[__ Science __ ] WHO IS DEAD? GOD OR DARWIN?

[Dorothy Mae]

TMal3,
Probably my way to read the Bible is too foreign to you and you assume I do like many, assume what I think is right without any reference to anything else including history. As it is, this isn’t the case.

I also don’t ask how this applies to me. What I do is different.

Is the original intention a factor? Maybe. Depends.

 

[TMal3]

Please explain. How do you read the Bible then?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

"Like what? I mentioned you’re discounting those who believe Genesis speaks truth. It’s true"--- False, I believe Genesis is true

"I guess the whole of what I said eludes you. You cannot possibly know that in many cases."---You are correct. We don't always know the original context or don't always know it completely. That doesn't change the fact that the proper way to understand Scripture is not in *our own context, our own understanding* but as it was originally meant to be understood.

"Which explains why so many pastors cannot hear from God. They don’t need to do so."---I didn’t know you had the power to know the heart and motivations of "so many pastors." We could say the same of nonpastors who make the Bible a matter of private interpretation

"Just means the Holy Spirit needn’t speak. They’ve got it nailed. Of course they piously ask Him to help them but the truth is they’re satisfied on their own"--- What's pious is this statement and believing that you know and can judge the heart and motivations of people, and pastors, and theologians you don't know.

"That’s exactly what it means. Figure it out on your own by a man made method. You know, no one in scripture ever used that method"---This type of comment never ceases to amaze. So you're the only one interpreting Scripture correctly? Got it.

"Those are very rare people or cults like JWs."---I know plenty of Christians who believe Jeremiah 10 prohibits Christmas trees.

"I believe God created life as science tells us all life comes from life, no exceptions."---

And look at that. You accuse me of using methods outside the Bible, and then appeal to methods outside the Bible.

No I did not. But it is true you won’t find a single NT writer who first and foremost discussed what the scripture meant to those who heard it outside of the promises of God generating faith.

Can you defend your position or just falsely accuse me? Provide a NT who performed the exegesis you require.

 

[TMal3]

You're the one accusing me my friend. And you can't even answer your own question without appealing to extrabiblical evidence, rabbinic studies, rabbinic methods of midrash and exegesis that inform our understanding of such practices in the Bible. You don’t seem to be aware of how much you're influenced yourself by historical background information outside the Bible, and your own presuppositions. (We *all* are, myself included).

 

[TMal3]

Let's try an example. How do you interpret the *firmament* in Genesis 1? What is the *firmament* and what are the *waters above*, according to your interpretation?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You're the one accusing me my friend.

I challenged your insistence that all bible reading is wrong that doesn’t consider the original intent of the message so YOU falsely accuse everyone who doesn’t do this of making a mistake.

And you can't even answer your own question without appealing to extrabiblical evidence, rabbinic studies, rabbinic methods of midrash and exegesis that inform our understanding of such practices in the Bible.

When did I do this? I use nothing of the kind.

You don’t seem to be aware of how much you're influenced yourself by historical background information outside the Bible, and your own presuppositions. (We *all* are, myself included).

Incorrect. And how would you know this? Have you read what I’ve written extensively?

This is a good example of the flaws in your method. We are of the same language and culture and yet you are mistaken when you surmise my motivations and influences. How can you possibly accurately guess that of a dead culture and language?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Let's try an example. How do you interpret the *firmament* in Genesis 1? What is the *firmament* and what are the *waters above*, according to your interpretation?

Fair enough and I appreciate a question instead an accusation. Now the answer as to the firmament isn’t important but from the readers’ perspective, then and now, wouldn’t you say it’s the universe we see in the night sky? Do you agree?

As to waters above, the planet dramatically changed during the flood when the waters above rained down and the waters in the deep sprouted up. So how it was we cannot know. What is your position?

 

[Consecrated Life]

Wow.
I never thought about it in terms of God learning as He goes.
If after millions of years practicing all God could create are these faulty, diseased ridden, sinful & decaying bodies of death:
Rom 7:24
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Can you imagine how many more hundreds of millions of years it will the take God to create a perfect immortal sinless body , that will not change at all in a trillion years.
Even taking into account what God was able to learn so far in creating these disposable bodies, we are most likely talking billions of years it will take Him to create perfect unchanging immortal ones.

2Co 5:1
For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2Co 5:2
For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

 

[TMal3]

Dorothy Mae

Wow! You really don't see how you were the one who started all these accusations? How you broad brush painted me and any theologian and pastor who follows basic sound hermeneutic principles as not following God? And assumed that I don't believe Genesis is true? And assumed that I was interpreting Scripture by my own man-made efforts and not relying on God? And then now how you're trying to turn this all around back on me and saying that I was the one making accusations about you? Again, wow! Smh.

And yet through the whole conversation you seem to have missed the whole point entirely of why I made the statement in the first place: I wasn't challenging you or anything that you had said. I was challenging Barbarian 's insistence that Genesis 1 teaches that God created life via abiogenesis.

I think you and I have misunderstood each other and need to dial it back, rewind, and start over. I will accept culpability for not making it plain who my comments were directed to. Now you know. My understanding from your posts, is that you and I both agree that Genesis 1 does NOT teach that God used abiogenesis to create life. Am I correct that we are both in agreement on this? And disagree with Barbarian?

*For the record, I believe Barbarian is spot on when he points out that all our disagreements on Genesis in the end are not essential matters of salvation, and so should not divide us as believers.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dorothy Mae

Wow! You really don't see how you were the one who started all these accusations?

Provide when I did please and don’t CHANGE what I said.

How you broad brush painted me and any theologian and pastor who follows basic sound hermeneutic principles as not following God?

I NEVER said that..NEVER

And assumed that I don't believe Genesis is true?

Never said that.

And assumed that I was interpreting Scripture by my own man-made efforts and not relying on God?

Well since no theologian writing the NT did this procedure, others who didn’t write the Bible developed it.

And then now how you're trying to turn this all around back on me and saying that I was the one making accusations about you? Again, wow! Smh.

Repeat the accusations I actually said please. We will see the truth of it.

And yet through the whole conversation you seem to have missed the whole point entirely of why I made the statement in the first place: I wasn't challenging you or anything that you had said. I was challenging Barbarian 's insistence that Genesis 1 teaches that God created life via abiogenesis.

I’m not a part of that discussion. Why does what you have to be limited to that?

I think you and I have misunderstood each other and need to dial it back, rewind, and start over. I will accept culpability for not making it plain who my comments were directed to.

Sounds good.

Now you know. My understanding from your posts, is that you and I both agree that Genesis 1 does NOT teach that God used abiogenesis to create life. Am I correct that we are both in agreement on this?

Could you please define abiogenesis as you understand it. Thanks

 

[TMal3]

I will reiterate a point Barbarian made that I do wholeheartedly agree with. Despite all our disagreements about Genesis, in the end they are not essential matters of salvation, and so these disagreements should not divide us as believers. Amen to that!

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What I wrote was not that you or others aren’t “following” God or Jesus but that with a full program of studying the Bible as you describe, it’s unlikely you hear His voice. I’ve heard very many sermons where the Holy Spirit didn’t speak to the pastor and so didn’t speak to the listeners in power. Do they know the difference?

 

[TMal3]

Thank you for sharing. I still don't quite understand what you are advocating. How are you saying we should interpret the Bible?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Thank you for sharing. I still don't quite understand what you are advocating. How are you saying we should interpret the Bible?

Good question. I’m not a teacher so I haven’t given it much thought. As you’ve surmised, I think less of the value of primarily finding out the original intent. Most of the prophesies of Jesus were uttered or written not addressing that at all.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

God was never ever lacking in wisdom, understanding, or information. He has no
need to learn. To think He does is to say He was at one time uninformed, mistaken, fallible.

 

[TMal3]

Good question. I’m not a teacher so I haven’t given it much thought. As you’ve surmised, I think less of the value of primarily finding out the original intent. Most of the prophesies of Jesus were uttered or written not addressing that at all.

Still not seeing how that's any different from what I'm saying. Jesus and others in the NT still cited OT prophecies with an understanding of what they thought those prophecies meant. Perhaps you can give some specific examples of what you mean.

Are you saying that we should interpret Scripture the way it was *not* meant to be understood?

 

[Angelical]

Please read the Quote below

The Flood

CHAPTER IX.​

3 ⌈⌈And now to you, the holy ones of heaven⌉⌉, the souls of men make their suit, saying, "Bring our cause before the Most High.".' 6. Thou seest what Azâzêl hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved) in heaven, which men were striving to learn: 7. And Semjâzâ, to whom Thou hast given authority to bear rule over his associates. 8. And they have gone to the daughters of men upon the earth, and have slept with the women, and have defiled themselves, and revealed to them all kinds of sins.[/I]



CHAPTER X.

1. Then said the Most High, the Holy and Great One spake, and sent Uriel to the son of Lamech, and said to him: 2. 〈’Go to Noah and〉 tell him in my name “Hide thyself!” and reveal to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge is about to come upon the whole earth, and will destroy all that is on it. 3. And now instruct him that he may escape and his seed may be preserved for all the generations of the world.’ 4. And again the Lord said to Raphael: ‘Bind Azâzêl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl, and cast him therein. 5. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. 6. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire. 7. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. 8. And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azâzêl: to him ascribe all sin.’ 9. And to Gabriel said the Lord: ‘Proceed against the bastards and the reprobates, and against the children of fornication: and destroy [the children of fornication and] the children of the Watchers from amongst men [and cause them to go forth]: send them one against the other that they may destroy each other in battle: for length of days shall they not have. 10. And no request that they (i.e. their fathers) make of thee shall be granted unto their fathers on their behalf; for they hope to live an eternal life, and that each one of them will live five hundred years.’ 11. And the Lord said unto Michael: ‘Go, bind Semjâzâ and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness. 12. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is for ever and ever is consummated. 13. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: 〈and〉 to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. 14. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all generations. 15. And destroy all the spirits of the reprobate and the children of the Watchers, because they have wronged mankind. 16. Destroy all wrong from the face of the earth and let every evil work come to an end: and let the plant of righteousness and truth appear: ⌈and it shall prove a blessing; the works of righteousness and truth⌉ shall be planted in truth and joy for evermore.

If we look to the Greek Myths we see the End of Troy as the kind of beginning of the Greek Story. If we look at the Greek “Typhon”, the Egyptian “Set” or “Set Animal”, the Romans and Greeks seemed to agree Typhon came from a Cave in Southern Italy, born from Hera angered that Zeus and Hercules had killed the Giants in Gigantomachy. So the Giants in Enoch, the Nephilim in Genesis 6, it goes with Gigantomachy. And the Greek Gods then flee to Egypt while Zeus fights Typhon, Typhon births all the Monsters of the Greeks that could be said to be what Plato wanted the Ancient Greek mind to understand when he spoke of things casting Shadows on the Wall of a Cave. So the Giants are killed at Phlegra and Hera releases Typhon from the Earth and Sky as Parents, and he spans East to West, the Ground to the Sky, and has the Heads and Growls and Roars of all Creatures.

Hephaestus helps, the Smith of the Gods. Ushering in the Iron Age. Atlas from West Africa holds the World on his Iron shoulders showing the Greeks and Romans rely on the African side of the Straight of Hercules for basically holding the Globe, while Hercules fixes his Cloak and went to be the Monarch in Greece. But we can also see this as the Greeks not killing the Giant King Atlas, but making him a Titan. Similar to Memnon being made a God by Zeus after Troy. So the Greeks are basically scratching their heads and pointing to West Africa about the Globe and Ancient Ancient stuff.

So we can see the beginning of the Iron Age as the Flood, the end of the Bronze Age, Set or Typhon kind of defeating Ra or Apollo, and so Zeus or Baal coming out as the leader God from the Lightning rather than the Sun, throwing Lightning Bolts from the Clouds as some might portray Zeus. So the Iron Age also brings the Greeks to a non-Reliance on the Apollonic Order that Troy relied on, and the Greek Wars for Thousands of Years under Guidance of the Oracle of Delphi, with Seers who knew all the Nations leaders maybe even more inner desires and things than anyone else knew of the Ancient leaders. And that was a remnant of the Flood, the beginning of the Iron Age, and Azazel gave everyone Blades and the Breastplate. Angels taught War, the Nephilim are the “Heroes of Old and Warriors of Renown”, Cain’s Children invented Stringed and Brass Instruments. Angels taught Heroism, and Music, the Bible says Nimrod built a Tower and God sent everyone out with Languages, and we now know Nimrod was the name of an Egregore that was a Dynasty. And Nimrod created the Phonetic Languages from Latin. Nimrod was a Nephilim, or an Angel, a Dynasty. The Kings that formed Nimrod were likely descended from Groups that had passed down everything from Azazel. Nimrod is Son of Cush, we can see that Cush is where the Sun God of Egypt, the Female and Feline Goddesses around him, and the Sphynx, all from Cush. The Sphynx’s Husband is Anhur, so we start to see there is a Royal Military. Not to say just a Military to take care of Royals, it’s not like the Guys who wear the funny hats in Britain and People try to make them laugh or get angry or something. We could say that that kind of thing comes from that, but I’m talking about a Royal Bloodline of kind of Military Technology. A Royal Military. Come from Angels breeding with Humans and then starting a thing where Angels had to start the Flood and kill everyone they made, and the Humans.

And now we are going to start the Foundations of a Government between Planets and Stars. Jesus started it, but in the Future you won’t have to believe, God is there and you can believe and should, but we will have everything set up with Robots that know about this, we will eventually have Robots who can act as Angels and swarm to Earth if needed for anything, but really we are going to kind be like Mining Asteroids and throwing them around and things, not us but there are People that will be doing that. And this all is just kind of like, if we don’t set it up right, it will be like the Book of Giants and there is a Food Chain we have to be aware of. So we have to have it set up in Space, so it’s not like the Book of Giants. We also have to deal with all of Earth, and there are some things going on in like Villages and Tribal Lands around the Globe that probably like, the Natives want to hear this. All of this comes from the Sky, the Invisible things, Angels, many have been calling them Aliens or Demons. But they want everyone to know there is a kind of Balance and Order, and we will fix problems.

 

[TMal3]

Fair enough and I appreciate a question instead an accusation. Now the answer as to the firmament isn’t important but from the readers’ perspective, then and now, wouldn’t you say it’s the universe we see in the night sky? Do you agree?

As to waters above, the planet dramatically changed during the flood when the waters above rained down and the waters in the deep sprouted up. So how it was we cannot know. What is your position?

Regarding the *firmament* in Genesis 1, it is interesting how interpretation of the firmament has changed through Church history. For example, Martin Luther believed the firmament was a solid support that the sun, moon, and stars were "fastened to," and seemed to believe the "waters above" were like an ocean surrounding the earth. As noted in the quote below, philosophers of his day were starting to question this view about the "waters above," but he said to question this is to "wickedly deny" and "presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our own understanding."

The cover of a Luther Bible (from 1534) that Martin Luther translated sees the "waters above" as a sea or ocean of water surrounding the earth.

Enlarged view

Of course, today we know such a view is incorrect. It's interesting that Luther would see the standard (modern) view of Christians today as "wickedly deny[ing]" and "presumptuously interpret[ing]" Scripture "...in conformity with our understanding."

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Still not seeing how that's any different from what I'm saying. Jesus and others in the NT still cited OT prophecies with an understanding of what they thought those prophecies meant.

Well Jesus actually knew what they meant.

Perhaps you can give some specific examples of what you mean.

Abraham said to Isaac, “God himself will provide the sacrifice” which was more than what he meant or Isaac heard. If we focus only on what it meant to those two men, we miss the prophesy. Many of the prophesies listed in Matthew did not seem to mean the Messiah when uttered, yet Matthew says that was the meaning. See what I mean?

Are you saying that we should interpret Scripture the way it was *not* meant to be understood?

Oh no, not at all, although that’s a good question. I really appreciate you thinking beyond and pushing the point farther.

Frankly speaking, I have to ponder your very astute questions. I haven’t an answer as to how I study the Bible, strange as that seems. This requires some pondering on my part. Im grateful that you make me think.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Regarding the *firmament* in Genesis 1, it is interesting how interpretation of the firmament has changed through Church history. For example, Martin Luther believed the firmament was a solid support that the sun, moon, and stars were "fastened to," and seemed to believe the "waters above" were like an ocean surrounding the earth. As noted in the quote below, philosophers of his day were starting to question this view about the "waters above," but he said to question this is to "wickedly deny" and "presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our own understanding."

The cover of a Luther Bible (from 1534) that Martin Luther translated sees the "waters above" as a sea or ocean of water surrounding the earth.

Enlarged view

Of course, today we know such a view is incorrect. It's interesting that Luther would see the standard (modern) view of Christians today as "wickedly deny[ing]" and "presumptuously interpret[ing]" Scripture "...in conformity with our understanding."

This is interesting but ignorance of science, God’s works, run many ways. The term “the Big Bang” was meant to be insulting and generated by Fred Hoyle in disgust. Scientists believed Aristotle’s teaching that the universe is eternal. This is not that long ago. So Luther was wrong and so were modern scientists who rejected a beginning. Christians are not the only ones who get science wrong. Scientists have been doing that for centuries sometimes with deadly results.