Creation of universe

[AxeElf]

Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, Daniel... I am curious, which of these men that I have mentioned really existed, and which ones were not real?

I think in general, the further back you go, the fuzzier the details become in terms of the reality of these persons and the legends around them. We can be pretty certain that Daniel, David, Moses, Joseph and Abraham all existed in some capacity, although I suspect the rumors of the extended lifespans of guys like Moses and Abraham were somewhat exaggerated. I think Noah was probably also a real person, and he may have even survived some kind of a localized disaster with his family and some of the local wildlife, but the occurrence of a worldwide flood that no animals would have survived if they were not on board the ark goes beyond the limits of rational possibility.

With Enoch and his 465 year lifespan before being taken alive into heaven, I think we are getting further into the realm of the legendary and/or mythical, and by the time we get to Adam, we have almost assuredly crossed over from historical account to instructional allegory.

 

[Dino246]

I think in general, the further back you go, the fuzzier the details become in terms of the reality of these persons and the legends around them. We can be pretty certain that Daniel, David, Moses, Joseph and Abraham all existed in some capacity, although I suspect the rumors of the extended lifespans of guys like Moses and Abraham were somewhat exaggerated. I think Noah was probably also a real person, and he may have even survived some kind of a localized disaster with his family and some of the local wildlife, but the occurrence of a worldwide flood that no animals would have survived if they were not on board the ark goes beyond the limits of rational possibility.

Rational possibility according to whom? You? You don't get to define it for anyone else.

With Enoch and his 465 year lifespan before being taken alive into heaven, I think we are getting further into the realm of the legendary and/or mythical, and by the time we get to Adam, we have almost assuredly crossed over from historical account to instructional allegory.

Enoch and his 465-year lifespan is legendary and/or mythical. Enoch and his 365-year lifespan is biblical.

You're welcome to believe whatever you like regarding the veracity of the biblical narrative. Jesus thought that Genesis was historical. I'll go with His opinion on the matter.

 

[AxeElf]

Rational possibility according to whom? You? You don't get to define it for anyone else.

It would be more accurate to ask "according to WHAT," rather than "according to whom."

Rational possibility is defined by the rules of logic in combination with what we know about the world. So if I say that it is not a rational possibility for you to flap your arms and fly to the moon, it is not by my own personal authority that you are unable to do so, it is by the limits of the physical world and logic that you are unable to do so.

I'm not defining it, I'm just explaining it.

Enoch and his 465-year lifespan is legendary and/or mythical. Enoch and his 365-year lifespan is biblical.

I guess it depends on which texts you believe--some have Enoch living for 300 more years after his blessing at the age of 65, some have him living for 365 more years after his blessing at the age of 65--which only goes to substantiate my point that the details of "reality" get fuzzier the further into the past that you go.

Jesus thought that Genesis was historical. I'll go with His opinion on the matter.

You don't know what Jesus thought, you only know what was recorded about what He said. (And I think that some of Genesis is roughly historical as well.)

 

[Angela53510]

The Bible is a book of spiritual truth. One should read it with the intention of learning what it is trying to tell us. That's where us prophets can come in handy, by helping others to understand and interpret the divine will and purpose.

Jesus told a parable about a sower who spread seed on various types of ground. Some of the seed did not sprout because it fell on rocky ground. Some of the seed sprouted, but was soon choked out by weeds. Some of the seed grew into strong plants, because the soil was fertile and receptive.

Do you believe that this sower was a real man, and that the story that Jesus told is an accurate depiction of actual events? Or do you believe that Jesus was teaching something important that was not contained in the literal facts of the story?

Ok, so if you understand that God and Jesus use parables to communicate spiritual truths through stories that are not necessarily historically or scientifically accurate, then why do you have a problem with trying to rightly divide the word into what is literal truth and what is spiritual truth?


PennEd said, "When you do that, you are making YOURSELF out to be god"
You said, "When I do that, I am exercising my gift of prophecy."

It has nothing to do with whether or not I LIKE it, that's just what God's creation speaks to us when we examine it for evidence of how we got here as human beings. In fact, I LIKE the parable of the Garden of Eden a great deal. It helps me to understand some important spiritual truths, such as that selfishness (not hate) is the opposite of love, how man's nature of selfishness therefore separates him from God, whose nature is love, and why Jesus was necessary to reach out to across across that abyss created by our nature to allow us to pass over back into the presence of God for eternity.
Oh no; please, do not "work with" error or allow it to go unchallenged. If you can identify and demonstrate error, then by all means, call it out. I detest error with every fiber of my being (while still understanding that it can never be fully eradicated, only minimized).

Well, not just MY sin, but the sin of everyone who was created for salvation, yes.

(The matter of the "3rd day" may also be subject to a degree of question as well--there's a currently active thread on that very topic here in this forum--but it's not important.)

You are rapidly losing all credibly. The Parable of the Sower is, wait for it, A PARABLE! That was a common figure of speech, a parable in Biblical times. Jesus told many parables. Here is a good definition and explanation of what a parable is, since you don't seem to know. The Hebrew mind set in the first century understood what a parable was, even if you do not. Of course, it was not a REAL person! That is what a parable is - a story with teaching, with common elements, used as an extended metaphor.

"The range of meaning of the term "parable" (Gk. parabole [parabole]) in the New Testament closely parallels that of the Hebrew masal [l;v'm] in the Old Testament and related Hebrew literature. As well as referring to narrative parables, the term identifies similitudes ( Matt 13:33 ; B. Pes. 49a), allegories ( Ezek 17:2 ; 24:3 ; Matthew 13:18Matthew 13:24 Matthew 13:36 ), proverbs ( Proverbs 1:1 Proverbs 1:6 ; Mark 3:23 ), riddles ( Psalm 78:2 ; Mark 7:17 ), and symbols or types ( Heb 9:9 ; B. Sanh. 92b ). "Parable" is a general term for a figurative saying.

Jesus' narrative parables are probably best understood as extended metaphors. The story (the image) is a window through which a larger reality (the referent) is depicted. Understanding the message of a parable is more than identifying its "point, " though many parables do have a focal point that is reinforced by the parable as a whole. Thus, it is crucial both to understand the story as it would have been understood by Jesus' original hearers, and to understand the referent, the wider reality about which it gives insight. Typically the referent is some aspect of the kingdom of God, the reign of God in people's hearts, or the realm of God's sovereignty. In order to let the parable have its full impact, we need to see the referent in a new way through the parable story.

To understand a parable we first need to listen to the story. We need to appreciate how its various details support the focus of the whole. For instance, the words describing the fate of each of the seeds that did not bear fruit — devoured, scorched, choked have terrifying overtones. This is a story about the reception of seed in various soils. The three examples of multiplied fruitfulness balance the former three examples of fruitlessness. By their concluding position the multiplied fruitfulness of the good soil offers hope in contrast to the devastation where the Word does not take root. The interpretation in each of the Synoptics fits the story perfectly: a person's destiny depends on his or her response to the Word. It both offers hope and warns of devastation to those who will not accept the message. Such a combination of cursing and blessing seems to have been typical of Jesus' contrast parables: eschatological blessing for those who respond properly to God's invitation, but cursing for those who do not.

Of Jesus' fifty-two recorded narrative parables, twenty seem to depict him in imagery that in the Old Testament metaphorical use typically referred to God. The frequency with which this occurs indicates that Jesus regularly depicted himself in images that were particularly appropriate for depicting God. Such self-portrayal appears to be unique to Jesus. In the vast corpus of rabbinic parables there seems to be none in which a rabbi depicted himself. This distinctiveness, like the distinctive artistry of Jesus' parables, is further evidence that the parables recorded in the Gospels are authentic to Jesus.

The imagery that Jesus used to depict himself is an integral and often necessary part of the parables in which they occur. For instance, take the "father" out of the prodigal son, the "bridegroom" out of the bridegroom, the "shepherd" out of the lost sheep, or the "rock" out of the two houses and the parable disintegrates. Furthermore, these symbols for God applied by Jesus to himself in the parables are not interpreted in the Gospels as divine claims. In light of these factors, we can be confident that they were not later, theologically motivated insertions."

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/parable/

PennEd said, "When you do that, you are making YOURSELF out to be god"
You said, "When I do that, I am exercising my gift of prophecy."

So, your gift of prophecy makes you god? Or am I missing something with all the "reply with quotes" As for the Garden of Eden being a parable, you are going to have to justify that - what reliable sources do you base your arguement on? I've never heard of that being even suggested. But, maybe my conservative background keeps me from making up such nonsense. Same with others who believe the Bible!

I do agree with you though, about challenging error. Your errors are the reason I joined this thread. I have to go work on some papers, for my PhD in theology, but maybe we can interact again? Ooops just saw your Trinity heresy! Perhaps sooner rather than later?

 

[AxeElf]

You are rapidly losing all credibly.

I think the word you are searching for is "credibility," and in that regard, opinions vary.

The Parable of the Sower is, wait for it, A PARABLE!

Oh, I didn't know that. Have you considered that may be why I called it a parable?

That was a common figure of speech, a parable in Biblical times. Jesus told many parables. Here is a good definition and explanation of what a parable is, since you don't seem to know...

Yes, and that was a MARVELOUS usage of copy and paste technology!

Now that we both understand what a parable is, and that God/Jesus made prolific use of parables as a way to teach spiritual truths through stories that were themselves not factually true, it should come as no surprise that a story like the Garden of Eden (which can't rationally be considered factually true, yet which still teaches some valuable spiritual truths) might be considered another one of God's instructional parables.

PennEd said, "When you do that, you are making YOURSELF out to be god"
You said, "When I do that, I am exercising my gift of prophecy."

So, your gift of prophecy makes you god? Or am I missing something...

You're missing something. The gift of prophecy makes one a prophet of God, not God Himself.

As for the Garden of Eden being a parable, you are going to have to justify that

I believe I just did.

We know that God/Jesus made extensive use of parables to teach spiritual truths through stories that are themselves not factually true.

We know that the Garden of Eden story cannot be factually true, given what we know about the development of life on Earth (especially human life)--not to mention the inconsistencies within the story itself that make it impossible to be literally true in every regard.

We know that the Garden of Eden story, while not being factually true, still teaches us valuable spiritual truths about how man is fundamentally separated from God by his very nature.

Therefore, the Garden of Eden story is best characterized as a parable.

I do agree with you though, about challenging error.

Well, at least we'll always have that.

I have to go work on some papers, for my PhD in theology, but maybe we can interact again?

It's certainly possible. A prophet could be quite helpful to a student of theology. Let me know if there's anything I can help you understand better.

Perhaps sooner rather than later?

If God brings us together again, there can be no doubt that it will be when the time is right.

 

[Noose]

LOL!

What exactly is "my theory"? That silence and darkness are the absence of sound and light? 'Fraid that's not "my theory"; that is the definition of the terms. And if you think that science fails because silence and darkness are the absence of sound and light, then you have another think coming.



I don't "want" to define them in those terms, that is how they are defined, regardless of my desires. The fact that they only exist in contrast to sound and light is basically what you said yourself in your next post about how things only exist in contrast to their negation. Without the concepts of "sound" and "light," the concepts of "silence" and "darkness" are meaningless, so yes, they are dependent upon the existence of a universe in which sound and light exist.



My point exactly...

How science defines is not equal to truth, the reason i'm trying to show you how wrong it is.

Trees and furniture again- you can not describe a tree as unprocessed furniture and also claim that before the furniture, trees could not be defined. A tree is not dependent on the furniture for its existence, it can therefore be defined and described whether furniture are invented or not.

Same thing with darkness and silence, they don't depend on sound and light, they don't depend on anything for them to be, whether sound and light came into existence doesn't change what they are, it only changes the perspective of a conscious mind which by contrasting, makes sense of the light and sound- which makes my point clear that reality is in the conscious mind and not independent.

My initial question was: is darkness a reality and did it come about through the big bang?

Your explanation is absurd, you seem to think that darkness only came about after the big bang when light was also created. But darkness is immaterial and immaterial things do not come into existence at any point, they only require material things to be created so that by contrasting, a conscious mind can make sense of those things that came into existence at some point.

Defining darkness as complete absence of light also betrays you, science or not, if light has a beginning (big bang), and darkness is the complete absence of light, then logically there is a 'before the big bang' which was dark (complete absence of light). You can not have your cake and eat at the same time.

 

[Angela53510]

Interesting thoughts.

I tend to think that being "created in the image of God" has to do with the fact that we are the only beings He created which share His triune nature. Like God, we have a body (Son), mind/soul (Father) and a Spirit. Angels and demons have souls and spirits; other animals have bodies and spirits, but we are the only critters that have all three.

Woe! Where do you make up this nonsense? I'm just writing a paper on 'the image of God" which only appears in Scripture 5 times, but is a very important concept, about both who God is and who we are in relationship to him.

First, let's look at what the Trinity really is. The Trinity is the definition of who God is. First, God is one! He is one God or ousia (Gk) or being. He is triune, because he consists of three persons, persona in Latin, or hypostasis in Greek. God is not modal, meaning the body is in Jesus, the mind is the Father and the Spirit is ?? You never posted that. The Father, Son and Spirit are the same in essence, with different functions. The Father, is not the mind of the Trinity. Both the Son and the Spirit have their own minds, being a part of their person or hypostasis. A disembodied Spirit is not God, nor is a body! Instead, all three have the Oneness of God, starting in the OT, with the Shema in Deut 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." God is one God, but as the early Christians knew, this same God revealed himself in the person of Jesus, the head of the church and Lord of all creation. (John 1:1; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13)

Yet, Jesus is clearly differentiated from the Father, thus revealing the Father as the first person of the Trinity and Jesus as the second person of the Trinity. The Father and Son are equal, the Father is not the mind of Jesus, although they perfectly agree on everything. Finally the Spirit has been amongst God's people, leading and guiding them, since the Day of Pentecost.The Spirit is not an "it" (regardless of the neuter gender of the Greek pneuma!). The Spirit is spoken of in personal terms. The writers of the NT use masculine terms, to make him a person, rather than a thing. The attribute to the to the Spirit aspects of personality, such as intellect, will and emotion. (1 Cor. 2:10; 12:11; Romans 8:26-27) The Spirt is noted as being God in Acts 5:3,4, in that by Ananias and Sapphire lying to the Holy Spirit, they had lied to God.

I object most to your characterization of the Trinity in a structural view, which seems to consist of three chopped up parts of God, that we in some way reflect?? In fact, the Trinity is relational. The personhood of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is relational. To be created in the image of God is not to mimic in some way the form of the Trinity, but rather their relationship in the immanent Trinity, and to us in the economic Trinity.

The imago dei views the divinely given human calling to be the image of God, as a social reality. Eschatologically speaking, the relational life of the God who is triune comes to representation in the communal fellowship of the participants, which is the church, and the community of God.

Finally, the theological assertion that "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) indicates the bonding that characterizes the divine life stands as the transcendent archetype for the dialectic of differentiation and commonality present in the Trinity. The eternal generation of the Son constitutes the first trinitarian person as the Father of the Son, and the second person as the Son of the Father, yet the two are bound together by the love they share, a bond that characterizes the divine nature as a whole, but also emerges as a separate hypostasis in the third person, the Holy Spirit. This shared love is the Holy Spirit, who nevertheless is not the Son, nor the Father and therefore differs from both.

The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the trinitarian persons share in the divine essence, for there is but one God; yet they differ form one another, for each is a distinct person who; cannot be equated with, or subsumed within the others.

As far as the divine image, we are not merely some toy put together with three parts so we imitate God. Instead, the imago dei is a deeply relational concept, in which God created us to have a relation and fellowship with him, which was marred in the Fall.


So, just for curiosity's sake, where did you come up with your erroneous and limited definition of the Trinity, and the image of God? Did you make it up yourself? I just wonder, because I have never heard it put in such an odd way, and I thought I was familiar with all the various trinitarian heresies.

 

[Noose]

the alpha and the omega existed, physical time is between the two

There's simply no such thing as physical time, time is a construct of a conscious mind, it doesn't exist outside a mind.

 

[Angela53510]

I think the word you are searching for is "credibility," and in that regard, opinions vary.

You definitely got me here. I need to put a codicil on all my posts as to why my typing goes astray. I have severe Rheumatoid Arthritis, and my hands are becoming so deformed, they make mistakes all the time. Poor autocorrect, then substitutes its own hopeful words in, and on my iPad, it fails to ask me if I want to change it or not.

Hence, I got so frustrated, I changed to my computer half way through my post. So, before criticizing me on my vocabulary, you would probably be best to treat me as the physically disabled person I am. Although not lacking in the way of theological background and intelligence!

I really don't know if I will be able to finish my PhD because of this issue. And before you wax eloquent about Voice to Text, been there, done that! My Mac built-in is like a bratty kid in grade 6, taunting me with every word. So, I bought Nuance's Dragon for Mac. I knew it was not supported, but hoped I could get it to work. Not so far. I'm not buying a PC, can't stand them, don't have money for another new computer. Life sucks, sometimes.

 

[AxeElf]

So, just for curiosity's sake, where did you come up with your erroneous and limited definition of the Trinity, and the image of God? Did you make it up yourself? I just wonder, because I have never heard it put in such an odd way, and I thought I was familiar with all the various trinitarian heresies.

God told me.

Good luck with the PhD!

 

[PS]

H3117
יוֹם
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.
Total KJV occurrences: 2295

When I found out that yom does not always mean 24 hours then, everything fell into place with science and the Bible in agreement.

Here is an example in Isaiah 30:8 where yom means for ever and ever.

Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time (yom) to come for ever and ever:

 

[Waggles]

If God created the universe in six ordinary days, then it adds upto nearly 6000 years from today. If so, how do we see the stars which are beyond 6000 light years? If we see a star which is 10000 light years away means, the star exists for at least 10000 years. If the age of universe is 6000 years, then it would take another 4000 years to see that star. Any thoughts??

Why do you erroneously think that God made the Earth and the universe in just six 24 hour days?
What evidence have you for this belief?

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.
16 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.
17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

So Genesis informs us that the Sun and the Moon along with the stars were created on the "fourth day" - so how are the three
previous "days" measured as units of time, if there was as yet no 24 hour days based on the Earth's rotation to create night and
day as we know it?
These three previous days how long in time were they?

 

[PS]

.
When the Psalmist said:
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever. (Psa 23:6 KJV)

The word he used for "ever" was yom. It is the same word in the creation account. Yom has other meanings apart from 24 hours. By the time adam (man) was walking on the earth, millions of years had passed by.

 

[Nehemiah6]

So Genesis informs us that the Sun and the Moon along with the stars were created on the "fourth day" - so how are the three
previous "days" measured as units of time, if there was as yet no 24 hour days based on the Earth's rotation to create night and
day as we know it?
These three previous days how long in time were they?

What makes you so sure that the first day was not a literal 24 hour day when Genesis 1:5 says that it was? At that point God did not need the sun to determine that. He created light (cosmic light) on that day. So every day of creation was literally a 24 hour day.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Now kindly go to the Ten Commandments for full confirmation.

 

[Garydavid]

If God created the universe in six ordinary days, then it adds upto nearly 6000 years from today. If so, how do we see the stars which are beyond 6000 light years? If we see a star which is 10000 light years away means, the star exists for at least 10000 years. If the age of universe is 6000 years, then it would take another 4000 years to see that star. Any thoughts??

If God created the universe in six ordinary days, then it adds upto nearly 6000 years from today. If so, how do we see the stars which are beyond 6000 light years? If we see a star which is 10000 light years away means, the star exists for at least 10000 years. If the age of universe is 6000 years, then it would take another 4000 years to see that star. Any thoughts??

To me thats like asking how jesus performed a miracle. Only God has this answer.

 

[PS]

To me thats like asking how jesus performed a miracle. Only God has this answer.

You are not understanding the question.

Some stars are so far away, the light from them takes billions of years to reach earth. We are now seeing that light billions of years later. So the question is, "How ancient are the heavens and the earth?"

 

[posthuman]

There's simply no such thing as physical time, time is a construct of a conscious mind, it doesn't exist outside a mind.

But whose mind?

God describes it before man was created; He didn't discover and learn it after man thought of it, neither did He adopt mathematics only after observing that humankind had invented it. Genesis 1 describes both before it ever mentions man.
it's His creation, not a figment of every individuals imagination. Having created it, He is not constrained by it, but we are, as He has now put us in it.

 

[posthuman]

You are not understanding the question.

Some stars are so far away, the light from them takes billions of years to reach earth. We are now seeing that light billions of years later. So the question is, "How ancient are the heavens and the earth?"

How accurate are our measurements, and how accurate is our comprehension of how He made all these things?

 

[Noose]

But whose mind?

God describes it before man was created; He didn't discover and learn it after man thought of it, neither did He adopt mathematics only after observing that humankind had invented it. Genesis 1 describes both before it ever mentions man.
it's His creation, not a figment of every individuals imagination. Having created it, He is not constrained by it, but we are, as He has now put us in it.

Nope. God created through the heart (mind) of man.

Gen 1:1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Psalm 24:1 A Psalm of David. The earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof, the world and all who dwell therein. 2For He has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters.

2 Pet 3:5But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water,6through which the world of that time perished in the flood.

The waters being described in the above passages are not H2O but the heart of a man. The heart of a man was part of God- it is like a life program that God breathed into Adam with all the universe (when everything was still good) in it.

Prov 20:5The intentions of a man’s heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out.

Proverbs 18:4The words of a man's mouth are deep waters; the fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook.

Ecc 3:11He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men, yet they cannot fathom the work God has done from beginning to end.

And there's a reason why God created through the heart of man.

 

[Hevosmies]

Axel"Elf" is truly an ELF and an absolute heretic

Claiming to be a prophet yet contradicting the Bible, claiming its not scientifically or historically accurate. What a heretic! Thank God I stood behind my statements and didnt retract a word NOR apologize. NOR WILL I.

The only prophet you are is a prophet of science FALSELY so called. Whats the wise thing to do? REPENT!