Hypography Science Forums: Aireal - Viewing Profile - Hypography Science Forums

Gordon

I am very aware of the mess in English translations like the NIV, which is why I worked from the Hebrew texts. English has very little in common with ancient Hebrew.

Context is very important in the Hebrew, which is part of the problem with translations.

I use history in my book, so I fail to see the where you get that I say it has no historical value or context, but then you can’t read the whole thing from the excerpt, so I can see how you might get that. In fact I point out that an understanding of history is needed to view the Bible in the proper context. So no recursive logic failure that I can see.

I do not look at the New Testament, I have not worked on it, and don’t comment on texts I have not examined. But for my book, Jesus is not a factor as it is solely on the Old Testament Hebrew.

Polymath

Yes it is a book against organized religion.

In genesis at first faith is a personal thing, up until exodus when the priesthood takes over and turns personal faith into a religion. Which they then use for their own personal power, wealth, control over the people and kings, and as a way to take revenge on their enemies.

Not a pretty story, full of death and crimes against humanity.

I even point out that many in the Bible said the same thing, but that is overlooked by religion today, as they still seek control and power over others.

The Polymath

You hit upon the heart of the problem, God can not be proved, and I don’t even try.

But physics is not without its creation problems, where did all the energy for the Big Bang come from, “Does it just magically appear?”

But believers have many definitions for the concept of God, non-believers tend to have just one view. But if there is a God, a believer must ask themselves some hard questions. Does their view of God work through the Laws of science, or does it act like a spoiled child with magical abilities. If there is a God, and creation did not magically appear, then there must be some process, some material that God used to form the universe, and before time and matter existed, the only material God had was himself, his energy.

Physics tells us that time starts at the Big Bang, how then can physics ask, What came in time before time existed? Till science can answer these questions, we are stuck with religion.

Plus there is debate among physicists if the universe is indeed a closed system. Gravitational effects from outside our universe are currently being debated.


Moontanman

While 64 posts in 4 years is not a lot to many people, it was for me at the time. I was on the forum almost daily. But as a post often requires a reply, I seldom posted if someone else could answer the question. I was a Moderator on another forum at the time, and working, so yes, I did not post a lot, sorry.

If you think my thread is spam please report it and have it removed, no skin off my back, less work and posting for sure.

Plus I am willing to discuss it, or at least 90% of it.

As for trying to reconcile science and faith, I am not the first. Einstein tried to reconcile his faith with science, as did many other scientists over time. Deism arose in the Renaissance because scientist tried to do the same. So I am not a radical in this, it has a long history.

Of course it does not make sense to someone who does not believe in a God, and that is fine, not out to convert anyone. From their point of view, it is a waste. But my book was not aimed at them, but believers looking to reconcile their faith in a modern scientific world.

Every sect thinks they have the CORRECT view of what the Bible says. I tell people in my book not to listen to them or me. I can be just as wrong as the next guy. People should read, learn and answer these questions for themselves and not depend on others, like me.

Faith should be a personal thing between them and God. When that personal faith turns into a religion with doctrines and laws, it has went too far. For me, the story of the Bible is a story of the struggle between these opposing views of God, one personal and private, the other religious and public.

The Polymath

You are quite correct, most world religions have a Theist view of God.

Panentheist. God used part of his energy to create matter.

Science E=mc2

Both have energy being used to create matter, so the views are not too hard to reconcile.

Many native cultures had a Panentheist view, partly because it is more logical than a Theist god who magically creates stuff out of nothing.

As a Native American, I was surprised to find the Hebrew gave a Panentheist view, till the priesthood took over and created religion.

The Polymath

Very few Christians believe in a literal 6 days, the Hebrew does not suggest a 24 hour day. Some rather vocal fundamentalists believe in a 6 24 hour day for creation, but they are a minority.

Moontanman

Sorry I did not post enough for you in the 4 years I was on here. I happen to have a life and only posted if I felt something deserved a post.

The point in reconciling them has more to do with refuting the fundamentalist creationists, as stated in the excerpt from the book. They butcher science even worse than the Bible, would think you could see the value in that at the least.

A quick google of Panentheism would clarify this as well, but here are the basics.

There are 3 basic views of God. Pantheist, All of God is creation, the Laws of science that govern creation are the Laws of God, Nature worship is a primitive example of this, Einstein professed this view for most his life.

At the other end you have the Theist view of a God completely removed from creation and works in a supernatural manner with no regard for the laws of nature. This is the view held by most modern religions, including many Christians.

Panentheism fall in the middle of these extremes. God works through the laws of science, creation is part of God rather than all of God however. I am not the only theologian who is beginning to see this as the Hebrew is examined. Most English translations have not looked at the Hebrew in hundreds of years.

I go into this deeper in the book, that that is the basics.

Lastly, good question. In fact, there is nothing in my book that I have not posted about extensively for at least a decade, so I don’t mind sharing. Except in the second part which is pure physics, though some of the old related work was posted.

On the other hand, I do need to sell at least some books to cover the costs of publication.

So I will try to answer questions, and still hold back a few items of interest if I can.