A Reddit member asks about theistic evolution

[prism]

Weather manipulation, says a Canadian scientist in a 2010 NBC interview, has been tested in a lab, and when they have gone out to actual weather, the same thing happens. That is where the visual evidence of the universe supports a mass detonation. So there is a theory and there is repetition and observation.

So, 'scientists' actually repeatedly observed this mass detonation or are we speaking in terms of it's (speculative) affects? (By definition this (original) detonation,happening only once, would not be open for repeated observations). So much for empirical analysis. Again, I'm wondering, "What type of 'science' are we speaking of here?"

 

[Mr GLee]

You were the one that brought up lights as being communicators. I pointed out a common belief about the stars in the ancient near east.
How Genesis 1 relates to that view has been debated.

The text says of the lights:
"let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,

But then also goes on to say:
"and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth ...And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars ... And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness."

This is the function that God assigned to the lights:

• to rule over the day and night;
• to separate light from darkness; and
• to be for signs and seasons, days and years.

Christ as eternal God is not known after the rudiments of this corrupted dying world .He cannot be found under a microscope or a telescope . A pagan foundation "out of sight out of mind " The religion of a fool no God in ones heart .

God 's very essence is Love , Spirit, and is Light. And not that he can only create light temporary.

The first three days and nights with three denoting the end of a matter. Hiding the light 12 hours revealing himself 12 hours Day three Chrsit seeing pride in the heart of lucifer. . the glory of his presence departed

In the new heaven and earth God who is light again will be the light of the whole world. No more Sun and Moon .There will be no darkness as night in the new heavens and earth

Two lights to represent glory empowered by one. The Sun which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoicing as a strong man to run a race. The moon the reflection of the light the Sun . . the sons of God .

Beautiful wedding parable. .

Psalm 191-6 King James Version The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

Two lights working as one perfect law. Its brightness as a labor of Christ love works in believers giving us simply ones his understanding enlightening the eyes. Giving believers a desire for manna daily bread. . taste like honey

Psalm 19:7-14 King James Version 7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.

 

[EarlyActs]

So, 'scientists' actually repeatedly observed this mass detonation or are we speaking in terms of it's (speculative) affects? (By definition this (original) detonation,happening only once, would not be open for repeated observations). So much for empirical analysis. Again, I'm wondering, "What type of 'science' are we speaking of here?"

How else do you get the spreading? You could say it is just the voice of God like others say the light on Day 1 is shekinah. But a release of lifeless mass and energy is a sensible option. I don’t not have time to repeat all the detail on this which I have elsewhere.

On observations, red-shifting has been observed countless times. There can only be one explanation. I don’t mean for the source of it but the fact that it has been seen many times. Ie, repeated observation.

Once an experiment is distinct, the size does not matter. We can demonstrate something on a 10 foot pond that would just as true of the Pacific Ocean.

Does God do steps of these things? Yes:
Creation week has many steps past the pre-existing.
Creating Eve took an additional step.
The miracle of feeding took collecting a few lunches.
The miracle of one blind healing took two steps.
Etc etc

 

[Mr GLee]

The original convo was between God and Adam. Adam then told others. There was no other theology. There was no other science. There are no other beliefs/knowledge of the day. That is part of the mistake of not knowing the Moses Controversy.

What is a Moses Controversy?

 

[makesends]

Once an experiment is distinct, the size does not matter. We can demonstrate something on a 10 foot pond that would just as true of the Pacific Ocean.

Guessing on what you mean by "distinct", then I'd have to say either, 1. This is wrong, or 2. This brings into question the distinct-ness of many experiments. Much depends on size.

A small enough experiment can be considered entirely STP, for example, if in a closed environment, and yet there are always things not taken into account, being considered negligible, that on a larger scale are not negligible, nor can the larger experiment be considered STP. I remember as a kid, the declaration that in a closed system, i.e. surrounded by vacuum, all the ingredients can be considered to be the same temperature. That may be a sweet rule of thumb to make small experiments easier to perform, but it is not correct. Granted that in a closed system, i.e. that does not accept nor transmit energy, then yes, eventually, all temperature evens out. Eventually, after all the fires go out, temperature differences would be unmeasurable. But there is no such system.

 

[Sereni-tea]

So, 'scientists' actually repeatedly observed this mass detonation or are we speaking in terms of it's (speculative) affects? (By definition this (original) detonation,happening only once, would not be open for repeated observations). So much for empirical analysis. Again, I'm wondering, "What type of 'science' are we speaking of here?"

While repeatable experiments are very important for obtaining reliable data, not all scientific knowledge comes this way, as it is not always possible. Take for example forensic science, or historical sciences like paleontology or archaeology, as well as astronomy and geology. In these cases scientists will rely on observations and data to formulate theories and model, which can then be tested with further data. If the data does not fit the predictions of the model the model is then either refined or thrown out.
Where multiple models, all relying on different data, agree on a result, there is much more assurance of the validity of the result.

Regarding the age of the universe, data from the cosmic microwave background radiation, Hubble's law and expansion rate, and the age of the oldest stars all point to a time of 13.8 billion years since the big bang.

 

[Mr GLee]

Guessing on what you mean by "distinct", then I'd have to say either, 1. This is wrong, or 2. This brings into question the distinct-ness of many experiments. Much depends on size.

A small enough experiment can be considered entirely STP, for example, if in a closed environment, and yet there are always things not taken into account, being considered negligible, that on a larger scale are not negligible, nor can the larger experiment be considered STP. I remember as a kid, the declaration that in a closed system, i.e. surrounded by vacuum, all the ingredients can be considered to be the same temperature. That may be a sweet rule of thumb to make small experiments easier to perform, but it is not correct. Granted that in a closed system, i.e. that does not accept nor transmit energy, then yes, eventually, all temperature evens out. Eventually, after all the fires go out, temperature differences would be unmeasurable. But there is no such system.

I would offer.

The first three days and nights ,God whose very essence is Light and not that he can only create it temporally .He set the temperature for the plants, needed for food, oxygen, preparing for day six.

And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Not the face of a ice berg .

The flood a judgment against the church (believers unevenly yoke) that were used as earthly representatives of God. Previously represented in a mist (H20) representing the gospel coming up. To after the flood coming down like rain or mist from heaven signified by a rainbow. A sign that has lost much value.

One believers could put on today as the armor of God . lol make the rainbow great again.

It would seem God whose name is Jealous He owns all things Exodus 34:14 Began to hide his glory and not share it with the dying creature. . .
We walk by faith the unseen things Christ working in us .

Beautiful born again parable .

Deuteronomy 32King James Version32 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:

The washing of the water of the word that husbands are to wash their wives with . .doctrines of Christ that fall like rain. . on cursed corrupted ground producing born again growth

Age of mankind dropped to what it is today

Psalm 90:10ESV The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away

James 3:14-16King James Version14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

​

.

 

[prism]

How else do you get the spreading? You could say it is just the voice of God like others say the light on Day 1 is shekinah. But a release of lifeless mass and energy is a sensible option. I don’t not have time to repeat all the detail on this which I have elsewhere.

You could say is is the voice of God as does Heb 11:3. A release of lifeless mass and energy is not a biblical option, otherwise, where did the mass and energy come from?

 

[prism]

While repeatable experiments are very important for obtaining reliable data, not all scientific knowledge comes this way, as it is not always possible. Take for example forensic science, or historical sciences like paleontology or archaeology, as well as astronomy and geology. In these cases scientists will rely on observations and data to formulate theories and model, which can then be tested with further data. If the data does not fit the predictions of the model the model is then either refined or thrown out.
Where multiple models, all relying on different data, agree on a result, there is much more assurance of the validity of the result.

Regarding the age of the universe, data from the cosmic microwave background radiation, Hubble's law and expansion rate, and the age of the oldest stars all point to a time of 13.8 billion years since the big bang.

Right, there are different types of sciences, that's why I asked E.A. what type of Science are we speaking of here (post #121).

13.8 billion years since the Big Bang? How do we know God didn't build in age to the stars just as He did the first pair? (unless they were created as infants) -nope

If the data does not fit the predictions of the model the model is then either refined or thrown out.

I'm not willing to do that to God's Word, are you?

 

[Sereni-tea]

Right, there are different types of sciences, that's why I asked E.A. what type of Science are we speaking of here (post #121).

13.8 billion years since the Big Bang? How do we know God didn't build in age to the stars just as He did the first pair? (unless they were created as infants) -nope

The very reason we can do science at all is because God is a God of order. And He has given us the ability to understand, bit by bit, the universe He has created. We are not just talking about building age into the universe, but also history. For example, if God created Adam and Eve as full grown humans, we would not expect them to show any signs of a history, such as having a belly button. Likewise if God created the trees fully matured we would not expect them to have tree rings.

I'm not willing to do that to God's Word, are you?

God's Word is not a scientific model, so why would you ask me that question?

Science constantly changes and refines its models and theories as new data comes to life. Our scientific knowledge is only as good as the limitations of our data. That does not mean it is not right and should be dismissed, but rather held loosely, knowing that it could change in the future as more information comes to light.

I do believe that the God of the Bible is the same God who created the universe we live in. As such I believe that both, properly understood, do not contradict each other. If my interpretation of God's Word was so far out of step with what God's Universe was telling us, I would have a look again at my understanding of the text and make sure I was reading it in light of its literary and cultural context - as we should do with any passage of Scripture. This is where I see many Christians go wrong with understanding Genesis 1. They forget it was written to an ancient people in a way they understood, and instead bring their modern day worldview into the text.

 

[prism]

This is where I see many Christians go wrong with understanding Genesis 1. They forget it was written to an ancient people in a way they understood, and instead bring their modern day worldview into the text.

Interpreting God's Word in the 'light' of so called scientific discoveries. is most likely the core issue of theological liberal ideas, next to downplaying God's Word,
All Scripture is inspired by God, Who is the One who knows beforehand all cultures and their limitations (including our own). He is still alive and enlightening His children's understanding of Him and His Word.
I believe both modern and ancient people know what a day is (evening and morning). If so, it's a stretch beyond imagination as to how one goes from 6 days of creation (yielding a young earth) to millions, even billions of years (OE).

 

[Sereni-tea]

Interpreting God's Word in the 'light' of so called scientific discoveries. is most likely the core issue of theological liberal ideas, next to downplaying God's Word,\

I never suggested it should be. What I did suggest was that it could be a prompt to reflect on our own interpretation of Genesis 1.

All Scripture is inspired by God, Who is the One who knows beforehand all cultures and their limitations (including our own). He is still alive and enlightening His children's understanding of Him and His Word.

This is very true, however that doesn't mean that we can import our own understanding into a passage of Scripture and expect it to make sense.

I believe both modern and ancient people know what a day is (evening and morning). If so, it's a stretch beyond imagination as to how one goes from 6 days of creation (yielding a young earth) to millions, even billions of years (OE).

Yes, I agree that the day in Genesis 1 is a usual day. However, I do not agree with a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 where the literary and cultural context has been ignored.

I believe it is wrong to try to fit modern science into Genesis 1, just like I believe it is wrong to try to fit Scripture into modern science. The Bible is not a scientific text book. It needs to be understood on its own terms - in its own literary and cultural context. When we import our own modern day beliefs and worldview, our own modern ideas and questions into the passage, we fail to see the true message and instead end up arguing over irrelevant concepts.

 

[EarlyActs]

You could say is is the voice of God as does Heb 11:3. A release of lifeless mass and energy is not a biblical option, otherwise, where did the mass and energy come from?

It is an option bc of the result —the scattered distant universe. I’m simply referring to a way of producing that; I’m not denying Gods role nor the existence of the final product.

IOW God detonated it, and our planet was a little bit piece from that event which He chose to improve into our system. The detonation could be as few as 4 years before Day 1 bc Centauri’s light takes that long to reach us.

 

[makesends]

It is an option bc of the result —the scattered distant universe. I’m simply referring to a way of producing that; I’m not denying Gods role nor the existence of the final product.

IOW God detonated it, and our planet was a little bit piece from that event which He chose to improve into our system. The detonation could be as few as 4 years before Day 1 bc Centauri’s light takes that long to reach us.

But you would hold, assuming a 'detonation', that what was detonated was also created by God, no? And not that God merely came upon a 'singularity' to detonate —i.e. the neither the detonation, nor the singularity, existed or came to be, independent of God?

 

[Sereni-tea]

The detonation could be as few as 4 years before Day 1 bc Centauri’s light takes that long to reach us.

How does the pinpoint of light coming to the earth from Alpha Centauri equate to 'Day' and separates day from night?
Would alpha centauri even have been visible in the ancient near eastern sky, given it is a southern star and not visible above a latitude of 29deg north. Israel I think is around 31 deg north, not sure about Eden?

 

[prism]

Yes, I agree that the day in Genesis 1 is a usual day. However, I do not agree with a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 where the literary and cultural context has been ignored.

I believe it is wrong to try to fit modern science into Genesis 1, just like I believe it is wrong to try to fit Scripture into modern science. The Bible is not a scientific text book. It needs to be understood on its own terms - in its own literary and cultural context. When we import our own modern day beliefs and worldview, our own modern ideas and questions into the passage, we fail to see the true message and instead end up arguing over irrelevant concepts.

To deny or culturally twist the definition of a day, or call 'evening and morning one day'. Since all cultures have an evening (sundown) and morning (sunup), Day is defined at face value. If evening and morning is dependent on culture or can't be taken literally, then we have no Bible, or it is reserved for the intellectual elite who would hand down 'their' interpretation according to 'their' agenda.

Whatever happened to the perspicuity of Scripture?

 

[prism]

IOW God detonated it, and our planet was a little bit piece from that event which He chose to improve into our system.

Pure Speculation, but not according to God's Word.

 

[Sereni-tea]

To deny or culturally twist the definition of a day, or call 'evening and morning one day'. Since all cultures have an evening (sundown) and morning (sunup), Day is defined at face value. If evening and morning is dependent on culture or can't be taken literally, then we have no Bible, or it is reserved for the intellectual elite who would hand down 'their' interpretation according to 'their' agenda.

Did I at any point claim that 'day' in Genesis 1 was dependant on culture? Didn't I agree that it is used in its normal sense of the word?

I don't really understand why anyone has a problem when I speak of the importance of reading Scripture in its literary and cultural context. This is afterall a basic principle of Biblical hermeneutics. Some of the questions you should ask when approaching any text include: What is the structure of the passage or are there any literary devices (repetition, parallelism, chiasmus, etc) used, and what do these tell us about the author's purpose? How does the original language of a passage tell us about the shape, structure or purpose of the passage? Who are the characters and and how does the story develop? Who was the author and his original audience? What was their historical context?

We all know that such questions are important, so I simply cannot fathom why young and old earth creationists throw out these basic principles when it comes to the early chapters of Genesis, and seem to criticise me for suggesting that these things are fundamental to understanding the text properly.

This has nothing to do with intellectual elite handing down 'their' interpreation or 'their' agenda - whatever you even meant by that. On the contrary, this is all about approaching the passage the same way we should approach any passage of Scripture, using the same hermeneutical principles we should be applying everywhere.

Whatever happened to the perspicuity of Scripture?

I uphold the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture as the Westminster confession of Faith states:
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

It very clearly states that not everything is plain, but anything necessary for salvation is crystal clear.
I would say that the important things in Genesis 1 are abundantly clear - God is the Creator of all things and we are made in His image.

 

[Alive]

I uphold the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture as the Westminster confession of Faith states:
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Amen! Real important this is!

 

[Arial]

This has nothing to do with intellectual elite handing down 'their' interpreation or 'their' agenda - whatever you even meant by that. On the contrary, this is all about approaching the passage the same way we should approach any passage of Scripture, using the same hermeneutical principles we should be applying everywhere.

And that we automatically understand and do when reading anything else! Why is this one book, the Bible, not treated and handled the same way?