In the Beginning...of What?

[Brickjectivity]

Here we go down the rabbit hole. Genesis 1:1 please.

That hurts my feelings.

 

[Willamena]

I understand. Ours is a realm of dualities. Light and dark, land and sea, Eden and the rest of the world, night and day, man and women, heaven and earth. Why are all of these differences tangible and not heaven?

Heaven is the 'difference' to the tangible earth?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Heaven is the 'difference' to the tangible earth?

Let's look at the text and wonder where God inhabited before the tangible and the intangible formed? Was it intangible as well? This could present difficulties.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You have the dinosaurs which were of the natural world and then you have us which were of the Spiritual world, like the angels which are of the spiritual world.

Us, dinosaurs of the spiritual world! Extinct or surviving? Angels too were dinosaurs?

 

[Willamena]

Let's look at the text and wonder where God inhabited before the tangible and the intangible formed? Was it intangible as well? This could present difficulties.

"Inhabit" is the tangible.

The tangible cannot be before the split of tangible and intangible.

Edit: Oh, yes, and "before" is the tangible.

Pretty much, any "words" are the tangible. Anything you can put a word to.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

"Inhabit" is the tangible.

The tangible cannot be before the split of tangible and intangible.

Is inhabit the wrong word?

 

[Jumi]

Ok. Where's heaven?

Inside of us all, waiting to be accessed.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, language is tricky. Back to your authoritative natural world view. You can't find heaven so it doesn't exist?

It was the intent of this thread to address the Biblical view based on the Genesis view, and not whether alternate views of heaven may be possible.

As the scientific knowledge of our cosmos, history of the earth and life evolved a literal Genesis fades, but unfortunately many still cling to the ancient paradigm of some sort of literal Genesis complete with many illogical and irrational contradictions.

Yes, science is based on the actual physical evidence and it is an evolving body of knowledge that is authoritative concerning the nature of our physical existence, and does not deal with the possibility of spiritual realms and worlds, heaven?, beyond the physical world.

For the most part all the religions of the world that believed in literal heavens and underworlds have evolved to more 'spiritual other worlds' as the scientific knowledge of our physical existence increases.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Inside of us all, waiting to be accessed.

So it moved In? Because it was there before we were.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It was the intent of this thread to address the Biblical view based on the Genesis view, and not whether alternate views of heaven may be possible.

As the scientific knowledge of our cosmos, history of the earth and life evolved a literal Genesis fades, but unfortunately many still cling to the ancient paradigm of some sort of literal Genesis complete with many illogical and irrational contradictions.

Yes, science is based on the actual physical evidence and it is an evolving body of knowledge that is authoritative concerning the nature of our physical existence, and does not deal with the possibility of spiritual realms and worlds, heaven?, beyond the physical world.

Right, it is the intended desire to look at the Biblical content. And yet you keep interjecting otherwise. Why?

 

[Willamena]

What are you looking for, Sandy? An image of heaven?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What are you looking for, Sandy? An image of heaven?

An adequate description of it in Genesis 1:1 would be a place to start.

 

[Willamena]

An adequate description of it in Genesis 1:1 would be a place to start.

I doubt that it would be there, as it's one of those cultural images that everyone at the time knows and no one has to explain to each other. And I doubt that we today have the same image of it that they had, since our ontololgical* worldview has changed.

* the sum of assumptions about how the world actually is

 

[shunyadragon]

Right, it is the intended desire to look at the Biblical content. And yet you keep interjecting otherwise. Why?

No I have not interjected otherwise, I related the Biblical view to the view common at the time, and why the cosmos is described the way it was in Genesis. You cannot discuss the Bible version of heaven, hell and the cosmos in isolation. There are many reasons why the Biblical version is no longer tenable.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I doubt that it would be there, as it's one of those cultural images that everyone at the time knows and no one has to explain to each other. And I doubt that we today have the same image of it that they had, since our ontololgical* worldview has changed.

* the sum of assumptions about how the world actually is

Yet we know some things about it . It formed when the earth was formed. The firmament of heaven formed between it and earth and it contains the waters above. We also know that God pre-existed heaven.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No I have not interjected otherwise, I related the Biblical view to the view common at the time, and why the cosmos is described the way it was in Genesis. You cannot discuss the Bible version of heaven, hell and the cosmos in isolation. There are many reasons why the Biblical version is no longer tenable.

So you say but I continue to have intelligent discussions to the contrary. I just stick to what the Bible says.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you say but I continue to have intelligent discussions to the contrary. I just stick to what the Bible says.

Then why ask the questions you asked, and not just accept the Bible blindly as what it says and ignore everything else like the historical, archaelogical, geological, and cosmological evidence?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Then why ask the questions you asked, and not just accept the Bible blindly as what it says and ignore everything else like the historical, archaelogical, geological, and cosmological evidence?

Um, let's say because I want to understand Genesis 1:1 according to what is written in the Bible.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That hurts my feelings.

Suck it up buttercup, this is a debate.

 

[shunyadragon]

Um, let's say because I want to understand Genesis 1:1 according to what is written in the Bible.

OK! Then your questions are meaningless if they only relate to what it says in the Bible, because you believe the Bible is literal as is, and no further questions are necessary. Kind of intensely circular, but its your thread, and you have to deal with it.