sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
What am I up to? I'm trying to feather put the first verse of the KJV.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
In the Beginning...
- Thread starter sandy whitelinger
- Start date
No. I mean by heaven here is meant the sky with stars, sun etc.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
In the KJV that's not the case. The firmament of heaven was created afterward to separate the heaven of 1:1 from the earth. The celestial bodies are there.
Grandliseur
Well-Known Member
Your question belongs to the realm of the unknown; so, all I can give you is supposition.
Have you ever been on a big ship, above you might have the car decks, the restaurants where you can enjoy just coffee, or food, various types of shops for candy and newspapers, and then the decks for viewing the scenery. Every deck has its purpose, some more glorious than others. If then you go down to the engine rooms, if you ever were permitted this, there the huge engines, the mechanisms for various utilities, and what not. It is noisy, it is busy, and not very glorious.
We are told that the heavens declare the glory of God and does the earth, even in regard to man and woman, we are shown that the weaker vessel, the woman is given more glory than man, again kind of demonstrating where and why glory is given. If then the reality of God is one of power and functionality, just speculating, this may not express the glory of God as the universe with the huge number of galaxies, stars, planets, and nebulae does, or as the earth with its huge number of complex lifeforms does.
As an artist, the picture in his mind - must have an expression to be appreciated by others. Similarly, God wanted others to enjoy his artistry, his creations.
Who cares about KJV?
The first sentence is more of a summary of what Genesis 1 is about.
God is love. Love requires something to love.
How can before God created be good enough for "us"? There was no us. It is my opinion that there existed nothing but the love of a father for a son but the son did not even exist yet. It is written that the son appeared first. Then, everything else was created for him and with him.
DennisTate
Active Member
Ok... now that we are on page two of your discussion... I assume that your expectations lower a little......
Genesis 1:1 =
but.. before Genesis 1:2... the following happened:
Rev 12:4
And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
Near infinity is totally contrived to make math work a particular way to arrive at a particular conclusion. Since the conclusion is derived from a base assumption that math has magical powers near infinity is a false assumption.
I like the love part... The rest is normal. Dead is an interesting problem for normal folks. Ya all have a text mocking death, as a something that happens to us yet here we are today with death as an occurrence that happens to us very consistent to modern science with different conclusions.
In context to death as a something that happens to us your interpretation of the text is completely normal and aligned to modern science.
The question really is, is the bible some ancient science text , talking about causality? Now we could "believe" that. We could have what we "believe" be affirmed by an observation of religion itself today. But I would question that assumption based on basic science. Since basic child like application of science to the question is the text a science text is not applied it is automatically assumed like religion it is. It's outdated science from an atheist view its relevant science to a believer. I see no difference between the two. Thus the original question is a symptom not an actual question.
DennisTate
Active Member
But another way of looking at this is that fundamental energy in their original form......(which I assume is Super Strings and Super Waves)....... there was a time when this fundamental energy had not yet been formed into more and more complex..... but less and less energetic forms........
If M-Theory is true (but personally I lean heavily toward Bosonic because there is evidence for more than eleven dimenions)..... but if there were only eleven dimensions..... then there was a time before tenth dimensional life forms were formed........... then later on ninth dimensional space - time forms would be made.........
In the tenth and ninth dimensions....... we might be talking about The Holy Spirit and the Elohim.......
At the time of Dr. George Ritchie.... the eighth dimensional space - time may have looked like:
Dr. George Ritchie's Near-Death Experience
If Dr. George Ritchie had been Jewish rather than a Christian... he might have met Moses or Elijah or Rabbi Nachman or perhaps the Baal Shem Tov in eighth dimensional space - time..... that would be my guess.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Sigh. My thread is in tatters.
Causality is dependent on the observer creating a gap between this and that. Thus it isn't real but a way of cleaving this and that apart. It has to be rendered instantly dead to do that. We then end up with a triplet of this that and the observer in separation from each other. Even darwins own gap narrative itself from that which says interconnected is a very funny type of gap. Btw he said survival of the fittest I would say extinction of the dumbest by simple elimination over time evolve no because of us but in spite of ourselves. Darwin is no longer valid in science. Their scientific foundational narrative Survival of the fittest has not survived at all its extinct in science. Maybe natural selection is next!!!
Hehe, goes with the whole theological/spiritual territory. Anyway, I find it mostly interesting that other than the theological concepts past the origin, the Kabbalists and the scientists completely agree.
(Big bang versus the "Contraction", etc...)
DennisTate
Active Member
Wow!!!!!!!
By this do you partly mean that since time itself is an invention.........
that I think is like a vehicle that is used to transport "others / Others" from point A to point B
mentally, emotionally and spiritually.....
then since time in a sense does not really exist..... then our tendency to break down time into pieces that we hope to be able to understand better......
.... is automatically rather inaccurate.... in comparison to the ultimate truth of what really happened?
Christianity is all about death regardless. I will always attack theology as absurd childish nonsense coequal to atheism . But why do I do that? Because the Christian story is the most beautiful ever. It cannot be interpreted without killing it, it can only be realized. It's not about nature, it nature manifesting into man. Nature very very very big, man very very very small. Someday we will argue who has the most beautiful story... My vote Christianity, not for its theological nonsense but INSPITE of its theological nonsense, it's text transcends its intellectalizing it. Church, by definition is that which is over run by intelligent normal folks a great weakness of church and dangerous.
Yes. I like to say mother nature is a lovely Easter lily and dangerous cobra lily at the same time. Be careful of trying to shrink the cosmos to fit your cranium that is dangerous. That places you the observer outside reality regardless. That's why I said near infinity is a contrived based on a fundemental assumption in religion and science we can do that and that is reality it's not. Hell we are taught that in first grade. Here is a book of the world kiddies we shrunk it to words and pictures. We learn quickly books determine reality!!!!! Omg lost in book la la land we are.
Bill Hille
New Member
Well to be perfect in translation the definite article "the" is not there. It is : "In beginning...". This is the same in the Greek OT and in John 1:1. John 1:1 literally, word for word, is : "In Beginning was the Word and the Word was with THE God and God was the Word". Just so you know. Also, Ex 20 and Ex 31 where it talks of the six days of creation it does not have "created" (Hebrew barah, but awsaw [made]" --- just so you know. And Gen 2:3 makes it clear there were two parts to the work; created and made.
Assuming that God was somewhere before He created the universe.
DennisTate
Active Member
Perhaps... but I think that you are going to be really impressed with the pretty intriguing answer that just came in..............
and.... your discussion seems to have lured a new member here....... Way to go Sandy Whitelinger........
Could it be that this refers to the Word / Logos.......
one of the Elohim.... and could it be that The Ancient of Days the Father...... wanted to hide... sort of .... until later on.......????????????
Mat 11:27
All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."
Could it be that The Father... wanted The Word / Logos to be in the place of G-d for us humans..........
much as Moses occupied a somewhat similar role for the twelve tribes of Israel??????
Exo 7:1
And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.