God's Precision in the Universe/Measures of Starlight Time

[RickD]

Here Hugh:

http://biologos.org/common-questions/sc ... d-universe

[hughfarey]

Your response doesn't answer my question as to when "darkness was separated from light":

• a) Day 1 (Gen 1:4), or
• b) Day 4 (Gen 1:18)?

Sorry, I thought I, and the bible, were clear enough. Darkness was separated from light, according to the bible, on Day One. The heavenly bodies were not associated with this at all. They were created, independently of either 'light' or 'darkness' on Day Four. Land plants were created on Day Three, and Sea Animals on Day Five. Jiggery pokery with what God's viewpoint might have been is a thoroughly unsatisfactory attempt to reconcile these palpable inconsistencies with scientific and historical evidence.

Here you assume that God created the universe only using natural law. If God supernaturally created the earth using his creative power, then we may never have a scientific explanation. Another possibility is that we have not adequately investigated the possible theories related to a young earth. A theory may exist but we have not found it yet.

Indeed so. I do assume that. As a scientist, and believing God to be entirely rational, I find that a worthwhile assumption. I am well aware that it is an assumption and may be wrong - I just don't think God works irrationally.

Here Hugh:http://biologos.org/common-questions/sc ... d-universe

Yes. I dare say. I was hoping that instead of throwing websites at me, you might try to explain yourself just one way in which you think the age of the universe is calculated. Had you done so, you would have realised that spectrography plays a dominant part in every one, particularly in the fundamental techniques of the speed of recession and the elemental constitution of stars. I recommend http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astrono ... ctroscopic, which will help you understand.

[Philip]

Hugh: " I just don't think God works irrationally"

Um, Hugh, you apparently believe that God only works rationally BY MAN'S STANDARDS as to what is rational!!! But look at all of the things God has done through out Scripture that defies the logic of man! He considers sin so terrible that without its forgiveness, one is destined to Hell, FOREVER! God decided to become a man Who had to DIE to save us. He choice about the most miserable, dysfunctional, menagerie of men to reveal His word to, and to change mankind. He doesn't come as a great respected leader to earth, but as a babe, humbly sleeping amidst the smells of animal poop! He demand the slitting of throats of animals for sacrifice. He doesn't announce His Gospel to the entire world, ALL AT ONCE, so as to save it. No, He starts out with a ragtag band of misfits - 12 simple men in ancient Palestine used to transform the world. And so the Gospel spreads, in spurts, here and there, but certainly not all at once like we would imagine in HUMAN logic. The thing we have to constantly remember is GOD DOES NOT THINK LIKE A MAN. OUR logic is not HIS logic. So, your entire premise of what should be considered the "logical" operational methodology of GOD, as if we can see, understand and agree with His logic, is absolutely ridiculous - as frequently and clearly, God hasn't operated even remotely as we might expect He would or should. Any casual reading of Scripture very quickly reveals this, and it's what God says about the logic of men.

Look at some of the people God used the greatest, and which WE would consider entirely illogical:

- He starts His covenant with Israel with, what, some young, strong, brilliant, energetic leader? NO! The old codger Abraham with his barren, old wife!

- He chooses stuttering Moses who was on the run for murdering a man!

- He chooses Israel's greatest King, David, who God well knew would become a murderer and adulterer. Facing the Philistine beast Goliath, does God call for some mighty, chiseled warrior to the task - or a young shepherd boy?

- God wants a passionate faithful man to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles - does He choose a righteous, faithful Christian? Or a man known widely for murdering or facilitating the murder and destruction of Jesus' followers?

- Does Jesus argue for His Deity with the clear rhetorical logic so that everyone could clearly understand what He was all about, like WE would? NO! He talks often in parables that even His close disciples did not understand - until later.

- God choose t model His interactions and expectations of mankind upon Israel - a tribe of such screwups and cluelessness, and repeated stupidity, and yet God chose them well knowing that this was the sort of people He would adopt.

Point is, time after time in Scripture, God's logic is so far from the logic of men, so as to clearly not think like a man.


A few Scriptural tidbits of the mind of God vs. man:

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding."

"The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

"But God chose what is FOOLISH in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong."

So, Hugh, your premise of God's logic being what you or I would consider logical, is inherently flawed. And the more you discover Scripture, the more you should realize this!

[hughfarey]

No, Philip, that doesn't work with me. The Universe, in all its scientific coherence, is superb evidence of the rationality of its Creator. If there is a problem with this in scripture, then this is due to a misinterpretation of scripture, not evidence of irrationality. There is no "logic of man", just logic. Your Old Testament examples are superb examples of the right man appearing for the job - all illustrations of reason over prejudice. Your classification of these people as "most miserable, dysfunctional, menagerie", "a babe sleeping amidst animal poop", "a ragtag band of misfits", and so on, are not illustrations of the irrationality of God, but of your irrationality in supposing these prejudices to be logical on your part. Your statement "Look at some of the people God used the greatest, and which WE would consider entirely illogical" is one with which I entirely disagree. "WE"? Certainly not. You speak for yourself, not for me.

[Philip]

Hugh, GOD, Himself, tells us that the wisdom of man (yes, and that includes our logic - EVERYONE'S logic) is but utter foolishness to Him. He tells us He does not think like a man. And YOU and I are men. So He's already warned us that there are limits in trying to understand how He operates. But you say differently. Because to understand the logic of God, we'd have to have the very mind of Him. He also tells us that even our very best good works are but filthy rags in His eyes. Anyone who thinks they truly understand how God operates or HIS logic really doesn't understand what God says about Himself or what He says about US. He even tells us not to rely on our own understandings, but to trust Him. This tells us something, that our own understandings can be terribly flawed, as we have the minds of men, and thus our limitations therein.

[hughfarey]

Of course he doesn't "think like a man." He is rationality itself. However, we can aspire towards the understanding of his rationality, and logic - there is no "God's logic" and "man's logic" - is one route. He does not, of course, tell us that our works are "filthy rags" in his eyes. Isaiah says that. Our understanding can be flawed; indeed, I think many of the contributors to this very site haven't a clue what the bible is for, let alone what it means, and I know many of them think the same of me. So what? At least we can try.

[PaulSacramento]

FYI for anyone that cares:

http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~dperley/un ... ivage.html

[Philip]

He does not, of course, tell us that our works are "filthy rags" in his eyes. Isaiah says that.

And Isaiah said THAT so inspired by God - which is why it is part of Scripture. So now you're asserting that just because one of God's chosen messengers makes statements about Him, that it is not to be considered part of Scripture? Really, Hugh - so much of what Scripture says, you refuse to accept it.

And there most certainly IS the logic of man (limited by one's human brain) and the (unlimited) logic of God. Yes, we can understand much, but also there is much we will never understand - because God doesn't reveal or allow us all that He thinks or knows. And a huge part of how God uses logic has to do with His ability to know the future and all past things perfectly, and all of HIS actions/responses, etc. Those are all things no man has access to. So, our logic is necessarily limited in scope, accuracy and ability.

[Katabole]

He does not, of course, tell us that our works are "filthy rags" in his eyes. Isaiah says that.

And Isaiah said THAT so inspired by God - which is why it is part of Scripture.

There is a phrase seen continually throughout the Old Testament and the New which is this:

"The word of the Lord came to"...

These are the people the "word of the Lord" came to.

Genesis 15:1 Abraham
1 Samuel 15:10 Samuel
2 Samuel 7:4 Nathan the prophet
2 Samuel 24:11 Gad the prophet
1 Kings 6:11 Solomon
1 Kings 16:1 Jehu the prophet
1 Kings 17:2 Elijah
2 Kings 20:4 Isaiah
1 Chronicles 22:8 David
2 Chronicles 11:2 Shemaiah (the man of God)
Jeremiah 1:4 Jeremiah
Ezekiel 6:1 Ezekiel
Hosea 1:1 Hosea
Joel 1:1 Joel
Amos 7:16 Amos
Jonah 1:1 Jonah
Micah 1:1 Micah
Zephaniah 1:1 Zephaniah
Haggai 1:1 Haggai
Zechariah 1:1 Zechariah
Malachi 1:1 Malachi
Luke 22:61 Peter remembered the word of the Lord
Acts 8:25 The apostles preached the word of the Lord
Acts 13:49 The word of the Lord was published

Who that "word of the Lord that came" was, is described in John's Gospel:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

It was God Himself (the word that came), that spoke to the prophets of old and no other. You have to understand that phrase if you want to understand both the Old and New Testaments and who it was that spoke to the prophets.

Those prophets used God's word both to praise and condemn. When the prophets use the phrase "hear the word of the Lord", which is the phrase they use before addressing an audience, they are speaking exactly the message God wants them to speak. In the New Testament, the words of Jesus are considered the exact same word, as described by the apostles and Paul.

[hughfarey]

So now you're asserting that just because one of God's chosen messengers makes statements about Him, that it is not to be considered part of Scripture? Really, Hugh - so much of what Scripture says, you refuse to accept it.

Wrong again. Unjustified non-sequitur in the face of quite clear evidence to the contrary. As usual.

And there most certainly IS the logic of man (limited by one's human brain) and the (unlimited) logic of God.

If this means anything, it agrees with my previous post. God's logic is the same as anybody's logic. He merely has access to better premises. That is why it is perfectly understandable to me that he chose the men he did for the tasks he did, while you think it was strange that he chose... what was it?... "the most miserable, dysfunctional, menagerie", "a babe sleeping amidst animal poop" and "a ragtag band of misfits", among others.

It was God Himself (the word that came), that spoke to the prophets of old and no other. You have to understand that phrase if you want to understand both the Old and New Testaments and who it was that spoke to the prophets.

You do indeed. The book of Isaiah is a complicated mixture of the Lord's speech to Isaiah, as in "For I the Lord love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them" (Isaiah 61:8), and Isaiah's speech to the Lord, as in "For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him. Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved. But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." (Isaiah 64:4-6). There are also occasions when Isaiah is speaking to the people on the Lord's behalf, and also on his own behalf. You cannot begin to understand the subtleties of the "inspiration" of scripture without very carefully taking these elements apart. The idea that the whole book of Isaiah is merely a transcribing of the words of the Lord is naive, and seems specifically denied by all the different circumlocutions with which the various statements are qualified.

[Philip]

Hugh: The idea that the whole book of Isaiah is merely a transcribing of the words of the Lord is naive, and seems specifically denied by all the different circumlocutions with which the various statements are qualified.

Of COURSE it's not a mere transcription, but the words are inspired as they were assembled by God's chosen prophet (as were other books of the Bible, whether from prophets or apostles). Not to mention JESUS framed and endorsed the ENTIRE Old Testament as being God ordained Scripture - meaning what was included, whether events or statements recorded, are all true. And that includes accounts of evil spoken or acts committed in opposition to God but that were factually recorded for God's purposes of having the Scriptures recorded, including all that ended up as part of it. It seems as if Hugh is trying to separate what was inspired and God ordained from other portions of Scripture - perhaps to cast doubt upon its historical accuracy. But ALL that is in there is so because GOD wanted it in there - nothing ended up in Scripture by accident or from only the decisions of men!

[hughfarey]

No I agree with all that. It's the degree of literalness I disagree with.

[RickD]

No I agree with all that. It's the degree of literalness I disagree with.

Do you mean this literally? Or are we to take this figuratively?