Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
DAVEH: Ayou are beginning to realize my point, Izzy. Likewise, if the torment of hell is not a literal burning lake of brimstone, then perhaps the pain of being separated from the love of the Lord can also reside within one's heart. ShieldsFamily wrote: It has not been quenched. It is alive today in my heart. izzy DAVEH: I would think anybody who understands that the argument of using a burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire is a bit weak if that unquenchable fire (burning bush) has been quenched. ShieldsFamily wrote: Yours? DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic. ShieldsFamily wrote: Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning. David Miller wrote: DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a "literal impossibility" is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? David Miller Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science book" per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called "science" Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
DH says perhaps the pain of being separated from the love of the Lord can also reside within one's heart. Interesting Pain can reside within, but not God? Surely the LDS god can not reside in ones heart because as a man with a Body he just will not fit!Dwell in your heart? 1835 DC 130:3 says, The idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a mans heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false. BUT 1830 Alma 34:36, it says, And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell. The TRUTH on PRAYER! 1998 Elder Bruce R. McConkie clearly explained what our relationship with each member of the Godhead should be, pointing out that some misguided members of the Church may begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed with him. This is wrong, said Elder McConkie. We should pray directly to the Father... The Ensign, June 1998, p. 591830 ...Jesus came and stood in the midst...he spake unto the multitude, and commanded them that they should kneel down again upon the earth, and also that his disciples should kneel down upon the earth. And it came to pass that when they had all knelt down upon the earth, he commanded his disciples that they should pray. And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God. 3 Nephi 19:15-18THE TRUTH on WORSHIP! 1830 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ... wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out. 2 Nephi 25:291986 We Worship the Father... In an official interpretation of Moses 1:6, the First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, And Charles W. Penrose) said: But the sole object of worship, God the eternal Father, stands supreme and alone... Who is the sole object of worship?... President George Q. Cannon taught: ...We know also that our Father in Heaven should be the object of our worship... He will not have any divided worship. We are commanded to worship Him, and Him only. (Gospel Truth, 1:135) Come Unto Christ Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, 1986, p. 46-47Joe refutes the BoM! or BoM True or not? 1830 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.Moroni 8:18 ...the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all etnernity...Mosiah 3:5 1844 We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea,...he was once a man like usTeachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-346More LDS Evolution of God1830 Modalistic ONE god 1835 two gods 1844 Plural gods Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: Ayou are beginning to realize my point, Izzy. Likewise, if the torment of hell is not a literal burning lake of brimstone, then perhaps the pain of being separated from the love of the Lord can also reside within one's heart.ShieldsFamily wrote: It has not been quenched. It is alive today in my heart. izzyDAVEH: I would think anybody who understands that the argument of using a burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire is a bit weak if that unquenchable fire (burning bush) has been quenched.ShieldsFamily wrote: Yours?DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic.ShieldsFamily wrote: Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? izDoesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning.David Miller wrote: DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a "literal impossibility" is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?David MillerWhy try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science book" per se.Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called "science"Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics?Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ...KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment.a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereasmental torment can go on forever.So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he hadpromised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who wasable to roll back the Red Sea until his people
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Let me try and break it down for you. Fire normally consumes the fuel from which it originates. This is why we do not have experience with the idea of an unquenchable fire. Even the sun will burn out one day, because the fuel which is burning there will be used up. The bush that Moses saw was different. The bush was not consumed. The fire existed without consuming the fuel. Given this observation, that the fuel was not consumed, it serves as an observation of the idea that a fire might exist that does not consume fuel and would therefore never be extinguished. This does not PROVE the idea of an unquenchable fire, because there are other possible explanations for what he observed, but it is evidence for it because it was a fire that was different from our normal experiences with fire, an observation that suggests a fire that burns without showing any indication of ending and without consuming that which itengulfs. Does this help you understand the logic any better? David Miller - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 but it does logically support the idea that he is capable (of creating an unquenchable fire), even though the bush is not burning right now.DAVEH: I'd (respectfully) say your logic is flawed on this one, DavidM. David Miller wrote: The burning bush is not a weak observation concerning the question of whether or not God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire. It would not be proof that he has done it, but it does logically support the idea that he is capable, even though the bush is not burning right now. By the way, when I climbed Mount Sinai, they have a rock there with black magnesium deposits that make it look like a bush was burned into the rocks. The guide there tells everyone that it is the burning bush of Moses. :-) David Miller DAVEH: I would think anybody who understands that the argument of using a burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire is a bit weak if that unquenchable fire (burning bush) has been quenched. ShieldsFamily wrote: Yours? DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic. ShieldsFamily wrote: Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning. David Miller wrote: DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a "literal impossibility" is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? David Miller Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science book" per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called "science" Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
David:Do you truly believe (of course you do) that your logic, the logic of Scripture and God's logic are all the same? - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 22, 2006 08:20 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Let me try and break it down for you. Fire normally consumes the fuel from which it originates. This is why we do not have experience with the idea of an unquenchable fire. Even the sun will burn out one day, because the fuel which is burning there will be used up. The bush that Moses saw was different. The bush was not consumed. The fire existed without consuming the fuel. Given this observation, that the fuel was not consumed, it serves as an observation of the idea that a fire might exist that does not consume fuel and would therefore never be extinguished. This does not PROVE the idea of an unquenchable fire, because there are other possible explanations for what he observed, but it is evidence for it because it was a fire that was different from our normal experiences with fire, an observation that suggests a fire that burns without showing any indication of ending and without consuming that which itengulfs. Does this help you understand the logic any better? David Miller - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 but it does logically support the idea that he is capable (of creating an unquenchable fire), even though the bush is not burning right now.DAVEH: I'd (respectfully) say your logic is flawed on this one, DavidM. David Miller wrote: The burning bush is not a weak observation concerning the question of whether or not God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire. It would not be proof that he has done it, but it does logically support the idea that he is capable, even though the bush is not burning right now. By the way, when I climbed Mount Sinai, they have a rock there with black magnesium deposits that make it look like a bush was burned into the rocks. The guide there tells everyone that it is the burning bush of Moses. :-) David Miller DAVEH: I would think anybody who understands that the argument of using a burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire is a bit weak if that unquenchable fire (burning bush) has been quenched. ShieldsFamily wrote: Yours? DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic. ShieldsFamily wrote: Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning. David Miller wrote: DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a "literal impossibility" is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? David Miller Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science book" per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called "science" Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Lance wrote: Do you truly believe (of course you do) that your logic, the logic of Scripture and God's logic are all the same Of course! Logic is logic, whether it is employed by Scripture, by God, or by me. The logic is all the same. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Yours? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:00 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic. ShieldsFamily wrote: Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 2:14 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning. David Miller wrote: DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a literal impossibility is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?David Miller- Original Message - From: Judy TaylorTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:45 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a science book per se.Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called scienceAre you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics?Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ...KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment.a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereasmental torment can go on forever.So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he hadpromised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who wasable to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrsfeeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet fromswelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on waterThe God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot andhad the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave.Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explainHim?On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you.Lance -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
DAVEH: I would think anybody who understands that the argument of using a burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire is a bit weak if that unquenchable fire (burning bush) has been quenched. ShieldsFamily wrote: Yours? DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic. ShieldsFamily wrote: Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning. David Miller wrote: DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a "literal impossibility" is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? David Miller Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science book" per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called "science" Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
It has not been quenched. It is alive today in my heart. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 9:03 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 DAVEH: I would think anybody who understands that the argument of using a burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire is a bit weak if that unquenchable fire (burning bush) has been quenched. ShieldsFamily wrote: Yours? DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic. ShieldsFamily wrote: Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning. David Miller wrote: DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a literal impossibility is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?David MillerWhy try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a science book per se.Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called scienceAre you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics?Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ...KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment.a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereasmental torment can go on forever.So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he hadpromised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who wasable to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrsfeeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet fromswelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on waterThe God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot andhad the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave.Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explainHim?On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you.Lance -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
The burning bush is not a weak observation concerning the question of whether or not God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire. It would not be proof that he has done it, but it does logically support the idea that he is capable, even though the bush is not burning right now. By the way, when I climbed Mount Sinai, they have a rock there with black magnesium deposits that make it look like a bush was burned into the rocks. The guide there tells everyone that it is the burning bush of Moses. :-) David Miller - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 DAVEH: I would think anybody who understands that the argument of using a burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire is a bit weak if that unquenchable fire (burning bush) has been quenched. ShieldsFamily wrote: Yours? DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic. ShieldsFamily wrote: Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning. David Miller wrote: DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a literal impossibility is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? David Miller Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a science book per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called science Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
And I would think that it would be easy for you to answer why you take part of the same sentence/verse figurative and another literal. I asked; you avoided, because there is no logical reason to do so, just an Emotive one! --- Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: I would think anybody who understands that the argument of using a burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of creating an *unquenchable fire* is a bit weak if that *unquenchable fire* (burning bush) has been quenched. ShieldsFamily wrote: Yours? ** DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic. ShieldsFamily wrote: Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz *Doesn't that teach us something about God's * *abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?* DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning. David Miller wrote: DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a literal impossibility is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. *Doesn't that teach us something about God's * *abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?* David Miller Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a science book per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called science Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
DAVEH: Was there a question somewhere in there, Kevin? Kevin Deegan wrote: And I would think that it would be easy for you to answer why you take part of the same sentence/verse figurative and another literal. I asked; you avoided, because there is no logical reason to do so, just an Emotive one! --- Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: I would think anybody who understands that the argument of using a burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of creating an *unquenchable fire* is a bit weak if that *unquenchable fire* (burning bush) has been quenched. ShieldsFamily wrote: Yours? ** DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic. ShieldsFamily wrote: Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz *Doesn't that teach us something about God's * *abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?* DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning. David Miller wrote: DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a "literal impossibility" is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. *Doesn't that teach us something about God's * *abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?* David Miller Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science book" per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called "science" Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
but it does logically support the idea that he is capable (of creating an unquenchable fire), even though the bush is not burning right now. DAVEH: I'd (respectfully) say your logic is flawed on this one, DavidM. David Miller wrote: The burning bush is not a weak observation concerning the question of whether or not God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire. It would not be proof that he has done it, but it does logically support the idea that he is capable, even though the bush is not burning right now. By the way, when I climbed Mount Sinai, they have a rock there with black magnesium deposits that make it look like a bush was burned into the rocks. The guide there tells everyone that it is the burning bush of Moses. :-) David Miller DAVEH: I would think anybody who understands that the argument of using a burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire is a bit weak if that unquenchable fire (burning bush) has been quenched. ShieldsFamily wrote: Yours? DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic. ShieldsFamily wrote: Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning. David Miller wrote: DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a "literal impossibility" is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? David Miller Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science book" per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called "science" Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning. David Miller wrote: DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a "literal impossibility" is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? David Miller - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science book" per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called "science" Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is a physical impossibility for God? DAVEH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? jt: I started to but lost interest. I prefer to spend time on studying the real thing rather than someone else's opinion about the subject. At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due. jt: Well the devil isn't known for telling the truth DH;Jesus called him the father of lies. He is the one who comes to steal, to kill, and to destroy. Jesus was sent to heal all who are oppressed of the devil. I don't believe Lewis understood the realm of darkness all that well, and in fact he played with it in hiswritings. I think the same can be said of God. Sometimes we assume he does things he really doesn't. In this case, by suggesting God can do the impossible might just be painting God into a corner from which he would prefer not to be. jt: What is too difficult for the Creator of everything that is DH? You asked the question.What is a physical impossibility for God?... .and the obvious answer is that which you have undoubtedly heard before.Can God create a rock to heavy for him to lift? Would you agree that doing so is a physical impossibility for God, Judy? No, I would say nothing but nothing is impossible with God other than evil which is an affront to His Holy nature. I prefer to believe God operates within the laws of his creation. Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways of which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his Adversary. You would be wrong then DH because Jesus as God's Son walking about in a flesh body defied the laws of creation many times. The creation as it stands presently is under the curse of death. Jesus is the Lord of Life The resurrection itself defied the laws of nature. So if you believe what is written you will have to change your mind DH.Judy Taylor wrote: Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD:That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The sameGod who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept themin the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heavenand keepingtheir clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The sameGod whostopped the sun for 24 hours andcaused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him torun for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravensfeed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 2:14 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning. David Miller wrote: DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a literal impossibility is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?David Miller- Original Message - From: Judy TaylorTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:45 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a science book per se.Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called scienceAre you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics?Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ...KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment.a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereasmental torment can go on forever.So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he hadpromised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who wasable to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrsfeeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet fromswelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on waterThe God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot andhad the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave.Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explainHim?On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you.Lance -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic. ShieldsFamily wrote: Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 2:14 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning. David Miller wrote: DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a "literal impossibility" is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? David Miller - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science book" per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called "science" Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
interesting eh, DavidM? On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ||Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800.. I don't make up things that paint God into any corner..I go to a higher authority
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
I'm wondering what would motivate someone to send a msg like this to a public list Can you help me with it DavidM? It is not conversation that's for sure It is not communication either Is this written to helpencourage or instruct? What is the point in taking one line out of it's setting to make it imply something the author may never have intended? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:31:21 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: interesting eh, DavidM? On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ||Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800.. I don't make up things that paint God into any corner..I go to a higher authority
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
I don't know what you mean,Gary. Judy is just speaking the basics of a spiritual man. I like what Judy said. I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions about the relationship between Jesus and truth. Could you comment after each of the falling statements with the word "agree" or "disagree" please? 1. Jesus said, "I am Truth." 2. Jesus is Truth. 3. Truth is Jesus. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 4:31 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 interesting eh, DavidM? On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ||Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800.. I don't make up things that paint God into any corner..I go to a higher authority
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Judy, I'm scratching my head on this one. I think maybe you might understand the response better than me. David Miller - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 5:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 I'm wondering what would motivate someone to send a msg like this to a public list Can you help me with it DavidM? It is not conversation that's for sure It is not communication either Is this written to helpencourage or instruct? What is the point in taking one line out of it's setting to make it imply something the author may never have intended? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:31:21 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: interesting eh, DavidM? On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ||Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800.. I don't make up things that paint God into any corner..I go to a higher authority
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't make up things that paint God into any corner;DAVEH: Here's the problem as I see it, Judy. You seem to think God can do anything, yet he seems to do things the hard way from our perspective. jt: Anything physically yes, such as rain, drought, changing seasons, moving mountains. However, his holiness prevents him from lying or being one with evil/sin. If he could circumvent law, then why did he put his son through the horror of dying on the cross in our behalf? Could not have God simply snapped his fingers to make all right? Could not God have destroyed Lucifer to prevent him from screwing up the world? jt: It was necessaryif mankind were to be redeemed eternally because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. I think if we were privy to the Jewish sacrificial system we would understand more what a serious business this is and Peta would come unglued. Yet God knew all this from before the foundations of the world, and has presented us a plan to save us from Satan. Ponder why God's plan is not simple, but involves a lot of pain and suffering by all mankind. For a God who is all powerful, why need there be any pain and suffering at all? jt: Because God gives everything he creates freedom of choice; He could have created automatons but forced love is no love at all. Power and control breed fear. God desires our love and worship freely given. So he gives us a choice and even makes a way for us when we blow it and miss the mark. That's love. Yes, Screwtape Letters is fantasy, Judy. But IMHO, so are a lot of the things people believe about God. jt: Oh I agree; in fact most of what we hear about God is mixture but He reveals Himself to those who will seek Him with their whole heart. Just about everyone will say they believe in God and even the demons believe and tremble. But as the Psalmist writes "the gods of the nations are idols" (or fantasy) all He has to do is speak to the rock and it will move just as He spoke the worlds into existence.DAVEH: Kinda makes one wonder why he allowed his Beloved Son to be crucified. Wouldn't it have been more expedient to just speak his will be done? jt: Speaking to an inanimate object , to nature, or even animals like Balaam's ass is one thing Speaking to those created in His own image is another. He has given us choices and he has made us responsible for our choice so that we reap the consequences one way or the other. How would you suggest He speak His will with regard to a polluted and sinful heart and have it change by osmosis? Would that not make us robot like?Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is a physical impossibility for God? DAVEH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due. The book you refer to DH is the fantasy of CSL, I go to a higher authority which tells me that illness is not a blessing; it also reveals to me who it is thatimplements the curse but not without God's permission I might add. I think the same can be said of God. Sometimes we assume he does things he really doesn't. In this case, by suggesting God can do the impossible might just be painting God into a corner from which he would prefer not to be. How is that DH? I don't make up things that paint God into any corner; I am speaking of things that He has done already; things he has recorded in His Word by His Spirit. You asked the question.What is a physical impossibility for God?and the obvious answer is that which you have undoubtedly heard before.Can God create a rock to heavy for him to lift? Would you agree that doing so is a physical impossibility for God, Judy? Only if God were a man with limitations but since He is not a man that He should lie and He is not a man who is limitedby fleshly weakness all He has to do is speak to the rock and it will move just as He spoke the worlds into existence. I prefer to believe God operates within the laws of his creation. His son was born under the Mosaic Law but even He circumvented physical laws constantly by walking on water and commanding a storm along with rebuking death. Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God could/would break those laws, but is
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
myth (as alluded to,somethoughtful readersmaywanna explore the relationship betw jt's notions:'truth is JC' is 'Jesus wasting [her] time'in pursuitof truth--how about you, Bro?) On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 07:26:35 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || 1. Jesus said, "I am Truth." 2. Jesus is Truth. 3. Truth is Jesus. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
i know so which of the three utterances do you like most, 1., 2. or 3.? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 07:26:35 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I like what Judy said. --- for ref: - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 06, 2006 12:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] An Offensive Gospel. 1. Jesus said "Thy Word..not part of the truth. || 2. On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:37:22 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Understanding is not the issue here Lance 3. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:41:08 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Jesus wasting time.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
..or is it #4? (take all the time in the world, Bro,esp if youreally most likeher notion thatJC himselfwasted his) On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ||Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800.. I don't make up things that paint God into any corner..I go to a higher authority -- On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:09:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: i know so which of the three utterances do you like most, 1., 2. or 3.? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 07:26:35 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I like what Judy said. --- for ref: - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 06, 2006 12:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] An Offensive Gospel. 1. Jesus said "Thy Word..not part of the truth. || 2. On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:37:22 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Understanding is not the issue here Lance 3. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:41:08 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Jesus wasting time.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
All out of context, just a mumbo, jumbo of words but I guess it makes no difference when one is way out there On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:09:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: i know so which of the three utterances do you like most, 1., 2. or 3.? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 07:26:35 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I like what Judy said. --- for ref: - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 06, 2006 12:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] An Offensive Gospel. 1. Jesus said "Thy Word..not part of the truth. || 2. On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:37:22 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Understanding is not the issue here Lance 3. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:41:08 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Jesus wasting time.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
..actually, on #4, DaveH may lean a little toward it himself ..but what do you think,like, couldhe jt be onto somethingbetter than wastingtime with JC? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:29:11 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..or is it #4? (take all the time in the world, Bro,esp if youreally most likeher notion thatJC himselfwasted his) On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ||Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800.. I don't make up things that paint God into any corner..I go to a higher authority -- On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:09:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: i know so which of the three utterances do you like most, 1., 2. or 3.? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 07:26:35 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I like what Judy said. --- for ref: - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 06, 2006 12:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] An Offensive Gospel. 1. Jesus said "Thy Word..not part of the truth. || 2. On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:37:22 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Understanding is not the issue here Lance 3. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:41:08 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Jesus wasting time.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
jt: It was necessaryif mankind were to be redeemed eternally because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. DAVEH: ??? Jesus could not forgive sin without shedding of blood? Is that what you believe? if we were privy to the Jewish sacrificial system we would understand more what a serious business this is DAVEH: That God subscribes to the Jewish sacrificial system would suggest God is beholden to law far more deeply than some may think. If God is as powerful as you believe, could he not circumvent the Jewish sacrificial system? How would you suggest He speak His will with regard to a polluted and sinful heart and have it change by osmosis? DAVEH: Why do you think God created Lucifer? Rather than allow us to be tempted, would it now have been easier to either not create the devil, or perhaps to fully destroy him instead of letting him inflict his evilness upon mankind? Judy Taylor wrote: On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't make up things that paint God into any corner; DAVEH: Here's the problem as I see it, Judy. You seem to think God can do anything, yet he seems to do things the hard way from our perspective. jt: Anything physically yes, such as rain, drought, changing seasons, moving mountains. However, his holiness prevents him from lying or being one with evil/sin. If he could circumvent law, then why did he put his son through the horror of dying on the cross in our behalf? Could not have God simply snapped his fingers to make all right? Could not God have destroyed Lucifer to prevent him from screwing up the world? jt: It was necessaryif mankind were to be redeemed eternally because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. I think if we were privy to the Jewish sacrificial system we would understand more what a serious business this is and Peta would come unglued. Yet God knew all this from before the foundations of the world, and has presented us a plan to save us from Satan. Ponder why God's plan is not simple, but involves a lot of pain and suffering by all mankind. For a God who is all powerful, why need there be any pain and suffering at all? jt: Because God gives everything he creates freedom of choice; He could have created automatons but forced love is no love at all. Power and control breed fear. God desires our love and worship freely given. So he gives us a choice and even makes a way for us when we blow it and miss the mark. That's love. Yes, Screwtape Letters is fantasy, Judy. But IMHO, so are a lot of the things people believe about God. jt: Oh I agree; in fact most of what we hear about God is mixture but He reveals Himself to those who will seek Him with their whole heart. Just about everyone will say they believe in God and even the demons believe and tremble. But as the Psalmist writes "the gods of the nations are idols" (or fantasy) all He has to do is speak to the rock and it will move just as He spoke the worlds into existence. DAVEH: Kinda makes one wonder why he allowed his Beloved Son to be crucified. Wouldn't it have been more expedient to just speak his will be done? jt: Speaking to an inanimate object , to nature, or even animals like Balaam's ass is one thing Speaking to those created in His own image is another. He has given us choices and he has made us responsible for our choice so that we reap the consequences one way or the other. How would you suggest He speak His will with regard to a polluted and sinful heart and have it change by osmosis? Would that not make us robot like? Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is a physical impossibility for God? DAVEH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due. The book you refer to DH is the fantasy of CSL, I go to a higher authority which tells me that illness is not a blessing; it also reveals to me who it is thatimplements the curse but not without God's permission I might add. I think the same can be said of God. Sometimes we assume he does things he really doesn't. In this case, by suggesting God can do the impossible might just be painting God into a corner from which he would prefer not to be. How is that DH? I don't make up things that paint God into any corner; I am speaking of things that He has done already; things he has recorded in His Word by His Spirit. You asked the question.What is a physical
RE: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Random acts of insanity. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 4:41 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 I'm wondering what would motivate someone to send a msg like this to a public list Can you help me with it DavidM? It is not conversation that's for sure It is not communication either Is this written to helpencourage or instruct? What is the point in taking one line out of it's setting to make it imply something the author may never have intended? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:31:21 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: interesting eh, DavidM? On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800.. I don't make up things that paint God into any corner..I go to a higher authority
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Other than the possible uniform affirmation that God in Christ (see Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of most informed believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't they? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day"ismore than a24 hour period of time.Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of thesun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day.Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time andextended into other creation events. If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely andfor all the reasons stated. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe that the universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very long time. Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:Conor wrote: Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to the second creation account. Conor wrote: Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm s till waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution is the only option. Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of relatively recent origin. David Mille r-- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day"ismore than a24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; AE were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of thesun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day.Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time andextended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely andfor all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the meantime we have a written record from the One who did create the worlds and it would behoove us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and quiet our racing carnal minds. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe that the universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very long time. Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:Conor wrote: Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to the second creation account. Conor wrote: Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm s till waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution is the only option. Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Because God's Word is true and every man a liar along with the fact that God was the only one there at the time and He has given us a written record through his servant Moses. This may be "simple minded" and "fundamentalist" to your frame of reference but I can guarantee I won't have to eat my words. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:10:22 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Other than the possible uniform affirmation that God in Christ (see Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of most informed believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't they? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day"ismore than a24 hour period of time.Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of thesun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day.Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time andextended into other creation events. If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely andfor all the reasons stated. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe that the universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very long time. Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Conor wrote: Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to the second creation account. Conor wrote: Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm s till waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution is the only option. Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of relatively recent origin. David Mille r -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
David:Please be even-handed with your reprimands. Would you not concur that Judy's question below is rhetorical in nature? Is she not actually saying 'John, you are calling God a liar'? IMO such micromanaging of the list says more about you than either of them. Remember the good old days when Gary and Slade moderated? From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 08:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day"ismore than a24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; AE were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of thesun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day.Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time andextended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely andfor all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the meantime we have a written record from the One who did create the worlds and it would behoove us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and quiet our racing carnal minds. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe that the universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very long time. Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Conor wrote: Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. I tend to think they are to be taken
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Lance why don't you get your own list together and organize it from your perch up there in the frozen North. David, Perry, Dean et al are doing their best under trying conditions. Do you really think they need an "expert opinion" hovering over their shoulders constantly? A little sensitiity please . On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:48:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David:Please be even-handed with your reprimands. Would you not concur that Judy's question below is rhetorical in nature? Is she not actually saying 'John, you are calling God a liar'? IMO such micromanaging of the list says more about you than either of them. Remember the good old days when Gary and Slade moderated? From: Judy Taylor On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day"ismore than a24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; AE were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of thesun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day.Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time andextended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely andfor all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the meantime we have a written record from the One who did create the worlds and it would behoove us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and quiet our racing carnal minds. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Notation after the fact: perhaps only the last paragraph is worth reading -- hopefully. jd One of the more important debates in the world of psychology is whether or not thoughts define a person. I rather think the heart of man is emotion. If the emotion is not given serious nourishment, words can ravage the heart. But if the emotion of belonging is given adequate provision in community (family, church, God in Christ in us, and the like) words (thoughts ) will have little negative effect. Words and thoughts are only an _expression_ of who we are (ontology). Some theories of speech present the opinion that expressed speech (thoughts) originates in the sympathetic nervous system and has [only] an emotional pre-existence [to _expression_.] As such, they are not "right" or "wrong." Not all bias is wrong. And that is never more true than when we speak of the deeply felt emotional bias of the person. It is from this centre that man speaks and acts. Catastrophic "failure" in emotional development makes acceptable behavior impossible -- whether expressed in action or speech. That is why a well reasoned debate response often will have no influence over the opposing person -- she is controlled by an emotional centre that cannot receive the extension of another's emotional bias -- the two centre's are not enough alike. I have friends, for example, whose emotional extension (their words, their thoughts) are the same (for the most part) as mine. "We liked each other from the very beginning." Our emotional centre's have a shared commonality. So what in the world am I saying?Emotions are never "wrong." Their _expression_ may be ill-advised but they are not "wrong" in a soteriological sense of the word.Hence,thoughts that express our emotionalbias are not wrong. If "authenticity" is the true _expression_ of a person, and thoughts are given regulation by the larger group (say a legalistic church fellowship) , the true person will never be known and repair to her "soul" will never be made --- at least not at "church." jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Other than the possible uniform affirmation that God in Christ (see Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of most informed believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't they? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day"ismore than a24 hour period of time.Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of thesun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day.Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time andextended into other creation events. If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely andfor all the reasons stated. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, G
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
The pastor's comments in blood red. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" Why bother commenting if you are going to read the entire post? The language above "proves" nothing. 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day"ismore than a24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; AE were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. Adam and Eve know nothing of "spiritual death" They were removed from the Tree of Life -- their death AT THAT TIME became immanent. Besides, the way you use "day" in this context, you really mean "instant," don't you. In the instant they eat, they die - I mean, that is when your spiritual death thingy happened , right?So why am I not allowed an opposing license? 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a Of course "day" is singular. That is my point. It is a single but summary statement of the creation story. And waht is this "2:4a" business? The bibilcial thought extends from verse 4 thru v 7 -- thus a "summary " statement. 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? No Judy, and neither wer you !! But I can read. And that is what the text says -- IMHO. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of thesun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day.Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time andextended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? Actually and again, you have completely missed the point of my post. If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely andfor all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the meantime we have a written record from the One who did create the worlds and it would behoove us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and quiet our racing carnal minds. Will DAvid now ask that you present substantive argument? Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe that the universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very long time. Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:Conor wrote: Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the emphasis on
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:24:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The pastor's comments in blood red. JD writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. jt: So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" Why bother commenting if you are going to read the entire post? The language above "proves" nothing. To me it proves a lot in that it explains what the God of scripture means when he says "a day" - remember scripture must interpret scripture rather than some man's opinion. 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day"ismore than a24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; AE were are created in His Image.Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. Adam and Eve know nothing of "spiritual death How do you know what they knew JD? Adam named all the animals didn't he? They may have known a whole lot more than you think. They were removed from the Tree of Life -- their death AT THAT TIME became immanent. Besides, the way you use "day" in this context, you really mean "instant," don't you. In the instant they eat, they die - I mean, that is when your spiritual death thingy happened , right?So why am I not allowed an opposing license? No what I mean is exactly what God commanded the man in Gen 2:16,17 "In the DAY that thou eatest thereof" Please don't put words in my mouth and try to tell me what I "really" mean JD 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a Of course "day" is singular. That is my point. It is a single but summary statement of the creation story. And what is this "2:4a" business? The bibilcial thought extends from verse 4 thru v 7 -- thus a "summary " statement. Summary statement or not this does not change the length of a day which has been clearly stated already. 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? No Judy, and neither were you !! But I can read. And that is what the text says -- IMHO. Adding to what is written makes one anything but humble JD. This is what the adversary did in Gen 3:4; the actualtext says no such thing unless you read it in to try and conform realityto your extra Biblical hypothesis as demonstrated below. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of thesun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day.Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time andextended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? Actually and again, you have completely missed the point of my post. OK JD, what was the POINT of your post? If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely andfor all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
First, I do not beleive that you believe that scripture interprets scripture. What you actually mean to say is "this scripture defuncts that scripture." I AM using scripture to define scripture just as surely as anything you do with scripture. How do I know what they knew? Well, I guess all I know is what the scriptures reveal about their knowledge. From actually reading the text, Judy, I have no reason to believe that they considered "spiritual death" as something other than "physical death." Where is that terminology used -- "spiritual death?" In scripture or in JudySpeak? When did Adam and Eve die spiritually, Judy. The insant they ate the fruit or at some other time. Did it take them 24 hours to die? Come on, dear -- admit that your position on this is simply impossible to defend. The summary statemnt of 2:4-7 does give us a meaning for "day" that is not 24 hours. And how long does it take for God to speak things into existence -- 24 hours you say? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:24:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The pastor's comments in blood red. JD writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. jt: So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" Why bother commenting if you are going to read the entire post? The language above "proves" nothing. To me it proves a lot in that it explains what the God of scripture means when he says "a day" - remember scripture must interpret scripture rather than some man's opinion. 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day"ismore than a24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; AE were are created in His Image.Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. Adam and Eve know nothing of "spiritual death How do you know what they knew JD? Adam named all the animals didn't he? They may have known a whole lot more than you think. They were removed from the Tree of Life -- their death AT THAT TIME became immanent. Besides, the way you use "day" in this context, you really mean "instant," don't you. In the instant they eat, they die - I mean, that is when your spiritual death thingy happened , right?So why am I not allowed an opposing license? No what I mean is exactly what God commanded the man in Gen 2:16,17 "In the DAY that thou eatest thereof" Please don't put words in my mouth and try to tell me what I "really" mean JD 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a Of course "day" is singular. That is my point. It is a single but summary statement of the creation story. And what is this "2:4a" business? The bibilcial thought extends from verse 4 thru v 7 -- thus a "summary " statement. Summary statement or not this does not change the length of a day which has been clearly stated already. 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? No Judy, and neither were you !! But I can read. And that is what the text says -- IMHO. Adding to what is written makes one anything but humble JD. This is what the adversary did in Gen 3:4; the actualtext says no such thing unless you read it in to try and conform realityto your extra Biblical hypothesis as demonstrated below. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of thesun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day.Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time andextended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? Actually and again, you have completely missed the point of my post. OK JD, what was the POINT of your post? If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:25:44 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First, I do not beleive that you believe that scripture interprets scripture. What you actually mean to say is "this scripture defuncts that scripture." I AM using scripture to define scripture just as surely as anything you do with scripture. Only in your own opinion JD How do I know what they knew? Well, I guess all I know is what the scriptures reveal about their knowledge. From actually reading the text, Judy, I have no reason to believe that they considered "spiritual death" as something other than "physical death." Where is that terminology used -- "spiritual death?" In scripture or in JudySpeak? God is Spirit and when they died they lost His Image JD - it's elementary When did Adam and Eve die spiritually, Judy. The insant they ate the fruit or at some other time. Did it take them 24 hours to die? Come on, dear -- admit that your position on this is simply impossible to defend. They died "in that day" as God said they would The summary statemnt of 2:4-7 does give us a meaning for "day" that is not 24 hours.And how long does it take for God to speak things into existence -- 24 hours you say? If you refuse to accept God's Word for what constitutes a day - I am not foolish enough to believe that anything I say would make the least bit of difference so carry on jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:24:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The pastor's comments in blood red. JD writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. jt: So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" Why bother commenting if you are going to read the entire post? The language above "proves" nothing. To me it proves a lot in that it explains what the God of scripture means when he says "a day" - remember scripture must interpret scripture rather than some man's opinion. 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day"ismore than a24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; AE were are created in His Image.Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. Adam and Eve know nothing of "spiritual death How do you know what they knew JD? Adam named all the animals didn't he? They may have known a whole lot more than you think. They were removed from the Tree of Life -- their death AT THAT TIME became immanent. Besides, the way you use "day" in this context, you really mean "instant," don't you. In the instant they eat, they die - I mean, that is when your spiritual death thingy happened , right?So why am I not allowed an opposing license? No what I mean is exactly what God commanded the man in Gen 2:16,17 "In the DAY that thou eatest thereof" Please don't put words in my mouth and try to tell me what I "really" mean JD 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a Of course "day" is singular. That is my point. It is a single but summary statement of the creation story. And what is this "2:4a" business? The bibilcial thought extends from verse 4 thru v 7 -- thus a "summary " statement. Summary statement or not this does not change the length of a day which has been clearly stated already. 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:25:44 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First, I do not beleive that you believe that scripture interprets scripture. What you actually mean to say is "this scripture defuncts that scripture." I AM using scripture to define scripture just as surely as anything you do with scripture. Only in your own opinion JD No less an opinion than yours, of course. How do I know what they knew? Well, I guess all I know is what the scriptures reveal about their knowledge. From actually reading the text, Judy, I have no reason to believe that they considered "spiritual death" as something other than "physical death." Where is that terminology used -- "spiritual death?" In scripture or in JudySpeak? God is Spirit and when they died they lost His Image JD - it's elementary So, it is established in JudySpeak, then. Is there a passge of scripture that actually speaks of "spiritual death?" When did Adam and Eve die spiritually, Judy. The insant they ate the fruit or at some other time. Did it take them 24 hours to die? Come on, dear -- admit that your position on this is simply impossible to defend. They died "in that day" as God said they would That evile J Smithson and his dirty old "traps." Did they die the INSTANT they ate the fruit or not? I think we all know the answer. "Day," then, is figurative. The summary statemnt of 2:4-7 does give us a meaning for "day" that is not 24 hours.And how long does it take for God to speak things into existence -- 24 hours you say? If you refuse to accept God's Word for what constitutes a day - I am not foolish enough to believe that anything I say would make the least bit of difference so carry on Thank you and I will. It is God's word that I use -- your personal brand of logic aside. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Lance, part of our difficulty in communicating on this is our definition of believer. I think you have discerned in the past that I use the term Christian in a broad sense of those who claim Christianity as their religion. We would be in agreement in regards to Christians having widely different interpretations about Gen. 1-11. On the other hand, the term believer for me takes on a more narrow meaning in the sense of someone who actually trusts in Jesus Christ. The term believer for me actually includes non-Christians, but among the Christians included, it is such a small group who are actually believers that the word is much more narrow than the term Christian. I think that believers actually do see Gen 1-11 in a very similar way in regards to knowledge they have confidence about, that is, in regards to the actual message of God being conveyed in the text. Some believers have more knowledge than others in regards to the subject matter in Genesis, so what they actually say will vary, but there are not sharp disagreements among believers in these matters. For example, if I were to share my knowledge of Creation, or the Nephilim, or the Noachide flood, etc., while my knowledge might be greater than many believers in many of these areas, I expect a lot of hearty amens as opposed to suspicion and disagreement. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Other than the possible uniform affirmation that God in Christ (see Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of most informed believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't they? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that day in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the day they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that day is more than a 24 hour period of time. Further, in Gen 2:4 day is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the day it was begun. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. If day is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say Let there be light. That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical expression is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe that the universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very long time. Quoting David Miller : Conor wrote: Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to the second creation account. Conor wrote: Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm s till waiting for a third option, which
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
No, Lance, I do not think Judy is being accusatory. She is expressing a valid objection, that from her perspective, the way she is hearing John, she wonders if he calls God a liar. John should answer the objection. By the way, please write me privately about moderation issues, and if necessary, I can post clarification to the list in a single post. I don't want an extended thread on this subject. David Miller p.s. Judy could learn to express herself differently, in a more respectful way, and I have made efforts to talk with her about it off the list. Part of the problem is that Judy believes in being honest and transparent, so working too hard about expressing herself differently from how she actually feels tends toward guile, hypocrisy, and manipulation. These are valid concerns on her part, so we need to try and have some grace here and work with her as best we can. I can certainly understand how a sensitive person would take such questions as veiled accusations, but I think we all know Judy well enough by now to give her the benefit of the doubt here and work around her method of writing. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 David:Please be even-handed with your reprimands. Would you not concur that Judy's question below is rhetorical in nature? Is she not actually saying 'John, you are calling God a liar'? IMO such micromanaging of the list says more about you than either of them. Remember the good old days when Gary and Slade moderated? From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 08:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day"ismore than a24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; AE were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of thesun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day.Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time andextended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely andfor all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the meantime we have a written record from the One who did create the worlds and it would behoove us to humble ourselves under
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
David: Please take note that I employed the term 'believer' knowing of this sectarian distinction you are given to. Perhaps you move in insular circles where such an outcome would be the case. I do not and, it would not. Should you wish to pursue the matter further David, I'll simply mention Rikk Watts Denis Lamoreaux. The foregoing are two 'believers', both of whom are thoroughly informed and, would likely not be in agrreement with you re: Gen 1-11. This is for the record, as it were. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 11:26 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Lance, part of our difficulty in communicating on this is our definition of believer. I think you have discerned in the past that I use the term Christian in a broad sense of those who claim Christianity as their religion. We would be in agreement in regards to Christians having widely different interpretations about Gen. 1-11. On the other hand, the term believer for me takes on a more narrow meaning in the sense of someone who actually trusts in Jesus Christ. The term believer for me actually includes non-Christians, but among the Christians included, it is such a small group who are actually believers that the word is much more narrow than the term Christian. I think that believers actually do see Gen 1-11 in a very similar way in regards to knowledge they have confidence about, that is, in regards to the actual message of God being conveyed in the text. Some believers have more knowledge than others in regards to the subject matter in Genesis, so what they actually say will vary, but there are not sharp disagreements among believers in these matters. For example, if I were to share my knowledge of Creation, or the Nephilim, or the Noachide flood, etc., while my knowledge might be greater than many believers in many of these areas, I expect a lot of hearty amens as opposed to suspicion and disagreement. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Other than the possible uniform affirmation that God in Christ (see Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of most informed believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't they? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that day in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the day they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that day is more than a 24 hour period of time. Further, in Gen 2:4 day is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the day it was begun. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. If day is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say Let there be light. That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical expression is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
I have no intentions of defending myself against nonsensical accusation that have no basis in anything other than a desire to insult. I submit that there is no one on this forum who can honestly ask of me, "Do you call Goda liar?" By the way, this is not a response to "moderator." It is a response to the first paragraph in the post below. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, Lance, I do not think Judy is being accusatory. She is expressing a valid objection, that from her perspective, the way she is hearing John, she wonders if he calls God a liar. John should answer the objection. By the way, please write me privately about moderation issues, and if necessary, I can post clarification to the list in a single post. I don't want an extended thread on this subject. David Miller p.s. Judy could learn to express herself differently, in a more respectful way, and I have made efforts to talk with her about it off the list. Part of the problem is that Judy believes in being honest and transparent, so working too hard about expressing herself differently from how she actually feels tends toward guile, hypocrisy, and manipulation. These are valid concerns on her part, so we need to try and have some grace here and work with her as best we can. I can certainly understand how a sensitive person would take such questions as veiled accusations, but I think we all know Judy well enough by now to give her the benefit of the doubt here and work around her method of writing. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 David:Please be even-handed with your reprimands. Would you not concur that Judy's question below is rhetorical in nature? Is she not actually saying 'John, you are calling God a liar'? IMO such micromanaging of the list says more about you than either of them. Remember the good old days when Gary and Slade moderated? From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 08:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day"ismore than a24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; AE were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of thesun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day.Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time andextended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely andfor all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the meantime we have a written record from the One who did create the worlds and it would behoove us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and quiet our racing carnal minds. Bishop J -- Original message -- From:
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Thy word is true from the beginning Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other than the possible uniform affirmation that God in Christ (see Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of most informed believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't they?- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day"ismore than a24 hour period of time.Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of thesun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day.Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time andextended into other creation events. If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely andfor all the reasons stated. Bishop J-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe that the universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very long time. Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:Conor wrote: Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to the second creation account. Conor wrote: Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm s till waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution is the only option. Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of relatively recent origin. David Mille r-- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Yahoo! Travel Find great deals to the top 10 hottest destinations!
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
I don't make up things that paint God into any corner; DAVEH: Here's the problem as I see it, Judy. You seem to think God can do anything, yet he seems to do things the hard way from our perspective. If he could circumvent law, then why did he put his son through the horror of dying on the cross in our behalf? Could not have God simply snapped his fingers to make all right? Could not God have destroyed Lucifer to prevent him from screwing up the world? Yet God knew all this from before the foundations of the world, and has presented us a plan to save us from Satan. Ponder why God's plan is not simple, but involves a lot of pain and suffering by all mankind. For a God who is all powerful, why need there be any pain and suffering at all? Yes, Screwtape Letters is fantasy, Judy. But IMHO, so are a lot of the things people believe about God. all He has to do is speak to the rock and it will move just as He spoke the worlds into existence. DAVEH: Kinda makes one wonder why he allowed his Beloved Son to be crucified. Wouldn't it have been more expedient to just speak his will be done? Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is a physical impossibility for God? DAVEH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due. The book you refer to DH is the fantasy of CSL, I go to a higher authority which tells me that illness is not a blessing; it also reveals to me who it is thatimplements the curse but not without God's permission I might add. I think the same can be said of God. Sometimes we assume he does things he really doesn't. In this case, by suggesting God can do the impossible might just be painting God into a corner from which he would prefer not to be. How is that DH? I don't make up things that paint God into any corner; I am speaking of things that He has done already; things he has recorded in His Word by His Spirit. You asked the question.What is a physical impossibility for God?and the obvious answer is that which you have undoubtedly heard before.Can God create a rock to heavy for him to lift? Would you agree that doing so is a physical impossibility for God, Judy? Only if God were a man with limitations but since He is not a man that He should lie and He is not a man who is limitedby fleshly weakness all He has to do is speak to the rock and it will move just as He spoke the worlds into existence. I prefer to believe God operates within the laws of his creation. His son was born under the Mosaic Law but even He circumvented physical laws constantly by walking on water and commanding a storm along with rebuking death. Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways of which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his Adversary. God is transcendent DH and his adversary is well aware of who is boss. Judy Taylor wrote: Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD:That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The sameGod who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept themin the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heavenand keepingtheir clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The sameGod whostopped the sun for 24 hours andcaused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him torun for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravensfeed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science book" per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called "science" Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD:That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The sameGod who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept themin the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heavenand keepingtheir clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The sameGod whostopped the sun for 24 hours andcaused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him torun for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravensfeed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Judy:The question 'what is too difficult for God' is not the sort of question I'm given to asking. However, if I've asked a question too difficult for Conor then, I'd just ask that Conor take a pass. It is Conor's choice. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 17, 2006 08:45 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science book" per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called "science" Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD:That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The sameGod who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept themin the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heavenand keepingtheir clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The sameGod whostopped the sun for 24 hours andcaused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him torun for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravensfeed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a literal impossibility is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? David Miller - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a science book per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called science Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
What is a physical impossibility for God? DAVEH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due. I think the same can be said of God. Sometimes we assume he does things he really doesn't. In this case, by suggesting God can do the impossible might just be painting God into a corner from which he would prefer not to be. You asked the question.What is a physical impossibility for God?and the obvious answer is that which you have undoubtedly heard before.Can God create a rock to heavy for him to lift? Would you agree that doing so is a physical impossibility for God, Judy? I prefer to believe God operates within the laws of his creation. Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways of which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his Adversary. Judy Taylor wrote: Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD:That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The sameGod who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept themin the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heavenand keepingtheir clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The sameGod whostopped the sun for 24 hours andcaused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him torun for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravensfeed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is a physical impossibility for God? DAVEH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due. The book you refer to DH is the fantasy of CSL, I go to a higher authority which tells me that illness is not a blessing; it also reveals to me who it is thatimplements the curse but not without God's permission I might add. I think the same can be said of God. Sometimes we assume he does things he really doesn't. In this case, by suggesting God can do the impossible might just be painting God into a corner from which he would prefer not to be. How is that DH? I don't make up things that paint God into any corner; I am speaking of things that He has done already; things he has recorded in His Word by His Spirit. You asked the question.What is a physical impossibility for God?and the obvious answer is that which you have undoubtedly heard before.Can God create a rock to heavy for him to lift? Would you agree that doing so is a physical impossibility for God, Judy? Only if God were a man with limitations but since He is not a man that He should lie and He is not a man who is limitedby fleshly weakness all He has to do is speak to the rock and it will move just as He spoke the worlds into existence. I prefer to believe God operates within the laws of his creation. His son was born under the Mosaic Law but even He circumvented physical laws constantly by walking on water and commanding a storm along with rebuking death. Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways of which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his Adversary. God is transcendent DH and his adversary is well aware of who is boss.Judy Taylor wrote: Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD:That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The sameGod who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept themin the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heavenand keepingtheir clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The sameGod whostopped the sun for 24 hours andcaused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him torun for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravensfeed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Perhaps this is a difference of philosophy since:I presume that Judy sees God as transcendant from his creation and DH sees him as part of the creation. Judy sees a God who is outside of time who created time and the law of physics DH sees a god who was procreated at some point in time (in the preexistance) and then organized matter (not create matter)Is this correct?Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:What is a physical impossibility for God? DAVEH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due.The book you refer to DH is the fantasy of CSL, I go to a higher authority which tells me that illness is not a blessing; it also reveals to me who it is thatimplements the curse but not without God's permission I might add. I think the same can be said of God. Sometimes we assume he does things he really doesn't. In this case, by suggesting God can do the impossible might just be painting God into a corner from which he would prefer not to be. How is that DH? I don't make up things that paint God into any corner; I am speaking of things that He has done already; things he has recorded in His Word by His Spirit.You asked the question.What is a physical impossibility for God?and the obvious answer is that which you have undoubtedly heard before.Can God create a rock to heavy for him to lift? Would you agree that doing so is a physical impossibility for God, Judy?Only if God were a man with limitations but since He is not a man that He should lie and He is not a man who is limitedby fleshly weakness all He has to do is speak to the rock and it will move just as He spoke the worlds into existence. I prefer to believe God operates within the laws of his creation. His son was born under the Mosaic Law but even He circumvented physical laws constantly by walking on water and commanding a storm along with rebuking death.Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways of which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his Adversary.God is transcendent DH and his adversary is well aware of who is boss.Judy Taylor wrote: Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ...KD:That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever.So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The sameGod who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept themin the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heavenand keepingtheir clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The sameGod whostopped the sun for 24 hours andcaused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him torun for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravensfeed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you.Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Lance: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Such a short question, but such a long answer :) I think that astronomy is something that often gets overlooked in that question. The last time I checked, astronomers dated the universe to about 13.5 billion years old. The dating of the universe is something that has been discussed often in my astronomy classes. The method astronomers use to come to this conclusion is a little strange, but largely makes sense. However, even if their dating method was completely wrong, there would still be plenty of evidence that the universe looks old. Models of the sun which accurately predict its structure also predict ages and lifetimes (old ages and long lifetimes). The same models work well for other stars we observe, and seem to be good models beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a lot to it, but essentially the universe looks old. Quick example. Models of star formation predict that it would take hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years for a star to collapse from a cloud of gas. The sun is a star. Therefore it seems a safe bet that the sun is at least a million years old. I accept that fact that the universe looks old. I suppose it's possible that God created the universe in such a way that it looks old, but is in actuality young. I don't see why that would be necessary though. Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. Whether the first chapter of genesis is literal or figurative, the underlying story still stays the same. The universe (and us) are God's creation. We were created in his image. That's the entire point of genesis, and it's a point that remains the same regardless. Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm still waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. I find macro evolution to be rather hard to buy. There's a couple other things I wanted to say in regards to the previous e-mails. DaveH: Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways of which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his Adversary. I would disagree with that satement. The universe is a creation of God's, and the laws of physics that run our universe are also His creation. As His creations, He has complete control over them. It's quite possible that God performs his miracles without breaking the laws that run our universe, but I think it much more likely that when God makes a miracle happen, the laws of physics step aside. Just think about the feeding of the five thousand. How is it possible for 5 loaves and 2 fish to feed five thousand men until they were full? I realize that human beings don't have a complete understanding of the laws of physics, but I'm pretty sure that that is a task which is physically impossible. The laws of physics (as we know them) had to go right out the window for that one. The universe is God's creation. Just as we can modify a computer as much as we want (after all, it's our creation), God can change this universe as much as he wants. DaveH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due. I think you have a very good point here. It is very easy to attribute things to God that God didn't necessarily do. After all, coincidences do happen. In this case, I am thinking about a particular example. This was a while back, so I don't remember the details exactly. About a year ago I visited an LDS church one sunday (someone on this list is mormon, right?). Anyway, at this particular service people from the congregation were coming up to the front and sharing their testimony. One lady came up and talked about her very long conversion to mormonism. She was originally visited by some missionaries when she was younger (late teens, early twenties, I don't remember). She talked with them, but, didn't convert. Instead, she remained a nominal christian for a decade or two. Some crisis happened in her life that left her very much in search of God. She prayed that God would help her figure things out and in about five minutes a pair of LDS missionaries showed up at her door. She took it as a sign, and shortly there after became mormon. I've heard many example of things like this helping people become christians as well. I'm sure there are example like this from just about every religion. However, they can't all be acts of God. They only way that is possible is if God is just as happy with people being mormon as he is with people being christian. However, I think that the mormon missionaries I have talked with would disagree with
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Conor wrote: Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to the second creation account. Conor wrote: Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm still waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution is the only option. Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of relatively recent origin. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
I suppose it's possible that God created the universe in such a way that it looks old, but is in actuality young.In your mind then when God created Adam presumably as a man did he just look old or was he actually old? I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be takenliterally. Whether the first chapter of genesis is literal or figurative, theunderlying story still stays the sameIs there anything internal in the chapter that tells you this may be figurative? Why just the first chapter? Why not figurative seven days of rain as in Gen 7? Why not take the seven days that the doves were sent out as figurative? Gen 8 When Laban chased after Jacob for seven days?Gen 31:23 Should these be millions? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lance: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you.Such a short question, but such a long answer :) I think that astronomy issomething that often gets overlooked in that question. The last time I checked,astronomers dated the universe to about 13.5 billion years old. The dating ofthe universe is something that has been discussed often in my astronomyclasses. The method astronomers use to come to this conclusion is a littlestrange, but largely makes sense. However, even if their dating method wascompletely wrong, there would still be plenty of evidence that the universelooks old. Models of the sun which accurately predict its structure alsopredict ages and lifetimes (old ages and long lifetimes). The same models workwell for other stars we observe, and seem to be good models beyond a reasonabledoubt. There's a lot to it, but essentially the universe looks old. Quickexample. Models of star formation predict that it would take hundreds ofthousands (or millions) of years for a star to collapse from a cloud of gas. The sun is a star. Therefore it seems a safe bet that the sun is at least amillion years old.I accept that fact that the universe looks old. I suppose it's possiblethat God created the universe in such a way that it looks old, but is inactuality young. I don't see why that would be necessary though. Personally,I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be takenliterally. Whether the first chapter of genesis is literal or figurative, theunderlying story still stays the same. The universe (and us) are God'screation. We were created in his image. That's the entire point of genesis,and it's a point that remains the same regardless.Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm still waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. I findmacro evolution to be rather hard to buy. There's a couple other things Iwanted to say in regards to the previous e-mails.DaveH: Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways of which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his Adversary.I would disagree with that satement. The universe is a creation of God's,and the laws of physics that "run" our universe are also His creation. As Hiscreations, He has complete control over them. It's quite possible that Godperforms his miracles without breaking the laws that run our universe, but Ithink it much more likely that when God makes a miracle happen, the laws ofphysics step aside. Just think about the feeding of the five thousand. How isit possible for 5 loaves and 2 fish to feed five thousand men until they werefull? I realize that human beings don't have a complete understanding of thelaws of physics, but I'm pretty sure that that is a task which is physicallyimpossible. The laws of physics (as we know them) had to go right out thewindow for that one. The universe is God's creation. Just as we can modify acomputer as much as we want (after all, it's our creation), God can change thisuniverse as much as he wants.DaveH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due.I think you have a very good point here. It is very easy to attributethings to God that God didn't necessarily do. After all, coincidences dohappen. In this case, I am thinking about a particular example. This was awhile back, so I don't remember the details exactly.About a year ago I visited an LDS church one sunday (someone on this listis mormon, right?). Anyway, at this particular service people from thecongregation were coming up to the front and sharing their "testimony". Onelady came up and talked about her very long conversion to mormonism. She wasoriginally visited by some missionaries when she was younger (late teens, earlytwenties, I don't remember). She talked with them, but, didn't convert. Instead, she remained a nominal christian for a decade or two. Some crisishappened in her life that left her very much
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I think there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe that the universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very long time. Quoting David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Conor wrote: Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to the second creation account. Conor wrote: Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm still waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution is the only option. Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of relatively recent origin. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
the creation of mankind continues to this day !!! # 12 is coming into this world in about 30 minutes .. PapaJohn is outahere!! PTL jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe that the universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very long time. Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:Conor wrote: Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to the second creation account. Conor wrote: Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm s till waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution is the only option. Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of relatively recent origin. David Mille r-- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
