just
reason for His death. He was tested in every way and found spotless.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Then He reached the
final stage of a lifelong trial, where He hung on the cross for something He
never did, but perhaps for something He was about to do.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In that dark hour, His
wisdom was so veiled that He kept silent to let it all play out. Had the dark
forces ganged up against Him had even a whiff of what was happening, they would
not have crucified Him, but they did (1 Cor 2:8).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Then He gave up the
ghost. He seemed to be a spent force. Three days later He stood before the last
court, Satan’s Kangaroo Court and demanded the keys of death and hell. The
enemy was gutted. They never saw it coming despite 4000 years of hints.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Those who perceive more value in the drama of
creation, miss the point</b> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He could not
manipulate the world He had to judge. He could not contrive the context of the
Cross.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
God went to
extraordinary lengths to ensure the credentials and the just cause of the cross,
even to the point of turning away at the darkest moment. The cross was
validated at arms-length to the just, righteous court that will yet prosecute the
great serpent.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The idea of making the
world in seven days, reduces the cross to a sham, a scripted drama for the sake
of the story. It belies the wisdom and restraint that God showed through the ages
to ensure a just prosecution of sin and a defensible plan of redemption.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>He will reveal His wisdom, not His power
through the church (Ephesians 2)</b>
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I know that making God
look like a wand-wielding magician seems the right thing to do, but it was the
last thing God ever wanted to do. To preserve the plan of salvation, he had to
let life evolve into a self-sustaining reality, from the basic principles and
elements of matter.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
To that He added
humankind and gave them freedom of choice, lest he contrive the demarche of
history for what would have been the pageantry of Calvary.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Instead He let it all
be. I have no doubt His wisdom anticipated the course of history. Thus, He used
Satan’s predictable momentum and mad folly, to bring him down the way a judo
fighter uses His body as a fulcrum.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This one thing I know.
God may be unbelievably powerful, although I question the notion of infinite
power. However, it is incidental to a plan that was worked out on the ordinary
clay platform of a very human world - without the power we deem necessary.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He will similarly
guide His church through the darkest moments of history, with a wisdom and
timing that will sow confusion into enemy ranks, until, like Job, we prevail as
the church victorious.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The US has always
tended to prosecute wars with overwhelming power, but that rarely won a war or
sustained any victory. Had the story of salvation been scripted by us, the same
outcome was certain. Thanks be to God His wisdom had the last say.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
The wisdom of God may seem foolishness to men, but let's see who laughs last.<br />
<br />
(c) Peter Missing @ Bethelstone.comMy profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-86569209855047672942016-02-29T06:58:00.004-08:002016-03-01T04:27:44.694-08:00Sustained by the Word of His power<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwFlTfMZnzx2Py8eyvT4Bm7nq1N7rj2PXuVJw7pfZaNjq_ZRI9Ig1KuuXnsLF9LCEwBtQ2PzwE-1lUCwHNeej1hhmEKA54aHz8aXHcV1roC1tiPZK9LDZvu3IyGXCmRhEv9UiHTMe7X_RC/s1600/beginning.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwFlTfMZnzx2Py8eyvT4Bm7nq1N7rj2PXuVJw7pfZaNjq_ZRI9Ig1KuuXnsLF9LCEwBtQ2PzwE-1lUCwHNeej1hhmEKA54aHz8aXHcV1roC1tiPZK9LDZvu3IyGXCmRhEv9UiHTMe7X_RC/s320/beginning.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So far I have
addressed divine time and divine power. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I acknowledge that God
is eternal, yet works along a continuum that science calls “event horizons”.
He does not live in a flux of yesterday and tomorrow, but in a linear progression
to a divine objective, not unlike the linear nature of the number system. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I also acknowledge
that God is immensely powerful, if only by virtue of His position and the power
at His disposal, but I have stopped short of the implication of omniscience, which
suggests infinite power. It simply doesn’t fit with the body of scripture.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Now to another intrigue</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
1 Corinthians 15 limits
the power at Christ’s disposal. It describes the one who delegated His power in
verses 27-29, and relates His power to
that which vests in an office or in the power to summon an army (of angels).
But the power delegated is limited. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It is one thing for the
authority of Jesus to be limited to the mandate of His Father, just as the
power of someone with delegated power is subject, at least in terms of the
ability to delegate such power, to the powers of the delegator. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Certainly Jesus spent
His lifetime reminding us of His relationship with His Father and how He submitted
to that authority: a position He gladly accepted. It was also necessary because
the validation of a sacrifice must be independently verified by a higher referee.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, that is not
the limitation that Hebrews 2:8 implies when it says, “Not all things are
subject to Him”. At least, from 1 Cor 15, we know that death is not subject to
Him. Indeed, Hebrews says that will be the last enemy to be destroyed. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Other enemies must
also be destroyed to make that possible, because death and corruption stemmed
from rebellion and sin, so Jesus also needs to subdue the agent or agents of
rebellion. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
By implication, He has limited control over the rebels. Sure He almost certainly restrains
them, but even if He bound them in chains, that won’t change their hearts.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
People who claim
to have seen hell remind us that even in the face of terrible judgment, those
who rebelled in this life will defy God beyond this life.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Okay, so Jesus is
limited by the corruption of God’s realm</b> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I refer to the no-go areas that have arisen from
rebellion and sin. That’s why there are walls and gates around Zion, duly
patrolled by angelic sentries. It also accounts for warrior angels like
Michael. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Just seeing the walls would convince me that life is not as sublime and ordered as it seems. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I have no doubt that
Satan rebelled because God’s power was at least 'perceived' to be limited. As
such, the angels that rebelled with him, war against the saints and all that is
good in this life.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Never simplify your
prayers to simple no’s or rejections. It took three weeks of engagement for
Michael to break through rebel ranks in response to Daniel’s prayer (Daniel
10).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Further, in Jude, we
see Satan disputing with Satan for the body of Moses, because he believed he had a claim to Moses, but the angel
of God simply said, “the Lord rebuke you”.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
It is a painful reminder that the relative comforts of this life belie a cosmic spiritual war that far exceeds our comprehension, yet Jesus will show up His enemies not through a show of might but through exquisite timing and profound wisdom (Ephesians 2). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Jesus will eventually
tread the wine-press of God’s wrath and ride with his saints in train, to
conquer his eternal enemy. Until
then the Kingdom of God suffers violence and is under siege. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>So, not all things are
yet subject to Him, but they will yet be subject to Him</b> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
When that is so His
work will be complete. If subduing all things completes His work, than that is
His work. Thus He died, rose again and will yet ride into battle to finally
subdue the enemy. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Eventually, when all
is done, He will create new heavens and a new earth, but how will He dispose of
the existing one?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Hebrews 1:11-12,
foretells a day when He will fold up the universe like a garment. The galaxies are disk-shaped, suggesting a flat universe, rather
than a rounder shape. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>But now we have a
dilemma</b> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
If He can just fold it up like a garment, then perhaps He has greater
power than suggested thus far. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
We need to go back
again and examine the basis of His power. Is it a position of authority and
does it vest in the power at His disposal, or is He just infinitely powerful. I
have exhaustively argued against the latter. Thus we need another angle.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In Colossians 1:17, we
see that “by Him all things consist”. That means that He has a key, a means to
sustain the universe and keep it from collapsing in on itself.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Scientifically
speaking, 4 laws were defined well within the first micro-seconds of creation.
Those were gravity, light and the two nuclear forces. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Those laws hold the
universe together and ensure the logically evolution of galaxies, stars,
planets and so on. So something in all of those laws is at the behest of Jesus.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well that brings us to
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word was God”
~ John 1. So the worlds are sustained by His Word, which is tantamount to
saying “by His edict” or “by His Law”, as in an order of the crown. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He thus achieved a
vast universe by enshrining fundamental principles into the smallest objects of
matter, the atom and its subsets. He did not need to physically make it all. He
only needed to make the laws that define all matter, for the
Universe to be. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, when the time
comes to end it all, He need only rescind that Law, for the universe to dematerialize
and return to its singular state of genesis. That event may well look like the ionized "vestments" or "garments" of an aurora. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As the Master chemist
and grand Architect or Engineer, He built similar codes and algorithms into all
DNA, to define species. he did not need to make everything. Rather He facilitate the self-reproduction of life. I will elaborate further in a
future post. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
(c) Peter Missing @ Bethelstone.comMy profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-6177801889075642762016-02-27T02:34:00.000-08:002016-02-28T06:59:02.669-08:00Does Jesus have omnipotent and unlimited power? <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEa5QmDokvi3uBCLWG15avrd_va-CWNxWD6GYwJ1uMlDKQKHEBQy-iypd2P2rdxLMzP_8g3j5YB9Km5L2FjwhpnuuBvwZLQVxEbx2gibzpNZJhkvlqav53yVaaCH0vpgZtKef3rN9MkE8z/s1600/Jesus+and+the+stars.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEa5QmDokvi3uBCLWG15avrd_va-CWNxWD6GYwJ1uMlDKQKHEBQy-iypd2P2rdxLMzP_8g3j5YB9Km5L2FjwhpnuuBvwZLQVxEbx2gibzpNZJhkvlqav53yVaaCH0vpgZtKef3rN9MkE8z/s320/Jesus+and+the+stars.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have already given reasons,
from biblical perspectives, why I believe that Jesus had a beginning and
entered time or “this side of eternity”, when He became part of the world He
created. That happened when He was “slain from before the foundations”.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It means He crossed the
margin between time and eternity and I postulate that the increments in space-time
were such that he dwelt just in time, where yesterday almost coincided with
today, and time moved almost infinitely slowly. That brings perspective to "a day is as a thousand years".<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, whatever, I can’t
prove that. All I know is that Jesus is called the ancient of days, has a white beard and logically had a discrete beginning as “the son of” God. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now to another outlandish
idea. I don’t mind if you disagree. I am battling with the idea as it is and I
tackle it with all due care and reverence.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The postulate is that
Jesus does not possess infinite power<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In relativity, light
is deemed the universal constant, because the power needed to even approach the
speed of light would reach infinity and that in turn would require a machine
and fuel of infinite or near-infinite mass. Everything breaks down at that point.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It so happens that the
first evidence of creation was light. Could that have defined, from the outset,
a constant that perfectly sums up Jesus. He is the light of the world and, as
such, He is also the divine constant, the metronome that marks out the notches
of divine advancement.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Revelation 5:1-3
describes a book with seven seals. Those seals initiate seven distinct epochs. It uses mystical language, so I am not going to
get into it too deeply.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, what is
notable is that only the lamb of God, Jesus, could open those seals. In other
words only He could usher in the dispensations that resulted. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That makes Him the divine
constant. Time, as we know it, is marked relative to our frame of reference, but would differ for someone, say, at the center of the Milky Way.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, by that argument
there is no such thing as absolute time, until our reference is externalized
and set outside of the universe. But Jesus stood at the margin between time and
eternity to become that universal absolute, the ultimate standard.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now to whether Jesus
has infinite power. Well, if light was laid down as the standard
and if Jesus is that standard, then by that
argument we cannot breach that limit and nor could He.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To do so would upend
all the laws of this universe and God has never done that. It would require infinite power, which is self-defeating if the constant
of light and its impact on space time is finite. Infinite power would be
self-contradicting.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Is He powerful? No
doubt. But is He omnipotent, as in of infinite power? Maybe not. </b><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let’s observe
empirically then. Firstly, He raised an army of warrior angels to defend
Zion and to watch over the saints. There is also evidence of war in heaven,
which clearly was not simply decided by a divine wand. Indeed it demanded a
very challenging resolution.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Further, does He order
the weather, the formation of stars, the orbit of our planet and so on? No.
They are all delegated their own autonomous prerogatives, bound by the laws of
matter.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thus the universe is
changing on its own, without any further intervention from its creator. That is
also supported in scripture. In Genesis 1-2, the Creator concluded the creation by ceding all ownership of it, because He could not judge what He could manipulate. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As such, in His
infinite wisdom, the Creator, recorded in Colossians 1:16 as being Jesus, did
not attempt to hold everything subject to His whim. He let it all be and
created self-sustaining systems, like the body, the family, the
church, the weather and so on.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, why would He
delegate any of that if He can keep it running Himself? Well logically He can’t
for the reasons given, as then His death would have been
a contrived sham. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Proof of that lies in
the image of God independently validating His cross by “looking away” and by
assessing the sacrifice only in terms of
the law, not in deference to His son.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So whether He simply
cannot, to ensure the objectivity of His redemptive work, or has limited capacity to do so, either way is satisfied by the notion
of “limited power” as in limited legal power or limited physical power or both. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Perhaps the truth lies somewhere between those poles. In 1 Cor 15:28, we see that "not all things are under His feet, but when they are, the Son himself will be subject to the Father".<br />
<br />
That describes a divine mandate, delegated by the Father, which by implication is a subset of the power of God, for He who gives power must be greater than He who receives it and He who validates His work must be greater than He who is validated.<br />
<br />
Jesus always deferred to His Father and said, "I cannot do anything without Him". So maybe Jesus was just limited by His terms of reference.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, I can exceed my capacity by building machines that extend my reach and capability
beyond my human limitations. Maybe Jesus also used the universe and the momentum of history, as His “machines”, “bulldozers” and “earth-movers”?<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Does that diminish Him? </b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have no less respect
for my savior if He has limited power. On the contrary, it makes Him more accessible,
but it also amplifies other virtues like wisdom and timing. I am far less comfortable with a wand-waving wizard who can make a universe in seven days. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Physically disrupting life, risked a mistrial in the justice of the cross. Instead, He anticipated history and worked with that, as in the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah
or the crossing of the Red Sea. He clearly also used His own to nudge history.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The AV says in Rev
19:6 that the “Lord God, the omnipotent reigns”, but the ASV says, “the
Almighty reigns”. That might not mean infinite but supreme power. Besides Satan would never have tried to usurp infinite power. Finite, supreme power, maybe, or at least he would have coveted the instruments of power, namely the angels, His realm and so on.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That said, the limitation
imposed on Jesus to enter the world and live by its laws, may not extend to God
in the fuller sense, but I will say more about how the universe is held together.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(c) Peter Missing @ Bethelstone.com</div>
My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-3074235873674126392016-02-17T22:24:00.000-08:002016-02-18T07:04:48.335-08:00Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_1FaKFXiTDqLkQ5P9MMaCDXg4Ef2mRkON9xwvvGAYvnZ7AWMK-unTgHVRW1JZRBCYP071nc4mA990Jkn1WUusmYOvBgqAHs7ViaClMBCCgN1q0PG9djJmBr37YFKkBk2Kx4SkyfKs6Inr/s1600/Divine-timing-41.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_1FaKFXiTDqLkQ5P9MMaCDXg4Ef2mRkON9xwvvGAYvnZ7AWMK-unTgHVRW1JZRBCYP071nc4mA990Jkn1WUusmYOvBgqAHs7ViaClMBCCgN1q0PG9djJmBr37YFKkBk2Kx4SkyfKs6Inr/s400/Divine-timing-41.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well that’s the
general perspective of God. New earth thinkers would have it that exact. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The poles of thought around
creation, range from literal to lateral. The literal Sadducee's of our age hold
to a very black and white, narrow and legalistic interpretation of the world around
us. Not that our faith is enhanced thereby. Not that it makes any real
difference.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
On the contrary,
describing God as a wand-wielding wizard, capable of making worlds within 24
hours, poses even more questions. After all, why 24 hours when a second would
do?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The fact that time, as
we know it, was only defined on day 4, seems to not matter. Nor does it
evidently matter that it took thousands of years to bring Jesus to the cross. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I do not know how or
why, in that model, God made the Unicorn of scripture or Behemoth, and removed
them a day later together with the dinosaurs and fossils that have been
unearthed from times long ago. Oh well, whatever, that is all the least of our
problems.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The biggest dilemma
for me, is that the literalist view makes a sham of the cross. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>That said, I actually want to introduce another
thought</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I concede that God is
omnipresent – He has to be to touch all of us and relate to us individually.
One of the benefits of the cross was the replacement of a distance temple with
the imminence of God, who sees and feels even the faintest cry or the most lost
sheep. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Many scriptures
confirm His omnipresence. That, by implication, makes Him omniscient, for if He
has seen everything, He knows everything. I am not convinced of omnipotent.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
We can move mountains
and tame rivers, but we use man-made machines to do that. Is it not possible that
the bulldozers of God were black-holes, super novae, gravity and so on? He
certainly uses and lives by the laws of the universe that He made.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>To be more precise Jesus did it all <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He was the agent of
creation (Colossians 1:16). He was at the cusp of
time and eternity, but on our side of the line, inside time. Thus He is called the
ancient of days and has white hair. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Logically, even
mathematically, Jesus had a beginning. He is the son of the Father. His
beginning = <span style="font-family: "symbol"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">¥</span> + n or infinity + some elapse of time. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>About eternity<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The biggest concern I
have with our many perspectives of God, is not imposed by scripture. It is the
assumption that He lives in an eternal now, in a flux of past, present and
future. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I reject that. It
would mean that God is constantly reliving what His Son so painfully resolved.
I rather lean to the Einsteinian idea of an event horizon. It is defined as a
boundary of space-time, which in layman’s terms means the boundary of an event
in a given time and place.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What I allude to is
the idea that the creation was an event horizon with a discrete beginning and
future end. It dawned, it reached its fullness at Calvary and it will set. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>God lives in a linear eternity<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The number system is
infinite. You can go from minus infinity to positive infinity. However, no
matter how long the line, it is still linear. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It proceeds logically
from left to right or from lowest to highest. It is never an amorphous
flux of events colliding into an eternal now, where past, present and future
are one. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I do not know enough
about God to stand on my head for this, but I am willing to state with
conviction that the ordered, rational God of my experience is linear.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
An obscure little reference
in Revelation 8:1 says there was “silence about an half hour”. It confirms that
heaven does have a concept of the linear nature of time and of time lapse. A
half hour in that world may have been eons for us, but it was marked. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
They knew that such a
moment had elapsed and they waited for it to be so.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, while I gladly
believe that God is eternal, I see that as still being a time-based thing, but
not as we understand time. It was a logical progression through the event horizons
of an advancing realm.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Acts 17:26 and Daniel
2:21 confirm that God appoints “seasons” and marks their onset and conclusion. Matthew
24:36 confirms that the marker of such “seasons” is the Father. He is the
divine metronome. It is His sole prerogative.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>That changes things for creation<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
A linear eternity
brings a different perspective to the new earth argument. If God does advance
along a logical continuum and can mark out the knots in the rope to record the
passage of time as a half hour, then His concept of a day is almost certainly
very different to ours.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Thus a day to Him is a
thousand years to us and vice versa. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
If Jesus were among us
today, He would still oppose the lateralist Pharisees who interpret the
scripture too selectively, too expediently, all in a misguided quest for
relevance. His concern would simply be, “are you relevant to man and irrelevant
to God?”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I dare not, ever,
compromise His precious, priceless truth to fit my reality. By His spoken word,
the dark void acquired life and became a profound creation. That same word,
spoken into my life, transformed me into something of value to Him.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The contemporary
interpretations of scripture are at risk of departing from the faith into a philosophy
that will once again exclude this Jesus as an inconvenient truth.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Yet, the same Jesus
would undoubtedly reserve a degree of disdain and rebuke for the literalist Sadducees,
who have subjected our faith to ridicule because what they profess is simply
not supportable in science.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Not a problem, they
might say. ‘Yes a problem’, God would say, for the invisible things of God are
clearly known and understood by what is made (Romans 1). If the two do not
reconcile, faith in God or our understanding of Him, will falter. Well so Paul
thinks and I like Paul.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(c) Peter Missing @ Bethelstone.com</div>
My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-42004257099855979162016-01-22T22:31:00.001-08:002016-01-24T04:09:58.780-08:00In the final analysis, God is God<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbV4ZYMvu7Yzo64zhErqwKMIdZpt2DSdTyEfLOM0FENTZtyce1YCeb4jCC4aatVfyEuwD7RdzuQJcEWBa8mZZkbZlUcdrBIOt18VKg3m9OxF55BqNcEER5AZC33X9S1TZreUraHOvOBnfX/s1600/GOD_IS_GOD_I_Am_Not_By_SG.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbV4ZYMvu7Yzo64zhErqwKMIdZpt2DSdTyEfLOM0FENTZtyce1YCeb4jCC4aatVfyEuwD7RdzuQJcEWBa8mZZkbZlUcdrBIOt18VKg3m9OxF55BqNcEER5AZC33X9S1TZreUraHOvOBnfX/s320/GOD_IS_GOD_I_Am_Not_By_SG.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
In 1965, British
songster Donavon sang, “ah but
I might as well try and catch the wind”.</div>
<br />
<o:p></o:p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I am studying Job
right now, a sophisticated philosophical discourse between Job, his wife, three
friends, a younger understudy and the great God above us all.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>It views Job’s crisis
from various perspectives. </b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It is a classic example of dramatic irony, in which the
actors are denied privy knowledge of the unseen causative events that
transpired in God’s court.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It’s a longer story,
but boils down to Satan approaching God’s court and challenging Job’s
righteousness on the grounds of divine protectionism. It implies that God is
subjective and biased, a heavy accusation for any court, let alone a divine
court.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Satan secures leave to
go against Job, initially limited to not touching the man, which resulted in
him touching every possible aspect of his life, short of his own physical being
– his children, livestock, wealth and so on were all game. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Not content with that,
given Job’s stoicism, Satan secured leave to also touch the man, with a
terrible blight – boils and sores, that reduced him to a cur.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The seemingly wise then enter the stage ... and the debate</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
His wife advised him
to curse God and die, thanks to her perception that God is a free agent, a
terrible power, unpredictable, unable to be known, given to impulsive whim,
without restraints and capable of doing whatever to whoever for no particular
reason.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Job rebukes her cynical
view and holds his own, humbled before God. His friends then attack the issue
from alternative angles – you sinned, you have not petitioned God for a
miracle, you don’t get God or, as his wife concluded, God is just being God.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, in the final
analysis the young Elihu cuts through the debate, dismissing the friends for
their a naive concepts of God, whilst rebuking Job for trying to justify
himself or for presuming that he was a victim of injustice.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well it’s a big
comeuppance for us all to find that we all qualify for life and its pains or
disappointments. Life is not fair, never has been and never will be.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
God seconds Elihu’s
position and then puts Job in his place by simply saying, “where were you when
I made the worlds?” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>God has the final say</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The debate concludes
with God implying that as God He does what He does, but never without reason.
He is just and integrous, needing no one to examine his integrity. He also
reveals the bigger picture and the cosmic struggles beyond our myopic and
selfish perspectives of life.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I listened to the world’s
leading (Christian) philosopher, Alivin Plantiga. He was asked to defend his
stance against naturism and materialism.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He elegantly cites the
chameleon, which can snare an insect with its tongue in a dazzlingly quick
burst of energy. That requires many calculations of distance, timing,
anticipation, the required power and so on. Yet, the Chameleon doesn’t really
think about it that much.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He just does. It is
far more instinctual than rational. He certainly does not reflect on moral
perspectives or whether the insect has a family to feed. He sees food, kills,
eats.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
If we were wholly
evolved and natural, we would only require the basic instinctual elements
needed to survive, without the restrains of a moral conscience. Yet we are
sentient. The naturist tries to argue that experience and learning wires such
neurological faculties into us. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Plantinga dismisses
that, yet in his final analysis he does a Job. He reflects on how he can gaze
on the mountains in his neighborhood or see the beauty all around him and
simply accept, without deep reflection, that God is God and God is good.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>In the final analysis</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
No matter how the 60%
of the scientific community that is atheist, might argue that all of this is
spontaneous, the faithful minority have defended a theistic view with elegance.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, having faced
life as Job did and having seen it all from both sides now, as Joni Mitchell
once sang, they eventually all reduce their faith to its fundamentals. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Instead of trying to
catch the wind by harnessing every argument for or against God, they concede
that it is, after all, still about faith. Our greatest gift enables us to peer
into the realms of mystery and see God, in crises, in highs and lows, in life
and death or in sadness and joy. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That is the cornerstone
of our belief system and Hebrews 11 agrees, that anyone who comes to God must
accept that He is and that He rewards all who believe in Him. The same God
simplified the worldview of a learned Moses to an unembellished, “I am who I am”.
Job agreed. So do I. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That, as Solomon said,
is the beginning of all wisdom. I therefore concede to David’s view, that only
the fool in his heart can say there is no God. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
(c) Peter Missing @ Bethelstone.comMy profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-68918416340370127272016-01-17T23:25:00.001-08:002016-01-17T23:52:36.540-08:00The biggest explosion ever recorded destroys as many of our ideas of God<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyx0yn5okIAzpTJKPbqvIsKs7uoiOPaCWoO6IGw1YBxJSScZPqswRX7fv-CpsOGgtIz5NRiqfswpVdGT9JG5r2Pcs-VFg58bRj5oPNMWCmGcS_rePtSQ-zdfUGQFcfwQEc_T8shKkSdI9Y/s1600/supernova-asassn-15lh-660x411.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyx0yn5okIAzpTJKPbqvIsKs7uoiOPaCWoO6IGw1YBxJSScZPqswRX7fv-CpsOGgtIz5NRiqfswpVdGT9JG5r2Pcs-VFg58bRj5oPNMWCmGcS_rePtSQ-zdfUGQFcfwQEc_T8shKkSdI9Y/s400/supernova-asassn-15lh-660x411.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
The SALT observatory in Sutherland, a remote and chilly village in South Africa, which has a telescope sensitive enough to detect a candle on the moon, has helped to reveal the magnitude of the greatest explosion ever recorded. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
ASASSN-15lh, about 3.8 billion light years away from us, exploded with a force equivalent to 200 supernovae and 570 billion times the power of our sun. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That would have consumed all of our solar system in a single event. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, it would also have significantly impacted the Milky Way galaxy. It certainly would have been 20 times the luminosity of the 100 billion stars in our galaxy. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The discovery was confirmed using a collaboration of observatories to pinpoint its location and measure its distance from us. The distance was measured using spectrographic tools. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How and why it happened, is shrouded in mystery, because it defies all known scientific theory and logic. It is an aberration. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That gives it astonishing intellectual credibility, because few scientists would confess to something that breaks down all they know. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I personally find young Earth arguments so spurious that I tend to just get irritated by what I regard as closed-mindedness. Worse, young Earth theories portray God as a magic-man, which is so at odds with His displayed character that I am left to wonder if we worship the same God. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The idea that God could create the world, which implies creating the universe that made that possible, within 7 calendar days, is such a stretch of imagination that it reduces God to a wand-waving magician. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The biblical context of God differs: We know not how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they fell, but the context suggests time – lots of it. It took almost 2,000 years to bring a flood of judgment. It took at least 500 more years to bring the law. The time to bring salvation was about 4,000 years. The time to destroy His enemies and judge the world, another 2,000 years. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I don’t know about you, but it seems most contradictory for someone capable of making a universe in a moment, to be incapable of achieving all the above in a similar moment.
In simple terms, God is a process or systemic thinker. His character is completely at odds with the instant thinking of this age. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To Him time, patience, endurance and persistence, are so dear to His heart that they express the essence of holy living and a meaningful relationship with Him. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This world prefers instant gratification, so I suppose that accounts for young Earth ideas, at least in part. However, the greater dilemma lies in a misconception of God.
It takes our engagement of Him out of the game and limits our walk with God to an inevitability. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That’s why some so naively say, “If it is your will God”. Why even bother to pray if He is just going to do what He does and wave His wand, anyway?
That all reduces our faith to a one-way street, where God does and we just receive it.
It also makes the cross a complete sham. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why so much agony and patient enduring, persistence through so many sifted hearts over so many eons, if God can sweep it all away in an instant.
Why indeed, should I persist in repentance and a long walk with God? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Where is the gain, what is the advantage? I can go to church and switch Him on and off in instant experiences that should suffice. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, when I see compelling evidence of a huge, logic-defying explosion, which is reliably reckoned, using powerful instruments, to be 3.8 billion light years away, and, as such, at least that old, I find it near impossible to consider young earth thinking. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After all, if the universe was billions of years in the making, and if that was required and unavoidable, could the same God who made that also be responsible for the immensely complex and sophisticated events that made this world, in a moment? I think not. </div>
<br />
(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.netMy profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-38439105534200579532015-12-24T01:21:00.001-08:002015-12-24T01:21:21.517-08:00Does Science confirm the existence of God<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UjGPHF5A6Po/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UjGPHF5A6Po?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.netMy profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-31942463045386938222015-12-03T07:53:00.000-08:002015-12-03T08:12:52.908-08:00Fingerprints of God video - great watch - all about stars and blackholes<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gedFW-uypvw/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gedFW-uypvw?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.netMy profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-19516426202837014102015-11-13T12:34:00.001-08:002015-11-13T12:34:19.277-08:00CS Lewis, Mere Christianity<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yaGwF7A79_w/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yaGwF7A79_w?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
https://www.youtube.com/user/CSLewisDoodleMy profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-51518320230896572832015-11-13T04:02:00.002-08:002015-11-13T12:31:34.458-08:00Blowing in the wind<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2714/4297952086_b2691cebe4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2714/4297952086_b2691cebe4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">A young soldier survived a wayward shot
from a German sniper, at Arnhem. His mother was quick to claim it as God’s hand.
Noted theological philosopher, CS Lewis was not impressed. He argued that the
bullet was influenced by the moral choice of the marksman and the forces of
nature. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">No Lewis is not a cynic, he was just trying
to arrive at a first cause for everything. He opposed the idea that nature
begat itself, and I agree. I see the hand of a creator.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Now, of course I think his argument is a tad
simplistic, but like Paul, Lewis is a virtual final authority.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"></span></div>
<a name='more'></a>My arguments traces to an obscure little
verse. <i>What, you want to take on Lewis
with one verse?</i> Yeah, but Jesus said it. <i>Oh yeah, that should do it.</i> Like heck it will. <o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">No, no, it is not like that at all. Jesus
said, “the wind blows where it wants to”. So the right understanding of the world
we live in, is that God made it, set it all in motion and defined the laws by
which it would work, but then let it run its own course. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">“So you are saying that the weather is not
God’s doing?” Yep. I also think that your praying that it won’t rain for your
daughter’s wedding is speculative, for the wind blows as it pleases. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Some argue that Matthew 5 proves that Jesus
changed the laws of Moses, when, in spite of saying said He would not change a
single jot or tittle, He seemingly did just that.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Wrong. He didn’t
change the laws of Moses, but reinforced and clarified them. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Let me explain. God empowered the universe
to follow its own course within the confines of His predefined laws, else He
would have had to judge what He caused. That casts a big question mark over the
idea of first cause? After all who causes marriages to fail, exams to pass,
etc?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Jesus understood that and refused to alter
God’s laws. Rather He reconciled us to them, else He would have been a reformer
and His death would have been an avoidable sham. Thus, instead of dying He should
have just changed the law without the need for a cross. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Okay, so why the heavy theology? Because I
have longed, with every fiber of my being, for God to act. I have often
wondered, “who am I fooling? Will I ever see my years fulfilled?”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The cynic in me leans to the wind again.
Circumstantially speaking, anyone who works hard enough, for long enough on the
same thing, will succeed. God is incidental to that, but like the bullet and the
marksman, many would claim divine providence for it, anyway.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Yet, there is a subtle difference. Whilst
God certainly allows life to follow its laws, He has the most profound sense of
timing. He anticipates its predictable ebbs and flows. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">By what vast genius was Jesus born on the night
of a once-in-a-millennia conjunction of planets and in perfect fulfillment of
many prophecies, in a time when Rome and Greece had paved the roads and
universalized the language that would carry the gospel to the world?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Coincidence? Okay, so how did He also bring
Jesus to His cross exactly 483 years after Nehemiah’s decree, exactly as Daniel
prophesied, yet in line with other significant cosmic events? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">A lot of life may be circumstantial, but
the timing of events that brings your years of preparation through times you
cannot grasp, to the opportunities you never saw coming, isn’t.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Enough said. God works all things together
for good to those who love Him and one day the rustling of leaves in the trees will signal the fulfillment of all you have trusted Him for – if you keep going. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">I close with another obscure verse from
John 17, also from Jesus, who said: “Now is the time”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-1567587681217742702015-10-31T07:52:00.002-07:002015-10-31T07:52:47.009-07:00As old as .... <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoL2M7WhyphenhyphenHIhaK1xnsAH9ZNdItoweY0qkNn4M9jBhar7glLNSTn1W6aYQX0g63G-W4LvXLUEy4F0D58rT2AM5lQpl0zVNiYraeD-mskjI9wLRqnln5dEY4QoY84h7KnRHrc0zzN6f7lEJS/s1600/HeavenAndEarth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoL2M7WhyphenhyphenHIhaK1xnsAH9ZNdItoweY0qkNn4M9jBhar7glLNSTn1W6aYQX0g63G-W4LvXLUEy4F0D58rT2AM5lQpl0zVNiYraeD-mskjI9wLRqnln5dEY4QoY84h7KnRHrc0zzN6f7lEJS/s1600/HeavenAndEarth.jpg" height="200" width="200" /></a>I read an article by a
leading associate of Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, and whilst I do sincerely
respect AIG, I feel the article (Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?,
Ken Ham, 2007) is worthy of some rebuttal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He opens his arguments
from Mark 10:6, “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and
female.” That is used to argue that Adam and Eve were with God from the outset,
so the creation had to be young. That is just simply not biblical. Adam and Eve
were created on day 6, not on day 1. Thus Jesus had something else in mind.</div>
<a name='more'></a><o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What He meant, and it
is confirmed as a creation theme, is that the principle of complementary
genders would run right through the creation event. It meant that plants,
animals, humans, insects, even bacterial life, and the basic building block of
matter, the atom, would apply that principle.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I accept that the atom
is not male or female in the biological sense, but its positive or negative
polarity carries the same basic idea to the most fundamental level of all
physics. As such, the principle also extends to the universe. So Jesus was
right, but Ham is not on the money.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Then Ham refers to
Jesus again in Mark 13:9, with the familiar verse, “He was slain from the foundation
of the world”, which he uses to argue that the sin and the sufferings of
humanity started early in the creation event and so creation could not have
happened over a long period, but over the lifetime of Adam and Eve. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I am sorry, that argument
is mired in error, for it implies that Jesus future death was a plan B or
consequence of the fall, where in truth the creation was God’s response to sin
and that dates back to the rebellion in heaven. Thus the garden used the tree
of knowledge to exempt us from sin’s consequences without removing its
implications. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Jesus was slain from the
foundation because He underwrote the creation. He was set aside from the outset
as the guarantee of a redemptive plan. God always meant His son to die, to
resolve sin. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, Ham has it wrong
again. His argument neither directly nor indirectly proves the age of the
universe.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He further argues that
Exodus 20:11 should be read literally, when it says that God founded the earth
in 6 days and rested on the seventh and that the seventh was a Sabbath day. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well already we are in trouble there, because Hebrew tradition recognized a Sabbath
year, a Jubilee year (7 x 7 years) and then in various scriptures it uses day
and eon interchangeably. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, Peter taught
that a “day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day”. In Daniel’s
prophecy of 70 weeks we know that a week is a period of seven years. How can
anyone so adamantly state that Moses spoke of 7 calendar days. That is not
exegetic-ally sound. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Quoting Luke 13:14
that man should work six days and rest the seventh, is firstly incontrovertible
and acceptable, biblically speaking, but secondly not presented by Jesus as
confirmation of a seven day creation horizon. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Using the argument itself to defend
itself, is like recognizing a guilty man’s personal confession as a valid legal
argument, when the bible clearly demands separate witnesses.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Ham then goes on to
quote a series of literal events in early biblical history, like the union of
Adam and Eve, the death of Abel, the flood and so on, as evidence that
everything the bible says must be taken literally do you mean, as in “if you
have the faith of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain be removed and
be cast into the sea”. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I certainly agree
that the historicity of bible events is intended to be read literally, but
saying that the concept “day” as used in Genesis 1 implies an “eon”, not a
physical day, is also literal and is not demanded by the text. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, really where
Ham fails to find support is that a calendar day only appeared on day 4, yet
prior to that, God recognized a day as having an evening and morning even though
no physical evidence of a sunrise or sunset was present until the 4<sup>th</sup>
day when the sun, moon and stars appeared.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Ham then tries some
Pauline teachings, as in Colossians 1:16-17, to confirm that Jesus was the agent
of creation. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Great, I agree, so does John 1 and other scriptures, yet the bible
does so without for one single moment confirming that Jesus then created it all
in 6 calendar days. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
One potential argument
relates to how Jesus always spoke a miracle into an instant existence. Yet that
is not supportable either. We see miracles throughout scripture that had time
lapses. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
How quickly did the fig tree wither? The man who washed in the Jordan
seven times, was not healed immediately and Elijah’s servant had to go back
seven times to see a cloud the size of a man’s hand. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That said, Jesus
functioned in the immediate when He was on earth. He disrupted nature
deliberately, to prove a point. A miracle is defined as a disruption of nature,
but creation does not even qualify as “creation” if it was a disruption of
itself. As such, God said that he “formed” man from the dust of the earth, not “He
waved a wand and it was suddenly so”.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Finally Ham uses a
circuitous argument to make the point that Jesus spoke to the patriarchs, that
He appeared to them. I am not convinced, yet accept it might have been so. In the
fire of Babylon, “one like unto the son of God appeared”, but the visitors to
Abraham at Mamre, were three. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Clearly an angel
appeared to Mary and it is not known what Moses saw other than a burning bush,
when He heard God speak. He is the only man ever known to have seen God and
even then He saw the back of God. So
that creates a non-sequitur for Ham, because if it wasn’t Jesus who said the world
were created in 6 days, the evidence is insupportable and goes to speculation.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Personally, there are
far bigger concerns with New Earth theories, but I will tackle that next time. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>
My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-65727810317761600632015-10-30T08:42:00.003-07:002015-10-30T08:45:39.772-07:00The breath of life<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/91/19/e7/9119e73bbba5f32b5da1593c6e2c6418.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/91/19/e7/9119e73bbba5f32b5da1593c6e2c6418.jpg" width="200" /></a>The discovery of pristine Oxygen on a comet, has puzzled scientists. The
problem that the ESA probe, Rosetta, has now posed, is how oxygen can exist in
a virgin state when it is so renowned for combining or oxidizing just about
every possible element in the periodic table.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Originally the earth acquired its oxygen via photosynthesis, hence
plants had to precede animal life, just as Genesis 1 confirms. Plants could
feed on the carbon-dioxide-rich atmosphere and reproduce oxygen, but it
evidently took a long time for the earth to acquire enough oxygen to support
life.<br />
<a name='more'></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Actually, the original producers were not plants per se, but cyanobacteria,
a kind of green, pond algae. Plants still coopt cyanobacteria to do the work of
synthesizing carbon-dioxide into carbohydrates and oxygen. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Prior to cyanobacteria, primitive microbes existed anaerobically,
consuming carbon dioxide without producing oxygen, but that changed after the
big oxygen event – an event that is evident from rusted iron deposits dating
back to that era and estimated to have happened about 2.7billion years back. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It occurred when iron deposits in the sea, so-called oxygen sinks, could
no longer absorb oxygen. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That triggered the oxygenation of the atmosphere, the biosphere
we now live in. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It took another billion years for there to be enough oxygen to support
biological and animal life, a period called the “boring billions”. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Eventually,
thanks to tectonic plate movements and volcanic activity, the oxygen levels on
earth settled at 21% of the atmosphere and stabilized there. Any more, starts
to become poisonous and excessively corrosive, any less de-energizes organic
life and can lead to death.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, I am no biologist, I just am amazed that the pattern of events so
faithfully tracks the sequence of events found in Genesis 1. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://img.gizmag.com/rosetta-smell-1.jpg?fit=crop&h=296&w=296&s=464267e77980b72743d7e3c32a816345" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://img.gizmag.com/rosetta-smell-1.jpg?fit=crop&h=296&w=296&s=464267e77980b72743d7e3c32a816345" height="200" width="200" /></a>I am oft-bemused by the assertion that the earth was made in 7 calendar
days, when the concept of day and night only emerged on day 4. Yet God said of
days 1-3 that “the evening and morning was the nth day”. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He clearly did not
speak of a sunset and sunrise as we know it, but rather an “event horizon”, as
Einstein would have put it. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Light would certainly have been the first evidence of the universe, as the
big bang expanded at a rate greater than the speed of light, from what we call
the singularity: an infinitely dense concentration of matter and energy that
birthed all matter as we know it. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The brightness of that event is somewhat understated
by Genesis 1, as in “let there be light and there was light”. It was the most
notable feature of a massively bright event. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Day 2 saw the separation of our atmosphere from space, a necessary and
logical next step. That atmosphere was dense enough and also constantly lit
(there was no day and night at that stage), to make day 3 possible. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That
resulted in a massive growth in vegetation. The earth was a veritable
greenhouse. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The apparent reason for a continuous day was the suspension of hydrogen
in the upper atmosphere, which at extremely low temperatures becomes like
metal, able to reflect light from the sun to ensure light on the “dark side”. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Perhaps also, the earth had yet to settle into an orbital path and its own
rotation. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So then, day 4 confirms a normalization of our habitat, resulting in
days and nights, but evidently the atmosphere also thinned and clarified as
temperatures on the surface stabilized, so stars, the moon and the sun, all
became distinct to observers on the earth surface (if there were any). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Then came day 5. As already indicated, ocean life preceded land life.
Birds also took to flight. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Finally on day 6, when the biosphere was ready for it, animals emerged,
followed by man. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I have been reading how some new earthers claim that Jesus confirmed a
six day event. Hardly, but what’s worse is that in doing so they make exegetic
errors that take the body of scripture of out of context. However, I can’t go there
now – another day. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Suffice to say for now, that at least both new and old earthers agree that
the phases of creation are consistent with science, even if the timing thereof
is disputed. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I just find it remarkable that a book written thousands of years ago by
a relatively primitive man, could so accurately trace what is a complex
scientific phenomenon. That is just one way the bible validates itself.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p> </o:p>(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>
My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-27849948573983531872015-08-27T04:38:00.000-07:002015-08-27T11:15:22.556-07:00Let's just make it fit<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQW-qQZ5lDt5lnKB7pkb7FMXn8sib2DSvO_ZkAbeYyoA5n8Xv4Mhw" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: justify;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQW-qQZ5lDt5lnKB7pkb7FMXn8sib2DSvO_ZkAbeYyoA5n8Xv4Mhw" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It amazes me what lengths new earth thinkers will go to squeeze the creator
into seven calendar days, when the bible does not presuppose that a day equals
a day. Even our vernacular accepts that a day can mean an era, an epoch, a
season, or a 24-hour moment of time.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The bible uses the word interchangeably – as in the moment Jesus stood
in the synagogue to echo Isaiah’s words, “… to proclaim the year of God’s favor”,
which ended up being 2,000 years. The 70 weeks of Daniel alluded to 490 years,
the 3.5 days in the two semesters of tribulation implied 3½ years, and
Peter confirmed that a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a
day. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
I have read a lot about neo-creationists views and as many rebuttals.
The arguments range around Carbon 14 dating, sediment layers in the sea or on
the moon, conservation of momentum and angular momentum arguments and so much
more, all of which have been found to be as thin if not thinner than “a cup of
homeopathic soup made from a dead pigeon that had been starved to death”. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Angular momentum intrigues me right now, for it argues that the spinning of the singularity must be preserved for all massive bodies. That assumes that what was almost certainly not mass, but pure energy, was spinning at all. However, as observed in say a moon of Jupiter, bodies can enter a system and be influenced by its gravity to trigger a new angular momentum state. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Another argument is that plant life could not have survived from day 3
without sunlight, which only appeared on day 4. Yet, there was light from Day
1. So the neo-creationist will then try to squeeze the magical-mystical tour of
the ages into another caveat, namely that the light that sustained organic
growth was the light of Christ … and all along I thought the “God of the gaps”
was either the way of the ignorant dark ages or of creative evolutionists. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Anything else would contradict John 1, so they argue, for John said, “In
the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God, and
by Him all things were made and … He is the light that shines in a dark place
and the darkness does not comprehend it”. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The problem now is that Jesus was, by implication, made … on the 1<sup>st</sup>
day. For God said, “Let there be light”. So now the creator was created. Of
course that must fit somehow, and if it doesn’t we will further distort reality
until it fits our script.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The Big Bang may not be fully refined and may yet evolve into something
more elegant than we now accept, as happened to E=M or relativity. However, it
was logically triggered by something external to it, for Thermodynamics
confirms that nothing inside a system can move to a higher state of existence
without an external stimulus. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Kalam argued that: everything that begins to exist has a cause; but
the universe began to exist; Therefore: The universe has a cause. In other words, Kalam, a Muslim scholar,
argued that nothing comes from nothing. So what happened in the Big Bang? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Presumably, the energy inside the singularity was immense, as it
probably had translated all available mass to energy to facilitate what many
perceive as infinite density. That would not have been enough to trigger a Big
Bang sequence, which was not an explosion or a bang but a rapid expansion from
a pinhead of super-matter to a universe.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So what added the last straw and what
defined its subsequent behavior? We know that the four primary laws of physics
were defined well inside the first second of that event horizon, namely, the
strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and electromagnetic radiation. That is consistent with what God said to Job 38:5, "Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?"<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That provides some clue of what happened next. To fulfil Genesis 1:3,
light had to have been evident and it was, because Jesus the logos light of the
world, the truth of God and the illuminator of every heart, created the electromagnetic
and energy conditions needed for light to flood the universe.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That was not possible until then, because the singularity trapped all
matter and all light inside itself, resulting in “… and the world was without
form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep”.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
The creator was not a created light, but the creator or instigator of
light. Through that, He triggered life. In effect, He also defined another law,
the constant of energy that defines its relationship with mass and regulates
all physical conditions, namely the speed of light.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
From day 1 or the emergence of light, other logical phases occurred in
line with Genesis 1, to drive the nothingness of the universe to its ultimate
objective: the earth and its formation. Each phase logically enabled each
subsequent phase until man could take His place on that dome. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So how then did the plants survive without sunlight prior to day 4? Well
by the same light that still powers our world – the light of stars. Maybe earth
wasn’t inside this solar system yet, who knows?<br />
<br />
Maybe its formative heat bred a
very dense atmosphere and high greenhouse conditions, which also facilitated the radiation needed for heavy elements, but which subsequently led to the dynamic changes that separated the sea and dry land on the same day as vegetation appeared. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Some argue that hydrogen trapped in the upper atmosphere might have
enabled perpetual light, as starlight diffused through the atmosphere to light
the earth. Whatever, we know that sunlight is not a condition for organic life,
light is and whatever lit the earth sparked rapid organic growth. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I tend to feel that what is defined as another creation event was just
the thinning of the atmosphere so we could distinguish the lights beyond our
atmosphere, coincidental with the earth being trapped inside our sun’s gravity
to commence its orbit and rotation, so that day and night started to rule. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, there is so much to say, but also a time to stop saying. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I conclude by saying that whereas theists once had to defend that the universe and time had a beginning, the Big Bang resolved the dilemma, only for neo-creationists to dilute that victory with an insistence on timing that is not required by the biblical narrative and is certainly not irreverent. When will we learn to enjoy the only true side of truth that will ever prevail, namely Christ? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>
My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-10899164743672393722015-08-26T01:33:00.000-07:002016-01-19T22:07:51.953-08:00And God said ....<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://pre02.deviantart.net/53e3/th/pre/i/2014/098/1/d/when_the_universe_conspires____by_razielmb-d7djk01.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: justify;"><img border="0" src="http://pre02.deviantart.net/53e3/th/pre/i/2014/098/1/d/when_the_universe_conspires____by_razielmb-d7djk01.png" height="200" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The Big Bang concept
was first postulated by Belgian priest and astronomer, Georges Lemaître. However,
the expression was coined by noted astrologer Fred Hoyle.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The latter chose the term
pejoratively, because he had so long advocated a dying theory, that of a steady
state universe. The irony is that Stephen Hawking had hoped to have Hoyle as
his supervisor, but fate conspired to leave him in the more inspirational hands
of Dennis Sciama. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What a difference that
little decision made. Sciama brought the very best out of Hawking and continued
to promote his ideas long after Hoyle walked away in disgust over the threats
posed by Hawking’s Black Hole research.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
Hawking, whether out
of a desire to stick it to the man or because it was the obvious conclusion to
draw, hailed the COBE confirmation of the Big Bang theory as the single
greatest discovery in human history. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The COBE satellite observed
that galactic material was expanding from a common point, although why it was
doing so at an increasing rate remains a mystery to science. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Hoyle’s steady state
model argued that the universe was a steady phenomenon that had always been
there, but which was expanding through the creation of new matter. That simply
dispensed with any need for God as it implied that the universe was spontaneous
and independent. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
COBE cut that down to the
most telling conclusion of all, that the universe and time had a beginning. It
coincidentally fitted with Hawking’s research into black holes, which are
microcosms of the singularity from which our universe birthed. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
COBE backed up the
basic observation with further breakthroughs, notably that the universe had
cooled down at a rate of uniformity that is consistent with the cooling down of
a radiator. Initially that posed other concerns, for the curve was so smooth
that it did not provide the conditions needed for clustering of matter, but
increases in the sensitivity of COBE measuring devices enhanced the resolution
to reveal the fluctuations that were needed, amazingly so.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, for the first
time in perhaps all history, the creationist view of the universe had real support.
The facts seemed irrefutable and evidence mounted in favor of the Big Bang
model. Of course, it has had its fair share of intellectual scrutiny, as did the
theories of Einstein – that is the stuff of robust theory, but it also helps to
refine original arguments – and so we progress in science.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, many theists
find the theory unpalatable. It seems the most compelling reason traces back to
the dogmatic view of the middle ages: that the earth is at the center of all
creation, which is not so in the Big Bang model. It seems a bit arrogant to
assume it should be, the way that the geocentric (sun revolving around the
earth) model defied all reason in the times of Galileo. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, whatever, the Big
Bang happens to fit with the biblical narrative, very tidily so too. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
“In the beginning, the
earth was without form and void”. Well guess what, the singularity existed as
the sole fragment of matter in an empty void. It had to be so, for the black
hole was so massive that it would have digested all matter anyway, but it also
bent light and repressed it, resulting in a dark void of nothingness
surrounding a super-massive singularity the size of this full stop. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Then God said, “Let
there be light”. Guess what happened in the instant that the singularity
started to release its pent-up energy and mass … light was no longer captive
and, because light travels faster than anything else, it would have illuminated
the void. That is not because it was a big, bright explosion … that is a
misconception. A bang never happened, the singularity just expanded. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
At some stage, it
defied specific relativity, but fulfilled general relativity, by expanding
faster than light – somewhere between 10<sup>-33</sup> and 10<sup>-36</sup>
seconds after the onset of the Big Bang event. The energy required to achieve that was beyond
all human comprehension. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Then, without sifting
through the days of creation and all that surrounds that, we observe a guiding
principle – the universe evolved. That is exactly what we observe in Genesis 1,
with each day being an essential enabler of the days that followed in a
sequence that was critical to orderly creation. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What I will also
observe is that the scriptures are replete with confirming language of all of
this. Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 48:13 and 51:13, all
confirm that God stretched out the heavens. That confirms an expansion and
spreading out of matter, consistent with the Big Bang argument. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Edwin Hubble derived
the Hubble Volume, which limits the observable universe to an age of about
14billion years. He was a theist. How could he say that? Yet the bible concurs,
in Psalm 102:25,26: "Of <b>old</b>
hast Thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of Thy
hands. They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure”.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, the Psalmist
continued with, “they all shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt Thou
change them, and they shall be changed." That ties in with Hebrews 1:12,
in which the writer confirms that God will <b>roll</b>
the garment up. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Wow. Einstein’s
General Relativity perceived the space-time continuum as a flat sheet that could
bend to alter our perception of time, without changing the speed of light.
Indeed, any observation of galaxies will confirm a high propensity for flat,
disk shaped structures spread out from a singular core: a black hole. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I won’t go into all of
that, but the scriptures seem to have observed, long before science or our best
minds ever did, characteristics of the universe that could not have been contrived
by the relatively unrefined and ill-equipped minds that wrote about it all so
long ago. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>
My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158460022706588016.post-17882906781597449722015-08-20T01:20:00.000-07:002015-08-20T09:53:04.795-07:00A world in crisis<a href="http://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/global-crisis.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: justify;"><img border="0" src="http://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/global-crisis.jpg" height="200" width="200" /></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In June 1967, the Arab states surrounding Israel, initiated the Yom Kippur war. They chose to attack on Israel’s most unguarded, vulnerable day: a day when that nation always bows in solemn contrition to make atonement for their sins. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
September 23, 2015 marks the start of the 49th year since the June 1967 uprising. We are entering the 49th year and that is how the bible dealt it. The seventh day is day of the Sabbath, the seventh year was a Sabbath year and the 49th year is a Jubilee year. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It marks 7 x 7 years or seven Sabbath periods. It was a time defined by God to release all debts and free all slaves. On that day, many slaves would voluntarily choose to remain in the house of their masters, bound by love, through a hole drilled in their ear lobes.<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Could September 23 mark the fulfilment of the years needed to atone for the offence to God’s people and does that mark the moment when God exacts vengeance on the offenders?<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On that day, the Pope will visit the US and the next day he will be the first ever pope to address the US congress. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I do know from eschatology that the New World Order is likely to introduce a socialist order that starts with the cancellation of debts in exchange for allegiance to that order, and what the bible refers to as “the prince” or “Antichrist”. They will accept a mark of allegiance that will enable them to function within the system, but it is a mark of enslavement.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The technology for that is mature. Biometric identification was perfected by Mondex, which means Money + Dexterity or “Money through your right hand”. It uses a RFID tag embedded in the right hand. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Not all technology is bad, per se. A lot of technology has benefitted the world, greatly, and an RFID tag may well help to curb crime and make our world a safer place. Thus, I will take a sober stance on Mondex, for it is not the technology per se that is sinister, but how a darker mind might use it – and I can’t really speculate about that. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Coinciding with the deception of freedom will be the truer freedom for those who, though free in Christ, choose to seal their love and faith, by remaining the bond-slaves of Christ: our master and king. True freedom was always defined by the right to choose yet choosing to do right. That is what Oscar Schindler said to camp commandant Amon Goeth. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
According to the Book of Revelations, angels will seal those who invoke covenant with Christ. The releasing of apocalyptic judgments will exempt them, just as the angel of death once passed over the Jews awaiting liberation from Egypt. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is interesting how many speculations and conspiracies have coincided with this period. Some believe a comet or large asteroid is heading our way, but NASA firmly denies that. With so many amateur astrologers around, NASA would find it hard to conceal a different reality. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Besides there is an army of conspiracy theorists who are hell-bent on making a case for such a catastrophe, so if there was any real evidence I am sure it would have surfaced already. Truly, it is hard to sift fact from fiction and to stay sober in the face of rapidly advancing events, because the theorists are also generally ill-informed and overly-emotive. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Certainly we do expect the 4th lunar eclipse or so-called “blood moon”, in a rare tetrad last seen when Israel become a state in 1948. That is a mathematical certainty and will certainly coincide with the feast of trumpets in September this year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Trumpets will herald the judgments of God according to Revelations, so it would fit the whole script for the trumpets of Israel to herald a period of great upheaval. Could this herald an earthquake capable of felling the Abomination of Desolation? Would that bring atonement for June 1967 by enabling the rebuilding of the temple? Could the trumpets herald a season of global economic collapse? Could we see a catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I suspect that is all possible. What I do, however, think is certain, aside from any physical upheavals, is a more subtle shift in global politics that will have far-reaching consequences for the world, as we know it. What form that will take, I can’t tell. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Many significant watershed moments in history passed unnoticed. Even the birth of Jesus or the cross where He died, was witnessed by few. A handful witnessed the Treaty of Versailles, the surrender of Japan and the suicide of Hitler. My view of world affairs and of God’s ways has always been one of not letting the obvious obscure the significance of the less obvious. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, whatever, I do think we live in very serious times. Top financial experts like Buffet have confirmed their worry about a coming economic storm. World resources indices have tumbled. China is in financial trouble. The global climate is showing serious signs of stress. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Drought and famine is spreading in Africa and Australia. Rampant fires are raging in California. Trouble is all around us – that is not speculation. You can read it all in the daily news. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The question is, “What will you do about it?” Will you cut your losses, make your salvation sure in Christ and accept the price that will demand, or will you trade your soul for the alternatives on offer and pay a price anyway? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The day is soon coming where sitting on the fence will not be the third option. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>
My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0