|
theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/14/2008 7:03:58 PM)
|
TO THEO'S REMARK: I think you probably know that Light is not light energy. (Or maybe you don't) Anyway, light is not light energy, and energy is not light energy. Both terms require more than just to say "energy" or "light." There are many more forms of energy than light energy. And there are more characteristics of light than light "energy."
DRMARK RESPONDED: Nonsense! Obviously light is light energy - why would anyone think it's sound energy? Absolutely, there are more "characteristics" of light than energy. The one I'm specifically arguing for is time - light is energy travelling in space through time.
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Time is not a characteristic of light. Time is not a characteristic of space. Space is not a characteristic of light. Light is a separate phenominon of creation. There are many "energies" traveling through space in time. None of them are time. That is the simple truth of the origin of light. It was created by God and separated from the darkness. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
TO THEO'S REMARK: Consider for a moment, my friend (I hope you are my friend) that it is a fallacy to insist that "because there is no existence of light without time to characterize its velocity," the antithesis is true; i.e., It is not true that with the absence of light, time ceases. As well, it is not true that without light, space ceases; and without light, matter ceases.
DRMARK RESPONDED: More nonsense, my friend! The alleged antithesis should be correctly stated that "without light, time ceases".
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): I think that's what I said with "It is not true that with the absence of light, time ceases." You see my friend, "without light" is equivalent to "with the absence of light," so we are saying the same thing, there at least. And it is a fallacy to insist that "light exists in time" is antithetical to "without light, time ceases." You are simply restating my position; namely, reiterating a fallacy.
DRMARK CONTINUED: This is obviously not true because IT IS light's existence which is contingent on time, NOT TIME'S EXISTENCE CONTINGENT ON LIGHT (capitalized for emphasize by TB). The existence of time, space, and matter are contingent on their Creator's Grace, not anything He has created!
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): You have just agreed with my position. Time's existence is not contingent upon the existence of light. It has been my position all along that time is necessary to the production by creation of anything at all. You have just said, "(it is) not time's existence contingent on light." The existence of time is in fact, not contingent upon anything. It alwas was and always will be. God did not create time, and no scripture says he did. He did however, create the luminaries by which we measure time; i.e., Sun, Moon, Stars. "And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."
DRMARK CONTINUED: If God wills to make time cease (that is, uncreate time), then light would no longer be real light as it would have only energy and space with which to exist. Indeed, while space and matter (energy) may remain even in time's complete absence, they would be no longer comprehensible, experiential, or applicable in reality. The very existence of the Tri-Une Universe demands that all three "dimensions" exist.
THEO'S RESPONSE: God cannot "uncreate" what he did not create. He can destroy, perhaps, but he cannot uncreate what was not created. And that is not "limiting God" as some try to claim. God cannot be not God. God cannot "be" outside of "time to be."
As to the "three dimensions" you reference, since when was matter a "dimension." The only "three dimensions" of which I am aware are length, width, and heighth; or some variation of terms meaning mostly the same thing. It seems like you are calling space, time, and matter "dimensions." Feel free to correct me if I misunderstand what you are saying.
TO THEO'S REMARK: It is not my "faulty understanding of light" that creates the problem my friend, it is your misapplication of the physics of light. You say for example, "There is no existence of light without time to characterize its velocity." Yet when I make the same application to the existence of God, you scoff.
DRMARK RESPONDED: Just to clarify then - are you claiming that there is no existence of God without time to characterize His divine Essence? If so, I scoff at the notion that God can only exist because His creation exists. I'm not sure you realize, theo_book, that this statement borders on heresy.
THEO'S RESPONSE: Will you STOP with the name calling? there is no "heresy" involved in questioning conclusions brought into existence through the use of commentaries. It certainly is not Scriptures we are discussing here. You claim Gen 1:2 is a "metaphor." THAT comes from commentaries, not scripture. God says "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" and I see no reason to "metaphorize" it. And THAT result is only found in commentaries.
TO THEO'S REMARK: You say "There is no existence of light without space to characterize its location." When I make the same application (God occupies space), you disagree. You say "There is no existence of light without matter to characterize its energy." Matter is DEPENDENT upon God for its existence in time. And God created matter before he created light.
DRMARK RESPONDED: Once more, you have misunderstood or misrepresented my position. God is transcendent to, that is both inside and outside of, His created space. Perhaps the word "independent" helps to convey the meaning of "transcendent" in this context. God does NOT depend on time in order for Him to exist or have meaning in reality. On the other hand, light depends on space in which its energy must travel through time in order to be real.
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): God did not create time, and he did not create space. He created heaven and earth and all that is therein. Heaven is contained within the parameters of the meaning of "space." And while it is true, heavens contains some space, it is not proved that heaven contains all of space. Space however, does contain all of heaven. How do I know this? Because God created heaven and earth in space and in time, which he could not have done without the space and time in which to do it.
DEMARK CONTINUED: You say "God created matter before he created light". That claim is nowhere to be found in Scripture. You may try to assume it from Genesis 1:2, but that only shows our puny human understanding of "before". There was no "before" until God created light in verse 3! I do not know (nor will any of us ever understand) just exactly what Moses is calling "formless, empty, void earth" and "hovering darkness over the watery deep". I personally envision some kind of divine proto-substance attributable to the Second Person of the Godhead, since we know that God created everything through Him (John 1:3) and by Him (Col 1:16). But we do not need to get hung up on Genesis 1:2 when we have God's first creative act in real time so clearly stated in Genesis 1:3.
THEO'S RESPONSE: Explain then, the use of "BEFORE" and "WHEN" in "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, BEFORE his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 WHEN there were no depths, I was brought forth; WHEN there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 BEFORE the mountains were settled, BEFORE the hills was I brought forth:
26 WHILE as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 WHEN he prepared the heavens, I was there: WHEN he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
28 WHEN he established the clouds above: WHEN he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
29 WHEN he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: WHEN he appointed the foundations of the earth:"[Prov 8:22-29]
Both "before" and "when" are references to time prior to the creation of light in Gen 1:3. And please, do not attempt to dismiss it as poetry, as though poetry does not contain the truth of God's word. It is not proved that being poetry makes it untrue.
As a matter of fact, scripture references poetry as a source of truth; a truth upon which our own salvation depends -
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as CERTAIN ALSO OF YOUR OWN POETS HAVE SAID, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." [Acts 17:25-31]
God did not just dismiss it as "poetry" but in fact used it by inspiring Luke to include the reference in his apology we call "Acts."
TO THEO'S REMARK: I see no reason to be correcting God's use of language to describe what only He knows took place in the creation. A proper metaphor would be, for example "A mighty fortress is our God." But "the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the deep" is not a metaphor. There is no substance upon which to hang the term.
DRMARK RESPONDED: Exactly right, my friend! There is no substance which we can understand from verse 2 because God had not yet created physical reality with the initiation of light. Moses writes metaphorically in verse 2 because he has no other frame of reference from which to describe things existing outside of yet-to-be created reality! I'm just thankful God condescended to even allow Moses to share such intimate details of creation with us. Aren't you?
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): No, because Moses shared no such thing. Or are you using metaphor? Are you saying that your characterization of Gen 1:3 is just a metaphor for truth? Sounds reasonable to me. Personally, I prefer the truth of scripture over the metaphor of commentaries.
God created the heaven and the earth, then created light. THAT is not metaphor, or poetry, that is cold hard fact of scripture. Or are you saying God just couldn't see what he had created because it was all in the dark? Personally I would not place such parameters of limitation on God.
TO THEO'S REMARK: Look, my friend, at the processes described by Wisdom in the eighth Proverb, verses 22 through 31 and tell me how it occurred without a process of time. Explain if you can, how it is God created the heaven and the earth, and light, before separation from darkness, if time was not a factor.
DRMARK RESPONDED: Hold on, theo_book! Proverbs 8:22-31 is a poetic passage (some commentaries say hymn) which describes the role of Wisdom in God's creative activity. Indeed, this likely relates to the Second Person's involvement in creation as I discussed above. There is no indication in this passage that God created the heavens and the earth contingent on time!
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): I do not know what you mean by "There is no indication in this passage that God created the heavens and the earth contingent on time!" Are you saying God created heaven and earth "outside of time?" And where do you get a "second person's involvement in creation?"
TO THEO'S REMARK: And God did not create time. In fact, if he did, it would REQUIRE TIME FOR HIM TO DO THE ACTIVITY.
DRMARK RESPONDED: Are you limiting the divine capabilities of the eternal, infinite, omnipotent Creator of the universe? God requires NOTHING to create. How can something God created be required for Him to create it? Hello?
THEO'S RESPONSE: No. God is limiting God to creating in time. Gen 1:31 tells us "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." "It was very good," is another way of saying "He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end." [Ecc 3:11] Now it is YOUR turn. Please give us a verse that says "God created everything outside of time."
Since God did not create time, how can you say "How can something God created be required for him to create it?"
TO THEO'S REMARK: Then allow us who do "grasp" "comprehend" and "ponder" the freedom to enjoy our humility. Before God I declare, I have no problem comprehending the enormous, nor the tiniest, of God's creative effort. Nor do I have any problem whatsoever, understanding the God and Time exist within the same frame of reference as regards "when."
DRMARK RESPONDED: Nice try, but most of us know you better. And such an arrogant declaration (if you truly believe it, which I doubt) is the antithesis of humility!
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): What a nasty spirited thing to say. Are you telling me that all you have to offer God is your ignorance, and that you worship that which you do not know? Your own words testify against you. You continually tell me we "cannot know" anything about God. I say that is nonsense. If you will get away from the safety of "doctrines" and start accepting what the scriptures say, without placing everything into categories (like "metaphor" and "poetry") and just accept what they teach, you will begin to "know the Lord." Heb 8:11 "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
Too many Christians plead ignorance and humility, when they ought to be learning all there is to know and offer their best to God, in humility. Instead, they offer a voluntary humility characterised by ignorance. And seem to be proud of how humble they can sound through insisting they are more ignorant than their neighbor. And, perish forbid, let not one claim to understand, lest he be labeled "arrogant" for his claims.
TO THEO'S REMARK: "In the beginning" is not a reference to the beginning of time, but is a reference to the beginning of creation. And I think THAT is where much dogmatism become a factor in doctrine.
DRMARK RESPONDED: You're losing touch on this one, theo_book! The only meaningful definition of "beginning" must refer to time. That is not "dogmatic doctrine". That is common sense linguistic usage. If you cannot accept such a simple fact, we have no further rational basis upon which to dialog.
THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Well I know at least one reference that puts the "time" element at the beginning of creation, not the beginning of time. "He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end." [Ecc 3:11] The reference to both the beginning and the end is not to time, but to the beginning of his work to the end of his work.
Please consider these things as you prepare yourself to worship him who expects your best effort from understanding what the will of the Lord is, not your ignorance and voluntary humility.
|
|
|
|