Knowledge

Feb 10, 2015
852
1,007
93
Maryland
Moderator Note : This thread was edited and Tagged the member mentioned.
Please Remember when you mention another members name to please use the @ sign before. Example. Siloam
Thank you.



Our brother Abdicate whom I highly esteem posted a response to one of my posts under the thread '
Have you put God in a Million Year old box?'
http://www.christianforumsite.com/threads/have-you-put-god-in-a-million-year-old-box.49248/#post-466555
And I would like to continue a discussion. But it is getting away from the intended subject matter, so I would like to re-root it here.

So, the following is a copy of his post. I will be giving my thoughts in subsequent posts, and invite Abdicate and others to join in as they are moved.. This should not be thought of as a debate, so much as a discussion among brothers.

-- Siloam



What is knowledge? is the question of this week's philosophy class I'm taking. Philosophy is just Greek for "love wisdom." Except for Kant, every one of them, in one shape or form wanted to do away with God. Some claim they wanted to prove God like Decartes but the paper was all but rejected by his peers. I find it funny that each of them had a piece of the truth - what is good, what is moral, what is knowledge, we live in an unknowable universe, we are what we think, "I think, therefore, I am," "to be is to be perceived," we don't exist in a true reality, etc. all their conclusion are found in the scriptures but they either didn't know that or didn't care. My point is, thinkers and scientists have been trying to figure out everything, solving a mystery here or there, of which the sole solution is always ultimately God. Everyone in history has had a desire to solve mysteries. That's God's way of playing hide and seek, which children just love. So God has put clues everywhere about everything if we just look. My chronology study is solely based on the scriptures and not on historical accounts. If you start, like I did, that the word of God is without error (in the originals), then you can begin your search. God talks about 6 days of work to create the universe and the heavens (always plural in the Hebrew), and science and the fossil record agrees with it - except the meaning of "yom" - day. Even the Jews can't agree among themselves.

Tonight is the last day of 2017 and tomorrow starts 2018. Time. It's a very interesting thing. Perspective is also an interesting thing. If I had a soap bubble and I could blow it up, what would it be like in it if every atom in the air was a universe? What would the border be like? How would the center be different from the outer edge? How is the bubble different when it was flat across the wicket compared to it floating in the air as a ball? Is a day define from within the bubble or from without? Is time the same inside and outside the bubble? A mouse lives 2-3 years. Does it perceive time differently? Does it feel 50 years old at 1.5 years? Until we are a mouse, we can only speculate through observation.

My point is, the perception of time might be different as time passes by. That is, today's rate of existence might be vastly different than at the beginning. We sense the change but we can't prove it. "Time flies" used to be an aged event, now kids are saying the same thing. The controversy about the speed of light is quickly ignored because of its implications. In other words, the flood happened between creation and today which means the data is skewed when applying earthbound findings without factoring in the flood. The real issue is that the information needed is being rejected by those that don't want where the evidence points: to God. So just like the philosophers, scientists won't or can't share the whole truth. I love the atheist scientists because they don't know they're proving the word of God correct when they make a discovery and publish it.

First, believe the word of God is true and every man a liar, and begin your search. You will find the answer you're looking for.
 
Feb 10, 2015
852
1,007
93
Maryland
To the question 'What is knowledge":

I could give a thumbnail discussion of the knowledge hierarchy, but I expect what is being asked is 'how do you know what is real'. Yes, that is the question.

From Abdicate's post: Philosophy is just Greek for "love wisdom." Except for Kant, every one of them, in one shape or form wanted to do away with God.

What about Aquinas? Do you not think he was a philosopher? Or do you think he tried to do away with God? And, what about Paul, Ignatious? Do you not think Augustine was a philosopher?

In reality all theologians are philosophers. And Carl Barth held that everyone should be a theologian.

I think you really were talking about humanist philosophers. There we can agree. Somewhat.But, even there it was often less an attempt to do away with God, and more an attempt (and I would agree that it is futile) to build up a world-view by just thinking about it.
 
Feb 10, 2015
852
1,007
93
Maryland
Abdicate said:
So God has put clues everywhere about everything if we just look. My chronology study is solely based on the scriptures and not on historical accounts.

So, if God has put clues everywhere, and I would whole-hardheartedly agree, why do you limit any study of His creation to the scriptures?

The sciences are the study of His creation, looking for and organizing the clues you say He has placed everywhere.. The Lord repeatedly uses the witness of the world around us to illustrate His nature. Nature is meant to be studied.

Now, there are many scientists who are not christian, but that does not prevent the body of believers from recognizing His imprint on the things studied.

The Lord is pouring out a wealth of knowledge about His creation, and thus His nature.
 
Feb 10, 2015
852
1,007
93
Maryland
Abdicate wrote:

God talks about 6 days of work to create the universe and the heavens (always plural in the Hebrew), and science and the fossil record agrees with it - except the meaning of "yom" - day. Even the Jews can't agree among themselves

So, and here I am more asking questions than trying to make a point,

IF the lord wished to convey ages rather than days, is there a succinct way in ancient Hebrew of doing that? Every Hebrew/English glossary I have come across, at least yhose that were not taking a stand on Old Earth vs Young Earth includes definitions including longer, if non specific periods. How would an ancient Hebrew translate a term like EON? And, wouldn't that bring too much interest into those lengths of time, when the purpose of Genesis was more to show that God was the source of everything, and brought the universe into existence through His actions?

 
Feb 2, 2014
6,888
5,852
113
American
www.abdicate.net
What about Aquinas? Do you not think he was a philosopher? Or do you think he tried to do away with God? And, what about Paul, Ignatious? Do you not think Augustine was a philosopher?
I should have prefaced with "the philosophers we studied in class..."

why do you limit any study of His creation to the scriptures?
Because I was talking about chronology, not biology, chemistry, archaeology, etc.

IF the lord wished to convey ages rather than days, is there a succinct way in ancient Hebrew of doing that? Every Hebrew/English glossary I have come across, at least yhose that were not taking a stand on Old Earth vs Young Earth includes definitions including longer, if non specific periods. How would an ancient Hebrew translate a term like EON? And, wouldn't that bring too much interest into those lengths of time, when the purpose of Genesis was more to show that God was the source of everything, and brought the universe into existence through His actions?
Sure, He could have used עולם which means "day until concealed (as in over the horizon)," and is translated forever. Its letters mean, "see, established, control, flow." Each letter is based on a theme, so you can build a lot of different meanings. For instance, "see" can also mean "experience" or "perceive." But I'm not a Hebrew scholar to know which is the most accurate. So I see it as meaning "experience the established controlled flow" as in the passage of time, which isn't really felt after just one day. We see the sun pass through the sky, but the perception of time takes more than a day to really perceive in my opinion.

I believe in a young earth. Many have debated this issue for eons. :) My main reason for rejecting eons of time for things to evolve is because there are no transitions from ameba to fish to man. Like a caterpillar, you can see it go from one stage to the next. Evolution lacks the ten of billions of transitions from one kingdom to the next. Therefore, as God stated "day one" and "day two" etc. I take Him at His word. If I take a piece of wood, sand it, finish it, drill a hole in the center, put a combination of I, V, and X around it and put three arms on it and install a battery, though the clock displays 5:21 doesn't mean it went through from 12:00 to 5:20, it started functioning, fulfilling its purpose at 5:21 completely. There's a thought to a past, but there isn't. Furthermore, God said He made Adam first, then Eve. Is it no wonder that even scientists today admit the Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve don't line up either. You also have to acknowledge that all forms of dating, well established and universal, do not take into account the Flood. Because of that fact, because they don't believe it to be a fact, have all their dating skewed. Additionally, they also call things "a constant" even though they're discovering that many of them are anything but constant. For instance, the rate of carbon-14 entering our atmosphere absorbs from space would have been greatly affected by the Flood.

No matter. The single thing that makes me disbelieve evolution and an old earth is the simple fact that there is no more signs or transition of kingdoms to kingdoms. Even the diehard evolutionists are now turning to aliens because the facts are piling up that there is a supreme intelligent designer they cannot ignore. So instead of billions of years, now it's becoming billions of light years. Either way, neither can or ever will be proven, hence the reason it's still called the Theory of Evolution (all six of them). What better to hide a truth than to declare it too far into the past or out of our galaxy to be proven. That takes more faith than just believing the word of God. Just my take.
 
Feb 10, 2015
852
1,007
93
Maryland
Sure, He could have used עולם which means "day until concealed (as in over the horizon)," and is translated forever. Its letters mean, "see, established, control, flow." Each letter is based on a theme, so you can build a lot of different meanings. For instance, "see" can also mean "experience" or "perceive." But I'm not a Hebrew scholar to know which is the most accurate. So I see it as meaning "experience the established controlled flow" as in the passage of time, which isn't really felt after just one day. We see the sun pass through the sky, but the perception of time takes more than a day to really perceive in my opinion.
I thank you for this information...

I will have to consider it for awhile. I still have questions (that I need to search out for myself) to understand whether this would indeed be a way He could have expressed longer epochs, but it seems to me that a word that is commonly translated as 'forever' would not really be a good way of describing lengths of time that are bounded on both ends whether the ends are 24 hours apart, or of much longer duration.
 
Feb 10, 2015
852
1,007
93
Maryland
My main reason for rejecting eons of time for things to evolve is because there are no transitions from ameba to fish to man.
That would take a great many transitions...
And, at the amoeba end, the trace fossils are very rare, not because the single celled creatures were rare, but because the nature of their bodies, and the nature of how such things are preserved.

Even in the latter stages, it is very rare for the conditions to be right for fossilization or other preservation to take place, regardless of the time we are talking about.

But, we are continually filling in the gaps between animal classes. It seems to me that to place emphasis on the lack of all transitions to be a God-of-the-Gap stance where every time a transition is found, it makes that position that much less tenable.

But, if you allow the evidence to speak, every time you fill a gap, you have a more complete view of God and His creation.

Many make a great deal about not observing the actual branching or transition of species. I would caution about this also. By the criteria I was taught back in high school (late 1960's), Speciation has definitely been observed in single cell organisms, and is potentially observable in the wild among animal populations. A lot depends upon keeping the definition the same. Every time a previously held set of criteria is met, someone seems to change the criteria.

You also have to acknowledge that all forms of dating, well established and universal, do not take into account the Flood.
Actually, I have recently been looking into studies regarding the Flood. Papers in the American Science Affiliation ( an association of Believers who are also scientists) discuss the annual Ice layers in Greenland. The layer count, and thus the count of years is consistent whether the layers are counted visually, or by noting the layers of dust, which are annually deposited, or by examining the ratio of O18 to O16 which changes according to the solar angle (and thus follow a yearly cycle). These readings show over 100,000 yearly layers.

So far from not taking account of the flood there is lively activity studying it scientifically, and debates whether the evidence supports a single world wide flood, or a local flood.

There are also similar papers and discussions in the archives of Christians in Science, which is the English version of the American Science Affiliation.

A related dating method is varve formation. It is the annual layering on the bottom of some lakes and seas. There are also very long, cores involving hundreds of thousands of years.

Although these methods do not get back millions of years, they far outstrip the young-earth view, and they match up to enough extent that the weather of the world going back thousands of years is generally known.

What is telling to me is that just as finding a transition form joins sections of the tree of evolution, time and time again a new piece of knowledge links together previously separate fields of interest and shows that the they are part of the same world. Think of how how genetics has provided much of the mechanism behind the change in species.