The Bible is not a maths textbook

[iouae]

That's just a recent book but since you love science so much, you might find the TIME to see that science has proven that time is an illusion. Or just keep checkin' your watch

God is a Creator. To create something means that before it was not there, and after it is there. You cannot have before and after without time.

Besides I gave you Rev 8:1 which states emphatically that time exists in heaven. Who must I believe, John or your science writer?

 

[6days]

Looking at deep space through a telescope like Hubble we are seeing the universe as it was up to 12 billion years ago. We see galaxies exactly like they looked back then.
Looking through a telescope is like looking into a time-machine.

That's possibly true... but only if you reject scripture. Questions for iouae
1.*If God's Word is true... how fast did he stretch the heavens out?*

2. Why did Einstein call the one way speed of light a ' convention'?

3. Why do you choose to believe psuedoscience secular explanations about 'light travelling faster than speed of light'( with expansion), but reject what God says about it.*

Suggestion... Why not take the little science quiz from God found in Job 38, 39.

 

[iouae]

That's possibly true... but only if you reject scripture. Questions for iouae
1.*If God's Word is true... how fast did he stretch the heavens out?*

2. Why did Einstein call the one way speed of light a ' convention'?

3. Why do you choose to believe psuedoscience secular explanations about 'light travelling faster than speed of light'( with expansion), but reject what God says about it.*

Suggestion... Why not take the little science quiz from God found in Job 38, 39.

None of your questions changes the fact that looking through a telescope into space is like looking through a time machine. We can see what the cosmos was doing at any time in the past.

My religious beliefs are in perfect harmony with science. Gen 1 is describing God replenishing the earth 6000 years ago, and I don't care how old the earth or universe is. I therefore don't have to choose to believe either science or the Bible. I believe the Bible first, and science after. And if the Bible does not tell me when earth was originally created, then I accept science saying 5 billion years ago. If a new science article says they have revised this date to 3 billion, then fine.

I think its wonderful that science has discovered that the universe is expanding, and its not just that stuff is moving apart, but space-time itself is stretching. And it is accelerating apart. Acceleration usually requires an input of energy, and science attributes this to dark energy and dark matter. I am as excited as you are that this verifies Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

 

[oatmeal]

I LOVE your post!!

Thanks,

I am thankful that I was taught about figures of speech as used in scripture. Figures of speech, as God uses them in scripture adds so much depth and meaning to His words

 

[iouae]

I was watching Russia Today on 20 October 2015 and the presenters on Watching The Hawks were (acting??) so excited about this new piece of science.

'It is widely accepted that Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago. However for the first few hundred million years, its surface was believed to be too hot due to molten lava, while there was a lack of water, which would have made it impossible for life to take hold. Life was thought to have appeared around 700 million years after the formation.

However Harrison disputes this, saying that there is no physical evidence for the theory. What the zircon shows is "the Earth by 4.1, 4.2 billion years ago was basically behaving like it is today."
https://www.rt.com/news/319346-earth-age-life-formed/

I had to laugh because I bet they did not have the foggiest idea when life began on earth, and if science pushed the date back by 300 million years, who cares? It was not like they were announcing that Christopher Columbus actually discovered America in 1490 not 1492.

 

[6days]

None of your questions changes the fact that looking through a telescope into space is like looking through a time machine. We can see what the cosmos was doing at any time in the past.

Wrong....
I don't think you can answer the questions.

My religious beliefs are in perfect harmony with science.

It does seem that your religious beliefs are in perfect harmony with many popular opinions

I believe the Bible first, and science after.

You clearly don't believe the Bible first. You express beliefs and interpretations about the Bible that never existed until recent times. You seem to believe that everybody for the past few thousand years could not understand the Bible as good as yourself.

 

[aikido7]

Many read the Bible and INSIST that we take every word literally (when it suits their point of view).

I do like to take the Bible as literally as possible, but not to the extreme of trying to apply it like a maths formula where "all" = infinite, and "none" = 0.

This insistence is particularly loud when it comes to extreme words such as "all" or "none".

To prove that the Bible uses such words as we usually do in everyday language, just do a search for scriptures using "all" and it is clear that the word seldom means each and every, with the exclusion of nothing.

Yet the mathematical exegesists will insist that when God says "all" He means "all - with the exclusion of none".

Look at the following scriptures and a natural reading would make it sound ridiculous to insist that "all" means more than "most".


Matthew 2:3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Was there not one person (even a 2 year old) not troubled?

Matthew 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

Does this not mean "most"? Will anyone insist that no scribe might have been away or sick?

Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,

Did every single person of Judaea go to see Jesus? Obviously not.

Likewise do your own search for "none" and other all inclusive words like "always" to see that Bible writers use these words like we do today, and like mankind has always done.

Unfortunately, since the Enlightenment, humanity has come to define reality through the rational, the logical and the literal.

All these modern “lenses” prevent us from seeing God as mysterious and limitless.

We are seduced into making the same mistake Nicodemus made about first hearing the term “born again” from Jesus in the Gospel of John.

When we literalize sacred language we miss the point. The “factually correct” interpretation is the wrong one.

 

[iouae]

Unfortunately, since the Enlightenment, humanity has come to define reality through the rational, the logical and the literal.

All these modern “lenses” prevent us from seeing God as mysterious and limitless.

We are seduced into making the same mistake Nicodemus made about first hearing the term “born again” from Jesus in the Gospel of John.

When we literalize sacred language we miss the point. The “factually correct” interpretation is the wrong one.

This is a clear case of where one cannot take the Bible literally, viz. being born again.

Nicodemus was by Pharisee standards, a "super-righteous" man. Even Nicodemus thought of himself as righteous. Nicodemus came to Jesus for a tweak, maybe even to teach Christ something.

But Christ stopped Nick in mid sentence telling him that he must be "born again". Christ was telling Nick that he did not need a tweak, he needed to start all over again from scratch.

Nick's righteousness to that point was based on his Pharisaical law keeping, but true righteousness is based on faith in Christ, Him forgiving our sins, and thus declaring us righteous.

 

[aikido7]

This is a clear case of where one cannot take the Bible literally, viz. being born again.

Nicodemus was by Pharisee standards, a "super-righteous" man. Even Nicodemus thought of himself as righteous. Nicodemus came to Jesus for a tweak, maybe even to teach Christ something.

But Christ stopped Nick in mid sentence telling him that he must be "born again". Christ was telling Nick that he did not need a tweak, he needed to start all over again from scratch.

Nick's righteousness to that point was based on his Pharisaical law keeping, but true righteousness is based on faith in Christ, Him forgiving our sins, and thus declaring us righteous.

I think I can agree-at least in part--with your personal theology here.

To me old Nick was a literal fundamentalist, something that is still operative within Christianity, not just in ancient Pharisaical law.
He insists on taking Jesus's teaching literally.

In that respect he is no different from many traditional self-described Christians. In my view anyway.