Evidence for God from Science

I understand the difficulties of learning a new language, LT. The same happened to me when I had to spend 15 months in another country. Sometimes it was very difficult and some people did not try to help me because I could not speak their language.

There are some translations of the bible that may be easier for you to understand, such as the Living Bible or the New Living translation. Or you may consider a children's bible. Not because you are a child but because the languge is usually simpler and easier to understand.

I would not worry about "should I read it literally" or "should I read figuratively". Just read it. I think you will understand the bible much easier than "Yada Yahweh".

If you ever need help or if you have questions, ask me or post it somewhere on this forum. There are many very good christians here who can help you understand .. Go with God, LT.

Hello Forum Monk,

I'm sorry for my late reply (VERY late in fact), I had lots of things to do, problems to solve, etc...

There are some translations of the bible that may be easier for you to understand, such as the Living Bible or the New Living translation. Or you may consider a children's bible. Not because you are a child but because the languge is usually simpler and easier to understand.

I appreciate your suggestion, but my problem is not understanding the Bible. I can understand it clearly, and I read it often ( at least when I can). My problem is another.

I would not worry about "should I read it literally" or "should I read figuratively". Just read it. I think you will understand the bible much easier than "Yada Yahweh".

The entire idea behind Yada Yahweh's conception is that the Bible we read now is "blurred" so to say, and many times we lose the real meaning of the passages and verses. I still have to finish my reading of Yada Yahweh, but I decided that there is definetly truth on it. My question is: to what extent?
After reading Yada Yahweh I cant call God "Lord" anymore, just Yahuweh.
I dont agree with everything Craig writes, but I found a lot of it to be true.
Please read some chapters of Yada Yahweh, and you will see that he backs up his conclusion with dictionaries and the like. I'm not willing to put Yada Yahweh aside because I found truth on it, my friend.

If you ever need help or if you have questions, ask me or post it somewhere on this forum. There are many very good christians here who can help you understand

Thank you Monk, I will ask if I dont find the answer myself.

Go with God, LT.

You too Monk

I feel realy bad, because I hold God's Scriptures in my hand and I dont know how to read it

I think we can get bibles in just about any language nowadays, can't we? Check this out. http://www.wycliffe.org

FFC wrote:I think we can get bibles in just about any language nowadays, can't we? Check this out. http://www.wycliffe.org

Hi FFC,
For some reason, I assumed L/T was trying to read an english bible translation. It did not occur to me until a week after my post that, of course the Bible has been translated into practically every language in the world. I felt a bit foolish afterward.

Looking for the Truth wrote:Please read some chapters of Yada Yahweh, and you will see that he backs up his conclusion with dictionaries and the like. I'm not willing to put Yada Yahweh aside because I found truth on it, my friend.

I will read some more of it when I get the chance. In any case, it should be interesting to understand more fully what their premise it, so if discussions arise in the future I can speak from more experience.

Best to you, L/T
FM

Looking for the Truth wrote:With that in mind, let's compare our clock to His. To do that we must multiply the approximately 15,000,000,000 year age of the cosmos by 365.25 days per year so that both clocks conform to the same unit of measure. 15,000,000,000 years x 365.25 day/year = 5,478,750,000,000 days (plus or minus 10%, or 1.5 billion years).

Then to calibrate this 5.5 trillion day period to creation's clock, respecting the relativistic nature of time, we must divide earth time in days since creation by the amount time was slowed at creation. Earlier, we determined this number by averaging the coefficients derived from the four methods from which it can be deduced. Big Bang time ran 0.9 x 1012 (900,000,000,000) times slower than earth time does now.

I'm going to go more with Forum Monk and less with zoegirl on this one. [In order to be fair, since I haven't read FM's original source, I won't read the link provide either:-)]
1) Why in first paragraph does time since creation (15 billion years) correspond to 1 God year of 365 days?
2) Even if Big Bang time was slower, that presumably only applied for a fraction of a second; most of the 15 billion years proceeded at normal time, so why divide by this number?
Perhaps I should look up the relevant links.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Looking for the Truth wrote:With that in mind, let's compare our clock to His. To do that we must multiply the approximately 15,000,000,000 year age of the cosmos by 365.25 days per year so that both clocks conform to the same unit of measure. 15,000,000,000 years x 365.25 day/year = 5,478,750,000,000 days (plus or minus 10%, or 1.5 billion years).

Then to calibrate this 5.5 trillion day period to creation's clock, respecting the relativistic nature of time, we must divide earth time in days since creation by the amount time was slowed at creation. Earlier, we determined this number by averaging the coefficients derived from the four methods from which it can be deduced. Big Bang time ran 0.9 x 1012 (900,000,000,000) times slower than earth time does now.

I'm going to go more with Forum Monk and less with zoegirl on this one. [In order to be fair, since I haven't read FM's original source, I won't read the link provide either:-)]
1) Why in first paragraph does time since creation (15 billion years) correspond to 1 God year of 365 days?
2) Even if Big Bang time was slower, that presumably only applied for a fraction of a second; most of the 15 billion years proceeded at normal time, so why divide by this number?
Perhaps I should look up the relevant links.

I can't answer you (and I'm sorry if your questions were rhetorical), but maybe you should read The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder.

And Monk I'm waiting anxiously for your answer, but please dont hurry. And please forum people, read it (I'm referring to Yada Yahweh) too so we can discuss it here.

LT

Sorry L/T, what question did you ask me? Or are you waiting for me to read Yada Yahweh so it can be discussed???

Forum Monk wrote:Sorry L/T, what question did you ask me? Or are you waiting for me to read Yada Yahweh so it can be discussed???

I am waiting you to read Yada Yahweh so we can discuss it, but please, know that you dont have to hurry.

Forum Monk wrote:

Looking for the Truth wrote:I cant write about the rest because my knowledge of science does not permit it. Please understand, I'm not a fan of Craig. I'm just discussing a new way of looking at Genesis. I think that many verses in Genesis are allegorical, even though they portray some truth. Adam and Eve eating the
apple is one exemple.
Besides what do you have to say about the quote I posted on the first post?
Do you think that Adam and Eve were the first humans or they just portray
God creating humankind?

I like your name Looking for the Truth but I hope you don't mind if I simply call you LT. I think it is good if you ask God to enlighten you about which way to take the Bible as you will see several points of view about that on these pages.

I have many things I can say about the first quotation you made in the first post. It is basically the exact words of the Dr. Schroeder I referenced previously. It supposes, of course, the cosmology of the Big Bang is correct and depends on the principle that as time-space has stretched, the univeral 'clock' has slowed (or speeded up depending on your frame of reference). Big bang and relativity are complicated but within the realm of understandability by the layman.

Nevertheless, many, myself included, hold that truth does not begin with the Big Bang because it does not answer the fundemental question, where did the singularity which exploded into the universe orginate? What was its beginning? We know that God, who is Truth, is eternal and had no beginning. It is an amazing thing that the eternal God who spoke and all things came into existance from nothing, desires to have a personal relationship with us. In my opinion, LT, there are no certainties in science, only probabilities based on our limited view of reality. I suggest you find Truth first if you haven't all ready, then study science.

I believe that Adam and Eve were literal and real human beings, created by God. They are not allegorical. God's marvelous plan of redemption began with that first man, though He had planned it long before. We are discussing these things now in the link I provided previously.

Monk, i respect your opinions and knowledge, but I also believe that even as Christians we can be more open minded (but obviously not to the point where we are mislead by ideals and conventions of the secular world). What i reffer to is your reply to Looking for the Truth, and "LT's" views about creation (in specific Adam and Eve).

If you were familiar with the assumptions of astro and quantum physics, you would realise that scientists who follow the big bang school of thought actually validate (which I guess is all that science can really do when talking about God) the existence of God with the singularity model. i explained this in rough and "in context" detail on this forum: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... f=6&t=3015
Basically, for the singularity to have expanded (the big bang), it has to have been observed by a sentient being, which exists outside on a plain seperate from our universe. A being who is constantly observing, and who could therefore have the ability to influence events in our universe. God. Quantum and relative physics also suggest that sentient intent can cause sub atomic particles to act and react. There lies the origin of the singularity. God wanted to create us, and for all we know He could have used the singularity to do it.

"Many aspects of our universe, especially at the sub-atomic and galactic levels, demonstrate cognitive awareness. Examples might be the half-lives of radioactive decay, whereby individual particles demonstrate coordinated behavior, and the ability of living cells and inorganic light to consciously communicate with and influence the behavior of others."

This is giving human qualities to particles and galaxies.

No, I believe that this is giving God qualities to creations of God. If we as humans, his creations, are created in His image, who is to say that God hasn't put some level of His imprint, signature or spirit in all of His creation? We can't rule out that levels of the sentient and spirit nature of God exist in the entirety of his creation. If a dog or cow can have feelings (feel happy or sad) like God does, how can we rule out that sub-atomic particles (the fundamental elements of our physical make-up) also have a level of God likeness?

I do wholey agree with your view that the depiction of Adam and Eve in Genesis is literal. Their decisions are important for the church to realise and acknowledge the deplore of humankind. And I believe that God, as proud of His creation as He was, He depicted the first man as a show of how sin began, and has affected generations because of Adam and Eve's single sin.

chukura wrote:If you were familiar with the assumptions of astro and quantum physics

I am but I am certainly not a physicist.

Basically, for the singularity to have expanded (the big bang), it has to have been observed by a sentient being, which exists outside on a plain seperate from our universe. A being who is constantly observing, and who could therefore have the ability to influence events in our universe. God. Quantum and relative physics also suggest that sentient intent can cause sub atomic particles to act and react. There lies the origin of the singularity. God wanted to create us, and for all we know He could have used the singularity to do it.

I don't quite follow the reasoning since I think in some respects you are mixing your theories in a way that I have not seen traditional physics do. Where in the Big Bang theory does it state that it must be observed by a sentient being in order to have occurred? Further I don't quite understand your reasoning that sentient intent is required to cause sub atomic particules to act and react. I don't necessarily disagree on some levels, however. According to quantum theory, there exists an infinite number of possibilites which are then selected by observation or measurement. So it seems the natural, unobserved state of matter is nondeterministic and only by observation does it become determined. This can in fact be a scientific discovery of the fact that all things exist within Christ and so its his knowledge and 'sentience' which holds together our observable universe in a deterministic structure.

how can we rule out that sub-atomic particles (the fundamental elements of our physical make-up) also have a level of God likeness?

Well God did say, let us create man in our likeness. I missed the part where he said let us create everything in our likeness. It is a pantheistic point of view I think. Think I'll mosey over to your other discussion and see if I can add anything.

Regards,
FM

I didn't bother reading the website, and the reason was this statement:

Then to calibrate this 5.5 trillion day period to creation's clock, respecting the relativistic nature of time, we must divide earth time in days since creation by the amount time was slowed at creation. Earlier, we determined this number by averaging the coefficients derived from the four methods from which it can be deduced. Big Bang time ran 0.9 x 1012 (900,000,000,000) times slower than earth time does now.

Well, let's just assume he is right. By his math, then, each "day" represents 2.5 billion years. My Bible says the God made the earth on the second day. The third day there were plants. That would mean the earth itself is 12 billion years old. Plants would be 7.5 billion years old. The sun's creation/appearance would have been at 5 billion years. Animals would have appeared about 2.5 billion years ago, and humans in the relatively recent past.

So . . . with exception to the very last day and the grand total being six "days," everything else is way, way, way off no matter who you ask. This is just somebody else trying to be clever, imho.

Jac3510 wrote:I didn't bother reading the website, and the reason was this statement:

Then to calibrate this 5.5 trillion day period to creation's clock, respecting the relativistic nature of time, we must divide earth time in days since creation by the amount time was slowed at creation. Earlier, we determined this number by averaging the coefficients derived from the four methods from which it can be deduced. Big Bang time ran 0.9 x 1012 (900,000,000,000) times slower than earth time does now.

Well, let's just assume he is right. By his math, then, each "day" represents 2.5 billion years. My Bible says the God made the earth on the second day. The third day there were plants. That would mean the earth itself is 12 billion years old. Plants would be 7.5 billion years old. The sun's creation/appearance would have been at 5 billion years. Animals would have appeared about 2.5 billion years ago, and humans in the relatively recent past.

So . . . with exception to the very last day and the grand total being six "days," everything else is way, way, way off no matter who you ask. This is just somebody else trying to be clever, imho.

Are you sure you are not taking this out of context? He doesnt say that each day is 2.5 billion years. If you read the initial chapters you will see...And I dont think the author made this up, I think he got it from the book called "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder. And I dont believe its wise to discard his ENTIRE website because of this mistake (if any). Anyways, thank you for your input Jac, God bless you

And for those interested in Yada Yahweh, they have a forum right know. Im registered there as "Believer".
Here is the link:
http://yadanews.com/

God bless!!!
LT

I have read Yada Yahweh; all 1000 pages. More than once. While I agree that Craig Winn is overly dogmatic and way too sure of his opinion in many instances, he has much to contribute. The truth is that he stops short - just short - of judgement. I think that he wants to scare people into waking up rather than sleep walking through their faith. His material is well researched and presented with a loving desire that we all get to know Yahweh. It is good that he points out the morphological components of current translations; the word of God, not the current vogue interpretations of man at any particular point in time is what matters. And I for one have always been troubled about our collective sick and absolutely unfounded abandonment of the Sabbath.

If you can get past the reality that doctrine hair-splitting is rampant, you can most likely learn much from Yada Yahweh and you can feel free to disregard the rest. On the other hand, all of Schroeder's works are brilliant

Nice one...

I've been working on this project for a while and i totally embrace the subject.
Let's put it this way.if in the beginning God made the heavens and the earth independent of a time and values.we should expect that the time,age of the universe are differential to the post creationism time which is just fragmented divisions in perfect divisions in appopriation to the present world's system of time...
In conclusion 6days aint 6 x 24hrs.It had to be 6days on God's own time cause a day in God's eyes could be a million on this mortalish earth.

Hope you read btw my line properly.