The Miracle of Water.

[Hockeycowboy]

Do you ascribe to all of Newton's beliefs or just the ones that reflect your own ideas and beliefs?

Religious views of Isaac Newton - Wikipedia

According to most scholars, Newton was Arian, not holding to Trinitarianism. 'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'.[23] As well as being antitrinitarian, Newton allegedly rejected the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul,[9] a personal devil and literal demons.​

Yeah, I know! (He was so close! Lol.)

But that’s neither here nor there: it isn’t about specific beliefs in this instance. It’s about his study of the Bible, and recognizing it’s truthfulness.

If there really were valid discrepancies, he would have found them. I mean, he knew the Earth was an orb. If he thought the Bible stated otherwise, he wouldn’t have endorsed it as he did.

 

[Milton Platt]

What is a "natural process" and who invented the laws that govern the universe? Where did matter and energy come from? What makes them interact? Do you think they just popped up out of nowhere?

What law do you know that required no lawmaker?

What thing do you use for a specific purpose that was not the result of some intelligent mind addressing a need for it? Someone had to think up the concept, design the product, test it and then manufacture it.

I have a computer that I am typing on right now but if I was to tell you that it just appeared by "natural processes" and all the programs I have downloaded required no intelligent mind to invent them and then write a program for them....you'd think I was cracked....

There are way too many fortunate co-incidences for creation to be anything but the product of an intelligence way beyond our own.

Water is just part of the miracle....a very important part.

When have I ever used something that had not been designed by someone? I have used a rock to pound a stake into the ground. I have used a vine as a ladder to climb a tree. I can drink water out of a stream without having to make water or design the stream. I can use snow to ski on without having to make the snow.

A natural process is a process existing in or produced by nature (rather than by the intent of human beings).

Man formulated the laws. They are descriptive, and not proscriptive. There is a difference. It is the processes that govern nature, not the laws that describe the processes. If we had never formulated the laws, the processes would still be at work.

Your computer analogy is just a repackaging of the Watchmaker argument. We know computers do not occur due to natural processes by comparing them to things that do occur naturally, plus we know that humans design and build computers......We have direct evidence of that. We can even watch the computer being assembled. A computer is the assembly of various naturally occurring substances into a usable product by humans.

Granted, there are many things that seem improbable in the process of a universe forming, right through to life existing within it. But improbable things occur all the time. Plus we have no idea how many universes exist, or how many times one has formed, or reformed. Ditto for life. We don't know how many billions, or tens of billion times, or tens of trillion times the various chemicals interacted before the precursors of life first formed. So we have no way to determine the probability of any of those things. Any attempt to determine the probability of something for which we do not have the data to examine is just wild speculation.

 

[ecco]

Yeah, I know! (He was so close! Lol.)

But that’s neither here nor there: it isn’t about specific beliefs in this instance. It’s about his study of the Bible, and recognizing it’s truthfulness.

So, you agree with Newton's truthfulness that worshiping Christ as God is idolatry.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So, you agree with Newton's truthfulness that worshiping Christ as God is idolatry.

“Newton’s truthfulness” is not the issue here.
(Well, in a way, it is a side issue....if he was known to intentionally lie, whatever he said would be questionable. I don’t think he ever did. Do you know of an instance?)

People may have certain closely-held beliefs, but that’s based on interpretation of evidence, not necessarily facts. But facts are different!

The Earth is definitely round! There can’t be any dispute! Did Newton know this in his day? Of course!

Now, the Bible refers to the “ends of the Earth”, and the “four corners of the Earth.” (And Newton had those same words in his Bible.) Did he think these passages were ‘contradicting the facts’? No...he understood, through the context, that this was simply poetic prose, a literary device often employed in Scripture!

So, today skeptics that use this tactic, really misunderstand the Scriptures. But If they know better and still do it? Then nothing they say, can really be taken seriously.

This applies to both sides of any issue.

To answer your question: I do agree. In fact, his position on that subject influenced mine, after I did a lot of my own research.

 

[viole]

There is no substance on earth as vital for life as water is.....can it be just a fluke of nature?...or is it evidence of purposeful design?

Please watch the video and see what logical conclusion you come to.....

Jehovah's Witnesses BROADCASTING

Who can say? My impression is that any X that would help life will be classified as proof of purposeful design. So, a tautology.As having life was something special. For what we know, God loves mountains, and the Universe is fine tuned for Mount Everest and the snow on it, and life is just an unpleasant and annoying side effect.

But I can tell you that: there cannot be water before the stars, despite what your mythological book might claim.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jose Fly]

So did anyone ever figure out if @Deeje believes God personally assembles every water molecule in the universe?

 

[ecco]

“Newton’s truthfulness” is not the issue here.
(Well, in a way, it is a side issue....if he was known to intentionally lie, whatever he said would be questionable. I don’t think he ever did. Do you know of an instance?)

People may have certain closely-held beliefs, but that’s based on interpretation of evidence, not necessarily facts. But facts are different!

I didn't suggest Newton was lying. You were extolling Newton's knowledge of the Bible and using that to support your arguments. Yet when I point out that Newton didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus, you dismiss that as interpretation.

The Earth is definitely round! The can’t be any dispute! Did Newton know this in his day? Of course!

A Frisbee is round. Flat Earther's believe the world is round.

The word you are looking for is spheroidal.

Now, the Bible refers to the “ends of the Earth”, and the “four corners of the Earth.” (And Newton had those same words in his Bible.) Did he think these passages was ‘contradicting the facts’? No...he understood, through the context, that this was simply poetic prose, a literary device often employed in Scripture!

Actually, what he did, and what you are doing, is taking scripture as factual when it suits your purpose and as poetic allegory when it suits your purpose.

I refer to that as Picking and Choosing.

So, today skeptics that use this tactic, really misunderstand the Scriptures. But If they know better and still do it? Then nothing they say, can really be taken seriously.

I won't speak for skeptics in general. But for myself, I think stuff like four corners is piddling. There is plenty of big made up stuff - like the Flood and Exodus and a man somehow correctly recording the 2000+ words of the Sermon on the Mount and the discrepancies between "eyewitnesses" around the time of the "revival".

To answer your question: I do agree. In fact, his position on that subject influenced mine, after I did a lot of my own research.

Just to be clear what you are referring to here...you don't believe in Jesus' divinity.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Genesis isn't intended as literal history.

If Not literal history, then someone should inform Jesus since Jesus referred to Genesis as literal.
Gospel writer Luke gives us Jesus' DNA ancestry at Luke 3:38 starting with Adam.
Then, the old Jewish genealogical record of 1 Chronicles 1 is also Not literal, but in Scripture it is.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Who can say? My impression is that any X that would help life will be classified as proof of purposeful design. So, a tautology.As having life was something special. For what we know, God loves mountains, and the Universe is fine tuned for Mount Everest and the snow on it, and life is just an unpleasant and annoying side effect.
But I can tell you that: there cannot be water before the stars, despite what your mythological book might claim.
- viole

I would say that 'after' Adam broke God's Law loosing his perfect human health, then life is just an unpleasant and annoying side effect due to father Adam. A side effect that Adam passed down to us.

Where does the Bible might claim there cannot be water before stars.
To me, the heavens of Genesis 1:1 is the universal heavens and the heavens surrounding the Earth.
The ' face of the deep ' in verse 2 is water, so the heavens containing the stars were 'before' the face of the waters.
As the environment cleared we see by Day 4 that God gives a special job for the existing heavenly 'lights ' to do.
The already 'created lights' would now be ' made ' to rule the day and night as per Genesis 1:15-18.
So, the already created lights would be made to do something. Made to have their light reach earth's surface.
In other words, earth's atmosphere now had to be made clear enough for light to be effective on earth's surface.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Not according to most Creationists. How Old Is the Earth?
Yes it would be. But anything to make their beliefs right, goes. God lying seems to be one of them. Such a defense of beliefs! Unwilling to look at evidence.

I find Not God lying, but the so-called Creationists teaching what the Bible does Not teach.
The Earth is old and the Universe is old.
There is Nothing in Genesis saying just how old each of the creative days were.
Just as we know Noah's day was Not a mere 24-hour day.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If Not literal history, then someone should inform Jesus since Jesus referred to Genesis as literal.
Gospel writer Luke gives us Jesus' DNA ancestry at Luke 3:38 starting with Adam.
Then, the old Jewish genealogical record of 1 Chronicles 1 is also Not literal, but in Scripture it is.

No he didn't.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Well that just takes my point and reinforces it. Water was here first according to Genesis. And doesn't science infer that life began in some kind of primordial "soup"? I want to know who was the chef? No soup I have ever eaten was an accidental coming together of just the right ingredients.....

Yes agree, water was here on Earth first. That does Not mean the starry heavens came after water.
Just that under the starry heavens I find water was first on the face of the Earth as per Genesis 1:2.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No he didn't.

If Jesus was Not referring to Genesis 2:24 at Matthew 19:4-5, then to what was Jesus referring ________

 

[Windwalker]

I find Not God lying, but the so-called Creationists teaching what the Bible does Not teach.
The Earth is old and the Universe is old.
There is Nothing in Genesis saying just how old each of the creative days were.
Just as we know Noah's day was Not a mere 24-hour day.

They feel justified in their reading of the Bible, just like every little cult out there has the truth in their readings of the Bible. That should say something about how reliable reading the Bible as the supposed "authoritative" source of truth goes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are saying you know more about the Bible than Isaac Newton, who read these same words!

I know more about the world than Newton did simply by virtue of having been born centuries later. Today, we stand on the shoulders of the likes of Newton, who came before us.

Nor would I defer to Newton's interpretation of scripture over my own. Or anybody else's.

Because you're omitting a lot of other contextual verses, which emphatically show they are metaphorical, filled with hyperbole.

Please provide what you consider contextual verses that would alter the apparent meaning.

A lot is written in picturesque language. To assume it should be taken literally, is just that: assumption.

It is an assumption that the scripture is not to be taken literally, and as I said, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

OTOH, we have this accurate portrayal of the sea, at Job 38:16...."Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?" Do we observe "springs of the sea"? Yes....once men developed the technology to explore the oceans, they discovered these "springs": hydrothermal vents, but they're springs. How would the writer of Job have known this, thousands of years ago? Are "recesses" observed? Yes, the deepest discovered so far is the Mariana Trench. And there are many others! How would the writer have known about any recesses?

This is not persuasive. Recesses of the deep can refer to sea caves or even the holes in coral that the living organism occupy. If the Bible wanted to be persuasive, it should have refered to seafloor vents or chimneys or fumaroles, not recesses.

You can go through any holy book, find a dozen scriptures that can loosely be associated with modern discoveries, and call that prescient knowledge. In informal logic, we call that the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy - emphasize similarities, ignore differences, and call that meaningful.

There was a poster who once claimed that the Bible foretold of electronic telecommunications based on "Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?" - Job 38:35.If that's prophecy, it is low quality prophecy, which is not persuasive. High quality prophecy is specific and explicit.

Now, the Bible refers to the “ends of the Earth”, and the “four corners of the Earth.” (And Newton had those same words in his Bible.) Did he think these passages were ‘contradicting the facts’? No...he understood, through the context, that this was simply poetic prose, a literary device often employed in Scripture!

Newton knew more than the Bible writers. His opinions are irrelevant to the topic of what the ancients who lived several centuries to millennia before him thought.

There is Nothing in Genesis saying just how old each of the creative days were.

Except that they each had a morning and an evening.

 

[Deeje]

They feel justified in their reading of the Bible

But you don't? How do you know that yours is correct?

just like every little cult out there has the truth in their readings of the Bible.

And every mainstream church does too.....imagine...but its never really been about the numbers...has it? (Matthew 7:13-14)

That should say something about how reliable reading the Bible as the supposed "authoritative" source of truth goes.

Oh, but it does....there is a purpose to it.

" For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

There are no sources as authoritative as the word of God. How can there be?

God's word itself does the separating for God. it can divide 'soul from spirit' and 'joints from their marrow"...think about it....reading God's word can reveal the thoughts and intentions of a person's heart....just by how seriously we take the scriptures, we tell God all about ourselves. That is his intention.....

 

[Deeje]

But I can tell you that: there cannot be water before the stars, despite what your mythological book might claim.

Where does it say water is before the stars? Water was here from the beginning....and so were the heavenly bodies. (Genesis 1:1-2)

 

[Bear Wild]

Well that just takes my point and reinforces it. Water was here first according to Genesis. And doesn't science infer that life began in some kind of primordial "soup"? I want to know who was the chef? No soup I have ever eaten was an accidental coming together of just the right ingredients.....

No it just points out that water is no more important than any of the elements of molecules that make up life. Water did not come first. Other elements were formed before water. Carbon is just as important as water to life and humans are not made from clay. Cells require lipids, sugars are needed for energy. Your assertion that water is first is just another example of why Genesis is a myth not a factual account of our world.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Actually, what he did, and what you are doing, is taking scripture as factual when it suits your purpose and as poetic allegory when it suits your purpose.

No...as I said, context determines it, not what 'suits my purpose '.

In fact, there are a few things I know the Bible teaches that doesn't 'suit my purpose' or what I'd like to be true, but I know the Bible teaches it....like the condition of the dead, for one.

(The dead are "aware of nothing".)

There is plenty of big made up stuff - like the Flood and Exodus

Now you're just repeating what you've heard.

Concerning the Flood:
Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

About the Exodus:

How come, during the Hyksos Dynasty, there was a pharaoh named, "Jacob-baal"?

Why would a pharaoh have a Hebrew name?

Which Was the PharaOh of the Exodus?

There is not much evidence, that is true. But ancient kings and kingdoms were loathe to record any kind of humiliating defeat. Everyone knows that.

But evidence is there.

 

[Notaclue]

Where does it say water is before the stars? Water was here from the beginning....and so were the heavenly bodies. (Genesis 1:1-2)

Gen.1:14(NAS) Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
17God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.


The stars were made in the expanse, the fourth day.




Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.(2Cor.5:17)