Page 2 of 2 (36 items) < Previous 1 2
This post has 35 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 36091
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 3:13 PM

Ted, George, Jim -

Thank you for your well reasoned responses. It shows that the questions my template for creed analysis tries to raise do give rise to the thoughts and arguments I hoped it would.  That is very encouraging.

FYI - my father's belief is that the geological ages correspond nicely to the days of Genesis and that "days" means a period of time not a 24 hour day.  He rejects evolution. My belief is that the important theological point of Genesis 1:1-2:4a is that God is the Creator of the universe; I consider some version of evolution to be the best scientific construct we have at this time and that it is compatible with God as Creator.

However, in this thread my interest is in the form ... and in convincing Logos that support of this type of template is important.  I see the template as fitting into the Notes module. I am going to start another thread on graphic organizers (in this case tables) as another example of the importance of templates.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 2869
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 3:22 PM

JimDean:

Anyways ... suffice it to say that I firmly believe that God wrote the Bible in the WAY He wrote it because it was the BEST way for Him to communicate truth to us, in the level of detail that He felt would be most useful.  However, it just does NOT make sense that God would use such PLAIN LANGUAGE as we find in Genesis, if He really meant it as an "allegory" or as a "picture" to spiritualizingly create a lot of froth and foam of man's opinions.  Why in the world would God have CHOSEN to say "and the evening and the morning were the first day" if He wasn't TRYING to make sure we could NOT mistake it for anytthing else???  He knew then, what the foolishness of man and the clever twisting wicked subtleties of Satan would be, here in 2009.  He gave us ALL WE NEED to know what He meant ... it's up to us to STAND FIRM and be SALT to preserve it ... not turn all lukewarm and contaminate it.

Thanks for your post, much appreciated. I do believe in the 24hrs literal days of Genesis one and i never have been convinced by the various views "day age" or "framework view". I am no trained scientist so i cannot comment on the merit of the science or the scientific evidence but i am with you wholeheartedly in your stance. There are good Christian scientist who believe the bible to be the inerrant/infallible word of God who take an opposite view on scientific grounds. Could one on scientific objective grounds successfully refute their position? Thanks in advance for your response

Sir T

 

 

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 150
Jim Dean | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 4:14 PM

Hi, Sir T:

Interesting name ... I'm known in the Trading community as "Sir TANSTAAFL" - comes from prohibition-era phrase "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch".  How true, about Salvation, as well as commerce today ... His wondrous gift to us is "freely" obtainable, but  "it warn't CHEAP".  Total nonsequitur - pls forgive.

Re your question.  The answer is "certainly YES" those positions can be refuted, and yet also the answer is "of course NOT, ya gotta be kiddin' me".  Reason for the contradictory "truisms" is that the two positions (Biblical vs kosmos-based) are based on two entirely different foundations.  One asserts that the Bible IS TRUTH, and we use scientific methods to learn more about that truth ... using the BIBLE as a "filter" for what we study using scientific tools.  If the tools seem to be unable to plumb the depths, or encompass the boundaries, of the infinite universe that God has made, well, then, science just isn't up to the task, and that's that.  I do believe that there is a definitive YES answer if you permit me to presuppose that ALL the "facts" (real facts, not including unsubstantiated ideas) are available ... as they will be for us, once we KNOW as we also are known, in Glory.  God will laugh them to scorn (He DOES do that, y'know), glorifying Himself in showing how uttlerly foolish the "wisdom of the world" is, on that day (used in the non-24-hr sense ;~)

For the nonce, YES, many of the objections which are raised by atheistic or humanistic scientists & philosophers CAN be met with clear "scientific" demonstration to the contrary ... or, at a minimum, scientific alternative explanations that are equally or more likely probable than the ones they purport.

However, NO is also an appropriate answer.  REASON - the "position" taken by the ungodly in these areas SHIFTS CONTINUOUSLY.  An incredibly appropriate analogy would be that of building a "house" (of understanding of the beginnings) on a rock, vs on shifting sands.  One of my favorite examples of this is to ask the secular "scientific" community ... how fast is the earth aging?  The OBVIOUS answer is, "one year, per year".  Duhh!

But of course the goal of Satan is to obfiscate the obvious.  Ask a 'scientist" in the early 1800's how old the earth is, and most would have told you, "about 10,000 years".  Reason - that's what the Bible has taught for THOUSANDS of years, and no one had ever seriously disputed it.  Now ... jump forward in time to around 1900 ... and the "scientist" might tell you the earth is several MILLION years old.   Move forward again to around the 1950's, and the scientist will tell you the earth is BILLIONS of years old.  The "cutting-edge" modern cosmologists believe that the universe is in a continuing cycle of expansion and contraction ... endless repetitions of the big bang.

So, between approx 1800 and 2000, the age of the Earth "changed" by 4,000,000,000 minus 10,000 = 3,999,990,000 years.  That's an aging rate of 20,000,000 (20 million)  years PER YEAR!  Wow!

Almost as believable as the fairy-tale about the enchanted princess.  Y'know - the one that was turned into a frog?  And, after years of croaking sadly and scarfing down thousands of flies, a handsome (but really idiotic) prince actually KISSED the frog, and, POOF! she was a beautiful princess and they lived happily ever after! 

Why is it that our kids can figure out that the latter is a silly story, but as adults we give credence to even MORE-silly stories?  Answer:  Rom 1:18-32 !!!!!

The Bible teaches that Man is created in the Image (shadow) and Likeness (pattern) of Creator God - and that He has a PURPOSE and PLAN in each instance of that creation - that He gave His LIFE to pay for each one!  Evolution teaches that man arose from primordial slime, by an absolutely impossibly unlikely set of sequential circumstances, NONE of which have ever been demonstrated.   

Well, who would YOU rather be?  God's man, or Goo-Man  ???  (I must admit, I stole the latter from Del Tacket of the Truth Project)

Summary without all the (hopefully entertaining) verbage:  an a-theos (atheist) scientist will never accept a "proof" that leads to the overturning of his core beliefs (AGAINST GOD).  Rather, he will simply change the verbage, twist the assumptions, toss something else into the pot, stir for another billion years or so, and voila' - NEW theory ... only congruity is that it, too, is filthy rags in the sight of God.

A wonderful verse I encountered when preparing a set of messages on this topic: Jer 10:8 - a perfect description of the endeavors and path of the secular scientific thrust - "a discipline of delusion"

If, after wading through all this, you'd like to hear more but with a more of a spiritual focus, please feel free to download either the pdf's or the audio/video presentations available (no charge!) at:

To access the Folder with all the videos of the current Topic:

What Kind ... Are You? (4 sessions, so far)

(Studies in Genesis 1-4)

http://www.screencast.com/t/7ifPgEMkA7

 

If you need further instructions on how to access the video, or if you'd like to be added to my weekly distribution list, please email me at hvacsage@yahoo.com

Thanks for your interest!

In His service, and yours ...

Jim Dean

=============
Redeeming the time (Eph.5:16+Col.4:5) ...
Jim Dean

Posts 150
Jim Dean | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 4:28 PM

Oops please note my math was wrong ... not 400,000 years per year, but 20 million years/year (between 1800 and 2000).  I corrected the post.  Just goes to show how man makes mistakes!

 

But GOD - the same yesterday, today, forever!

 

hallelujah!

=============
Redeeming the time (Eph.5:16+Col.4:5) ...
Jim Dean

Posts 36091
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 6:07 PM

JimDean:
So, between approx 1800 and 2000, the age of the Earth "changed" by 4,000,000,000 minus 10,000 = 3,999,990,000 years.  That's an aging rate of 20,000,000 (20 million)  years PER YEAR!  Wow!

Wonderful rhetoric; questionable logic; which should lead to a question of whether or not we are using the same definition of science. I would define science as the epistomological system by which we build a predictive model of measurable pheonomena. It is always provisional seeking ever more accurate predictive value. Science has little or nothing to do with truth in my understanding.

Fun though your statement is, I doubt that the world underwent an age-surge; it's more likely that the the scientific model underwent a major change in predictive value. But again, the discussion is leading to a clarification of the underlying issues beneath the surface difference.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 150
Jim Dean | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 7 2009 6:46 AM

Thanks for your gracious reply, MJ.

Although strongly opinionated on these topics, I do *not* intend nor desire to be argumentative.  You've made two interesting comments which I'd enjoy the opportunity to respond to.  In essence, I agree with you - as long as the right context and perspective and limitations are applied.

I concur that your definition of science as a system of building models of measurable phenomena ... the science "system" uses the scientific method, which moves from hypothesis to theory to law, by means of testable facts. At least, it's SUPPOSED to work that way!

The key to parsing this is to understand the critical importance of the words "measurable" and "testable".  None of the ideas concerning what occured before witnessed recorded history began are testable, or measurable.  Therefore, by strict definition of the term, these ideas REMAIN "hypotheses" and never graduate even to the category of "theory" ... please refer to Webster's for definitions. 

"Evolutionists" have long spoken of their ideas as "theories" ... implying they've been tested and demonstrated to some degree, but not yet to the point of being believably applicable as a "law" in an open system.  Therefore, this promotion to "theory", if the word is intended to be used in a scientifically-correct manner, is arbitrary and indefensible.

Unfortunately, again, the "magic pixie dust" of TIME seems to have allowed these so-called "theories" to have graduated to "laws" and even "facts", when you listen to less-scientifically-informed laypeople speak of them.  Intelligent, thoughtful laypeople.  Brought up during the past 20-50 years in which these satanically-sourced attacks on the TRUTH have been widely promulgated.

So ... my first point is that your definition of science is a good one ... but science CANNOT, by definition, be applied to unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable phenomena.  The entire question of ORIGINS is by its nature a philosophical (friend of wisdom) one, and both the apprehension of it and the dedication to is it is by nature a choice of faith, that cannot be "proven" nor disproven.  UNLESS ... unless ... you believe God has told the accurate truth about what He did ... for HE was the only witness that we can currently hear from (the angels will paen praise to God about this in glory, however - and we will hear other witnesses' testimony).  Then, the faith is placed in GOD and in His character ... once that faith is in place, what He says is naturally treated as FACT, as TRUTH.  Even when it is not "testable" in a scientific sense.

Regarding your statement "Science has little or nothing to do with truth in my understanding".  I chuckled a bit at that, because, sadly, too often it is very true.  Science offers us TOOLS.  We use them as we might.  Secular scientists by and large have a desire to use those tools to demonstrate the primacy of MAN, and obviously, whatever comes from that will NOT be "truth".

However, the Bible is most definitely about TRUTH.  And, knowing that, we can USE scientific methods, starting with that foundation of TRUTH (= indisputable, unchanging FACT), to learn more about this marvellous creation of God.  There is no need for "science" to be tasked with "proving" the Bible.  HOW absurd a thought!  Similar to the idea of man, judging God!   However, when applied atop the BASIS of truth proclaimed in the Bible, science most definitely CAN and DOES have a connection to TRUTH.  It's just that the horse needs to be put in front of the cart.  We must choose to view ALL things through the lens of God's Word ... not the other way around.

 

To put it another way ... I'm fond of promoting the idea that successful service and worship in a Christian's life is all about two words: "GOD-AWARENESS":

1. To be AWARE OF GOD in all our pursuits and thoughts and dreams, and to ever strive to learn more about Him.  Rom 12:1

2. To cultivate/gain GOD'S AWARENESS of our own hearts, and of the world around us ... to see things as He sees them.  Rom 12:2

 

Of course the "cutesy" story about the "rapid aging" of the earth was shared to make a point ... no secular scientist today would say that the scientific opinions of 100=200 years ago in this arena were correct.  The point is, as you stated, and as I stated in answer to a prior question ... in the final analysis, when it comes to the issues of origins, or of any spiritually-related issues, or anything else that is not measurable and testable, science has NO firm foundation.  Archimedes would understand this well ... even with a long enough lever, he could not move the world, for lack of a pivot to ground it against.

 

The only viable foundation for the search of knowledge and wisdom is JESUS ... the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life.

 

=============
Redeeming the time (Eph.5:16+Col.4:5) ...
Jim Dean

Posts 2869
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 7 2009 1:00 PM

JimDean:
The only viable foundation for the search of knowledge and wisdom is JESUS ... the Way, the TRUTH, and t

Hi Jim thanks for your comments and your video links - great. Are there books you could recommend on the subject? The best i have read on the subject is by Jonathan Sarfati Refuting Compromise ,what a great read. I would be grateful if you could point some resources out to me. Thanks

Ted

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 150
Jim Dean | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 7 2009 2:41 PM

Hi, Ted:

I got your email, and provided a response there.  I think I got off on the wrong foot in the forums by posting stuff that's apparently not really in line with the intent.  So, I'll stay off-line about stuff like this in the future.  Anyone interested in discussing Biblical truth, please feel free to email me - or just go to the link provided earlier to check out some PDF's and videos if you'd like.

To anyone/everyone who may have been unhappy about my prior ramblings ... please accept my apology and assurance that any FUTURE ramblings will be "on-topic", about Libronix use.

In His service, and yours ...

=============
Redeeming the time (Eph.5:16+Col.4:5) ...
Jim Dean

Posts 36091
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 7 2009 5:31 PM

JimDean:
please accept my apology and assurance that any FUTURE ramblings will be "on-topic", about Libronix use.

The forums seem to me to be neither more nor less likely to drift off-topic than the news groups. And this thread did not devolve into name-calling - which rarely happens but is occuring on a separate thread (and yes, I inserted my off-topic humor into that thread).  While I agree with Rich that it is important to remember that this is a Logos oriented set of forums - a fact that many of us need to be reminded of now and then (thanks, Rich), in a thread such as this - my intent was to stimulate thought on how to use Logos resources in studying creeds and to illustrate why more template-oriented functions are needed.  I think that the discussion while it became concrete rather than staying theoretical illustrated exactly what I want Logos to know as well as giving me useful feedback. So, yes, it is time to let the theological debate drop - but don't feel that you were at all inappropriate or responsible for Rich's comments.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 150
Jim Dean | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 7 2009 5:57 PM

Thank you, MJ.

Re your core topic.  Could you please bring me up to speed on what you mean by a "template"?  I'm very familiar with Workspaces in Libronix.  I also am used to thinking of templates for Excel and Word, etc.  Is there some kind of Template feature of Libronix that I don't know about?  Or are you trying to encourage them to provide one?  If so, what would be its features?

=============
Redeeming the time (Eph.5:16+Col.4:5) ...
Jim Dean

Posts 36091
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 7 2009 8:28 PM

JimDean:
Or are you trying to encourage them to provide one?  If so, what would be its features?

I'm trying to encourage them to provide one They could take it in either of two directions and still keep me happy (for awhile):

1) they could make an XML interface to allow 3rd party addins - things like the Lesson Builder and a variety of worksheets could be supported this way

and/or

2) they could make it possible to build templates for notes - I'm thinking something fairly basic like the editting they have in the Sermon Builder.

I also use the term "template" when I request that they make it possible to reuse manually constructed Bible Reading Plans - but the limitations of that product go far beyond a missing template.

I'm sure that others have different but related needs

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 271
Don | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 14 2009 6:23 AM
MJ, Saw this and thought it might be of interest to you given your penchant for creeds. The Will to Believe and the Need for Creed
Posts 36091
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 14 2009 11:46 AM

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 4625
RIP
Milford Charles Murray | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 14 2009 6:19 PM

Don:
MJ, Saw this and thought it might be of interest to you given your penchant for creeds. The Will to Believe and the Need for Creed

 

Don, Peace and Joy to you!             *smile*

     Thank you so much for that link!  A myriad of Wonderful things to ponder ....

Yours in Christ,

      ........   Mel

Philippians 4:  4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........

Posts 428
Calvin Habig | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Oct 26 2021 8:20 AM

M.J.

I came across this thread today and was intrigued.  Do you have an updated version of this proto-template "Analyzing a Creed"?  Fascinating.

Thanks for all you do. 

Cal Habig

Posts 36091
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Oct 26 2021 1:12 PM

Not that is in shareable forum; I did add an allignment to the systemaic theology coding andd convert it into a workflow which is unusable due to the restriction of workflows to a single Biblical text. I drifted down the rabbit trail of testing how Prolog could serve as a way to verify the compatibility of the asserts presented by a creed.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Page 2 of 2 (36 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS