----- Original Message -----
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 it engulfs.
Does this help you understand the logic any better?
David Miller
----- Original Message -----
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.
