The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,
I don't have a lot of time before work so I will not go into the public/private,..subjective/objective too much except to say that by your definition, as I understand it, "Public knowledge" is impossible unless and until all of the public does what needs to be done in order to experience.

I think you totally missed the meaning of "public knowledge." Anything that can be verified by observation is public knowledge.

That, as I see, it will not happen. Just as I was trying to illustrate with the exercise analogy. If you don't exercise you will not know the benefits of exercise. Same with Spiritual awareness. Not that it is up to us. It is available to us all. But we have to stop doing what we ordinarily do in order to not resist the Spirit. That is repentance. Changing our point of view.

"Knowing the benefits" of something is a subjective experience. It is private knowledge.

Why don't you understand this? Public knowledge can be verified, like how much do you weigh? I put you on a scale, and I know. You know. Everyone knows. That's not how it is with private knowledge. Those claims cannot be verified.

I don't know if David was fictitious or not. Where do you draw the line?
Was Davy Crocket fictitious? No, but I would not believe all the things written about him.
On the other hand, we all know that Paul said that Sarah, Hagar and their children were allegories. So did Abraham a flesh and blood man have sexual relations with allegories? And gave birth to more allegories?

That's a good point. Truth and fiction get mixed together all the time. We need to sort them out. But if you assert that the entire OT didn't happen, you will have huge problems with logical consistency if you assert the NT events really did happen.

Are you denying that real historical events (like Hagar and Sarah are supposed to be) could also be allegory? It seems like you are saying that it must be one or the other. Why not both?

As far as the flood goes, it does happen. Not did. Not actually. Not physically.
It is a flood of information and reaffirmations that we experience when we cross a certain threshold in consciousness. It is a spiritual experience. It is what some writers have called "stopping the world" or a "crack in the cosmic egg."
Our entire world view comes apart.
I touched on it in the post above. We crossed posts.
This experience has happened to me several times but the first was when I was not Christian and it was the worst. I was literally living in two worlds at once. It lasted for several weeks to two months aproximately.

I can understand that point of view. And it could be true, but if it is, all I can say is "so what?" because I don't need the Bible to give a label to that experience I can have on my own. What good then is the Bible? It's obviously a lousy guide if the vast majority of readers have been so grossly misled by it!

I do have to get ready for work now. I can go into greater detail if you wish later.

Bob

Great! Enjoy your day. I've got a lot of work to do today too. Talk more as time allows.

[jce]

Good morning John,

As for the Biblical canon - no, I would never try to rescue Christianity or the Bible by throwing out problematic parts of the Bible. My strongest witness to "something supernatural" in the Bible is the Bible Wheel, and it's structure depends upon all the pieces being in place. So that's not an option. But even without the Bible Wheel it wouldn't be an option because I do not feel free to pick and choose which parts are "divinely inspired" if I am asserting that those remaining pieces are supposed to have any real authority.

Richard

Glad to hear that and I agree. My sense is that the Bible we have... is what God has provided, including the apparent contradictions and references that indicate He also has a vengeful side to His character.

This is the highest view of Scripture. It sees the Bible as something like a Divine Parable that is teaching us Divine Truth, but it does not conform to the humanly crafted false doctrine of "inerrancy and infallibility." This is so obvious I consider it the greatest of ironies that those who profess to believe the Bible to be the "very Word of God" are the least likely to believe, or even admit, what it actually states! The efforts of Christian apologists to "explain" and "fix" the Bible make it look like a book written by an idiot with crayons. Their explanations are pathetic, abyssmal, and absurd. And they want intelligent people to accept such as the very Word of the infinitely wise and intelligent God? What are they thinking?

Again, I hear your thoughts on this as I also tend to side with the known/proven science of creation and I fully agree that too many christians have ventured into realms where they have no education nor expertise. As stated before, better to be silent and considered a fool, than to open the mouth and remove all doubt. There are enough fundamental truths one can glean from the Bible which will silence the mouths of the arrogant. No need to take on the empirical science community to no avail.

So I am simply stuck with a mystery now. I do not believe the Biblical account of God is an accurate representation of the true God, if there is one. Yet there are signs that indicate "something supernatural" is going on in the Bible.

That's pretty much where I stand now. I very much appreciate you taking time to work with me on this fascinating conundrum.

All the best,

Richard

You are not alone in this quandary. Many christians have felt as though they needed to abandon their minds to accept some difficult Biblical truths. Personally, I think that in the end, the Bible will prove itself as a worthy guide for the soul that is seeking God.

God's best to you!

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Glad to hear that and I agree. My sense is that the Bible we have... is what God has provided, including the apparent contradictions and references that indicate He also has a vengeful side to His character.

Well, it's one thing to "indicate He also has a vengeful side." It's quite another to portray him as a brutal Bronze age tribal war.

Again, I hear your thoughts on this as I also tend to side with the known/proven science of creation and I fully agree that too many christians have ventured into realms where they have no education nor expertise. As stated before, better to be silent and considered a fool, than to open the mouth and remove all doubt. There are enough fundamental truths one can glean from the Bible which will silence the mouths of the arrogant. No need to take on the empirical science community to no avail.

Yes, the virtue of silence is ancient wisdom indeed.

I'm glad we have some agreement here.

You are not alone in this quandary. Many christians have felt as though they needed to abandon their minds to accept some difficult Biblical truths. Personally, I think that in the end, the Bible will prove itself as a worthy guide for the soul that is seeking God.

Perhaps it will. Time will tell. But from my point of view, it has failed already. We've got 2000 years of failed interpretations behind us. Is there any reason to think things will change in the future?

If there is to be any change, it will be a radical change from what is known as "traditional Christianity." Shelby Spong wrote a book "Why Christianity must change or die." I hated that book (with a passion!) when I was a Christian. But now ... I see his point.

God's best to you!

John

Thanks man. I really appreciate your input. If you have any ideas that might help me with my conundrum, please share!

All the best,

Richard

[Bob May]

I think you totally missed the meaning of "public knowledge." Anything that can be verified by observation is public knowledge.

You mean all of the public. Again, I said it cannot be done.
The bible indicates this in no uncertain terms. And the subject is whether we believe the bible is the word of God.
The righteous will understand the wicked never will. We recieve righteousness when we believe.
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
We are unable to believe on our own. It is the work of God.

"Knowing the benefits" of something is a subjective experience. It is private knowledge.

Why don't you understand this? Public knowledge can be verified, like how much do you weigh? I put you on a scale, and I know. You know. Everyone knows. That's not how it is with private knowledge. Those claims cannot be verified.

And if I tell you it is 9:02 AM Central time, by the clock on my computer, you have no reason to doubt my statement.
But if it comes to spiritual things, some believe and some don't.
When Pentecost had come people from 17 different places and languages heard and understood what one person was saying. Very public.
Yet there were scoffers saying they were all drunk.

That's a good point. Truth and fiction get mixed together all the time. We need to sort them out. But if you assert that the entire OT didn't happen, you will have huge problems with logical consistency if you assert the NT events really did happen.

Are you denying that real historical events (like Hagar and Sarah are supposed to be) could also be allegory? It seems like you are saying that it must be one or the other. Why not both?

A living allegory. Yes, it is quite possible and that is the way I view it. I believe Jesus' life was such.
I am not saying the OT did not happen. The history of it is important and especially important to you. The expanded awareness is more important to me and so I look into it more.
The historical events in both the Old and New Testaments reflect what happens as we grow in Christ and also before that as we come to conclusions about Christ.
In other words it both leads us to Christ and then further, tells us how to think, and interpret what we are experiencing while growing in the knowledge of Christ in us.

Originally Posted by Bob May
As far as the flood goes, it does happen. Not did. Not actually. Not physically.
It is a flood of information and reaffirmations that we experience when we cross a certain threshold in consciousness. It is a spiritual experience. It is what some writers have called "stopping the world" or a "crack in the cosmic egg."
Our entire world view comes apart.
I touched on it in the post above. We crossed posts.
This experience has happened to me several times but the first was when I was not Christian and it was the worst. I was literally living in two worlds at once. It lasted for several weeks to two months aproximately.

I can understand that point of view. And it could be true, but if it is, all I can say is "so what?" because I don't need the Bible to give a label to that experience I can have on my own. What good then is the Bible? It's obviously a lousy guide if the vast majority of readers have been so grossly misled by it!

The benefit is the knowledge that there is a loving God who will get you out of the mess you got yourself into. (many do not come out of it.)
A promise and token that He will never again destroy your world with water. A knowledge that there is more to this world than previously thought or were able to percieve. An ability to see the world from a higher perspective than that which we were previously able to. And landing on a Rock or Firmament, 40= stability.
Promises, hope, stability, guidance and a knowledge you are treading the path you are supposed to be treading.

Have a great day,
Bob

[Bob May]

Hey there Bob,

I have no problem with the idea of gnosis (direct knowledge). But I think it's an error to deny the meaning intended by the original authors of the Bible. There may be a "higher meaning" that can be read into or out of the ancient text, or maybe not. But to deny that it means what it says and what it's owners said it says seems unjustified to me.

I am denying nothing. The higher meaning is the intended meaning.

You are correct that the word "solid" is not in the Biblical text. But it is implied in many ways. First, here is Strong's definition of the word raqiya -

7549 [;yqir' raqiya` {raw-kee'-ah}
Meaning: 1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament 1a) expanse (flat as base, support) 1b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above) 1b1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

And if it weren't solid, how would it support the waters that were above. And how could it have "windows" that let said waters flood the earth when opened? And besides all this, the correlation with the common cosmological mythology of the time seems to settle the case.

Mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

You are still looking at physical water coming out of those windows.
I am not. So you have a physical window in heaven?
Not likely.
The important thing I see is that it is too great to recieve it. Hence, a Flood.
Synchronicities. If you do not know the Source you are completely lost and confused.
Same thing is recorded at Pentecost, when the Spirit was Poured out.
There were signs in the heavens and wonders on the Earth. What were those signs and wonders? Not miracles, because miracles were also mentioned.
This is Baptism, Full immersion.

Or a personal consciousness that is not an "agent" who goes about "doing things" like any other bit player in the cosmic drama? There are many possibilities indeed. How is one to know which is true, if any?

Yes, there are all kinds of ways you can go from there without the bible as a guide. Pantheism, demonology, etc., etc.
I have been on a Castaneda forum for many years and it is filled with young people with all kinds of ideas because they have applied the methods to open doos of perception without a way to close them or make any sense of what they are then confronted with.

Originally Posted by Bob May
The Ark of Noah, Jesus walking on water, the Spirit hovering over the face (surface) of the waters, Abraham not being able to give water to the rich man across the abyss, etc. All give answers to these questions.

No, they don't. It is your metaphysical interpretation of those passages that you offer as giving answers.

That's fine if you cannot accept what I said. Another is following Joshua across the Jordan. They walked on dry land between the waters above and those below and were safe from being carried away in the flood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob May
Concerning the three tiers, it is true as far as it goes. There are things we, as normal men are all aware of. (earth) There are things that some become aware of that go beyond what normal man with his five senses is capable of being aware of. These can be frightening and is symbolised by the raven being let out of the window of the ark. (under the Earth)
Then there is the Firmament/Heaven. Jesus said to follow him. He walked on water (Firmament) and that is the only foundation or "firmament" we have when stepping into that unknown

That sounds great, but I don't know of any men who are not "normal" in the sense that they are operating in the supernatural realms you seem to be suggesting. Are you one such man?

I have experienced some things over the years. But what I have learned is that having a vision, for instance, is not as important as what you learn from that vision. The same things that we all learn when we get something from Scripture revealed to us through the Spirit.
We are new creatures or creations when we recieve the Spirit.
And I honestly see myself as a babe as far as Spiritual things are concerned.
I have just been at it longer than some because I am older.
But we don't forget how to ride a bike because we get a drivers licence. And I spend a lot more time on the bike.
The most important thing is hearing the word. And all believers get that right from the start. They just don't always give it so much importance as it should have.

Yes - coincidences abound everywhere we look. But is there anything about the tree of life that suggests the sephiroth are supposed to correspond to physical dimensionality? Of course not. There is no correlation at all. Space-time is four dimensional. The additional 7 dimensions are "curled" so they are invisible. The four dimensions of space-time are related by the invariant ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2. Is there any such mathematical relationship amongst four of the sephiroth? Of course not.

Your going way over my head here and you know that.
My point is that there is truth to the three tiered viewpoint. That which we are aware of as natural men, that which we can become aware of by certain exercises in perception as practiced by all kinds of belief systems.
And a Way to get beyond both of those temporary realms.
So, as a general rule of thumb it is true, as evidenced by many belief systems all around the world.
But the bible goes into further detail. And Jesus shows us the entire Way.
He does not just open doors for us and then we are "on our own."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob May
When using the word "solid" to qualify the firmament I think you are confusing the issue, Richard. As far as I can tell there is nothing "solid" about the first few verses in Genesis 1 and probably not in the entire chapter.

God called, created, formed and made man. Same with the Earth, sun, moon, stars and hosts of heaven.
The bible begins with the Created world. Much finer stuff than we are used to dealing with. Potentialities, forms, templates and the "stuff that dreams are made of." Plants before they were in the earth,, light before there was anything from which the light would come from,, man before he was in the earth etc.
I don't see anything "solid" until man gets coats of skins.

That's a perfectly valid interpretation - on the surface anyway. More than a few folks have tried dealing with the passage as something other than literal. For example, the Covenant Creationists see it as symbolic language for the creation of God's theocracy under the type of "heavenly rulers" over his "earthly people." And I, for example, see that it is patterned on the structure of the menorah so it is "obviously" something other than literal. But it could have been intended as both literal and poetic. I don't know. Certainly the vast majority of Christians - who supposedly are led by the Spirit of God into all truth - have interpreted it literally.

And the "vast majority of Christians" still think they are under the OT law.
Why would I take their opinion as being anything but confused?

If the Bible is as "symbolic" as you suggest, and as connected with other spiritual traditions like gnosticism and Don Juan, etc. then fine, it's a great book to have in your collection of spiritual texts. But then it seems to function more as a handmade to your own metaphysical philosophy than a guide to objective truth.

There are similarities to many occult traditions.
The bible takes you further. The whole way back to a loving God who knows when each and every hair in your head falls out. (So He is reminded of me daily)
Other traditons miss this. That God sent his only begotten son. That He loves us. That He made a way home.

Well, I think the chart of the three-tiered universe was intended as a very literal view of the universe. Why not? What do you think they thought? Do you think they made up that cute little domed universe for symbolic purposes while in reality they had a modern conception of the cosmos filled with trillions of galaxies?

You are welcome to believe what you wish.
But you are missing something. The "trillions of Galaxies are still "Earth." Physical matter.

Great chatting!

Richard

You have a nice day, Richard,
Bob

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

I've been thinking about your last reply to me, and how you don't actually read what is written in the Bible and use it within your own arguments to explain how the interpretation of believers like me could be different, without either removing text or disputing the translation.

Also, please, please, please take on board that the definition of 'faith' which you use to compare Christian belief with Muslim, Mormon or other, is not the biblical definition of faith.

If you say 'I don't believe xxx because xxx' - that is fine unless God has revealed to you the truth you are rejecting. Then, it would be more than ignorant unbelief, and it would be spiritually unwise.

So, to Genesis 1.

At the point that the grass is growing in the light God created on the first day, before the sun, the moon and the stars have been made on the fourth day, there is nothing in space except the earth.

As a believer, I have no difficulty in believing that God could keep one planet in place, since I already believe He has every planet and every star precisely under His control, ever since He put them in place originally.


The other thought I had was about aging - that when God created Adam, he was an adult. 'Age' becomes a moot point with respect to the elements which were already available when He formed Adam from the dust of the ground, even before the process of death which set in after the Fall.


About the water above the firmament, I agree with Bob is it most likely blessing rather than H2O. This would fit in many other places in scripture.


Lastly, about the seas on earth before the Flood, there is no reason to think they covered as much land as they do now. We know there were bodies of deep water because whales are specifically mentioned, but that doesn't mean there were continents and islands as we know them now. According to Genesis 2, all the animals were with Adam.

Again I say, the kangaroo pair out of the Ark could have been taken by one group of people to what had become what we know as Australia, just as some of creatures which are extinct now, may well have been in the Ark before God had given permission for them to be killed for food.

The Bible says God rested on the seventh day, it doesn't say He stopped creating altogether. To suggest so, is more guesswork.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I've been thinking about your last reply to me, and how you don't actually read what is written in the Bible and use it within your own arguments to explain how the interpretation of believers like me could be different, without either removing text or disputing the translation.

Hi Charisma,

I think I'm going to need a little help to understand what you mean. I don't know what you are talking about when you say that I "don't actually read what is written in the Bible." Could you please be a little more specific? What exactly did I fail to "read?"

Also, please, please, please take on board that the definition of 'faith' which you use to compare Christian belief with Muslim, Mormon or other, is not the biblical definition of faith.

Again, I don't know what you are getting at. What is the definition of faith that you think applies to Christians but not people of other religions?

If you say 'I don't believe xxx because xxx' - that is fine unless God has revealed to you the truth you are rejecting. Then, it would be more than ignorant unbelief, and it would be spiritually unwise.

Again, I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe it would help if you gave me an example of the "xxx" in your comment.

So, to Genesis 1.

At the point that the grass is growing in the light God created on the first day, before the sun, the moon and the stars have been made on the fourth day, there is nothing in space except the earth.

As a believer, I have no difficulty in believing that God could keep one planet in place, since I already believe He has every planet and every star precisely under His control, ever since He put them in place originally.

I'm sorry, but that idea is scientifically absurd. There is absolutely no evidence that there was a time when there was nothing in space but the earth. On the contrary, there is a lot of evidence that the earth is much younger than the rest of the universe. Specifically, the earth is only about 4.5 billion years old, whereas the rest of the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Being a believer does not mean you should believe in propositions about the physical universe that are demonstrably false.

And besides, why would you think you could establish a physical theory on the few verses of the Bible? The Bible is not a scientific textbook. If you go that route, you will have to believe in all sorts of false ideas, like the idea that the earth has a "foundation" and a "cornerstone."

About the water above the firmament, I agree with Bob is it most likely blessing rather than H2O. This would fit in many other places in scripture.

This is a perfect example of the logical inconsistency of your method of Biblical interpretation. You take the first verse to imply the physically absurd concept that there was a time when only planet earth existed, and then you deny the plain text that says there was a solid dome "firmament" holding up the waters that were above.

Again I say, the kangaroo pair out of the Ark could have been taken by one group of people to what had become what we know as Australia, just as some of creatures which are extinct now, may well have been in the Ark before God had given permission for them to be killed for food.

I'm sorry, but you don't you have any sense of reality? You can't save the flood story by making up ad hoc "solutions" for every problem. You just don't understand how it totally contradicts everything that is real. The kangaroos evolved in Australia, and that's why we find them there. They weren't take there by one of Noah's sons. And you didn't answer my point about the unique species found on small islands all over the planet. That alone disproves the flood story. There are thousands of proofs that the story is false. How many species of spiders are there? 40,000! Where did they all come from if only one pair from one species was on the ark? Or do you think that there was one pair from every species? That would mean there were 80,000 spiders on the ark! And what about all the other species? There's no way in the world they could all have been in the ark. And besides that, the general distribution of animals over the planet show that they've generally evolved where they are now found.

There is no bottom to the abyss of problems with the flood of Noah. It simply did not happen.

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

I'll try to answer these questions.

Originally Posted by Charisma
Hi Richard,

I've been thinking about your last reply to me, and how you don't actually read what is written in the Bible and use it within your own arguments to explain how the interpretation of believers like me could be different, without either removing text or disputing the translation.

Hi Charisma,

I think I'm going to need a little help to understand what you mean. I don't know what you are talking about when you say that I "don't actually read what is written in the Bible." Could you please be a little more specific? What exactly did I fail to "read?"

Well, in this instance I had in mind that the light had begun to exist in the first three verses of Genesis:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And 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. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

But when you refuted that grass had been made before the sun, you said it was impossible the grass could have survived for thousands of years before the sun. You didn't show that you knew there was light, or give a reason that light would not have assisted in keeping the grass alive.

I am hoping the general principle of this request - that you use the relevant scriptures to elucidate the problems you have with accepting them - might be included in our future dialogues.

Originally Posted by Charisma
Also, please, please, please take on board that the definition of 'faith' which you use to compare Christian belief with Muslim, Mormon or other, is not the biblical definition of faith.

Again, I don't know what you are getting at. What is the definition of faith that you think applies to Christians but not people of other religions?

Romans 10:17
So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

John 14:29
And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

Jeremiah 1:9 Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. 10 See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant. 11 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And I said, I see a rod of an almond tree. 12 Then said the LORD unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it.


The principle is that God sends out His word to create something which was not there before.

Romans 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Here is an example of a time when God did not reveal what He was doing, to His prophet:

2 Kings 4:25 So she went and came unto the man of God to mount Carmel. And it came to pass, when the man of God saw her afar off, that he said to Gehazi his servant, Behold, [yonder is] that Shunammite: 26 Run now, I pray thee, to meet her, and say unto her, [Is it] well with thee? [is it] well with thy husband? [is it] well with the child? And she answered, [It is] well. 27 And when she came to the man of God to the hill, she caught him by the feet: but Gehazi came near to thrust her away. And the man of God said, Let her alone; for her soul [is] vexed within her: and the LORD hath hid [it] from me, and hath not told me.

The servant of God has to be prepared for both knowing and not knowing what His Lord is doing at a given moment.

Part of the reason this is so different from any other religion is that the God of the Bible is alive. Theirs are dead. They aren't going to hear anything new from their dead leaders - although they might hear from God if they seek Him.

I believe that one of the reasons Noah was different from the other men of his generation, is that he 'found grace in the sight of the Lord'. He went looking for God, and God rewarded him with a greater revelation.

You frequently write that you can find no difference between the claims of other religions and Christianity. Bear in mind that if they have 'spiritual' experiences - such as speaking in other voices, going into trances, stabbing themselves with staves but being unharmed when the stave is removed - then these 'miracles' have been done by the power of spirits other than God. God is clearly against these and many other practices, according to the Bible.

Originally Posted by Charisma
If you say 'I don't believe xxx because xxx' - that is fine unless God has revealed to you the truth you are rejecting. Then, it would be more than ignorant unbelief, and it would be spiritually unwise.

Again, I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe it would help if you gave me an example of the "xxx" in your comment.

One of the reasons God was so willing to let the older generation of Hebrews die in the wilderness for their unbelief, was that He had done many miracles for them despite their contrariness, and yet still they would not believe and obey Him. By such revelations, in this case, to them as a nation, God gives Himself a testimony wherever He is at work, which condemns those who refuse to embrace it.

The same principle applies when He reveals Himself to individuals today, one by one. He is looking for their individual faith, as only this can bring lasting change in their experience. A group of believers in communion with Christ, experience a different manifestation of the effects of faith.

Originally posted by Charisma

At the point that the grass is growing in the light God created on the first day, before the sun, the moon and the stars have been made on the fourth day, there is nothing in space except the earth.

As a believer, I have no difficulty in believing that God could keep one planet in place, since I already believe He has every planet and every star precisely under His control, ever since He put them in place originally.

RAM
I'm sorry, but that idea is scientifically absurd. There is absolutely no evidence that there was a time when there was nothing in space but the earth. On the contrary, there is a lot of evidence that the earth is much younger than the rest of the universe. Specifically, the earth is only about 4.5 billion years old, whereas the rest of the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Being a believer does not mean you should believe in propositions about the physical universe that are demonstrably false.

And besides, why would you think you could establish a physical theory on the few verses of the Bible? The Bible is not a scientific textbook. If you go that route, you will have to believe in all sorts of false ideas, like the idea that the earth has a "foundation" and a "cornerstone."

Okay. I did think about this after I'd written it, and realised that the stars are not mentioned in Genesis. We have the psalmist's proclamation of God's involvement in creating them though, in Psalm 19:1.

I still think that the whole 'age' question is thrown to bits by God being able to create elements for something He's going to make later, as much as by points I raised earlier, and I don't see what difference it makes except for those who don't want to deal with the claims of Christ. A Christian can still maintain total scientific equilibrium if he's honest, and believe in God's solution for sin. I am far from anti-science. I am anti scientists not acknowledging God. That won't do their insight any good whatever.

the plain text that says there was a solid dome "firmament" holding up the waters that were above.

In my whole life, until you bring it to my attention, I've never heard of 'a solid dome firmament'. Firmament is translated as 'expanse'. Why would it be 'solid'? If this is what you used to believe as a Christian, that's fine. Please say so. But I never have and still don't, no matter how popular the theory is or was. Of course God can create a separating between waters above and waters below, even if the waters above are H2O! Considering the limitations of science till now, and the amount we do not 'know' yet, there is no point in arguing with scripture about 'the firmament'. What is it hurting to believe it's what God says it is?

I'm sorry, but you don't you have any sense of reality? You can't save the flood story by making up ad hoc "solutions" for every problem. You just don't understand how it totally contradicts everything that is real. The kangaroos evolved in Australia, and that's why we find them there. They weren't take there by one of Noah's sons. And you didn't answer my point about the unique species found on small islands all over the planet. That alone disproves the flood story. There are thousands of proofs that the story is false. How many species of spiders are there? 40,000! Where did they all come from if only one pair from one species was on the ark? Or do you think that there was one pair from every species? That would mean there were 80,000 spiders on the ark! And what about all the other species? There's no way in the world they could all have been in the ark. And besides that, the general distribution of animals over the planet show that they've generally evolved where they are now found.

There is no bottom to the abyss of problems with the flood of Noah. It simply did not happen.

Richard, I think it's great that we don't have all the answers. I don't believe that the land was divided into pieces before the Flood like you seem to, and there are many variables. Many of the wild animals that lived in the British Isles don't live here any more, but they still live in other places. We have an epidemic of grey squirrels threatening our native red squirrels. How did that happen? Someone brought them here from North America!

You believe there was always rain, the earth's land masses and seas were always this shape? Where did all the water come from for the last ice age, then, and what shape were the land masses when so much water was piled up in the northern hemisphere, that people are now fretting over the melting of tiny snow caps beyond 70oN and S?

I find your outright rejections of the existence of Noah, the Ark and the Flood more alarming than your questions about 'the existence of God'. Is there a more plausible explanation for the enormous fossilised boat in the mountains of Ararat, hundreds of feet above sea level, than Noah's Ark?

Apart from the account in Genesis, there are five mentions of Noah in the OT. Then there are three in the NT:

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

We would have to think that if Noah had never existed, Jesus would have put Peter right, so that he never again mentioned him. But no, he mentions him once in each epistle!

Also, about the creatures which seem to be specific to small areas of the globe, that is not surprising. It doesn't prove they were not more widespread in the past. What about the possibility that on the eighth day, after His rest, God did a bit more creating? The principle has been established in Genesis. My last thought on this is, it was only the creatures with the breath of life which went into the Ark, and like people, they may have been a great deal smaller than they are now.

Genesis 7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. {sort: Heb. wing} 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life.

It would be easier to believe this is a myth, if there were no animals at all on earth. Then we could say that someone made up the story. Making up an alternative story than the account of those who were there at a time, is one of the most disreputable practices in existence. I would not want to be associated with it. That's what murderers do to cover their tracks.

That sounds a bit harsh, but there is no point in eye-witness testimony if it can be written off as a fable every time. There is a strong human urge to tell the truth and the hear the truth, which drives those who have a personal mystery to solve, as much as a whistle-blower who has a lie to expose. Both kinds of situation make a person feel compromised by the public obfuscation of 'the truth'.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I'll try to answer these questions.

Well, in this instance I had in mind that the light had begun to exist in the first three verses of Genesis:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And 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. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

But when you refuted that grass had been made before the sun, you said it was impossible the grass could have survived for thousands of years before the sun. You didn't show that you knew there was light, or give a reason that light would not have assisted in keeping the grass alive.

I am hoping the general principle of this request - that you use the relevant scriptures to elucidate the problems you have with accepting them - might be included in our future dialogues.

Thanks - now I know what you meant.

There's probably no need for us to try to resolve this point. I have come to my conclusion that Genesis 1 is not a scientific account of the history of the universe, and so I think it is foolish to try to force it to fit with science. I think the account is "something else" - more like poetry. It has a structure that is used throughout the Bible in the Menorah and the Bible Wheel. I think that's it's true meaning, if it's not merely a myth, that is.

The seven days are paired and establish the pattern of the Menorah:



And this pattern is isomorphic to the Bible Wheel:




Given this depth of symbolic meaning, I think it is silly to try to force it to be an account of the literal historical sequence of physical creation, especially since that sequence does not fit with scientific fact. (For example, there never was a time when the earth was the only object in space, etc.).

Also, please, please, please take on board that the definition of 'faith' which you use to compare Christian belief with Muslim, Mormon or other, is not the biblical definition of faith.

Again, I don't know what you are getting at. What is the definition of faith that you think applies to Christians but not people of other religions?

Part of the reason this is so different from any other religion is that the God of the Bible is alive. Theirs are dead. They aren't going to hear anything new from their dead leaders - although they might hear from God if they seek Him.

I believe that one of the reasons Noah was different from the other men of his generation, is that he 'found grace in the sight of the Lord'. He went looking for God, and God rewarded him with a greater revelation.

You frequently write that you can find no difference between the claims of other religions and Christianity. Bear in mind that if they have 'spiritual' experiences - such as speaking in other voices, going into trances, stabbing themselves with staves but being unharmed when the stave is removed - then these 'miracles' have been done by the power of spirits other than God. God is clearly against these and many other practices, according to the Bible.

OK .... so what you are really saying is that the difference between your faith and their faith is that that yours is true and theirs is false? That doesn't seem like a very reasonable position to me. They think they hear from their God just like you think you hear from yours. So what's the difference between you and them? I still don't see it.

If you say 'I don't believe xxx because xxx' - that is fine unless God has revealed to you the truth you are rejecting. Then, it would be more than ignorant unbelief, and it would be spiritually unwise.

Again, I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe it would help if you gave me an example of the "xxx" in your comment.

One of the reasons God was so willing to let the older generation of Hebrews die in the wilderness for their unbelief, was that He had done many miracles for them despite their contrariness, and yet still they would not believe and obey Him. By such revelations, in this case, to them as a nation, God gives Himself a testimony wherever He is at work, which condemns those who refuse to embrace it.

The same principle applies when He reveals Himself to individuals today, one by one. He is looking for their individual faith, as only this can bring lasting change in their experience. A group of believers in communion with Christ, experience a different manifestation of the effects of faith.

Have you never wondered how anyone could refuse to believe despite seeing such miracles? How is it that now millions and millions of people believe without seeing any evidence at all? What changed?

But in any case, you entire believe system is subjective. None of your answers would mean anything to someone who was not a Christian. Your explanations seem to me to be indistinguishable from the explanations I would get from a Muslim or a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness or a Scientologist. They would all explain - from their belief system - why I couldn't see the truth that was so obvious to them. But no one - not them, not you - can give any objectively verifiable reason why anyone should believe their religion. This is what I have been trying to communicate to you.

I'm sorry, but that idea is scientifically absurd. There is absolutely no evidence that there was a time when there was nothing in space but the earth. On the contrary, there is a lot of evidence that the earth is much younger than the rest of the universe. Specifically, the earth is only about 4.5 billion years old, whereas the rest of the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Being a believer does not mean you should believe in propositions about the physical universe that are demonstrably false.

And besides, why would you think you could establish a physical theory on the few verses of the Bible? The Bible is not a scientific textbook. If you go that route, you will have to believe in all sorts of false ideas, like the idea that the earth has a "foundation" and a "cornerstone."

Okay. I did think about this after I'd written it, and realised that the stars are not mentioned in Genesis. We have the psalmist's proclamation of God's involvement in creating them though, in Psalm 19:1.

I still think that the whole 'age' question is thrown to bits by God being able to create elements for something He's going to make later, as much as by points I raised earlier, and I don't see what difference it makes except for those who don't want to deal with the claims of Christ. A Christian can still maintain total scientific equilibrium if he's honest, and believe in God's solution for sin. I am far from anti-science. I am anti scientists not acknowledging God. That won't do their insight any good whatever.

Well, it's really not that easy. That's why Christians have been struggling to find some way to make sense of the Bible in light of modern science. It really is a HUGE problem. For example, most conservative Christians say that if there were no Adam and Eve then Christianity is false and no one should believe it. I get the impression that you've probably never really encountered this problem before. And that's fine! You don't have to have answers for everything. But neither can you just sweep it all under the rug either. Many Christians have been struggling with these questions for many years.

the plain text that says there was a solid dome "firmament" holding up the waters that were above.

In my whole life, until you bring it to my attention, I've never heard of 'a solid dome firmament'. Firmament is translated as 'expanse'. Why would it be 'solid'? If this is what you used to believe as a Christian, that's fine. Please say so. But I never have and still don't, no matter how popular the theory is or was. Of course God can create a separating between waters above and waters below, even if the waters above are H2O! Considering the limitations of science till now, and the amount we do not 'know' yet, there is no point in arguing with scripture about 'the firmament'. What is it hurting to believe it's what God says it is?

You didn't hear about it because there is an implicit conspiracy amongst most Christians teachers and apologists and believers to cover up the ancient mythology in the Bible. They told you it meant "expanse" because the real meaning was obviously false. But if you ever looked it up in Strong's concordance, you would have seen this:

7549 raqiya` {raw-kee'-ah}
Meaning: 1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament 1a) expanse (flat as base, support) 1b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above) 1b1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

The things I'm telling you are nothing new. Strong wrote his concordance way back in the 19th century!

But no, I never believed that there really was a solid dome firmament. And that's why I didn't know what to believe about Genesis 1. I just looked at it symbolically like I showed above, and then ignored the rest because I had no answers for the obvious scientific falsehoods. And besides, I was too busy being amazed by all the stuff I was discovering with the Bible Wheel. So I just assumed there would be answers and didn't worry about it too much. I did the same thing with the problem of hell, until it finally got under my skin and I had to admit that I did not believe it. And then I had to admit that I did not believe people would go to hell if they didn't believe in Jesus, and finally I just had to admit that I wasn't a Christian anymore.

Considering the limitations of science till now, and the amount we do not 'know' yet, there is no point in arguing with scripture about 'the firmament'. What is it hurting to believe it's what God says it is?

I find that quite ironic. You question modern science but not the ancient beliefs recorded in the Bible? That seems entirely inverted to me.

Thanks for taking all the time and effort to work with me on this stuff.

All the very best to you my friend,

Richard