|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 4/16/2008 3:50:03 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3137
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
An inaccurate flashback. The literal Miller should be translated as "slipping", not "spinning". An inaccurate translation, cow. The proper exegesis is "slippin" which denotes a laziness of pronunciation indicative of the musical genre of the time period. Context, cow, always context!
quote:
At any rate, the song still reeks. Well, maybe you dislike the lyrics, but the message is unassailable. From verse 2:
quote:
Feed the babies
Who don't have enough to eat
Shoe the children
With no shoes on their feet
House the people
Livin' in the street
Oh, oh, there's a solution Now, better yet would have been the specific naming of the solution as the "Love of Christ". However, in the interest of improved record sales, I'm sure the band decided to avoid any overt religious connotations and just go generic.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 4/16/2008 4:15:48 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7774
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
I just want you all to know that these flashbacks are painful for me, as they remind me of disco, which reminds me of disco dancing, which reminds me of the disco dance class I was forced to take with the girl across the street wherein we learned the *Rope Hustle*.
And I thought you people were my friends.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 4/17/2008 12:09:13 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3963
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
I just want you all to know that these flashbacks are painful for me, as they remind me of disco, which reminds me of disco dancing, which reminds me of the disco dance class I was forced to take with the girl across the street wherein we learned the *Rope Hustle*.
And I thought you people were my friends.
That would make you another victim of Rope-a-dope.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 4/24/2008 9:40:14 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Time keeps on spinning, spinning, spinning into the future...
Oooh, ouch, 70s flash back...
An inaccurate flashback. The literal Miller should be translated as "slipping", not "spinning". We all know that Time cannot spin. Has anyone ever said they enjoyed spinning time with you? Of course not. At any rate, the song still reeks.
As far as that goes, has anyone told you they enjoy "slipping" time with you? :)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/7/2008 10:00:39 PM
|
|
|
Rasico
Posts: 28
Joined: 11/3/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
I think the difference between us is that you probably define a Christian as one who claims to be one.
I define a Christian as one whom Jesus would claim in accord with the teaching of scripture as to what makes one a Christian.
In other words, calling one's self a Christian is not the standard I would use.
Here's another statistic "47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.
Yea, but how else can you quantify that? Any Christian will tell you, everyone is a sinner. Is there some sort of 'sin metric' to determine if someone who self-identifies as Christian isnt really a Christian? What stats like this tell you, isnt that Christians are bad people etc etc. It tells you that religion has no bearing what-so-ever on how 'moral' or good a person is. God is not the final and only source of morality.
I'm pretty sure most Christians from a hundred years ago or so, would simply take a look at the clothes most Christian teens wear today and proclaim they are going straight to hell, no questions asked. Morals may be in part influenced by religion, but religion is more influenced by social morals... Morals dont come from religion or God. Religions morals end up changing and following the ebb and flow of the greater social morals, albeit sometimes more slowly and with resistance. Thankfully, the Bible has enough passages in it to agree with just about any moral structure you want it to agree with, you just have to pick and choose. And thats exactly what happens.
quote:
lity.
I'm pretty sure most Christians from a hundred years ago or so, would simply take a look at the clothes most Christian teens wear today and proclaim they are going straight to hell, no questions asked. Morals may be in part influenced by religion, but religion is more influenced by social morals... Morals dont come from religion or God. Religions morals end up changing and following the ebb and flow of the greater social morals, albeit sometimes more slowly and with resistance. Thankfully, the Bible has enough passages in it to agree with just about any moral structure you want it to agree with, you just have to pick and choose. And thats exactly what happens.
I'd just like to appeal to you since your train of thought is exactly the way mine used to be before I came to Christ. You've noted the hypocrite's among the Christian, how seemingly morally flexible the bible is, and of course looked at our history. These issues blocked my from Christ for many years, especially how unloving we appeared to be.
Have you read the new testament? It really does address these issues, and yes at the heart of it is that the hearts of all man are wicked, we're all sinners. From this you can see a rigorous moral standard in the bible, and the rest can be derived. I hope you'll consider this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/8/2008 11:02:14 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3137
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
Rasico, would you mind responding to drj11 on the Mass Extinction and nature of God thread. Your post above is exactly what I am trying to get across to drj regarding "true" Christian faith. Thanks for your consideration.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/10/2008 8:40:20 AM
|
|
|
Bee777
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
Hi all
I have just found this thread and find it all quite interesting.
But going back to the original question " of what did God do before He created us " ( more or less.
Why do we not think that perhaps there was another civilization before us, before Adam and EVE ? Why I ask is is the references made to " men of old men of renown "
Gen 6;4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
This is Strongs definition of "old "
1. long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world
1. ancient time, long time (of past)
2. (of future)
1. for ever, always
2. continuous existence, perpetual
3. everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity
Which comes to this word of origin
Strong's Number: 05956 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
~l[ a primitive root
1. to conceal, hide, be hidden, be concealed, be secret
1. (Qal) secret (participle)
2. (Niphal)
1. to be concealed
2. concealed, dissembler (participle)
3. (Hiphil) to conceal, hide
4. (Hithpael) to hide oneself
Is this not a clue ?
I may be way off here but it could be possible, and if this is a clue then I am sure there will be more in the Bible.
God probably doesn't go too deep into it as this is the book for our age and our time, but I suspect the Hebrew scholars on this forum will find more evidence of this in Gen 1; 1-6
DRMARK this again brings me back to the different definitions of " made " and " created " as discussed on the other thread.
I myself would be interested in any comments about this thought.
Blessings
Bee
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/10/2008 9:04:40 AM
|
|
|
Bee777
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
[
The bible does not leave out science. It enhances it. "Doth not nature teach you..." is an invitation to search for God in nature itself.
Science leaves out God, It fights him. And why? Because man does not want a moral reason for being. They want to be their own guide as to what's right between men.
I agree with you, God is science in my opinion.
1Tim 6;20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Strongs def of called : Falsely named
Blessings
The KJV Strong's Version
< Message edited by Bee777 -- 5/10/2008 9:15:59 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/10/2008 1:54:37 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3137
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
DRMARK this again brings me back to the different definitions of " made " and " created " as discussed on the other thread.
I myself would be interested in any comments about this thought. The original Hebrew words are used interchangeably throughout the OT. There is no significant difference in meaning between "created" and "made" when referring to Biblical origins.
Did God create or make in Genesis 1?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/11/2008 2:00:03 AM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
GREAT CONVERSATION!!!!
I am no theologian, but here is a quote (or whatever you define it as...didn't quite understand that "quote" argument) from theo_book that I would like to make a few comments on...
"God is timeless as to his existence, having no beginning and no ending. That has no bearing on the fact he has submitted himself to time in his dealings with his creature, man. The sabbath, the Jubilee, both examples in which both God and man entered into binding covenant dealing with time elements."
You finally told people that you believe "God is timeless as to his existence, having no beginning and no ending." Good, most of us agree. However, you have firmly stated that God "can not possibly" exist outside of time, with which most here do not agree.
Let me point out a simple contradiction.
You said "...he has submitted himself..."
Throughout this thread, you have analyzed, dissected, broken down, taken apart, examined, and criticized definitions of words used in the Bible that you feel represents time, and therefore, when one is used in context of God, you feel that proves God does not exist outside of time, neither has He created it. Let me point out again you used the word "submitted", which you must agree involves time. In order for you to submit yourself to something, you must have, at some point, not been submitted to it. To submit requires an action, resulting in passage of time. IOW, when you state "he has submitted" begs the question, "How about before he submitted?" If there is a point in "time" where God submitted himself to "time" He must have existed BEFORE or OUTSIDE OF time in order to submit Himself to it.
The problem I feel you are having is trying to explain God's sovereignty. That is IMPOSSIBLE. FINITE human can not even begin to understand the INFINITE (and please don't go into your definition of 'infinite') God. Using man-man words to describe GOD"S SOVEREIGNTY is at best futile, and at worse heretical, hence the accusations. One problem with studying theology is the fact that YOU CAN NOT AND WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND GOD ALMIGHTY. Even Daniel, using the word 'ancient' can not possibly explain God fully. He simply used that word to best describe God in a way mankind can understand. All we understand is time. There is no man-made word that will ever give a satisfactory definition of God in His terms, because we can not understand Him.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/11/2008 8:45:43 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
GREAT CONVERSATION!!!!
I am no theologian, but here is a quote (or whatever you define it as...didn't quite understand that "quote" argument) from theo_book that I would like to make a few comments on...
"God is timeless as to his existence, having no beginning and no ending. That has no bearing on the fact he has submitted himself to time in his dealings with his creature, man. The sabbath, the Jubilee, both examples in which both God and man entered into binding covenant dealing with time elements."
You finally told people that you believe "God is timeless as to his existence, having no beginning and no ending." Good, most of us agree. However, you have firmly stated that God "can not possibly" exist outside of time, with which most here do not agree.
Let me point out a simple contradiction.
You said "...he has submitted himself..."
Throughout this thread, you have analyzed, dissected, broken down, taken apart, examined, and criticized definitions of words used in the Bible that you feel represents time, and therefore, when one is used in context of God, you feel that proves God does not exist outside of time, neither has He created it. Let me point out again you used the word "submitted", which you must agree involves time. In order for you to submit yourself to something, you must have, at some point, not been submitted to it. To submit requires an action, resulting in passage of time. IOW, when you state "he has submitted" begs the question, "How about before he submitted?" If there is a point in "time" where God submitted himself to "time" He must have existed BEFORE or OUTSIDE OF time in order to submit Himself to it.
If you have a job in which you do not have to "punch a time-clock" or account for every minute of your day; and if you live a life that does not require you to account for every minute of your time; then circumstance forces you to change jobs, and you now must punch a time-clock, and account for every minute of your workday, as well as every minute of your day outside of work, you are submitted to time in a way you were not previously.
God "submits" himself to time, not because he is outside of it, but precisely BECAUSE he rules all aspects thereof; When he enters a covenant dealing with time factors, (Sabbath day; jubillee; all days of remembrance) he is submitting to time just as surely as punching a time-clock. That has nothing to do with whether time is timeless. (and it is.)
God had no beginning, no "cause to be." Time also was not "caused to be." There is no way anything can "be" outside of time BECAUSE "be" is a verb of being, which requires time in which to be. For God to "BE" there must be time in which to do so.
quote:
The problem I feel you are having is trying to explain God's sovereignty. That is IMPOSSIBLE. FINITE human can not even begin to understand the INFINITE (and please don't go into your definition of 'infinite') God.
Using man-man words to describe GOD"S SOVEREIGNTY is at best futile, and at worse heretical, hence the accusations. One problem with studying theology is the fact that YOU CAN NOT AND WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND GOD ALMIGHTY. Even Daniel, using the word 'ancient' can not possibly explain God fully. He simply used that word to best describe God in a way mankind can understand. All we understand is time. There is no man-made word that will ever give a satisfactory definition of God in His terms, because we can not understand Him.
Now that you have limited man's ability to understand the very things God told us to consider, "Be still, and know that I am God" among others, allow me to give you a different perspective.
We are gods. "I have said ye are gods." We are gods made in flesh, which limits our "being" to the parameters of flesh which define our person. We are gods, made in the image of God. What awaits us the other side of mortality, in immortality, we can only glean clues from scripture. But we can "KNOW" the things about God that he Has chosen to reveal to us, AND UNDERSTAND THEM.
The problem that is prevalent among us is that we have been indoctrinated (subjugated to a doctrine) to believe all the "omni's" of Catholic Catechism's. "God is Omni-present; Omni-scient; Omni-this and Omni-that. And we stand in awe of "omni" because it is Latin, which no one speaks today.
The trouble with all those "omni's" is, they are not found in scripture. They are the result of man's attempt at "Voluntary humility" (which is condemned in scripture) by making God out to be beyond our understanding, or infinite beyond our finite mind.
God is not infinite, and scripture does not say he is. It is MAN who says so, and I am not in awe of a God constructed by the mind of men. Scripture uses "infinite" ONE time with regard to God, and it describes his understanding. [Psa 147:5]
It also describes Jobs sins as "INFINITE" [Job 22:5]; and No (Ancient capital of Egypt) is described as having INFINITE strength. [Nah 3:9]
The word that is translated "Infinite" is a simple reference to a very great ammount, or a very long time. It is no way related to the mathematic concept of "infinity."
So all those "infinite capabilities" and "attributes" that are ascribed to God, come from doctrines of men, not from God himself. And while some of them may well be proper conclusions drawn from proper assessments of God's revelations about himself, they are in no way binding on our understanding, which is a reflection of God, (image of God).
Does that mean I am as smart as God? Get real. It means God expects me to approach with humility, that revelation provided for our perusal, by his own hand. "Come, let us reason together, sayeth the Lord." WHY, if we cannot understand an infinite God with our finite minds? It becomes an exercise in futility to try to appease a God beyond our ability to appease.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/11/2008 2:32:37 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
theo_book
"We are gods."
OOOOOOH, so you're a Mormon? That sheds much light on this discussion... Sorry, a bit of sarcasm there. Be careful how you define that word "gods."
You still have yet to answer the question"Where was God BEFORE He submitted?" I'm going to drill this at you until 1. You get yourself out of your hole, or 2. You dig yourself deeper. To submit is an action requiring time. If God submitted Himself to something, then logically before He submitted Himself He was indeed not submitted to it. The ONLY answer you can possibly give is that God was always and eternally submitted to it. If that is so, the question now becomes "So does God not have a free will?" You have a lot of questions you need to answer, but frankly you can't, neither can I. And no, you CAN NOT possibly understand the Essence of God Almighty, PERIOD.
The only other way to get yourself out of this hole is to somehow prove time is an aspect of God, such as His holiness, love, etc. But the Bible says God is unchangeable. In order for time to exist, something must happen, resulting in a change from what was to what is. But God doesn't change, ( For I am the LORD, I change not )
"So all those "infinite capabilities" and "attributes" that are ascribed to God, come from doctrines of men, not from God himself....they are in no way binding on our understanding..."
Oh really? Note the scriptures below.
2Ch 2:5 & 6 And the house which I build is great: for great is our God above all gods. But who is able to build him a house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? who am I then, that I should build him a house, save only to burn sacrifice before him?
1Ki 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have built?
Jer 23:24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.
1Jn 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?
Psa 145:3 Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable.
These "infinite capabilities" are in God's words of which He inspired men to write. The "omni's" that you detest are indeed scriptural. If the previous scriptures do not prove God's omnipresence ("behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee"), omnipotence ("but the thunder of his power who can understand?"), and omniscience ("For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things."), then what is your explanation?
The reason you have a problem accepting the "omni's" of God is that once you do, you must accept the fact that you are not as smart as you had hoped. You want to understand God, but you can't, and your ego now becomes your bias, even though scripture, as shown, clearly proves you wrong.
God is, in all definitions of the word, INEFFABLE. Using man made words to understand something we CAN NOT understand (Job 26:14) is FOOLISH!
Sir (or Madam), with all due respect, when you used Isaiah 1:18 "Come, let us reason together", you took that WAY out of context. You, my friend, are leading people astray, whether naively or purposely, and this I take personally. The context of that verse and passage is repentance and getting your heart right with God, NOT philosophy. If you would read more than what you need to prove your argument, you will see that the passage speaks of Judah transgressing God's law. "Come, let us reason together" can be said “Come, let us settle the matter” or “Come, let us settle our differences.” It is a call to a trial, where God offers forgiveness to those (Judah) who have sinned. It has NO implication to reasoning God's Essence! It has NOTHING to do with theology. Again with all due respect, you are bordering on heresy, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were simply careless. I would hate to assume you knew the context of that passage and yet chose to twist it your way.
< Message edited by evry1needsgod -- 5/11/2008 4:01:26 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/11/2008 6:04:46 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3137
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
Good luck, evry1needsgod! I gave up on theo_book's bizarre doctrine three pages ago.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/11/2008 7:28:53 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
TO THEO'S REMARK: "We are gods."
YOU RESPONDED: Be careful how you define that word "gods."
THEO'S RESPONSE: Actually I did not "define that word gods." Jesus is the one who said it in John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken..."
And Jesus was quoting the 82nd Psalm - "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." [Psa 82:6] If Jesus said "he called them gods," Be careful how YOU Perceive "Gods."
YOU WROTE: You still have yet to answer the question "Where was God BEFORE He submitted?"
THEO'S RESPONSE: No I don't. There was no such question waiting when I posted so where did it come from? If it is a new question, say so. Do not say "You still have yet to answer" if it was not already a question.
YOU WROTE: To submit is an action requiring time.
THEO'S RESPONSE: I am glad to see you understand that verbs require time for their action to be expressed.
"I AM" tells us both who and what. "I" is Jehovah God. "AM" is the 1st person singular present indicative of the verb "BE."
"BE" is a verb and auxilliary verb;
present singular 1st person "AM;" 2nd person "are;" 3rd person "is."
present plural, "are"
past singular - 1st person "was;" 2nd person "were; 3rd person "was."
Since "BE" is a verb of existence, existing REQUIRES time in which to function; to occupy a place or position.
I fail to understand why you defend a man made doctrine like "God created time" when scripture not only does not say he did, but logic demands that he did not.
"Before" and "after" are both references to time. Since the sun, moon, and stars were not created until the fourth day, there were at least three "days" prior to their creation, so the creation of the sun, moon, and stars was not the creation of time. it was the creation of those heavenly bodies by which we measure or regulate time. But time itself, already existed prior to the fourth day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And there was activity occurring prior to the Genesis account of creation. "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 [third day], 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: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men." [Prov 8:22-31]
And in all this telling, God never tells us "where he was" so your question is our of order.
YOU WROTE: If God submitted Himself to something, then logically before He submitted Himself He was indeed not submitted to it. The ONLY answer you can possibly give is that God was always and eternally submitted to it.
THEO'S RESPONSE: But my friend, I have already given you my response to that. Therefore, your assertion that "The ONLY answer you can possibly give is that God was always and eternally submitted to it," is also out of order. That is YOUR logical conundrum, not mine.
My response was likened to one who submits himself to a different system of time accountability. And it is not only a valid illustration, it is to the point.
YOU WROTE: If that is so, the question now becomes "So does God not have a free will?" You have a lot of questions you need to answer, but frankly you can't, neither can I.
THEO'S RESPONSE: But as you can see, "that" is not so.
As for your argument limiting God by "free will" so that he cannot commit himself to his own covenant, again your entire line of logic is out of line. He can "submit himself" to anything he wants to commit himself to.
And I certainly believe it is true, "You" cannot answer the "lot of questions" you reference.
YOU WROTE: And no, you CAN NOT possibly understand the Essence of God Almighty, PERIOD.
THEO'S RESPONSE: True. "Essence of God" is not found in scripture. Why would I try to understand a man made doctrine?
As for my assertion that I can understnad whatever God expresses in his revelation for my understanding, I hold to it. Otherwise God issues futile commands for ulterior purposes. Punishing people for failing to do what he commands them to do when they cannot do it is cruel. THAT is not God, that is man's attempt to make something of God that he is not.
YOU WROTE:The only other way to get yourself out of this hole is to somehow prove time is an aspect of God, such as His holiness, love, etc.
THEO'S RESPONSE: I am so happy YOU are not assigned to tell me how to get out of holes made for me by you. I am not in the hole of your own creation. Your conclusions are errors of logic, and doctrines of men.
It is easy to defeat an opponent if you can tell them what their argument should be and then invent its limiting parameters. But your parameters and limitations are no part of my argument.
YOU WROTE; But the Bible says God is unchangeable. In order for time to exist, something must happen, resulting in a change from what was to what is. But God doesn't change, ( For I am the LORD, I change not )
THEO'S RESPONSE: Time existed for God to "BE. Therefore, time is not an aspect nor attribute of God. To quibble over "when" God acted in time is futile, for God does not tell us the "when" of things in the beginning, except to indicate by the use of "beginning" that it was very early in his reckoning of things.
TO THEO'S REMARK: "So all those "infinite capabilities" and "attributes" that are ascribed to God, come from doctrines of men, not from God himself....they are in no way binding on our understanding..."
YOU RESPONDED: Oh really? Note the scriptures below.
2Ch 2:5 & 6 And the house which I build is great: for great is our God above all gods. But who is able to build him a house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? who am I then, that I should build him a house, save only to burn sacrifice before him?
1Ki 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have built?
Jer 23:24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.
1Jn 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?
Psa 145:3 Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable.
THEO'S RESPONSE: To say something is "unsearchable" is a reference to our own ability to force the issue and find out under our own wfforts and strangth. We cannot "find out" anything at all about God.
But if God expresses himself to us in revelation ("Search the scriptures"), in prophecies, in dreams, in confrontations, any of the many ways God communicated to men through history, then we can certainly understand those things about God for which he punishes us for not understanding and doing.
Again, it is refreshing to see you refer to scriptures instead of telling me "God is omni-whatever."
YOU WROTE: These "infinite capabilities" are in God's words of which He inspired men to write. The "omni's" that you detest are indeed scriptural. If the previous scriptures do not prove God's omnipresence ("behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee"), omnipotence ("but the thunder of his power who can understand?"), and omniscience ("For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things."), then what is your explanation?
THEO'S RESPONSE: My "explanation" is simple. You choose to use words not found in scripture, to define doctrines that ARE found in scripture. I do not subscribe to that practice, nor to that creed.
The reference questions you use are not questions of what is revealed, but rather references those things God used to demonstrate man's limited understanding and ability. Do not expect me to attempt to respond to those questions God asked to show man's inability to respond. And I still do not respond to the Latin doctrines of men.
YOU WROTE: The reason you have a problem accepting the "omni's" of God is that once you do, you must accept the fact that you are not as smart as you had hoped. You want to understand God, but you can't, and your ego now becomes your bias, even though scripture, as shown, clearly proves you wrong.
THEO'S RESPONSE: How wrong and terribly unjust your accusations are. I am not smart enough to build God in my own image. Perhaps you are. And I can and DO understnad God as he revealed himself to me in his word. If you do not it is either because you need to get out of the Latin and into the humility of spirit required, or you need to quit basing your knowledge of God on doctrines of men who are stuck in "voluntary humility."
YOU WROTE: God is, in all definitions of the word, INEFFABLE. Using man made words to understand something we CAN NOT understand (Job 26:14) is FOOLISH!
THEO'S RESPONSE: Then why do you insist he is (manmade)Omni- anything at all? Why say God is omniscient if we cannot understand his omniscience? it is an exercise in "look what I can invent; surely God loves me above common men."
YOUW WROTE: Sir (or Madam), with all due respect, when you used Isaiah 1:18 "Come, let us reason together", you took that WAY out of context. You, my friend, are leading people astray, whether naively or purposely, and this I take personally. The context of that verse and passage is repentance and getting your heart right with God, NOT philosophy. If you would read more than what you need to prove your argument, you will see that the passage speaks of Judah transgressing God's law. "Come, let us reason together" can be said “Come, let us settle the matter” or “Come, let us settle our differences.” It is a call to a trial, where God offers forgiveness to those (Judah) who have sinned. It has NO implication to reasoning God's Essence! It has NOTHING to do with theology. Again with all due respect, you are bordering on heresy, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were simply careless. I would hate to assume you knew the context of that passage and yet chose to twist it your way.
THEO'S RESPONSE: It is YOU who are out of context my friend. The context under attack by you is simply showing that if one will repent, he can reason with God himself. And that is not "philosophy" that is God speaking.
And you are at least correct in saying "it has no implication to reasoning God's essence." "God's Essence" is not a scriptural consideration. It is found no where in scripture. It is a man made concept. And I will never attempt to understand the "essence of God" because it is nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/11/2008 9:04:57 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
YIKES!!!!
You still have not answered my question, and if you must have the EXACT PERFECT wording of EVERY SINGLE LETTER of EVER SINGLE DOCUMENTED POST, here is my original question, then the repeat, and I'll let you compare. BTW, read the context of the first question, as long as that isn't too hard for you.
"How about before he submitted?"
"Where was God BEFORE He submitted?"
If you do not understand the context, I will state it here. The context of the first question is time. The second question asks where God was in the aspect of time before He submitted to it. Quite the same. I apologize if your OCD requires the SAME EXACT wording every single time.
You used a sarcastic, satirical attack to dodge answering that question. If you must have a word for word question to answer, here it is..."Where, in the aspect of time, was God BEFORE He submitted to it (time)?" You are OBSESSED with diction! If a certain word is not found in the Bible, it must not be credible. Since the word 'omni' does not exist in the Bible, then those doctrines must be false...BULL!!!
Well, I just coined a new word. It is 'hubba-loo-shnaka-doink' which I defined as "God's spoken words." Well, I guess God never spoke to mankind, because hubbalooshnakadoink does not appear anywhere in scripture. Stop dodging an argument you know you can't win by using a lame-man's argument such as "that word isn't found in scripture." Well, the concept/principle is, and you know it, so stop leading people astray!
Dinosaur is not in the Bible because it was not coined until over a century after the KJV was written. So, using your logic, we must assume dinosaurs are never and can never be mentioned in the Bible because the word 'dinosaur' is a man-made word which does not appear in scripture. Ridiculous!
Look, God is not the author of confusion. Your ideology requires a vocabulary beyond a normal intellect, and knowledge most people will never obtain. THAT makes God extremely confusing to the normal individual. Accepting that we can not understand Him, which is shown in scriptures whether you like it or not, is not confusing at all. Its humility. You are making God out to be the most confusing individual known to man. God does not require us to understand Him perfectly as you have stated. God simply requires obedience, and He has given us plenty to show us what we NEED to know, but we do not NEED to fully understand God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/11/2008 9:13:45 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
drmark
Ya, I don't know how long I will continue to reply to this nonsense. I only did so to give an individual who reads this a glimpse of reality. I do not want an innocent individual swept away by this heresy. But, I think there has been enough said on this thread by others and myself to give people a glimpse of truth, so I think my job is done.
People must understand one simple concept. If God CAN NOT operate outside of time, then He is limited by it, and THAT is not scriptural, am I not correct Dr. Mark? (I assume that's what your title means?).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/11/2008 9:26:03 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
On last thing for people to chew on.
Anyone correct me if you believe otherwise, but is it the general consensus that the majority of saved individuals do not believe theo_book's ideology?
If this is true, then the minority (and in my opinion and experience with Christians since I was 5, a very SMALL minority) agrees with theo_book. Now, lets assume for a second theo_book is correct. If he is, then God has confused the MAJORITY of His own children, and has not done a sufficient job of explaining the issue. HMMMM...................
Again, correct me if I am wrong. But in the years since I have been saved, I can count on one hand how many Christians I've known who believes God is not beyond our understanding. Coincidence?????????
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/11/2008 11:06:27 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3137
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
People must understand one simple concept. If God CAN NOT operate outside of time, then He is limited by it, and THAT is not scriptural, am I not correct Dr. Mark? (I assume that's what your title means?). Indeed, here is my post #15 from over a month ago:
quote:
Actually, theo_book, you may want to get hold of a good commentary on Genesis to understand some of the basic grammatical constructions used in Genesis 1:1 - 2:4. Jhud is quite correct in affirming that God created the material universe including time. Anyone who thinks time must have existed for God "to Be" does not understand the concept of transcendence. God states "I AM THAT I AM", not I am because time existed for me to be!
BTW, human titles mean very little. I prefer to be known as a person of Truth. Thanks for your respect, e1ng.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/11/2008 11:49:30 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Thanks for your respect, e1ng.
No problem. I try to give respect where it is due...
BTW, I FINALLY understand this quote thingy-ma-bob! Gosh, took me long enough...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/12/2008 4:00:06 AM
|
|
|
Bee777
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
Thanks DRMARK for the link.
helps explain allot.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 5/12/2008 6:33:45 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
