The first part of the chapter makes it sound like God created the world in six literal days, since he rested on the seventh day and made it holy. There's this whole argument about whether "day" was "24 hours" or "a really long time" and the Hebrew word used means "day" and not "day-age" or something like that. But just think about it -- if each "day" was "a really long time", God did what with the seventh day? Set apart and made holy "a really long time". I don't think so.
I remember when I was a new believer and read through Genesis the first time. I thought it was weird there were "two accounts" of creation. It's not really two accounts though. Genesis 1 (and the first part of 2) goes through all of creation at a high level, while Genesis 2 focuses on creation of mankind on the sixth day. Though if that day was really just 24 hours long, a whole lot of stuff happened on that day to Adam -- getting the rule about the tree, naming the animals, going into a deep sleep, etc.
What's the deal? I've no idea, but scratching my head for a long time trying to figure it out precisely seems to distract from the larger truth of God creating everything!
It's pretty interesting that the Bible specifically mentions the beauty of the trees as well as their usefulness for food. I often discount "pretty" things, especially man-made "pretty" things, but God didn't just make a practical world, he made a beautiful world, and he did it for a reason. Perhaps I shouldn't be quick to ignore that aspect of God.
I wonder how the four rivers mentioned line up with anything we can see today. Really if this world started out with the continents together (Pangaea I think they call it) and there was also this great catastrophic world wide flood, they probably wouldn't line up at all. Yet the names Tigris and Euphrates in Genesis do line up with what I remember from geography/history in school. Interestingly, isn't the that area known also as the (or a) "cradle of civilization" in the secular world as well?
Man had a job from the beginning. God put man in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. But since this was God's perfect world still, I'll bet there was only joy in this work, no toiling and suffering yet.
Notice how many rules God gave man? One. One stinking rule. I bet the fruit on that tree looked really really good. Isn't that how sin is? It looks like a pleasurable thing, and the knowledge in the back of your head that something isn't right just attracts you to it more! I know this to be true from my B.C. days when I reveled in my own wickedness -- with idleness, greed, and lust ruling my mind and heart. I knew it wasn't right, and that made me like it more when I was sin's slave.
"It is not good that man should be alone" is so true. Just having my wife on the bed next to me as I write this is a blessing. I would be very lonely and incomplete without her. Even though Dog could teach man loyalty and Cat could teach man humility, he really needed Woman. :-)
It might seem odd that the chapter talks about leaving father and mother and becoming one, when there were no other people yet. Remember the words were written down a long time after creation actually happened. I think the greater point here is that this was God's original design for marriage. One man and one woman, joined together and faithful to each other -- no divorce. This is emphasized when we learn much later in the Bible that the marriage between husband and wife is supposed to be a picture of Christ's love for his church.
I'm not advocating the whole nudist thing, but it had to be pretty freeing that they were both naked and not ashamed. After all, they were brand new and innocent. On top of that, there were no other naked people to lust after, were there? Just the first husband and the first wife together in paradise. Awesome. Yeah, there seems to be this whole other symbolic layer on top of that also that obtuse guys like me don't get without listening to others. I'll get into that next time.
Showing posts with label creation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creation. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Joe Dude's Bible Thoughts: Genesis 1
I got convicted of something the other day. That happens a lot with me. It's a good thing. Change and growth and all that.
What I got convicted about is not really getting into the Word for myself as I should. I like to listen to a lot of teaching and I like to listen to a lot of preaching, but I haven't been reading or listening to the Bible for myself as I ought. After all, we've been given a book that we can read and understand for ourselves.
It's kind of funny because God used a pastor I like to listen to and watch online to point out to me that it is beneficial to do more than listen to what others have to say. As part of getting into the Word myself more, I thought I'd throw out my thoughts as I read/listen to it, starting with the beginning...
In the beginning there was God, and only God. I don't hear anything in here about stuff or spirits existing before God. The whole explanation about creating the heavens and the formless earth, and then manipulating the earth, make it sound like the account doesn't line up too well with the whole big bang or expanding universe theories, even though such theories do point to a universe with a finite beginning that demands a supernatural beginner to kick it off.
The first day is interesting. You've got the light, day, and the darkness, night, created. And then you have evening and morning, the first day. There's no sun going around the earth yet. Maybe evening and morning refer more to time periods than the earth's rotation. After all we're talking about ancient literature here, not a modern day science book.
The "separate the waters from the waters" action is also interesting. It's like there used to be a whole bunch of water above us somewhere -- either surrounding the earth, possibly providing the source of water for the flood and shielding the planet from nasty stuff, or beyond the edges of what we know as the universe -- as later the sun and moon seem to be put in the expanse between the waters.
God has crazy power we just can't understand. He just says things and and they happen. "Let this appear" and it appears. "Let that do this" and that does this. What can we do? Nothing! Go ahead, try to make a blade of grass. Now make life from non-life. Now make atoms from nothing. Good luck.
The phrase "let us make man in our image" is interesting. Looking very far ahead to the idea of the Trinity, this seems to be the first hint that there's more to the nature of God than meets the eye. Though the LORD is one, you still have Father, Spirit, and Son.
Mankind is a special creation. We're created in God's image, which is very different than all the rest of his creation. God is not a man or a woman, but spirit, and man and woman were both created in his image. That means traits, not physical looks.
Mankind was also put in charge of the rest of creation. That brings to mind the idea of stewardship -- this is God's world, but we are to take care of it. That doesn't mean go insane and elevate nature in general and/or animals to the level of false idols or preach the Gospel of Greenpeace. But we shouldn't wreck the place willy nilly either.
The end of the first chapter is also interesting. Apparently men and animals originally were vegetarians. "I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." That reminds me of a verse in Isaiah that says "the wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox." That sounds a little strange, but then again, it's not my creation, is it?
What I got convicted about is not really getting into the Word for myself as I should. I like to listen to a lot of teaching and I like to listen to a lot of preaching, but I haven't been reading or listening to the Bible for myself as I ought. After all, we've been given a book that we can read and understand for ourselves.
It's kind of funny because God used a pastor I like to listen to and watch online to point out to me that it is beneficial to do more than listen to what others have to say. As part of getting into the Word myself more, I thought I'd throw out my thoughts as I read/listen to it, starting with the beginning...
In the beginning there was God, and only God. I don't hear anything in here about stuff or spirits existing before God. The whole explanation about creating the heavens and the formless earth, and then manipulating the earth, make it sound like the account doesn't line up too well with the whole big bang or expanding universe theories, even though such theories do point to a universe with a finite beginning that demands a supernatural beginner to kick it off.
The first day is interesting. You've got the light, day, and the darkness, night, created. And then you have evening and morning, the first day. There's no sun going around the earth yet. Maybe evening and morning refer more to time periods than the earth's rotation. After all we're talking about ancient literature here, not a modern day science book.
The "separate the waters from the waters" action is also interesting. It's like there used to be a whole bunch of water above us somewhere -- either surrounding the earth, possibly providing the source of water for the flood and shielding the planet from nasty stuff, or beyond the edges of what we know as the universe -- as later the sun and moon seem to be put in the expanse between the waters.
God has crazy power we just can't understand. He just says things and and they happen. "Let this appear" and it appears. "Let that do this" and that does this. What can we do? Nothing! Go ahead, try to make a blade of grass. Now make life from non-life. Now make atoms from nothing. Good luck.
The phrase "let us make man in our image" is interesting. Looking very far ahead to the idea of the Trinity, this seems to be the first hint that there's more to the nature of God than meets the eye. Though the LORD is one, you still have Father, Spirit, and Son.
Mankind is a special creation. We're created in God's image, which is very different than all the rest of his creation. God is not a man or a woman, but spirit, and man and woman were both created in his image. That means traits, not physical looks.
Mankind was also put in charge of the rest of creation. That brings to mind the idea of stewardship -- this is God's world, but we are to take care of it. That doesn't mean go insane and elevate nature in general and/or animals to the level of false idols or preach the Gospel of Greenpeace. But we shouldn't wreck the place willy nilly either.
The end of the first chapter is also interesting. Apparently men and animals originally were vegetarians. "I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." That reminds me of a verse in Isaiah that says "the wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox." That sounds a little strange, but then again, it's not my creation, is it?
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The Deity Of Jesus Christ
Props to Mark Strauss tonight for prompting me to write this. Higher props to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit for working in the hearts and minds of all believers!
Remember that Da Vinci Code movie? I guess it was a book first, but I saw the movie only. There's a lot of crap in it. Of course there is, it's a product of a godless industry. However there is one especially large piece of crap in it -- that argument that the church viewed Christ as human only until the Council of Nicea in the 4th century, in which he was "voted" to be divine -- by a narrow margin at that.
All bunk. One can look up what the vote was about and what the margin was to se that. But Dan Brown's nonsense or some council is not what this post is about. We have to go back before that, into the 1st century. What did followers of Christ write about him?
How about John? Chapter 1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All thing were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have see his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."
There you have it. Jesus as both divine and human, and creator to boot.
Not enough? How about Paul? Colossians 1, chapter 1. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things were created through him and for him...For in him all the fullness of God was please to dwell..."
There you have it again. Jesus as both divine and human, and creator to boot.
Not enough? How about the author of Hebrews, chapter 1. "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power....And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.'"
There you have it again. Jesus as both divine and human, and creator to boot.
Three different 1st century New Testament authors independently attesting to both the divinity and humanity of the God-man, Jesus Christ -- let alone the numerous indicators of this through Jesus' words as recorded in the gospel accounts. The conclusion, according to scripture, Jesus is God.
"Oh wait, what about..." others will say. This "Who is Jesus?" test is a good one to help answer the "Christian or non-Christian cult?" question. Here's the common two "what abouts" in the above passages:
First, "and the word was a god". This is what the Jehovah's Witness' translation of the Bible says. Go find a Greek New Testament and some impartial dude who knows Greek well and have him tell you. There should be no 'a' in there. It's a mistranslation made intentionally to fit the Jehovah's Witness' mission to prove to everyone that Jesus is not God. It's bunk and it's wrong. And guess what? Even that Bible is still littered with numerous indicators to the divinity of Christ.
Next, "firstborn". Uh, oh, Jesus was a created being himself, even though he created everything else? Well, no. "Without him was not anything made that was made." If he was created but also created everything, then he had to create himself. That's just stupid. :-) But that's not the end of the argument either. Firstborn is used to indicate status as well -- the most honored.
Grace and Peace friends.
Remember that Da Vinci Code movie? I guess it was a book first, but I saw the movie only. There's a lot of crap in it. Of course there is, it's a product of a godless industry. However there is one especially large piece of crap in it -- that argument that the church viewed Christ as human only until the Council of Nicea in the 4th century, in which he was "voted" to be divine -- by a narrow margin at that.
All bunk. One can look up what the vote was about and what the margin was to se that. But Dan Brown's nonsense or some council is not what this post is about. We have to go back before that, into the 1st century. What did followers of Christ write about him?
How about John? Chapter 1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All thing were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have see his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."
There you have it. Jesus as both divine and human, and creator to boot.
Not enough? How about Paul? Colossians 1, chapter 1. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things were created through him and for him...For in him all the fullness of God was please to dwell..."
There you have it again. Jesus as both divine and human, and creator to boot.
Not enough? How about the author of Hebrews, chapter 1. "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power....And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.'"
There you have it again. Jesus as both divine and human, and creator to boot.
Three different 1st century New Testament authors independently attesting to both the divinity and humanity of the God-man, Jesus Christ -- let alone the numerous indicators of this through Jesus' words as recorded in the gospel accounts. The conclusion, according to scripture, Jesus is God.
"Oh wait, what about..." others will say. This "Who is Jesus?" test is a good one to help answer the "Christian or non-Christian cult?" question. Here's the common two "what abouts" in the above passages:
First, "and the word was a god". This is what the Jehovah's Witness' translation of the Bible says. Go find a Greek New Testament and some impartial dude who knows Greek well and have him tell you. There should be no 'a' in there. It's a mistranslation made intentionally to fit the Jehovah's Witness' mission to prove to everyone that Jesus is not God. It's bunk and it's wrong. And guess what? Even that Bible is still littered with numerous indicators to the divinity of Christ.
Next, "firstborn". Uh, oh, Jesus was a created being himself, even though he created everything else? Well, no. "Without him was not anything made that was made." If he was created but also created everything, then he had to create himself. That's just stupid. :-) But that's not the end of the argument either. Firstborn is used to indicate status as well -- the most honored.
Grace and Peace friends.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Get Off The Evolutionary Fence
In Genesis 1, the Bible has recorded the account of creation. There are those who claim to not believe in God and say that the universe came from nothing, life came from non-life, and we evolved from very simple organisms into the menagerie of plants and animals we see today. Really I think that's a load of hogwash that's not supported by the evidence, and that it takes more faith to believe it than to believe the simple Biblical account. The simplest logical pieces of evidence are the appearance of diverse life suddenly in the fossil record, no record of transitional lifeforms, and the problem of irreducible complexity (i.e. certain cells cannot possibly have evolved from something simpler because there is no way they would be able to function).
The fact that the universe and life were created seems pretty straightforward to me as a believer. It also seems that those non-believers who hold to a evolution really don't have a leg to stand on and just don't want to admit a world exists where there is a greater power than them -- I'd wager because that means accountability to that greater power.
But there is another, more puzzling, camp. Those believers who want to compromise with the evolutionary scientists. "Maybe God used evolution to bring life to this earth." I thought this myself a long time ago before I actually came to know and love the Lord Jesus Christ -- in a time when I claimed to believe in God, but i didn't really know him at all. Let's get this straight. there is NO compromise. We're here via creation by God Almighty or we're here through evolution, period.
Why?
Well first of all there is the problem of sin and death. If we evolved from something simpler over a huge amount of time, there would be all kinds of death going on in the perfect world God created over millions of years. Now if there was no death until sin entered the world and corrupted creation, and sin didn't enter the world until the fall of man, we've got a big problem on our hands.
But there's an even bigger problem for the one trying to accommodate both creation and evolution. The Bible teaches we have an immortal soul, making us unique, special creations of God. I like the way C.S. Lewis put it actually -- "You don't have a soul. You ARE a soul. You have a body." And the body is just a tent we have for now. It will get old. It will die. We will live on. Those in Christ will be like him in the age to come.
Even if you could evolve from simple life into more and more complex life in the physical sense, you can't evolve from a creature with no soul to one with a soul. We must choose a side -- you can't have it both ways. To accommodate evolution denies the truth of scripture. To believe the Bible demands a rejection of evolutionary theory. Period.
Know that we are more than physical beings. More than really smart animals. We are first and foremost spiritual beings, with a deep longing inside to be reconnected with our creator, and that reconnection only comes through knowing and loving the Lord Jesus Christ.
Grace and Peace
The fact that the universe and life were created seems pretty straightforward to me as a believer. It also seems that those non-believers who hold to a evolution really don't have a leg to stand on and just don't want to admit a world exists where there is a greater power than them -- I'd wager because that means accountability to that greater power.
But there is another, more puzzling, camp. Those believers who want to compromise with the evolutionary scientists. "Maybe God used evolution to bring life to this earth." I thought this myself a long time ago before I actually came to know and love the Lord Jesus Christ -- in a time when I claimed to believe in God, but i didn't really know him at all. Let's get this straight. there is NO compromise. We're here via creation by God Almighty or we're here through evolution, period.
Why?
Well first of all there is the problem of sin and death. If we evolved from something simpler over a huge amount of time, there would be all kinds of death going on in the perfect world God created over millions of years. Now if there was no death until sin entered the world and corrupted creation, and sin didn't enter the world until the fall of man, we've got a big problem on our hands.
But there's an even bigger problem for the one trying to accommodate both creation and evolution. The Bible teaches we have an immortal soul, making us unique, special creations of God. I like the way C.S. Lewis put it actually -- "You don't have a soul. You ARE a soul. You have a body." And the body is just a tent we have for now. It will get old. It will die. We will live on. Those in Christ will be like him in the age to come.
Even if you could evolve from simple life into more and more complex life in the physical sense, you can't evolve from a creature with no soul to one with a soul. We must choose a side -- you can't have it both ways. To accommodate evolution denies the truth of scripture. To believe the Bible demands a rejection of evolutionary theory. Period.
Know that we are more than physical beings. More than really smart animals. We are first and foremost spiritual beings, with a deep longing inside to be reconnected with our creator, and that reconnection only comes through knowing and loving the Lord Jesus Christ.
Grace and Peace
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Little, Big
I did two things today. Okay I did a lot of things today, but two of them are relevant to this post.
The first is that I looked at "The Human Body Book" with my kids. There were various things they were interested in, but one of the most interesting things, to me, was the innards of a cell. You know what's in a cell? A whole lot of junk, that's what. It varies depending on cell type, but the picture of a generalized cell we looked at looks like a huge aquarium teeming with a couple dozen forms of life. You have parts for nutrient absorption, cell reproduction, moving substances through the cytoplasm (cell goo), sugar/fat digestion and energy production, material/water storage and transport, structural support, protein assembly, substance flow control, plus the control center in the middle and various other pieces that make this whole thing work. Its like a factory more complicated than any I've seen. And we've got a gazillion of these things working together in our bodies.
The second is that I took the dog on a walk at night and looked up at the stars (and maybe one planet, it was really bright). I saw maybe a couple of dozen stars, billions of miles away, shining brightly in the depths of space. Its estimated that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy, and maybe the same number of galaxies. Let's say those estimates are off by a factor of 100, each. That would still be 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 stars. I don't know about your universe, but in mine, that's a lot of freaking stars.
Then I thought of something. Okay I thought of a lot of things, but one of them is relevant to this post.
In ages past, people didn't know about the complexity of the cell. It wasn't that long ago that people didn't even know what a cell was. It wasn't that long ago either that people didn't know how vast the universe was. Yet many believed in God.
Now we live in a time when people can see small things so much more than ever before and large things so much more than ever before. These are the very things that point to God's existence. The complexity of the human body and the vastness of the universe is so great, it is a huge testimony to the vastness and glory of God himself. And what do some so called "brilliant minds" do with it? They try use the very evidence of God's existence to say that he could not possibly exist.
"Yes, this vast universe just popped into existence from nothing! And life too! This incredibly complex system called life just popped into existence from nothing too! And the little complex things grew into more and more and more complex things until one day they grew into something that had enough of a brain to think about its own existence and say 'There is no God'".
Rubbish.
If with greater revelation comes greater accountability, how much more accountable are we today, knowing the enormity of God's creation? I think much, but that's just one man's opinion.
Grace and Peace
The first is that I looked at "The Human Body Book" with my kids. There were various things they were interested in, but one of the most interesting things, to me, was the innards of a cell. You know what's in a cell? A whole lot of junk, that's what. It varies depending on cell type, but the picture of a generalized cell we looked at looks like a huge aquarium teeming with a couple dozen forms of life. You have parts for nutrient absorption, cell reproduction, moving substances through the cytoplasm (cell goo), sugar/fat digestion and energy production, material/water storage and transport, structural support, protein assembly, substance flow control, plus the control center in the middle and various other pieces that make this whole thing work. Its like a factory more complicated than any I've seen. And we've got a gazillion of these things working together in our bodies.
The second is that I took the dog on a walk at night and looked up at the stars (and maybe one planet, it was really bright). I saw maybe a couple of dozen stars, billions of miles away, shining brightly in the depths of space. Its estimated that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy, and maybe the same number of galaxies. Let's say those estimates are off by a factor of 100, each. That would still be 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 stars. I don't know about your universe, but in mine, that's a lot of freaking stars.
Then I thought of something. Okay I thought of a lot of things, but one of them is relevant to this post.
In ages past, people didn't know about the complexity of the cell. It wasn't that long ago that people didn't even know what a cell was. It wasn't that long ago either that people didn't know how vast the universe was. Yet many believed in God.
Now we live in a time when people can see small things so much more than ever before and large things so much more than ever before. These are the very things that point to God's existence. The complexity of the human body and the vastness of the universe is so great, it is a huge testimony to the vastness and glory of God himself. And what do some so called "brilliant minds" do with it? They try use the very evidence of God's existence to say that he could not possibly exist.
"Yes, this vast universe just popped into existence from nothing! And life too! This incredibly complex system called life just popped into existence from nothing too! And the little complex things grew into more and more and more complex things until one day they grew into something that had enough of a brain to think about its own existence and say 'There is no God'".
Rubbish.
If with greater revelation comes greater accountability, how much more accountable are we today, knowing the enormity of God's creation? I think much, but that's just one man's opinion.
Grace and Peace
Friday, January 2, 2009
Origins
As I write this I'm watching Journey To The Edge Of The Universe on the National Geographic channel. Its an interesting virtual trip from earth to way out in the universe somewhere (we're just at Mars right now).
I'm a bit annoyed at this narrator, or more accurately, the folks who wrote the crap that the narrator is saying.
Mars could be our ancestral home! We could all be martians! No, this organic material on a comet that crashed into a young earth could have brought life to it! And, wait, we in our spacecraft could be carrying the virus of life to distant worlds right now on this journey!
Please.
The guys on these shows toss around evolution and exogensis like they are proven and undisputable scientific facts. There can't be intelligent design, but there also can't be life on earth from non-life, so therefore we must have come from somewhere else in the universe. Aliens. Comets. Flying monkeys. Oh wait, let's not bother to address where THAT life came from!
I am not a martian.
I am not evolved from animals.
I am not the product of a virus.
I am a special creation of God, made in His image, and His child.
Yes, there is extra-terrestrial life out there that was responsible for creating life on earth. I'm not talking about little green men here, but rather our awesome creator who created the heavens and stretched them out.
Thank you Father, God, for creation. Thank you for my existence. Thank you for letting me know where we came from and how special of a creation we are to you. Thank you for giving us the gift of choice. Thank you for your redemptive plan that deals with the poor choices we all make with that gift. Thank you for coming to Earth in the flesh to die for our sins. Thank you for drawing me to you so and opening my eyes and heart to receive Christ by faith. Thank you for adopting me into your family.
I'm a bit annoyed at this narrator, or more accurately, the folks who wrote the crap that the narrator is saying.
Mars could be our ancestral home! We could all be martians! No, this organic material on a comet that crashed into a young earth could have brought life to it! And, wait, we in our spacecraft could be carrying the virus of life to distant worlds right now on this journey!
Please.
The guys on these shows toss around evolution and exogensis like they are proven and undisputable scientific facts. There can't be intelligent design, but there also can't be life on earth from non-life, so therefore we must have come from somewhere else in the universe. Aliens. Comets. Flying monkeys. Oh wait, let's not bother to address where THAT life came from!
I am not a martian.
I am not evolved from animals.
I am not the product of a virus.
I am a special creation of God, made in His image, and His child.
Yes, there is extra-terrestrial life out there that was responsible for creating life on earth. I'm not talking about little green men here, but rather our awesome creator who created the heavens and stretched them out.
Thank you Father, God, for creation. Thank you for my existence. Thank you for letting me know where we came from and how special of a creation we are to you. Thank you for giving us the gift of choice. Thank you for your redemptive plan that deals with the poor choices we all make with that gift. Thank you for coming to Earth in the flesh to die for our sins. Thank you for drawing me to you so and opening my eyes and heart to receive Christ by faith. Thank you for adopting me into your family.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
In The Beginning
I have been having e-mail discussions with a good friend of mine about the origin and nature of the universe. If I am not misrepresenting him here, his position is that the universe and God are eternal (both have always existed and will exist forever), and that "afterlife places" (this is another discussion between us -- I will just say heaven/hell) exist within what we know as the universe. My position is God is eternal, but the universe is not -- it had a distinct beginning and will eventually end, and that heaven/hell exist outside of it. We both found each others' position hard to understand. :-)
This has little bearing on the point of this post, other than its background that got me thinking a little bit more about the age of the universe, which I consider as a separate argument from the age of the earth. There are three reasonable possibilities in my mind (many more if you want to tie actual numbers to any of these):
1) Young earth, young universe
2) Young earth, old universe
3) Old earth, old universe
There aren't four, because I don't see how you could have an old earth and young universe. Anyone that claims this probably needs to see some kind of doctor.
I did some searching on the Internet and found that there are creationists in all three camps arguing about why their view is correct and non-creationists in the third camp arguing about why their view is correct (I don't know of any non-creationists in the first two camps!). No one was of any particular help, but the arguments were interesting.
I accept that biblical and scientific evidence that points to a young earth, but I'm still curious if that means that the universe is also young.
I opened my Bible up to Genesis 1 and read it again:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
I had a thought that maybe, yes, in the beginning God made the universe, but this formless earth sat around for a long time before God did anything with it -- and then in six days He took this formless earth and made it into the earth we know. I don't know how popular this view is (I didn't see much about it ), but I found at least one other person that thought about it:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/oldyoung.html
Regarding a young earth and young universe, this page gave a good summary of past theories that were pretty weak, and a good summary of a recent cosmological model proposed by Dr. Humphreys:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html
In the end I'm probably more in the "young earth, young universe" camp then the "young earth, old universe" camp. Nailing down the age of the universe is not relevant to my salvation, but it makes for some interesting reading and discussion.
On a final note, in looking up information about the various arguments for the age of the earth and universe, I came across this page that gives a really good explanation of why Christians shouldn't blow off the young-earth versus old-earth discussion as irrelevant:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c026.html
This has little bearing on the point of this post, other than its background that got me thinking a little bit more about the age of the universe, which I consider as a separate argument from the age of the earth. There are three reasonable possibilities in my mind (many more if you want to tie actual numbers to any of these):
1) Young earth, young universe
2) Young earth, old universe
3) Old earth, old universe
There aren't four, because I don't see how you could have an old earth and young universe. Anyone that claims this probably needs to see some kind of doctor.
I did some searching on the Internet and found that there are creationists in all three camps arguing about why their view is correct and non-creationists in the third camp arguing about why their view is correct (I don't know of any non-creationists in the first two camps!). No one was of any particular help, but the arguments were interesting.
I accept that biblical and scientific evidence that points to a young earth, but I'm still curious if that means that the universe is also young.
I opened my Bible up to Genesis 1 and read it again:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
I had a thought that maybe, yes, in the beginning God made the universe, but this formless earth sat around for a long time before God did anything with it -- and then in six days He took this formless earth and made it into the earth we know. I don't know how popular this view is (I didn't see much about it ), but I found at least one other person that thought about it:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/oldyoung.html
Regarding a young earth and young universe, this page gave a good summary of past theories that were pretty weak, and a good summary of a recent cosmological model proposed by Dr. Humphreys:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html
In the end I'm probably more in the "young earth, young universe" camp then the "young earth, old universe" camp. Nailing down the age of the universe is not relevant to my salvation, but it makes for some interesting reading and discussion.
On a final note, in looking up information about the various arguments for the age of the earth and universe, I came across this page that gives a really good explanation of why Christians shouldn't blow off the young-earth versus old-earth discussion as irrelevant:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c026.html
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Intelligent Design
Today I heard about William Dembski and a work he published called The Design Inference. The basic concept is that if something cannot be explained by a law, and is too statistically unlikely to be explained by chance, then it must have been designed. Dembski says that life itself is such a highly unlikely event that conforms to a discernible pattern, so therefore it, by itself, is evidence of intelligent design.
I completely agree.
Apparently Dembski has been criticized in the past for this by folks who say that if a given event happens with low probability and confroms to a discernible pattern, there are two possible reasons for it: 1) intelligent design or 2) necessity.
That argument does really debunk anything; it just offers another option. Fine, let's roll with it. I'm assuming this argument is for natural selection, but we're not there yet. First of all, I don't see how necessity explains anything about how the universe came from nothing or how life could come from inorganic matter. What necessity could there possibly be here? What about humans specifically then? Necessity could explain our physical bodies and some thought processes, but how could it possibly explain why we have the ability to discover the laws of the universe in which we live and even have this argument?
I am more than star dust, and the evidence for it is that I have the ability to realize it.
I completely agree.
Apparently Dembski has been criticized in the past for this by folks who say that if a given event happens with low probability and confroms to a discernible pattern, there are two possible reasons for it: 1) intelligent design or 2) necessity.
That argument does really debunk anything; it just offers another option. Fine, let's roll with it. I'm assuming this argument is for natural selection, but we're not there yet. First of all, I don't see how necessity explains anything about how the universe came from nothing or how life could come from inorganic matter. What necessity could there possibly be here? What about humans specifically then? Necessity could explain our physical bodies and some thought processes, but how could it possibly explain why we have the ability to discover the laws of the universe in which we live and even have this argument?
I am more than star dust, and the evidence for it is that I have the ability to realize it.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Creation: Blog and Universe
I have a blog now, scary. So out of the millions things to write about in the first post, I will write about this argument I heard on the Bob Dutko show today that I liked (the gist of it anyway):
You have three options for the creation of the universe:
1) The universe is eternal.
2) The universe was created some time in the past without any supernatural event.
3) The universe was created some time in the past with a supernatural event.
#1 violates the second law of thermodynamics. It cannot have lasted forever or it would have used up all the energy available for work. The universe must have been created with a lot of usable energy and is now running down.
See http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/370.asp for more.
#2 violates the first law of thermodynamics. It cannot have been created from nothing.
See http://www.direct.ca/trinity/1law.html for more.
#3 is left, where some supernatural event happened outside the bounds of these laws that caused space-time and matter to be created. In the face of that, I'll say it was God. If you don't want to say it was God, then what do you say caused this supernatural event?
You have three options for the creation of the universe:
1) The universe is eternal.
2) The universe was created some time in the past without any supernatural event.
3) The universe was created some time in the past with a supernatural event.
#1 violates the second law of thermodynamics. It cannot have lasted forever or it would have used up all the energy available for work. The universe must have been created with a lot of usable energy and is now running down.
See http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/370.asp for more.
#2 violates the first law of thermodynamics. It cannot have been created from nothing.
See http://www.direct.ca/trinity/1law.html for more.
#3 is left, where some supernatural event happened outside the bounds of these laws that caused space-time and matter to be created. In the face of that, I'll say it was God. If you don't want to say it was God, then what do you say caused this supernatural event?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)