Originally posted by AgergLessee... eight edits to replicate Dr. Suess, four edits to toss me a banana? What if the edit button didn't exist: what would your posts be telling us about you, hmmm?
Hey you got me there! forgot the hyphen. I applaud your achievement!
Someone toss this dude a banana. đ
Originally posted by jaywillYou're satisfied with that answer? I find it completely unsatisfactory. How did God create heaven and earth? When did he do it? Did he somehow create matter from nothing, or did it always exist, and just need a bit of shaping?
Beg to differ a little again.
[b] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1.
Concisely, briefly, and quite to the point you have the origin of heaven and earth. In the beginning God created them.
This means God preceeded them. Before they were around God was around. God created them and "the beginning" began.
T ...[text shortened]... tand the the created lives had their origin in the uncreated and eternal life of the Creator.[/b]
3 edits
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI think that scientists have every right to take "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and study how it happened. I've been a subscriber to "Discovery Magazine" and love to see what new discoveries have been arrived at.
You're satisfied with that answer? I find it completely unsatisfactory. How did God create heaven and earth? When did he do it? Did he somehow create matter from nothing, or did it always exist, and just need a bit of shaping?
I enjoy cosmology very much. I am eager to see what science will come up with in the hows of the universe.
I don't think that God told us exhaustively how He did this. Perhaps a detailed discussion of how He created water would require 66 books. It is a matter of what the Divine Mind intends to communicate to us. In the case of Genesis it is, I believe these basic things:
1. ) God created everything. He is the source of all creation.
2.) He created everything with purpose in mind. He has a will, a heart's desire to fulfill.
3.) At the pinnacle of His creation is the human race. And at the top of the pyramid of living things is man. Man was created to be God's deputy authority over God's creation.
4.) Man's ability to carry out this deputy authority over the creation of God is dependent upon man's harmony with God. Disharmony in the relationship of man to God will result in the collapse of man's authority and the damge of himself, his world, and of God's plan.
These are some of the general messages of Genesis chapters 1 - 3.
Of course I am very curious about many things. And I believe many things which science tells me. And I welcome their further study to see whatever else they may discover. I just don't think the divine revelation of creation meant to communicate exhaustive descriptions of many things we are curious about.
Let me ask you a question. Why do you think we are so curious?
Is not our curiosity an expression of our wanting to know WHO we are and WHERE we came from and WHAT we are doing here? Take our curioisity to its logical end. Does it not usually lead to solving problems
so that we may live happily in this world?
What is the end of our curiosity? And what do we usually try to do with our knowledge? It is usually try to make our lives better through understanding.
So why be annoyed when God gives us a book which cuts to the chase?
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillI get annoyed at the use of language that encourages images such as one of a giant hand reaching from a cloud, book nestled on the enormous palm.
So why be annoyed when God gives us a book which cuts to the chase?
I'd be interested in a discussion of the language of the first chapter of Genesis. Does ancient Hebrew operate on a subject-verb-object basis?
I mean, look at this:
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/29_lesson01.html
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhere in Genesis is there a statement about a giant hand reaching down from the clouds?
I get annoyed at the use of language that encourages images such as one of a giant hand reaching from a cloud, book nestled on the enormous palm.
I'd be interested in a discussion of the language of the first chapter of Genesis. Does ancient Hebrew operate on a subject-verb-object basis?
I mean, look at this:
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/29_lesson01.html
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillIn your post ("God gives us a book" ) , not Genesis. Anthropomorphic language. "In the palm of his hand" and so on. I'm wondering whether translation exacerbates this problem. For example, "he created the heavens and the earth" implies this SHAZAM type action. Looking at the site I referenced, it seems the verb actually means "fatten/fill", not "create". Implying interesting possibilities.
Where in Genesis is there a statement about a giant hand reaching down from the clouds?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSHAZAM type action. Nice. Has a ring to it.
In your post ("God gives us a book" ) , not Genesis. Anthropomorphic language. "In the palm of his hand" and so on. I'm wondering whether translation exacerbates this problem. For example, "he created the heavens and the earth" implies this SHAZAM type action. Looking at the site I referenced, it seems the verb actually means "fatten/fill", not "create". Implying interesting possibilities.
Originally posted by whodeyMy observation is that the best evangelists are those out to make money!
You are free to claim anything you like. In fact, many of tried. The question really is are they upholding what they know to be the truth. If you are preaching what you believe you will be much more effective in spreading the message than if you knew it were false. You would even gladly die for your beliefs if you truly believed what you were saying. If ...[text shortened]... ut to the masses where it would remain. Therefore, the proof is in the pudding so to speak.
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOne Rabbi Nachman said that "BARA" (create) is the only word in Hebrew which would convey something coming into existence from nothing.
In your post ("God gives us a book" ) , not Genesis. Anthropomorphic language. "In the palm of his hand" and so on. I'm wondering whether translation exacerbates this problem. For example, "he created the heavens and the earth" implies this SHAZAM type action. Looking at the site I referenced, it seems the verb actually means "fatten/fill", not "create". Implying interesting possibilities.
Now saying God gave us the Bible does not have to invoke a picture of a huge hand anymore than saing "God gave us electricity" or "God gave us life".
The only anthropomorphic scene I can recall from Genesis is where it says that God breathed into the nostrils of man the breath of life. Now that does invoke a word picture of God stooping down to put His mouth near man's nostrils.
But the question really is could that be exactly what it means? Perhaps it means precisely that. Perhaps.
Christ is called "the image of the invisible God" and man was created in the image of God. So if man is made in the image of God and Christ is the image of the invisible God it could very well mean this: Christ in His pre-incarnated being was on the earth and intimately was involved in the creation of the first man.
In John's gospel we see Jesus Christ breathing on His disciples and saying "Receive the Holy Spirit" or "holy breath" in John chapter 20.
I leave open the possibility that God was very intimately involved in an "anthropomorphic" way in the creation of the first human being. But I am not sure. I think probably because He seems to related to Adam and Eve in such a manner coming to them in the cool of the evening.
God saying "Let there be ..." is not overwhelmingly anthropomorphic. It could be just poetic.
At any rate Genesis has God as the Source of the world and of the lives on the earth. And it is communicated with a simplicity such that it is a truth universally accessible. The sage can comphrehend it and the child can too.
I do not mistake simplicity for naivete in Genesis.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOf course those would be the best to you. It is those ones which furnish you with the strongest rationale not to listen to the gospel.
My observation is that the best evangelists are those out to make money!
I would wager that the best disciples of Jesus for you are also those caught in the scandel of some gross moral failure.
Somehow when I look for the "best" followers of Jesus I look for the ones who will encourage my faith rather than the ones who will discourage my faith.
Originally posted by jaywillI did not say 'best to me'. What I meant was most successful at getting followers.
Of course those would be the best to you. It is those ones which furnish you with the strongest rationale not to listen to the gospel.
I would wager that the best disciples of Jesus for you are also those caught in the scandel of some gross moral failure.
Somehow when I look for the "best" followers of Jesus I look for the ones who will encourage my faith rather than the ones who will discourage my faith.
I was responding to your claim that the most effective evangelists believe what they are saying. If I look around the world at the people with the most followers and I find a lot of extremely rich people who do not live according to what they preach. I strongly suspect that they do not believe what they preach but have just found a good way to make money.
You are obviously making a judgment on what is 'best' to you (which is fine) but you must realize that you are already a follower and therefore they are not really evangelizing to you.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSorry then. I misunderstood what you meant by best evangelists.
I did not say 'best to me'. What I meant was most successful at getting followers.
I was responding to your claim that the most effective evangelists believe what they are saying. If I look around the world at the people with the most followers and I find a lot of extremely rich people who do not live according to what they preach. I strongly suspect tha ...[text shortened]... alize that you are already a follower and therefore they are not really evangelizing to you.