Progressing from Milk to Meat

[thenami]

rtm3039 You are keeping it real my brother; that's quite a testimony. Ive witnessed to the family members I felt needed it. Most know of salvation, even if they believe you cant know for sure if your going to heaven. My kids and their spouses are saved.

As far as God and science goes Ive posted on sites with the widest spectrum of opinions as possible. God to me is the ultimate scientist, and mathematician; he created us.

Heres some good ammo when witnessing to the scientific

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That's an impossibility for science.

www.forbes.com

 

[rtm3039]

Thenami, that's some heavy stuff.

My walk with Christ has been interesting. It took me over 50 years to get here, so I am still walking slowly to make sure I walk the right path. I do both milk and meat, but sometimes the meat is actually poultry to help me digest better.

I've been a member of my current church for almost a year. To date, I have not missed a single sermon and, as this weekend would attest, I spend a great deal of my time serving the church (this weekend, almost 12 hours between helping a local school paint on Saturday and providing security for two of the three services we had on Sunday). For the record, I have not missed a sermon because I do don't want to and I understand that we are saved by faith and not works.

At it turns out, I am the only member of my family that attends church. I guess you can say that I am the only person in my family that is actually taking the walk with Christ. The good news, if one can call it that, is that no one in my family has an issue with the new me and I do what I can to help them find their way as well. What can I tell yah; my son claims to be an atheist, daughter-in-law was raised as a Mormon and wants nothing to do with any church, and my wife is a non-practicing Catholic. Despite this insanity, we have been able to exist with no issues and, for the moment, I am working on the daughter-in-law

We (my church) also has what we call "small groups" which is basically a bible study groups. We meet on Mondays for around three hours. In my case, my small group consists of the same people I serve with as part of the church's security team. Aside from our Monday night meetings, we also communicate throughout the week through the WhatsApp application. This technology allows us to continue the fellowship seven days a week and I have found it a great way of lifting each other up and motivating us throughout the trials and tribulations that we all face from time to time.

As for me, I find myself very thirsty. I tend to spend most evenings reading the Bible (my daily bread) and as much of other sources as I can find. My struggle is that I am an academic by nature and find myself needing to look deeper into the background on who wrote what , when, to whom, and why (aka: context). As an example, we just finished reading the book of Noah. I spent countless hours reading many debates over the great fish, a whale, etc. At the end of the day, this is about one of God's miracles and that is that. On the other hand, I did learn that the greatest fish we have is the whale shark. It has a mouth large enough to swallow a man, but a throat that is only around four inches wide (this is why it only feeds on plankton including copepods, krill, fish eggs, etc).

Anyway, just felt like sharing. I am, without question, a work in progress. While I spend most of my time recovering from the stumble, I like that I stand back up and keep on walking every time. Reading your comments helps a great deal.

rtm3039

rtm3039 You are keeping it real my brother; that's quite a testimony. Ive witnessed to the family members I felt needed it. Most know of salvation, even if they believe you cant know for sure if your going to heaven. My kids and their spouses are saved.

As far as God and science goes Ive posted on sites with the widest spectrum of opinions as possible. God to me is the ultimate scientist, and mathematician; he created us.

Heres some good ammo when witnessing to the scientific

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That's an impossibility for science.

www.forbes.com

Thanks. Will save and read this tomorrow. Just got done with bible study and, since the whole house is sleeping, going to do a little light reading. As usual, the clock got to 9pm and we only ended the session because tomorrow is a work day. Sometimes, we could continue to day break.

rtm3039

 

[Major]

Science is a technical explanation of what God did/does. In his Word, God let us know what we need to know, now everything there is to know. Genesis makes no mention of when God created air (oxygen), but He did. We can guess it was on or before the fourth day, but this is just something He did not believe we needed to know:

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. Genesis 1: 3 - 5 (NIV)

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" 2 Peter 3:8 (NIV)

Genesis 1:1-2 .....
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Where did the water come from? Before God began the Creation process there was water on the earth. Is there a "gap" between verse 1 and 2 which would allow for an undermined amount of time?

 

[thenami]

Here is where I have problems with witnessing to the scientifically minded. The bible can be so specific in some areas, and so vague in others.
I chalk a lot of that up to when scripture was written. In the Hebrew language the original writers may have had difficulty with expressing such things, or that God himself did not want humans to have all the answers. It comes down to an issue of faith.

How can we explain faith, when we cannot put it into physical terms with emperical information? How can we question what information God has not given us access to? Through faith we do all things. So my answer to your question is God made the water while he created our planet.

 

[Lanolin]

I find the scientifically minded can split hairs over things (if not atoms) that arent really important and in the process create nuclear bombs. Thing is you cant mess with nature and what God created which He did with a particular purpose in mind, its up to you to ask Him to find it out.

When humans try to mess with nature it always turns out to be a mess. With God its all as it should be.

When people go on and on about 'the big bang' I just think 'is that the best you can come up with?' Lol. They cannot prove that the universe started with a 'big bang' but just assume it did. And whats with the name 'big bang' I mean really it sounds silly. Are we the product of a bomb going off by accident?

 

[rtm3039]

Here is where I have problems with witnessing to the scientifically minded. The bible can be so specific in some areas, and so vague in others.
I chalk a lot of that up to when scripture was written. In the Hebrew language the original writers may have had difficulty with expressing such things, or that God himself did not want humans to have all the answers. It comes down to an issue of faith.

How can we explain faith, when we cannot put it into physical terms with emperical information? How can we question what information God has not given us access to? Through faith we do all things. So my answer to your question is God made the water while he created our planet.

I really find this line of discussion fascinating. Yes, God obviously created the water, and air, and everything in between, on top, and below it. I am a firm believer that God's word only contains that which He considers important enough to make known. I do not believe that He is keeping secrets, just that there is only so much that we really need to know.

To be the world's best race car driver, you really do not need to know the details of an internal combustion engine. Let's look at Genesis 5:4 "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." So, we know Cain, Abel and Seth, but that it is. Granted, we know why Caine and Able are mentioned, but is this to say that none of Adam's other children amounted to nothing? No, I suspect that they did, but not to a point where the rest of us need to know.

Our Lord is all about motion. We have four reasons, our son and moon rise and fall with the passing of each day and night. The crust of His planet create and destroys through plate tectonics. So, what's to say that this "big bang" theory is not true? Don't get me wrong, I am more than satisfied in the knowledge God has seen fit for me to know, but I also know that there is more that He just didn't think we needed to know at the moment.

And yes, some of this is because those who wrote some of the books just were not able to grasp what they were seeing. Imagine is you could go back in time, meet Moses, put a laptop on his lap, and ask him to write about it. Do not know what he would write, but it would not be a description of what we know as a laptop.

We know, or we should, that Revelations is an accounting rich in parables and symbiology. The message, in my humble opinion, is made much more clearer through the symbols. Look how often Jesus made his point by using language what falls into this category. "This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand" Matthew 13:13.

Sometimes, it is clear as a bell, and sometimes it's just not: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22: 37 - 40

rtm3039

 

[Siloam]

Here is where I have problems with witnessing to the scientifically minded. The bible can be so specific in some areas, and so vague in others

From where I stand, the problem is that the two approaches to defining truth are disjoint, as are the methods of discovering truth. The result unnecessarily divides into two camps that talk past each other.

If we do not define "truth" in the same way, and then describe that those truths in ways that does not speak to the core of the "truth" of the other camp, is it any wonder they end up mistrusting and misunderstanding each other.

For example, the the message of Genesis 1 is that
> God made all,
And
> it was good

Although it reports a sequence of events, it less a history than a theological statement. To also make it a history is to make Genesis speak to questions it was never intended.

When I compare the Biblical account to the little I know about other ancient creation accounts, I am struck by the fact that other accounts raise more questions that they answer while the Bible seems neater and shows an orderly progression from no existance to a functioning universe.

When science approaches the question of origins, it is not asking who made it, nor is it asking whether it was good or bad, so science does not address the main points of Genesis.

I find that much of the sequencibg implied by the Biblical account to be of "echoes" of scientific cosmology, but it is a mistake to expect either account to recapitulate the other.

 

[thenami]

This is where I will disagree with you Siloam. In my perspectives and personal philosophies God and science are one. How can they not be? There is no division that was not created by the disbelief of man. Are we ourselves as human beings not living proof of this? People only talk past each other when they don't choose to listen. We do define truth in the same ways, even though we express those truths differently by our own life experiences. Just like how the bible was written, the apostles had their own views and personalities that shine to this day.

Very fascinating indeed, and I am enjoying the diversity of opinions. Like WOW we are all saved and having a civil conversation!!! Thank you Father int he name of your Son Jesus Christ for this thread! Might we continue to inspire growth and learn from one another~ Amen.

 

[Siloam]

This is where I will disagree with you Siloam. In my perspectives and personal philosophies God and science are one. How can they not be? There is no division that was not created by the disbelief of man. Are we ourselves as human beings not living proof of this? People only talk past each other when they don't choose to listen. We do define truth in the same ways, even though we express those truths differently by our own life experiences. Just like how the bible was written, the apostles had their own views and personalities that shine to this day.

Very fascinating indeed, and I am enjoying the diversity of opinions. Like WOW we are all saved and having a civil conversation!!! Thank you Father int he name of your Son Jesus Christ for this thread! Might we continue to inspire growth and learn from one another~ Amen.

My post was expressing my observations on who the scientific community and the religious community approach these issues. Each side demands that the other acknowledge the primacy of their own point of view.

Since my religious thought was kindled by pondering over scientific discourse, I do not share the distrust.

The physical universe and its laws reflect its maker. Study of the universe and physical laws can teach a lot about God.

 

[thenami]

Thank you for further explanation, as we each have our own interpretations to text. Even though there is one basic meaning to the definitions of words, we each see things through our own unique capabilities. This includes scripture

 

[Lanolin]

Instêad of 'the big bang' why dont the scientific community talk about 'the Big God'?

Just wondering. Its kinda like they deliberately ignore all reference to Him.

 

[Siloam]

Instêad of 'the big bang' why dont the scientific community talk about 'the Big God'?

Just wondering. Its kinda like they deliberately ignore all reference to Him.

It's because the science _only_ approach doesn't deal or acknowledge the personhood behind the physical laws.

In my case, even though I was deducing a lot about God from scientific discussions, it took exposure to scripture to breath life onto the dry bones of physics.

 

[rtm3039]

Instêad of 'the big bang' why dont the scientific community talk about 'the Big God'?

Just wondering. Its kinda like they deliberately ignore all reference to Him.

They are, Lanolin. Instead of using the word "God," they are using the word "Big." Two words, same impact.

 

[rtm3039]

This is where I will disagree with you Siloam. In my perspectives and personal philosophies God and science are one. How can they not be? There is no division that was not created by the disbelief of man. Are we ourselves as human beings not living proof of this? People only talk past each other when they don't choose to listen. We do define truth in the same ways, even though we express those truths differently by our own life experiences. Just like how the bible was written, the apostles had their own views and personalities that shine to this day.

Very fascinating indeed, and I am enjoying the diversity of opinions. Like WOW we are all saved and having a civil conversation!!! Thank you Father int he name of your Son Jesus Christ for this thread! Might we continue to inspire growth and learn from one another~ Amen.

thenami,

We tend to create our own realities, especially as a way of not leaving what we know and jumping into the unknown.

I am one that honestly believes the Bible is full of hidden messages. Not hidden as in a secret, but hidden as it requiring the student to really lean into the scripture and connect the dots. As an example, it took me a while longer than I am willing to admit to figure out what "sixty-two sevens" were: "After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed." Daniel 9:36 (NIV).

I am in the middle of reading a book, “30 days to understand the Bible” by Max Anders. The title is a bit misleading. It is not so much about scripture, but about how the Bible is put together and a better understanding about everything from those that wrote the 66 books, to the geography of both the Old and New Testament. In discussing what the author calls “The doctrine of God,” he leads off with the following “God cannot be proven or disproven. The existence of God lies outside the reach of scientific confirmation. Therefore, we cannot go to the laboratory and look for proof of God. Rather, we must go to the courtroom and look for evidence” . . . if one has an open mind and is willing to go wherever the evidence leads, there is sufficient evidence to make belief in God a confident conclusion." p. 198. As the chapter continues, it lists the four major subdivision of the Doctrine of God, as follows:

• Existence: God exists. God cannot be dealt with in the laboratory, He must be dealt within the courtroom. Believing in His existence is an intellectually reasonable thing do to.
• Attributes: The fundamental characteristics of God. These characteristics are called “attributes.” Some attributes are shared with man and are called “personal attributes.” Some are true of Him alone and are called “divine attributes.”
  • Omnipotence: God is all-powerful
  • Omnipresence: God is present everywhere simultaneously
  • Omniscience: God knows all things
  • Holiness: God is without evil and only good
  • Love: God seeks the best for others
  • Justice: God applies righteous consequences equally to everyone
• Sovereignty: God can do whatever He wills. In his sovereignty He has determined everything that has happened and will happen and yet has done so in such a way that man has true choice.
• Trinity: There is one God who exists in three persons; God, the father; Jesus Christ, the son; and the Holy Spirit.

Like I said before, I am way too young to not rely on milk, but my struggle continues and my quest for knowledge does not appear to want to stop.

rtm3039

 

[rtm3039]

thenami,

We tend to create our own realities, especially as a way of not leaving what we know and jumping into the unknown.

I am one that honestly believes the Bible is full of hidden messages. Not hidden as in a secret, but hidden as it requiring the student to really lean into the scripture and connect the dots. As an example, it took me a while longer than I am willing to admit to figure out what "sixty-two sevens" were: "After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed." Daniel 9:36 (NIV).

I am in the middle of reading a book, “30 days to understand the Bible” by Max Anders. The title is a bit misleading. It is not so much about scripture, but about how the Bible is put together and a better understanding about everything from those that wrote the 66 books, to the geography of both the Old and New Testament. In discussing what the author calls “The doctrine of God,” he leads off with the following “God cannot be proven or disproven. The existence of God lies outside the reach of scientific confirmation. Therefore, we cannot go to the laboratory and look for proof of God. Rather, we must go to the courtroom and look for evidence” . . . if one has an open mind and is willing to go wherever the evidence leads, there is sufficient evidence to make belief in God a confident conclusion." p. 198. As the chapter continues, it lists the four major subdivision of the Doctrine of God, as follows:

• Existence: God exists. God cannot be dealt with in the laboratory, He must be dealt within the courtroom. Believing in His existence is an intellectually reasonable thing do to.
• Attributes: The fundamental characteristics of God. These characteristics are called “attributes.” Some attributes are shared with man and are called “personal attributes.” Some are true of Him alone and are called “divine attributes.”
  • Omnipotence: God is all-powerful
  • Omnipresence: God is present everywhere simultaneously
  • Omniscience: God knows all things
  • Holiness: God is without evil and only good
  • Love: God seeks the best for others
  • Justice: God applies righteous consequences equally to everyone
• Sovereignty: God can do whatever He wills. In his sovereignty He has determined everything that has happened and will happen and yet has done so in such a way that man has true choice.
• Trinity: There is one God who exists in three persons; God, the father; Jesus Christ, the son; and the Holy Spirit.

Like I said before, I am way too young to not rely on milk, but my struggle continues and my quest for knowledge does not appear to want to stop.

rtm3039

And here is my attempt at approaching God's existence from an intellectual perspective: Below is a picture of my backyard. Within 50 yards, we have trees that bear coconuts, bananas, and mangoes. We have bushes that bear pineapples and some that just bear flowers. They all drink from the same rain, are nourished by the same soil, and grow through the warms of the same sun. Collectively, they produce something I can drink (coconut milk) and something I can eat. What I cannot eat, is enjoyed by the birds, quarrels, various reptiles, and way too many inspects. When the tree is too tall, no worries, as the coconuts drop down to where I can get them. Every pineapple top produces another pineapple. Each banana tree produces only one bunch; however, it also produces new stalk that replaces the old and takes on the responsibility to produce more bananas. The flowers come in white, yellow, and red. They smell nice and give the butterflies something productive to do with their day.

So, who among us can claim this was all by chance?

 

[Major]

Here is where I have problems with witnessing to the scientifically minded. The bible can be so specific in some areas, and so vague in others.
I chalk a lot of that up to when scripture was written. In the Hebrew language the original writers may have had difficulty with expressing such things, or that God himself did not want humans to have all the answers. It comes down to an issue of faith.

How can we explain faith, when we cannot put it into physical terms with emperical information? How can we question what information God has not given us access to? Through faith we do all things. So my answer to your question is God made the water while he created our planet.

Agreed. That would be the answer of faith. Faith is believing what we do not see.

Would you agree that the oceans are part of Earth, our planet. Currently, we tend to use Earth in the context of land, but it is in fact referencing our planet, the entire thing including the oceans. If God spoke the planet into existence then by default ALL of the planet would be created, ie the land, the core, the oceans and sea, the sky, etc etc.

 

[Major]

From where I stand, the problem is that the two approaches to defining truth are disjoint, as are the methods of discovering truth. The result unnecessarily divides into two camps that talk past each other.

If we do not define "truth" in the same way, and then describe that those truths in ways that does not speak to the core of the "truth" of the other camp, is it any wonder they end up mistrusting and misunderstanding each other.

For example, the the message of Genesis 1 is that
> God made all,
And
> it was good

Although it reports a sequence of events, it less a history than a theological statement. To also make it a history is to make Genesis speak to questions it was never intended.

When I compare the Biblical account to the little I know about other ancient creation accounts, I am struck by the fact that other accounts raise more questions that they answer while the Bible seems neater and shows an orderly progression from no existance to a functioning universe.

When science approaches the question of origins, it is not asking who made it, nor is it asking whether it was good or bad, so science does not address the main points of Genesis.

I find that much of the sequencibg implied by the Biblical account to be of "echoes" of scientific cosmology, but it is a mistake to expect either account to recapitulate the other.

Here is a thought. There is Creation in the Bible but the Bible is not a book about creation.

There is biology in the Bible but the Bible is not a book about Biology.

There is psycology in the Bible but the Biuble is not a book about psycology.

There is sports in the Bible but the Bible is not a book about sports.

The Bible is first and formost a book about God's relationship with man and how does man get to where God is.

 

[Siloam]

Here is a thought. There is Creation in the Bible but the Bible is not a book about creation.

There is biology in the Bible but the Bible is not a book about Biology.

There is psycology in the Bible but the Biuble is not a book about psycology.

There is sports in the Bible but the Bible is not a book about sports.

The Bible is first and formost a book about God's relationship with man and how does man get to where God is.

I like and agree with yoyr statements, but the problem comes when both both the Biblical and the non Biblical approaches appear to teach something, but the two viewpoints appear to be contradictory.

One can take a view that they are only concerned with one view and its associated methods, but if so, one cannot rightly say anything regarding the other.

Both scientists who reject God because _they_ have not discovered Him nor have they considered Him as well as the Biblical scholar who has not truly looked at scientific evidences, which he should recognize as studies of God's general revelation but reject it because it doesn't match with his prior understanding of scripture... Both approaches are parochial and do not allow that they may have misunderstood what Scripture or the sciences (General Revelation) was really saying. Both scientific studies and Biblical studies have an unavoidable measure of fallible human interpretation as well as application.

So the believing Christian who also seeks the truths God speaks through what He has made must be continually humble and look for ways of being true to both, recognizing that there will only be final resolution after we are raised. Even then we will still be too small to hold the whole truth in ones mind.

 

[Lanolin]

They are, Lanolin. Instead of using the word "God," they are using the word "Big." Two words, same impact.

Um..God bang? Doesnt make sense. Sorry.

 

[Major]

I like and agree with yoyr statements, but the problem comes when both both the Biblical and the non Biblical approaches appear to teach something, but the two viewpoints appear to be contradictory.

One can take a view that they are only concerned with one view and its associated methods, but if so, one cannot rightly say anything regarding the other.

Both scientists who reject God because _they_ have not discovered Him nor have they considered Him as well as the Biblical scholar who has not truly looked at scientific evidences, which he should recognize as studies of God's general revelation but reject it because it doesn't match with his prior understanding of scripture... Both approaches are parochial and do not allow that they may have misunderstood what Scripture or the sciences (General Revelation) was really saying. Both scientific studies and Biblical studies have an unavoidable measure of fallible human interpretation as well as application.

So the believing Christian who also seeks the truths God speaks through what He has made must be continually humble and look for ways of being true to both, recognizing that there will only be final resolution after we are raised. Even then we will still be too small to hold the whole truth in ones mind.

It seems to me that the root of the differences come down to those who ridgeidly and dogmatically hold to a 24 hour, 7 day, 365 day year of creation no matter what.

Again, it comes down to what we understand about Creation and whether it is a 6 day event or is there some kind of explanation where we are just not given the whole story in Genesis. Is it Old earth or Young earth? We all like a mystery and when we do not have the details our minds go to work and our brains fill in the gaps.

Through the use of radiometric dating, scientists have been able to estimate the age of the earth to be within a percent or two of 4.54 billion years. A literal interpretation Genesis, however, tells us something very different.

Just the fact that man has dug up the skeletons of animals who science says lived millions of years ago should cause our light to go on.

The Bible provides details about many of the descendants of Adam (the first man), including some information about the ages at which these descendants had children and died. But it is also true that the genealogies of man have many, many gaps in them. A number of biblical scholars have used this information (combined sometimes with information elsewhere in the Bible) to construct accounts of how old the earth must be, with estimates ranging from about 6,000 to 10,000 years, in dramatic contradiction with the scientific estimate.

Science is convinced that all dinosaur bones must be at least 65 million years old. Those who take Genesis as real history would predict that no dinosaur bone is more than a few thousand years old.

So the challenge then is how do we reconcile that obvious difference when we are holding a dinosaur bone in our hand?