God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[leibowde84]

Maybe He did. How does that remove our moral obligations here? It doesn't.

If you are in a Matrix, and your real self is swimming in another dimension somewhere, understand that you STILL chose incarnation in a moral universe with moral responsibilities. And that the Bible says--unless you feel I've misread it--God made us and this universe, personally.

The Big Bang occurred because of three possible reasons only:

1. An inside catalyst
2. An outside catalyst
3. A combination of the two

Do you think God was active or inactive at this stage of the game? Because even if He was inactive, He must have set the precursors to the catalyst(s) to make order from the chaos, matter, space, energy and time from--nothing.

I never said that any moral obligations were removed, did I? And, what exactly does the Matrix have to do with the Multiverse hypothesis? Again, I am not saying that M Theory is even a scientific theory, but it is possibly accurate, that's all.

 

[leibowde84]

Maybe He did. How does that remove our moral obligations here? It doesn't.

If you are in a Matrix, and your real self is swimming in another dimension somewhere, understand that you STILL chose incarnation in a moral universe with moral responsibilities. And that the Bible says--unless you feel I've misread it--God made us and this universe, personally.

The Big Bang occurred because of three possible reasons only:

1. An inside catalyst
2. An outside catalyst
3. A combination of the two

Do you think God was active or inactive at this stage of the game? Because even if He was inactive, He must have set the precursors to the catalyst(s) to make order from the chaos, matter, space, energy and time from--nothing.

And, yes, I believe that God was at least involved in the process. We just don't have any way, currently, of figuring out where that necessarily was. Maybe it was the big bang, maybe it was long before the big bang.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I couldn't care less if you believe in heaven, just that it's simply not a slam-dunk fact that it actually exists.

"Belief" is not the same as "evidence", and you cannot provide one shred of objective evidence that it exists. It was you who insisted that it exists, and I never made one single statement to suggest that it couldn't exist.

I wasn't offering objective laboratory evidence that people go to Heaven (or Hell) after this life. Here's what I'm continuing to propose:

1. You are a Jewish person who is promoting spirituality.
2. Jewish people teach that Tanakh is the very Word of God.
3. The Tanakh (OT to you Gentiles reading this post) absolutely, definitively, clearly says Heaven is a place where God dwells, and that on rare occasions, people have seen visions of it.
4. Therefore, there is no reason to say it's wrong of me to believe, as you do, that Heaven is real.

 

[BilliardsBall]

First of all, you start out by insinuating that I'm an "atheist"-- I'm not.

Secondly, the issue is how to interpret Torah in the context of the creation accounts, and our sages have long debated this issue because it can be and has been interpreted in different ways.

Thirdly, there simply is no scientific evidence that posits a divine creation, although that doesn't mean that it's not possible.

Fourthly, if you believe for one second that "God has abandoned Israel, the Creation, and all mankind and nature", that is totally opposed to what the Tanakh states, including in terms of God saying He would not abandon us. Maybe you think God is a liar? That might not be the best position to take. And why in the world would God abandon "Creation, and all mankind and nature"? That is so bizarre that I need not even comment on it.

And finally, if you actually could look at what I've posted without distorting it and throwing things into it I never stated nor implied, I think I'm quite "consistent". The real issue is that you just don't agree with my consistency.

Huh? What? I've consistently said your stance is inconsistent with a believer in Tanakh; which means I don't think you're an athiest.

Of course Torah can be interpreted in different ways. Jewish people, much more than Gentiles and based on rabbinical, long-held tradition and practice, look at not just the face value of the text but hidden ideas, gematria, Talmud, Zohar, etc., etc. But when the Tanakh says things like "One day, Satan was in Heaven talking to God about Job," and then we have 40 chapters of stuff happening with a guy named Job, I tend not to say things even GOD would find silly like, "They weren't really in Heaven, and it wasn't really God who was talking, and Job wasn't really involved in the God/Satan conversation."

Likewise, you are entitled to interpret the scripture as you see fit, but an informed perspective--in English or Hebrew, in shul or in a court of law, starts with two things:

1. What does the text say?
2. What does it not say?

And if you believe certain texts are passages are allegorical, it's not sufficient to me to say "That's what X sage said," nor is it sufficient to reasonable persons to say: "Well, it could be allegorical, because the text doesn't say it isn't allegorical" and etc.

You must decide--hopefully someday soon--whether you will interpret and treat Tanakh like a textbook or like fiction. (And yes, I know it has poetry and prose along with historical books.) Because the text itself says many things like "These are God's words; don't try to disobey these texts or you will die, God will judge you for how you treat these texts, etc."

Fourthly, if you believe for one second that "God has abandoned Israel, the Creation, and all mankind and nature", that is totally opposed to what the Tanakh states.

Of course! I agree 100%. I was criticizing the deists around here who feel that way, like "God may have done something before the Big Bang than sits back and waits and watches. OF COURSE I AGREE WITH YOU. After all, I consistently treat Tanakh like the literal, not allegorical-fairy story, Word of God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I never said that any moral obligations were removed, did I? And, what exactly does the Matrix have to do with the Multiverse hypothesis? Again, I am not saying that M Theory is even a scientific theory, but it is possibly accurate, that's all.

It has to do with a multiverse hypothesis has nothing to do with the Bible's claim that God is active at creation, and now.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And, yes, I believe that God was at least involved in the process. We just don't have any way, currently, of figuring out where that necessarily was. Maybe it was the big bang, maybe it was long before the big bang.

We certainly have a way of figuring it out:

1. It was in the beginning.

2. It was before light was here.

Should I go further or do you misunderstand this was the beginning of time/light/this universe?!

 

[metis]

I wasn't offering objective laboratory evidence that people go to Heaven (or Hell) after this life. Here's what I'm continuing to propose:

1. You are a Jewish person who is promoting spirituality.
2. Jewish people teach that Tanakh is the very Word of God.
3. The Tanakh (OT to you Gentiles reading this post) absolutely, definitively, clearly says Heaven is a place where God dwells, and that on rare occasions, people have seen visions of it.
4. Therefore, there is no reason to say it's wrong of me to believe, as you do, that Heaven is real.

You just don't get it-- I never said nor implied that you must not believe in heaven. And, btw, "Jewish people" are all over the spectrum on this and many other matters.

 

[metis]

Likewise, you are entitled to interpret the scripture as you see fit, but an informed perspective--in English or Hebrew, in shul or in a court of law, starts with two things:

1. What does the text say?
2. What does it not say?...

You must decide--hopefully someday soon--whether you will interpret and treat Tanakh like a textbook or like fiction.

First of all, we often speak of "the meaning behind the words", iow, what is the author really trying to tell us, and some of that may mean that the author was using allegory, metaphors, etc. What do you think Jesus' parables were? It makes not one iota of difference whether the "prodigal son" existed as a person or not-- the importance of the parable are the morals and values that are being taught. How could you miss that?

Secondly, recognizing that the above is extensively used in Tanakh, that realization doesn't mean that it's "fiction". And again, how could you repeatedly miss that? It is so obvious, but for some reason you have just turned a blind eye to how our authors wrote and why they wrote it that way.

 

[leibowde84]

It has to do with a multiverse hypothesis has nothing to do with the Bible's claim that God is active at creation, and now.

My point is that you are basing your conclusion that the creation event was the big bang on unsubstantiated assumptions. Namely, that there was nothing before the bb.

 

[leibowde84]

We certainly have a way of figuring it out:

1. It was in the beginning.

2. It was before light was here.

Should I go further or do you misunderstand this was the beginning of time/light/this universe?!

We don't know that the bb was the "beginning" though.

 

[BilliardsBall]

First of all, we often speak of "the meaning behind the words", iow, what is the author really trying to tell us, and some of that may mean that the author was using allegory, metaphors, etc. What do you think Jesus' parables were? It makes not one iota of difference whether the "prodigal son" existed as a person or not-- the importance of the parable are the morals and values that are being taught. How could you miss that?

Secondly, recognizing that the above is extensively used in Tanakh, that realization doesn't mean that it's "fiction". And again, how could you repeatedly miss that? It is so obvious, but for some reason you have just turned a blind eye to how our authors wrote and why they wrote it that way.

I understand what you're saying. You are saying that both testaments use parables and allegories while being texts, not fiction. That's more common ground for us, so I'm glad.

However, in the creation accounts, I have good, textual reasons to believe they are literal accounts.

 

[BilliardsBall]

My point is that you are basing your conclusion that the creation event was the big bang on unsubstantiated assumptions. Namely, that there was nothing before the bb.

By "nothing" I mean linear time and light in this universe. Are you steady state or big bang?

 

[metis]

I understand what you're saying. You are saying that both testaments use parables and allegories while being texts, not fiction. That's more common ground for us, so I'm glad.

However, in the creation accounts, I have good, textual reasons to believe they are literal accounts.

I think I know what you mean by "textual accounts", so let me just say that most of the allegories and metaphors found in scripture tend to be depicted as real events.

This issue bugged the early church in regards to Jesus's parables in that some felt that these were real events and some felt that these were myths composed by Jesus to teach lessons. The church eventually decided that it really didn't make a difference one way or the other, and this is the same approach that I and most Christian and Jewish theologians take with the creation accounts at least. The importance is not whether the creation happened as penned but what are the lessons taught within, and there are a fair number of them, and many tend to not focus on these points instead, thus overlook them.

The Jewish authors of the scriptures operated from an ancient Asian paradigm whereas the important question was not so much "Did this really happen?" as "What are the authors trying to tell us?", and it's this latter question that's far more important because it gives us moral and values to live by.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think I know what you mean by "textual accounts", so let me just say that most of the allegories and metaphors found in scripture tend to be depicted as real events.

This issue bugged the early church in regards to Jesus's parables in that some felt that these were real events and some felt that these were myths composed by Jesus to teach lessons. The church eventually decided that it really didn't make a difference one way or the other, and this is the same approach that I and most Christian and Jewish theologians take with the creation accounts at least. The importance is not whether the creation happened as penned but what are the lessons taught within, and there are a fair number of them, and many tend to not focus on these points instead, thus overlook them.

The Jewish authors of the scriptures operated from an ancient Asian paradigm whereas the important question was not so much "Did this really happen?" as "What are the authors trying to tell us?", and it's this latter question that's far more important because it gives us moral and values to live by.

A good rule of thumb for the parables--if a name is given, it's a real story, if no names are shared, it's an allegorical story.

The importance is not whether the creation happened as penned

That is of tremendous importance, actually. We must be willing to forego a little embarrassment at digressing with many in the scientific community when we talk about creation--not for the young Earth--but for Evolution v. Creation.

The Jewish authors of the scriptures operated from an ancient Asian paradigm whereas the important question was not so much "Did this really happen?" as "What are the authors trying to tell us?"

I ask where you came by this knowledge, for several reasons:

1. The writers certainly wrote as if each thing was a real happening.

2. The Tanakh prophets and Jesus and the apostles based their doctrines on real Creation and other stories, "Just as Moses X, so now God wants you to X".

3. The Tanakh says thousands of times, "Hear now the Word of the Lord." The apocrypha, Christian and inter-testamental both, the Talmud, etc. do not say even once, "This is the Word of the Lord."

4. The Jewish scripture authors of the Tanakh, let alone the New Covenant scriptures, number in the dozens, and across more than 1,000 years. I find it hard to image they ALL committed to writing allegories only without ever having expressed this verbatim in their writings.

5. We need to be on guard against our own presentism. Scholars have demonstrated that the Tanakh aligns fully with the documents of its day that were purported histories in the ANE. For example, countless commentators have noticed the nature of the suzerain and kingly treaties in the apocrypha. Abraham's sacrifice of animals before God reveals Himself to Abraham, is conducted exactly as a king and subjects would treat in the ANE.

6. I believe God wrote the Bible with two facets--literal truth revealed to His adherents; simultaneously confusing to the uninitiated. This apologetic sounds like fluff to the scoffer--and the Bible says "scoffers scoff at God's Word"--however, both testaments speak of this movement of mind and soul.

7. Example--"To the law and to the testimony! If they speak not according to this word, they have no light in them!" -- Y'shua is the light of the world, and the law of Moses contains the creation account.

8. How do you know what and when? Should I keep kashrut because the kosher laws are literal but anything goes as far as creation? Should I "live and die by" the law of Moses but trivialize Genesis, which Moses wrote, as a bunch of allegories?

These are some of the reasons I trust the Bible as literal, particularly where it is using prose rather than poetry.

 

[metis]

A good rule of thumb for the parables--if a name is given, it's a real story, if no names are shared, it's an allegorical story.

And who devised this "rule of thumb"? I have not read one single theologian, Christian or Jewish, that has taken that position. The point of the parable is the lessons within it, and that simply is not dependent on taking the narrative as literal history.

That is of tremendous importance, actually. We must be willing to forego a little embarrassment at digressing with many in the scientific community when we talk about creation--not for the young Earth--but for Evolution v. Creation.

Most Christian theologians (about 70% according to one survey I saw some years ago) and the vast majority of Jewish theologians do not have a problem accepting the basic ToE as long as there's the belief that God was behind it all.

I ask where you came by this knowledge, for several reasons:...

I have studied theology for roughly five decades, taught it (and still do voluntarily) plus, being an anthropologist, I also have spent a great deal of time studying traditional Jewish culture. My view of the Bible has to be viewed in a much broader context than what you're probably used to, and you'll often see me here at RF often talking about other religious traditions, but never in a negative manner. I have literally no desire to try and tear anyone away from their religion and, as a matter of fact, I consider that to be quite unethical. OTOH, some specific points within a religion I sometimes will debate.

My views about "God" and "scripture" tend to be very "liberal", which is extremely common with us anthropologists btw-- we make for lousy orthodoxy in any religion. If you study enough religions in depth for any significant length of time, you'll see what I mean. Google "Joseph Campbell" as an example, and Wikipedia has a good and accurate biography on him. This guy may have been the single most knowledgeable authority on world religions ever to walk the face of Earth.

 

[leibowde84]

By "nothing" I mean linear time and light in this universe. Are you steady state or big bang?

I certainly believe that the big bang was the initiating force behind THIS universe. But only speculation and flawed assumptions would make one think that the bb MUST have been the creation event. It seems much more likely that God created multiple universes with an endless supply of locations for life throughout.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And who devised this "rule of thumb"? I have not read one single theologian, Christian or Jewish, that has taken that position.

I got this rule of thumb from a theologian. However, God holds us accountable for our stance on the Bible, and not “But he said that…”

The point of the parable is the lessons within it, and that simply is not dependent on taking the narrative as literal history.

Again, I ask where you learned this as fact? A theologian or verses in the scriptures?

Most Christian theologians (about 70% according to one survey I saw some years ago) and the vast majority of Jewish theologians do not have a problem accepting the basic ToE as long as there's the belief that God was behind it all.

Sure. I don’t think we should live or die by the Young Earth. I would say, rather, design is more than evident throughout the creation.

have studied theology for roughly five decades, taught it (and still do voluntarily) plus, being an anthropologist, I also have spent a great deal of time studying traditional Jewish culture. My view of the Bible has to be viewed in a much broader context than what you're probably used to, and you'll often see me here at RF often talking about other religious traditions, but never in a negative manner. I have literally no desire to try and tear anyone away from their religion and, as a matter of fact, I consider that to be quite unethical. OTOH, some specific points within a religion I sometimes will debate.

My views about "God" and "scripture" tend to be very "liberal", which is extremely common with us anthropologists btw-- we make for lousy orthodoxy in any religion. If you study enough religions in depth for any significant length of time, you'll see what I mean. Google "Joseph Campbell" as an example, and Wikipedia has a good and accurate biography on him. This guy may have been the single most knowledgeable authority on world religions ever to walk the face of Earth.

Very interesting. Did you know I have a Religion Bachelor’s but from a secular university, not a seminary? I consider myself more than open-minded, indeed I chose the Bachelor’s after being born again to broaden my horizons.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I certainly believe that the big bang was the initiating force behind THIS universe. But only speculation and flawed assumptions would make one think that the bb MUST have been the creation event. It seems much more likely that God created multiple universes with an endless supply of locations for life throughout.

I can understand that, and I appreciate your broad-minded perspective here. However, in this place where we have this Bible, I've pointed to the scriptures as lockstep with modern cosmology.

 

[leibowde84]

I can understand that, and I appreciate your broad-minded perspective here. However, in this place where we have this Bible, I've pointed to the scriptures as lockstep with modern cosmology.

You have merely bent abstract notions from scripture to fit with relatively newly found evidence, which contradicts the scientific method in a significant way. Just because what is claimed in scripture in one passage is found to be true, doesn't mean that any other passage is true. Each claim must be examined on its own merits.

In short, you haven't provided any evidence that points specifically to scripture, as a whole, being accurate or valid.

 

[McBell]

You have merely bent abstract notions from scripture to fit with relatively newly found evidence, which contradicts the scientific method in a significant way. Just because what is claimed in scripture in one passage is found to be true, doesn't mean that any other passage is true. Each claim must be examined on its own merits.

In short, you haven't provided any evidence that points specifically to scripture, as a whole, being accurate or valid.

I agree he is well versed in the use of the Forer Effect.