I need help

[TheAristocat]

Some believed the earth was held on Atlas' back. But that begs the question, "Who then held Atlas up?" I guess the easiest answer - whether understandable or not at the time - was that nothing held the earth up and that it was hung on nothing. And this is proven in our day and makes sense to a greater degree even if it sounded like nonsense back then.

I imagine an equally as interesting answer will eventually come to the question: if God made the universe then who made God? Just in that question are a number of assumptions that have not been proven.

 

[unguided]

Ah, maybe I wasn't quite clear enough on what I meant about the first Day in Genesis. The ancients regarded a day more in terms of sunrises and sunsets than in 24-hour increments. And who wrote the Bible? The ancients. Forgive the Stargate: Atlantis reference.

Also, in Genesis light is created before the sun or the moon. So if the ancients regarded a day as being from sunrise to sunset and there was no sun to rise or set on the world at this time then what was this first "Day"?

Your definition of complex is dissimilar to mine.

The best way to explain the difference between evolution and adaptation through natural selection is the difference between mutation and genetic recombination. What evolution requires is added genetic information that is beneficially mutated - not a recombination of the current genetic information.

Genetic information can be copied and thus added, but its efficiency is also lessened. Increased genetic information may, as a whole, provide an added bonus to a previously performed task but at a lesser level of efficiency, and I don't think it's been observed to provide an organism with a wholly new beneficial trait which is probably why Evolution is still a theory. Theories are never complete until they become laws and will never become laws until their inherent problems are resolved.

Even if Evolution holds true the Bible is silent on the issue of what processes created the stars or life itself, so Evolution in itself does not falsify or verify the Bible. It does seem, though, that the Bible upholds Paleontology's chronology as well as the Big Bang. If you want to tackle more falsifiable issues to strengthen your faith then we can study contradictions in the Bible as well as fulfilled prophecy.

As a side note I don't buy into the belief that scientists are without preconceptions or prejudices. All humans have influences that shape their world-view and how they interpret data, especially someone who doesn't want to die or - on the opposite side of the fence - someone who lacks funding for research or who doesn't want to be held eternally accountable to a higher power they disagree with.

Ok, I understand what you mean by day now. There was no sun to revolve around the earth so it could not be measured how long the light was traveling before anyone was able to see it? Correct? But I do have to disagree here, still, because scientists are not actually dating the light we are receiving. Scientists are measuring how far away a star is and by that use the speed of light to calculate how long the light has been traveling. Many of these stars were created before the earth was even created, or our sun even. So the light was traveling to our point in the sky even before we were here anyway. Perhaps I am still not understanding your position though. And earlier you said something about gravitational time dilation. Could you perhaps go into a bit more detail on that?

I also see what you mean in evolution where it requires mutations in DNA the benefit and added, not DNA inside of a species that just changes to help a trait. Like in the eye. I read a small bit on it and it appears scientists agree, but heres what they say, " New variants of inherited traits can enter a population from outside populations, and this is referred to as gene flow. Alternatively, new variants can come into being from within a population in at least three ways: mutation of DNA, epimutation (a change inherited in some way other than through the sequence of nucleotides in DNA), and genetic recombination." Now, I can't really explain that, not being a biologist and all. So you can take that with a grain of salt.

But trying to find the beneficially mutated part is not an easy challenge. The problem is that these changes take such a long period of time and we do not know which species would show these traits first it would take hundreds of years before science find the evidence. And then people could say "well, thats only for that species that it was mutated." I guess they could be right. But what non-scientists and most creationists look for is a crocoduck or something. Thats never going to happen. An animal giving birth to a completely new animal. What actually happens, is an animal giving birth to the same animal, with such a small change its negligible. But after generations and generations of a species these small changes will add up and eventually change so much after many years that you will get a new species.

I do have to respectfully disagree on the part of most scientists having an agenda. It is true that everyone has preconceptions and prejudices, but in science their preconceptions do not hold true. They may do experiments to prove a theory they believe holds truth but, if they find the experiment finds their theory holds no water, they scrap it and develop a new theory. So yes they have preconceptions and prejudices, but the findings of their work will change their mind.

 

[TheAristocat]

Ok, I understand what you mean by day now. There was no sun to revolve around the earth so it could not be measured how long the light was traveling before anyone was able to see it? Correct? But I do have to disagree here, still, because scientists are not actually dating the light we are receiving. Scientists are measuring how far away a star is and by that use the speed of light to calculate how long the light has been traveling. Many of these stars were created before the earth was even created, or our sun even. So the light was traveling to our point in the sky even before we were here anyway. Perhaps I am still not understanding your position though. And earlier you said something about gravitational time dilation. Could you perhaps go into a bit more detail on that?

I also see what you mean in evolution where it requires mutations in DNA the benefit and added, not DNA inside of a species that just changes to help a trait. Like in the eye. I read a small bit on it and it appears scientists agree, but heres what they say, " New variants of inherited traits can enter a population from outside populations, and this is referred to as gene flow. Alternatively, new variants can come into being from within a population in at least three ways: mutation of DNA, epimutation (a change inherited in some way other than through the sequence of nucleotides in DNA), and genetic recombination." Now, I can't really explain that, not being a biologist and all. So you can take that with a grain of salt.

But trying to find the beneficially mutated part is not an easy challenge. The problem is that these changes take such a long period of time and we do not know which species would show these traits first it would take hundreds of years before science find the evidence. And then people could say "well, thats only for that species that it was mutated." I guess they could be right. But what non-scientists and most creationists look for is a crocoduck or something. Thats never going to happen. An animal giving birth to a completely new animal. What actually happens, is an animal giving birth to the same animal, with such a small change its negligible. But after generations and generations of a species these small changes will add up and eventually change so much after many years that you will get a new species.

I do have to respectfully disagree on the part of most scientists having an agenda. It is true that everyone has preconceptions and prejudices, but in science their preconceptions do not hold true. They may do experiments to prove a theory they believe holds truth but, if they find the experiment finds their theory holds no water, they scrap it and develop a new theory. So yes they have preconceptions and prejudices, but the findings of their work will change their mind.

You're preaching to the choir, so I have to admit that you misunderstand my position. I'm simply explaining the reasons for a YEC position - not necessarily adhering to it. Personally, I withhold judgment on the more lofty and far-flung theories of science until they can be proven as fact. So, while they're interesting to delve into, they're not necessarily something I agree or disagree with.

But is there some reason your faith is challenged or would you like to talk about the latest and greatest scientific theories of the day?

On your paragraph about evolution, evolution can theoretically happen through mutations during recombination when the genes are copied I believe. I just don't know if it has been observed that genes have mutated enough to warrant an evolutionary discovery or simply a mutation that has improved or revealed an inherent trait dormant in a creature's genes. Evolution's position is that, given enough time, you can evolve a human being from a single-celled organism with significantly less genetic information.

From what I know a creature may inherit a trait that it formerly had not exhibited, but only after an increase in genetic information that operates on a level of reduced efficiency. My concern is that I don't see how this single-celled organism is going to become a multi-cellular organism through duplication and mutation of its DNA. Still, if God created all creatures on earth then what mechanism did he use? I don't buy into the idea that God's speech in Genesis was exactly the same as ours; otherwise I'd be able to say, "VY Canis Majoris," and create a rather sizeable star without any logical explanation. It would be magic, and I don't believe in magic. So I guess that's one example of my particular world-view interpreting the evidence given us in Genesis. Likewise scientists' theories must operate within the confines of their knowledge. And while a "good" scientist will observe the scientific method, many have biases and some jump to conclusions even if it's only in personal opinions that trickle down to the itching ears of the general populace who take it as fact.

 

[unguided]

My point exactly, for the most part. Scriptures are subject to interpretation, but nailed down. Theories are the antithesis, and subject to fallacy and err. I prefer to think of it as "we learn from our mistakes".



Stephen Hawking publicly stated that based on scientific fundamentals of what we know about the Universe, it is safe to say there is no Divine Creator. Science has been at war with whether or not any higher form of existence is plausible, whether directly or indirectly so. I guess I slipped up when saying science was out to disprove Him; I'm just accustomed to seeing people present scientific data in refute to there being a God, or lack thereof, so I jumped the gun there.



No argument there. I think you may have misinterpreted my previous comment. The theory previously was that the universe would collapse back in on itself at some point, expand, collapse, and so on. But the conclusion was reached that the universe was simply expanding. I pointed that out to show that scientific theories and principles are inconsistent on account of people being people and consequently making mistakes.



Sorry, but I am befoozled by the question here, given the statements I put in bold. Seems contradictory, and as such, self explanatory.

I hope you don't think I'm dissecting your statements in an overly defensive manner. It just seemed like the most practical way to get my message across. I still respect your opinions!

Contrary what you may think, I like the replies that pick apart how I am understanding what I have been saying. It makes you really look at it more in depth.

Yes, theories can change based on data, but that is certainly a good thing. Scriptures are only subject to interpretation. This is really not a good thing. What about the scriptures that say to stone someone for working on the sabbath. Or stoning homosexuals. We obviously do not do these things anymore, yet they are in scripture. Would you not agree that this scripture, although written in stone is wrong and should be changed? Science is the people saying hey this is wrong, we should change that. Yes, we certainly do learn from our mistakes.

I saw a video where Hawking made that comment. That is his view on things, but their are scientists who are not so bold as to say that, but I believe he made that statement based on a question he received about his views on god. As far as I know, he is making that statement based on what he knows about the universe and not through an actual experiment that proves or disproves god directly or indirectly. I will state with certainty that there is no test science could do that would disprove or prove God.

Yes, the theory used to be that the universe was shrinking and would collapse upon itself. This was proven wrong, though. Science at work. But this would actually show scientific principles and theories to be more true when they find new truths about a previously held belief.

I don't find the statements to be contradictory. Scientists have been able to turn back the clock and trace back the universe to a point. The time of that point is the planck epoch, where all things came into existence. Including space and time itself. There are many theories on what happened before the big bang. Now I do believe that the big bang happened. But what happened before the big bang is really something unimaginable to say really. Before the big bang time did not exist.

 

[unguided]

You're preaching to the choir, so I have to admit that you misunderstand my position. I'm simply explaining the reasons for a YEC position - not necessarily adhering to it. Personally, I withhold judgment on the more lofty and far-flung theories of science until they can be proven as fact. So, while they're interesting to delve into, they're not necessarily something I agree or disagree with.

But is there some reason your faith is challenged or would you like to talk about the latest and greatest scientific theories of the day?

On your paragraph about evolution, evolution can theoretically happen through mutations during recombination when the genes are copied I believe. I just don't know if it has been observed that genes have mutated enough to warrant an evolutionary discovery or simply a mutation that has improved or revealed an inherent trait dormant in a creature's genes. Evolution's position is that, given enough time, you can evolve a human being from a single-celled organism with significantly less genetic information.

From what I know a creature may inherit a trait that it formerly had not exhibited, but only after an increase in genetic information that operates on a level of reduced efficiency. My concern is that I don't see how this single-celled organism is going to become a multi-cellular organism through duplication and mutation of its DNA. Still, if God created all creatures on earth then what mechanism did he use? I don't buy into the idea that God's speech in Genesis was exactly the same as ours; otherwise I'd be able to say, "VY Canis Majoris," and create a rather sizeable star without any logical explanation. It would be magic, and I don't believe in magic. So I guess that's one example of my particular world-view interpreting the evidence given us in Genesis. Likewise scientists' theories must operate within the confines of their knowledge. And while a "good" scientist will observe the scientific method, many have biases and some jump to conclusions even if it's only in personal opinions that trickle down to the itching ears of the general populace who take it as fact.

Sorry, I must admit, when I get on scientific topics I get so worked up I almost have tunnel vision. I am just trying to understand the world around me, and much of what science states goes against what most creationists think. I know the bible doesn't really doesn't say how long things existed so you can't disprove the bible. Please know that I do not believe everything that science tells me. I know that theories are just theories and can be wrong. But I take the evidence and it appears to hold true thus far. It may just be a theory but the evidence is real. Things like that are hard to ignore. I am trying to find gods purpose. I have seeked but yet still find no answer through prayer, but that doesn't discourage me from it.

 

[unguided]

As much as I would caution against debating the scientific validity of a mortal human's words from a poetic work thousands of years ago I'd like to add Job 26:7 to the pot: He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing.

If you're one to readily draw conclusions your best bet would be to say this accurately represents space from an ancient's perspective. Of course even a philosopher could deduce the same since we find many ancient theories as to how the earth reacted to the same gravity we ourselves are subject to. Some believed the earth was held on Atlas' back. But that begs the question, "Who then held Atlas up?" I guess the easiest answer - whether understandable or not at the time - was that nothing held the earth up and that it was hung on nothing. And this is proven in our day and makes sense to a greater degree even if it sounded like nonsense back then.

I cannot refute that verse. I understand most of what was written, was written by people who did not understand things the way we do now so they had to explain them differently in a way people, then, would understand it.

I don't hold verses that the ancients say to be untrue because the way they were written. But I do hold every verse to scrutiny like you would hold any theory to scrutiny. You have to dissect the underlying meaning. Because these people did not know about a lot of the things we do now, they wrote it how they could explain it. So, to me, that means I have to scrutinze, even the scriptures that say there is a god and he created everything. Could it not mean that they did not know what caused everything so they believed their was a creator who was all knowing and all powerful that created it. Before there was christianity, there were many gods that people believed in. They believed when something happened it was the will of that god. They held their beliefs very dear because it explained to them the reason for their being and why certain things happened. Different cultures had different interpretations so they had different gods. Could it not be possible that the christian god is one of those cases. I do not want to believe that. That is why I am seeking guidance. It helps to understand ones position more so that you can help them help themselves. I know you cannot show me the way but you can give me the tools that will help me on the journey. Ultimately it is up to me how I use the knowledge and guidance, but I appreciate the help in learning how to do it correctly.

 

[unguided]

I think that you already know that these verses are referring to the fact that the earth feels solid under our feet, and it's just being used as an analogy to explain a point. The Bible was meant to be understood by the people of the day. Technically, it's incorrect to refer to "moonlight", because the moon doesn't produce any light, it only reflects the sun's light. And, technically, it's incorrect for me to say my hair is brown, because technically it's absorbing all of the colors and reflecting brown, so that's what we see. If God revealed everything He knows about the universe to us at once, we'd probably explode. He works with our level understanding.

I disagree. If god created us in his image, then we would have the capacity to understand something if he explained it to us. Or if he were to explain it to us, he would instill the ability to understand it so we don't explode lol.

Of course the bunny couldn't happen by chance, I don't expect people to think it did . However, I don't hang a sign on it saying "Nicole made this!", because that would be tacky. When people see it, the inevitable question is "Did YOU make that?", and I tell them I did. Note: they ask, and then I tell them. Otherwise it's swagger, and God's not big on swagger . Ask with an open heart, and He will tell you. The key is to have an open heart. If someone asked me where the bunny came from and I knew that they wouldn't believe my answer, then I'd probably tell them I bought it at Wal-mart .

Ok, sometimes you do have to ask first. Especially with something so profoundly magnificent as the universe and life. I have tried hard, and believe me my heart is open. I don't just accept something because I am told. Science does not have all the answers and I know that. And theories can be proven false. I guess I am just a very questioning person. I cannot believe anything without a good bit of proof. I pray and study the bible to try and understand more so that perhaps god will show me the light, so to say.

I suppose it depends on the type of person you are. If that were my bunny, I would tell someone, "check out this bunny I made ?" Different folks, different strokes.

Understandable, but you should also wonder about where the paint came from. All of the matter in the universe had to come from somewhere, right? Why can you accept that it was just "there", without being able to accept that God was just "there"? It goes both ways, y'know

I don't actually believe that it was just there. Honestly I don't know what I believe but I do believe in the big bang, which doesn't necessarily rule out believing in the bible. But it does put you in a hard spot. But, I think that it is simpler for the universe to have come into existence from a natural cause instead of divine intervention. That doesn't make it true, and thats what I'm trying to figure out.

Yes, find the answer. But don't decide based on what will make you happy, as you told Baddog (who was out of line). If you search for happiness you will never find it. Search for truth, and when you find it, then happiness will follow.[/qoute]

Truth and happiness to me are the same thing. I know that if I find truth it will lead me to happiness. True love, for instance. True love will bring one true happiness. If you want to find someone who makes you truly happy, find someone who you can be truthful with and someone who is truthful with you.

And, just so you'll know, accepting Christ doesn't mean you have to forsake science. I'm a total botany nerd, and studying plant science in college only made my faith stronger. Nature is SO complex........mind-blowing, actually. I embrace natural selection because it makes sense to me, not because some professor told me to accept it. You don't lose your ability to reason when you become a Christian, I promise . -Nicole

I will be applying for college in the astrophysics or particle physics area, not sure which yet, spring of 2012 and I hope that it ultimately leads me to the truth.

 

[TheAristocat]

I cannot refute that verse. I understand most of what was written, was written by people who did not understand things the way we do now so they had to explain them differently in a way people, then, would understand it.

I don't hold verses that the ancients say to be untrue because the way they were written. But I do hold every verse to scrutiny like you would hold any theory to scrutiny. You have to dissect the underlying meaning. Because these people did not know about a lot of the things we do now, they wrote it how they could explain it. So, to me, that means I have to scrutinze, even the scriptures that say there is a god and he created everything. Could it not mean that they did not know what caused everything so they believed their was a creator who was all knowing and all powerful that created it. Before there was christianity, there were many gods that people believed in. They believed when something happened it was the will of that god. They held their beliefs very dear because it explained to them the reason for their being and why certain things happened. Different cultures had different interpretations so they had different gods. Could it not be possible that the christian god is one of those cases. I do not want to believe that. That is why I am seeking guidance. It helps to understand ones position more so that you can help them help themselves. I know you cannot show me the way but you can give me the tools that will help me on the journey. Ultimately it is up to me how I use the knowledge and guidance, but I appreciate the help in learning how to do it correctly.

I don't think you necessarily have to believe that what one writer says out of his own opinion about the universe in the Bible is untrue. But there are patterns in the original language which tell us when a particular passage is poetic and thus implies artistic license. That's not to say I disbelieve the Bible. I just believe we need to put on our thinking hats and properly interpret what is being said in Scripture.

And there are some logical interpretations of what the Bible is claiming and then there are illogical interpretations. For instance, it would be pretty hard to conjecture that the Israelites misinterpreted the Red Sea dividing to be an act of God when it was only an act of nature. Why? Because I'm not aware of any natural process that could cause this or even in tandem with a convenient voice telling someone to raise their staff in anticipation of an unpredictable wind. I've heard theories, but they all deal with the shallow Reed Sea and wind tunnels which I imagine would make traveling through such winds rather difficult to begin with.

But I do have my own hypothesis for the multiple god scenario. It deals with how God was able to appear in the form of a dove, in the form of Jesus and in the form of a voice from heaven all at the same time at Jesus' baptism. If God can appear multi-formed then it would be easy to mistake God for multiple gods I think.

On a sidenote the "gods" of the ancients were largely not omnipotent beings. They had limitations and I seem to remember reading that they were depicted not only in Hebrew but in other cultures' languages as "powers" that had great power but limited power at that. The word for "god" in Hebrew is "el" which means "power" or a similar word "elohim" means "powers," and I've heard that the latter carries the implication of a power that is supreme over other powers because it is also used to refer to a false god in the Bible that was also singular in nature. So I can still understand how the singular God could confuse the ancients and leave some wondering if he were actually a "them".

Here's a link to illustrate my point: Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon To confuse matters for those poor people even more the notion that there is only one true "God" means that there is only one "Supreme Power". I think there were other "powers" in the Bible, but they are known as angels, demons, human judges, etc. - all of which answer to a higher, supreme Power (i.e. God).

 

[Snackersmom]

I disagree. If god created us in his image, then we would have the capacity to understand something if he explained it to us. Or if he were to explain it to us, he would instill the ability to understand it so we don't explode lol.

He made us in His image, but He did not give us His mind. Wouldn't it be spooky if your goldfish knew everything that you know? He does give us understanding if we ask Him to, but we will never on this earth know everything that He knows. It would be too much for our inadequate human-goldfish brains .

Ok, sometimes you do have to ask first. Especially with something so profoundly magnificent as the universe and life. I have tried hard, and believe me my heart is open. I don't just accept something because I am told. Science does not have all the answers and I know that. And theories can be proven false. I guess I am just a very questioning person. I cannot believe anything without a good bit of proof. I pray and study the bible to try and understand more so that perhaps god will show me the light, so to say.

I suppose it depends on the type of person you are. If that were my bunny, I would tell someone, "check out this bunny I made ?" Different folks, different strokes.

I don't need to tell them first, because just about everyone asks where the bunny came from, and those who don't ask are generally the ones who smirk and comment that "SOMEONE had too much time on their hands", so I don't even bother to tell them that I made it. They have disrespected my bunny, and raised the ire of Snackers. (lol)

I don't actually believe that it was just there. Honestly I don't know what I believe but I do believe in the big bang, which doesn't necessarily rule out believing in the bible. But it does put you in a hard spot. But, I think that it is simpler for the universe to have come into existence from a natural cause instead of divine intervention. That doesn't make it true, and thats what I'm trying to figure out.

I agree that the Big Bang doesn't necessarily rule out the Bible, as long as you believe that God was ultimately behind the creation of the universe. There's a saying: "Yeah, I believe in the Big Bang. God willed it, and BANG! It was done!" When you think about it, creation was bound to have caused quite a commotion! . Happy seeking! But, please, when you are ready, be open to just letting God show you if He's real or not, and whether or not Jesus really is The Way. He loves you so much, but He really does want you to ask Him yourself, with a truly open heart and mind. All the best to you! Signed, - Nicole "Ire of Snackers" Snackersmom

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

Contrary what you may think, I like the replies that pick apart how I am understanding what I have been saying. It makes you really look at it more in depth.

Yes, theories can change based on data, but that is certainly a good thing. Scriptures are only subject to interpretation. This is really not a good thing. What about the scriptures that say to stone someone for working on the sabbath. Or stoning homosexuals. We obviously do not do these things anymore, yet they are in scripture. Would you not agree that this scripture, although written in stone is wrong and should be changed? Science is the people saying hey this is wrong, we should change that. Yes, we certainly do learn from our mistakes.

The irony here is that both are subject to interpretation. Opposing theories are presented based off of interpretations or varying approaches. And I don't believe The New Testament advocates stoning homosexuals or those who work on the Sabbath. We are meant to hate the sin, no the sinner. It was a different time then.

I saw a video where Hawking made that comment. That is his view on things, but their are scientists who are not so bold as to say that, but I believe he made that statement based on a question he received about his views on god. As far as I know, he is making that statement based on what he knows about the universe and not through an actual experiment that proves or disproves god directly or indirectly. I will state with certainty that there is no test science could do that would disprove or prove God.

Precisely. We seem to agree here. It's still disheartening for me to see such a notable figure in the field propose the lack of a higher existence though, because of said reasons.

Yes, the theory used to be that the universe was shrinking and would collapse upon itself. This was proven wrong, though. Science at work. But this would actually show scientific principles and theories to be more true when they find new truths about a previously held belief.

We're going roundabout here. I think we can agree to disagree on some level; I agree that learning from our fallacy is quintessential in life. I disagree in that this principle makes Science more laudable; just a byproduct of human intelligence and err wrapped up in a complex package.

I don't find the statements to be contradictory. Scientists have been able to turn back the clock and trace back the universe to a point. The time of that point is the planck epoch, where all things came into existence. Including space and time itself. There are many theories on what happened before the big bang. Now I do believe that the big bang happened. But what happened before the big bang is really something unimaginable to say really. Before the big bang time did not exist.

For the record, there is no such thing as "time". Time is a concept. I don't decry the emergence of existence itself, but I'm not convinced the answer lies deep rooted in scientific data. I believe in a Divine Creator. If the Big Bang happened, I don't believe it happened simply because it did; rather, because He willed it.

But alas, we will never have all the answers. This is why I don't really like to debate, let alone argue. You've made some excellent refutes though. *hats off*.

 

[unguided]

The irony here is that both are subject to interpretation. Opposing theories are presented based off of interpretations or varying approaches. And I don't believe The New Testament advocates stoning homosexuals or those who work on the Sabbath. We are meant to hate the sin, no the sinner. It was a different time then.

But the new testament also says that you should obey the laws of the old testament. Contradictions that make things hard to interpret.


[qoute]
Precisely. We seem to agree here. It's still disheartening for me to see such a notable figure in the field propose the lack of a higher existence though, because of said reasons.[/quote]

Agreed.

We're going roundabout here. I think we can agree to disagree on some level; I agree that learning from our fallacy is quintessential in life. I disagree in that this principle makes Science more laudable; just a byproduct of human intelligence and err wrapped up in a complex package.

Perhaps. But I am proposing that since science can be changed by new fact and scripture cannot be changed, only interpreted, that science could have a better understanding of how things actually work in the world, depending on what scripture may say about it. I don't have any scripture to point out, but I am sure there is something they disagree on.

For the record, there is no such thing as "time". Time is a concept. I don't decry the emergence of existence itself, but I'm not convinced the answer lies deep rooted in scientific data. I believe in a Divine Creator. If the Big Bang happened, I don't believe it happened simply because it did; rather, because He willed it.

But alas, we will never have all the answers. This is why I don't really like to debate, let alone argue. You've made some excellent refutes though. *hats off*.

Please know I'm not trying to refute anything, only get a better understanding of it. Everyone learns differently and this is just one of the ways I do. I am a very visual learner and tend to break down beliefs or ideas and try to see every detail. But in science time is actually a dimension. True that time is a concept, in terms of how we use hours and days and years and such. But before the universe was created, I think we could agree there was no 'time' in our universe. That is how I meant that to be understood. Not necessarily time outside of our universe, because that is something we just cannot know. But we'll agree the universe came into existence at a point and that is when 'time' started.

 

[woodl]

Thanks for your commentary. I've read the bible a bit, not enough to just quote verses but I believe I understand the things it is trying to say.

As far as prayer, I feel like its never worked for me. I know that you can't just pray for something and it will happen. But when I pray I am truly trying to feel a connection, but it always feels like I'm only talking to myself.

Thanks for your commentary. I've read the bible a bit, not enough to just quote verses but I believe I understand the things it is trying to say.

Come unto me all that is heavy laden and I will give you rest.
When you learn Gods word it all becomes clear
You can go on line at Jimmy Swaggart Ministries then click on sonlife network
Some people don't like him because he made a mistake but he asked God for forgiveness and God didn't only forgive him, he made him stronger. He's on 24/7.Try him for yourself

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

But the new testament also says that you should obey the laws of the old testament. Contradictions that make things hard to interpret.

Jesus somewhat threw out some of the teachings of the Old Testament. Example, he healed on the Sabbath, and was challenged for it.

The Ten Commandments still apply, but I don't think it's really all that difficult as to where to draw the line. I can't really say that interpretation makes Scriptures look less credible; it just means we don't have a picture perfect grasp on it. That's not any fault of the teachings. And to be fair, the same could be said about our knowledge of the Universe.

 

[TheAristocat]

Jesus somewhat threw out some of the teachings of the Old Testament. Example, he healed on the Sabbath, and was challenged for it.

The Ten Commandments still apply, but I don't think it's really all that difficult as to where to draw the line. I can't really say that interpretation makes Scriptures look less credible; it just means we don't have a picture perfect grasp on it. That's not any fault of the teachings. And to be fair, the same could be said about our knowledge of the Universe.

Yeah, I don't think Jesus actually did away with the Sabbath. I mean, not God's Sabbath. Compare John 5:18 and John 7:23. The word used for Sabbath here is Sabbaton and can mean a number of things, one of which was the Pharisaical sabbath and another which was the Sabbath given to the Israelites by God. I think the most coherent interpretation of these two passages is that Jesus broke the Pharisaical sabbath (i.e. not walking too far a distance, etc.) but did not break God's Sabbath (i.e. resting from our daily labors).

John 5:18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

John 7:23 Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath?

The former passage says that he broke the Sabbath while the latter seems to suggest he did not break it by the same act. So we need to be careful about our interpretation of Scripture. On a side note Jesus saying that he is master of the Sabbath also entails that he gets to interpret the Sabbath any way he pleases. Look up the word for "master" in the Blue Letter Bible and you will see it carries this connotation. So he can dispense of the Sabbath any way he likes, and he doesn't have to agree with the way the Pharisees interpreted and imposed the Sabbath because it was not made by them but by God.

Blue Letter Bible link for John 5:18: John 5 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

 

[violakat]

. So he can dispense of the Sabbath any way he likes, and he doesn't have to agree with the way the Pharisees interpreted and imposed the Sabbath because it was not made by them but by God.

Blue Letter Bible link for John 5:18: John 5 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

Just to extend of what Aristocat is saying,
In Mark 2:27, we see Jesus saying: "And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath"

God made Sabbath a day of rest. Not a day of duty. And Jesus was restoring the real purpose of Sabbath.

 

[TheAristocat]

Just to extend of what Aristocat is saying,
In Mark 2:27, we see Jesus saying: "And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath"

God made Sabbath a day of rest. Not a day of duty. And Jesus was restoring the real purpose of Sabbath.

yup. sums it up nicely