Daniel's Commentary on John's Prologue

Daniel's Commentary on John's Prologue
By Daniel Gregg


KJV John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The essential nature of God is Spirit (John 4:24) which is unseen and does not have physical manifestation (Luke 24:39). No one has seen God in his Spiritual Essence at any time (John 1:18). In order to relate to His creation, God manifests an image of himself or what John calls logos. The meaning of logos in the best English is "expression". The logos is God's expression of himself in physical form.
The Scripture commands us to make no image of God. Being sinful, if we were to make an image of God, it would be corrupt. However, God does make an image of himself whenever he manifests himself to Israel. He speaks 'face to face' with Moses (Exodus 33:11). He appears to Abraham (Genesis 18:1). God does not frequently appear to men because of our sinfulness, however, when He appears he does it through his image, or expression of himself, His Word. Even in Isaiah 6, where the prophet sees YHWH high and lifted up, he is seeing God expressing himself.
Jacob says, "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved" (Genesis 32:30). Why was Jacob concerned about seeing God? For the Scripture says, "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live" (KJV Exodus 33:20). Yet we have just observed that Moses spoke "face to face" with YHWH (Exodus 33:11). If there was ever an apparent contradiction to be explained, then this is it. The explanation is that God manifests himself in different ways. In the fire on Mt. Sinai, He appeared in such a way that a sight of His face would kill Moses. However, at other times he manifested in such a way that speaking with him "face to face" would not result in death.
The two statements are made in the same chapter of Exodus. The difference between the two manifestations is that God manifested all his "goodness" and "glory" that could be manifested in a physical form when he let Moses see his back. The knowledge of sin that would be communicated to Moses and righteousness in God's glorified manifestation would cause guilt to rise up and slay oneself – if he had let him see his face at that time.
God is Spirit in his nature, and no one sees the Spirit. Even in heaven God manifests himself with an image, but this manifestation is chosen to reflect his glory, his righteousness, his goodness and his mercy. Man is not to create an image of God, however, in heaven, and at infrequent intervals on earth, God manifests an image of Himself, and through this image he receives worship and relates to His creation.
The image of God's own creation, therefore, is identified with Himself because it is communicating what the Spirit that wears the image is like. Much in the same way that you look at a person in real life and gain a knowledge of what they are like by how they act and express themselves, so also we gain a knowledge of God by the way he expressed himself in human form. The Person or Spirit in the Word of God (Expression of God) is God Himself. It is not some other created spirit or some other created person. It is the Spirit of YHWH. Therefore, John says, "the Word was God."
Why does he say that the Word was in the beginning? Because God has always expressed himself. Why does he say that the Word was with God? He says this because the only God also manifests himself in a multipersonal way that we do not yet fully understand.

KJV John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John emphasizes that the Word/Expression was with God in the beginning. All things were made by the Word of God. The Word is not wisdom detached from God. Wisdom is knowledge like mathematics. 1+1 = 2. That is eternal wisdom. It always was true and always will be true. And it was always with God. However, detached mathematics or wisdom did not create all things. God created all things. For he is living wisdom in Himself.

KJV John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

In the Word was life. This is because God Himself is in God's Expression of Himself, and He is Eternal Life. This life gives light to men. Light is a metaphor for truth. It is the truth of what life is, and how things are. The truth helps us to see how to live. It is said that God's "Torah" or instruction is His Word. When it is written on Torah Scrolls it is the "word" detached from God. However, in God's Expression of Himself, he is the living "torah" or living manifestation of righteousness. God Himself is the Eternal living righteousness that is described in the Scripture. For this reason the Word of God is called YHWH our Righteousness (Jer. 23:6).

KJV John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

This is better translated, "and the darkness grasped it not". This means that the truth was shown to sinful man, but sinful man did not "grasp," the truth, either by pulling it down, or by understanding it. It is also an allusion to Genesis where God created light, just as vs. 1 is an allusion to Genesis. However, this light transcends the created light. It is in fact a metaphor for the eternal truth that in the Word.

John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might faithfully trust.

His Hebrew name was "Yokhanan". He was a prophet in the Spirit of Elijah, which was actually God's Spirit upon him. He was not Elijah himself. For Elijah himself, the prophet, still comes at the end of days. But like Elisha who received a double portion of God's Spirit upon him, so also Yokhanan received God's Spirit upon him. Yokhanan was the prophetic witness to the Light. So also at the end of days, Elijah will be one of the prophetic witnesses to the light.

KJV John 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

John says "he was not that Light" because there were followers of John the Baptist (Immerser) that did not listen to his message about Yeshua. John also emphasizes that the "light" or "truth" made the world because some were gnostics who despised the creation and claimed that the light did not make the world. Likewise, the gnostics said that the light was only for the select few, but John says that the light gives light to every man who is exposed to it.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that faithfully trust on his Name: 13 Which are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

"His own" means Israel, and particularly the tribe of Judah out of which he was born of the line of David, but they did not recognize the LORD's appearance among them. Nevertheless, many did accept him. To us he gives "power" or the "right" to become "the children of God". This does not mean that this is fully realized yet. For we do not receive the fullness of our inheritance until the end of days. However, we have the promise if we are faithful and endure to the end.
What does it mean to trust in his Name? The concept of "name" means God's reputation, his glory, is character, and all the goodness that he caused to pass by Moses. For Yeshua has the Name above all names. To "faithfully trust in his Name" is one and the same act as Abraham's "faithfully trusting in YHWH". It is to believe God's promise, and to put your trust in the LORD.
God's name is not just a mere identification label. We do not just know God by the way we call his Name, but we know God by obeying his commandments (1 John 2:3). For His commandments express who God is. To know God, we must take on His righteousness. We must trust Him to transform us into the likeness of his image. This is what it means to faithfully trust in the Name of Yeshua. We must acknowledge Him as the one to trust, and the one who deserves our faith and loyalty. This the same faith and trust that Abraham gave to YHWH, a faith and trust that only God has a right to receive.
In vs. 13, the translation should better be "Which are born" rather than "were born". The Greek aorist tense is really the "undefined" tense, which is what "aorist" means in Greek. The will of God is to write his laws on our hearts, and this is a process until the end of days. Therefore, the English present better captures the sense, and avoids the need for the excesses of Calvinism.

KJV John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

This titanic verse slays all forms of Gnosticism. The Word became flesh. God expressed himself by taking on a human fleshly body. He became Yeshua. How is it possible for the Eternal Infinite God to become a man? This involves the ability of God to self limit Himself and yet remain in Spiritual Essence the Eternal God. Christianity and Judaism have made this difficult by adopting Hellenistic or Greek concepts of philosophy. It is the philosophy that results in the apparent contradictions, and not the Scripture. Sometimes the translation of a text here or there is motivated by the philosophy.
John states, "we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only unique one of the Father". This word monogenes was for a long time misunderstood until better Greek research uncovered the original meaning. Although Yeshua was born of a Virgin, that is not the focus of this word. The focus is that Yeshua is the unique expression of God our Father taking human form. I mentioned before that God is mysteriously multipersonal. Scripture gives us hints. It speaks of the seven Spirits of God. These are not just aspects or characteristics of God, but personal conscious expressions of God's character, which are identified as YHWH, and represented as "eyes" in the Scripture.
This is possible if we understand the Shema rightly, "Hear O Israel, YHWH is our Elohim, YHWH only" (Deut. 6:4). The statement at the end of the confession, "YHWH alone" is not meant to define God as "one person". That is, it is not meant to limit him to expressing himself as one person. Rather, it is external to God, and meant to limit only YHWH to being the Eternal God, without trying to define an absolute philosophical internal oneness in a Hellenistic sense. The one Lord YHWH can subsist and express Himself as He wishes. In English the adjective comes before the noun. In Hebrew it comes after. Therefore, YHWH echad may be "one YHWH" in the context and not "YHWH [is] one" which is trite in the context and does nothing to exclude idolatary. In idiomatic English, "YHWH only" is probably best.

KJV John 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Here, John the Baptist is acknowledging Yeshua's divinity. He was before John, because He appeared to Abraham (Genesis 18:1) and spoke face to face with Moses. This is what many Jews at this time would have understood him to be saying. They knew that YHWH might show up in human form or angelic form to Israel. For he had done it before. He had so appeared to Jacob, to Moses, to Samson's parents, and to Gideon. Judaism in its modern form did not exist. Judaism was much less Hellenized at the time, and had not incorporated reactionary philosophy to inoculate itself from the followers of Yeshua. Later, Judaism mutated – adopting principles designed to prevent an understanding of Yeshua as YHWH taking human form. This was in rebellion against the truth. One of the things that Judaism does is to say that when Israel saw YHWH they only saw a vision. This is a transparent attempt to remove any Scriptural precedent or basis for Yeshua being YHWH manifesting himself in human form. This point of view has saturated the thinking of unbelieving Jews. In order to truly trust the LORD Yeshua they have to be released from this error.

KJV John 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but the grace and the truth came by Jesus Christ.

The conjunction "but" here is appropriately in italics. It does not belong. The contrast is not meant to be oppositional. We must also put back into the text the definite article that was left out in the translation, "the grace," and "the truth". What is the grace and the truth? The Torah (Law) contains, "the grace" and "the truth", but where did this grace and truth come from before Moses received it? It came from Yeshua the Messiah, because this was the one on Mt. Sinai that the elders of Israel did see with their eyes, and yet he did not lay a hand on the sons of Israel (Exodus 24:10-11). We must not look with the antinomians to a new grace and truth given to contradict the Torah, but to the grace and truth that was the source of the Torah in Messiah Yeshua whom they saw on Mt. Sinai before he was born of a Virgin.


John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only unique God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath expressed him.

Here it is necessary to correct the KJV. Better Greek texts read "the only unique God" which is actually a stronger statement of who Yeshua is than the word "Son". We should recall that in Exodus 33:11 that YHWH speaks "face to face" with Moses, but that in vs. 20 Moses is not allowed to see YHWH's face. This is what John is explaining. When YHWH expresses himself in a form we can see face to face, then Yeshua Messiah is the one who expresses him. But God in his glory, sinful man is not allowed to see without paying the penalty, nor can anyone see God in his essence as Spirit.
There is another sense of Yeshua and the Father being "one" expressed in John 10:30, 17:11, 21, but this is not the same "ekhad" as in the Shema. There is means only YHWH is Elohim. What Yeshua is saying is that He relates to the Father with a oneness that we also can experience with Him.

Notice

Peter's blog is found at: http://daat-erwat.blogspot.com/ .

Dr. Buow

Daniel's Comment on Peter's critique of Dr. Bouw.

Bouw’s argument for the occurrence of a solid, imperceptible “firmament” is a case of ad hoc argumentation.

From my earlier response:

Some creationist Cosmologists have suggested the possibility of a solid substructure for the expanse itself at the level of super-string physics.

Of course, when Dr. Bouw talks about "solid" he is extending the language to a new use. What he really means is a mathematical concept that describes the super small structure of the universe. We should regard the biblical language in the same light. Nobody really knows what causes gravity. Tom Van Flandern has an interesting "C" graviton theory. But somehow the heavens hang on what appears to be "nothing" to the naked eye. Super-string theory is really no different. It is just a model to explain the super small structure of the universe.

Dr. Buow was trying to create a model to fit the biblical parameters. It is not the only possible model, but it is a good idea, and so far there is nothing "unscientific" about it. Since there is no contradiction between science and the Genesis definiton of the RAQIA, Dr. Buow's model is not ad hoc. Ad hoc means and argument that is ASSUMED for the purpose of deflecting a criticism that would logically disprove one's position. Dr. Buow probably did not propose his theory to bail himself out of a difficulty with an opponent.

That is, he construes his case not because the evidence suggests that
any such “firmament” exists but because his view of Genesis requires it to
exist. Ad hoc argumentation does not falsify an argument; however, it
does raise red flags. Yes, it may be true that such an edifice could exist in
the constraints of theoretical physics, yet, there is absolutely no evidence for its existence.

It is really unfair to put the label of "Ad Hoc" on Buow. A "red flag" is a suspicion that Dr. Buow's model was created in desperation to make Genesis "work". I don't think Dr. Buow was in any desperation. This
assumption comes from the a priori assumption that Genesis cannot be logically explained, and shows a failure to be able to anaylze the argument from the other side.

I'm glad to see that you have slightly conceeded that Dr. Buow's theory fits the language of RAQIA. It undermines the certainty of your own position.

In addition to Bouw’s fallacious statements about the nature or role of the
“firmament” in Genesis 1, he makes additional exegetical fallacies. First, he is missing a grasp of the sitz im leben (situation of life) of the earliest readers of this narrative. It is imperative that the exegete ask herself what the earliest reader would have understood a passag. It is absurd to read current exigencies into a text; hence, it would be absurd to expect Genesis to identify the occurrence of a “firmament” that had no practical relativity to the interpretive community. The ancient Hebrews evidence no indications of a cosmology physically divergent from their neighbors—they accepted the same basic model of a flat earth and a vaulted firmament.

This opinion comes from failure to see that Genesis is logically consistent with its main parameters of reality, and that there are MANY scientific hypothesis that can fit within the revealed statements. Dr. Buow's theory is one that fits in the parameters. To suggest that Scientists are required to assume the level of knowledge of an ancient farmer as a basis for proposing theories is ludicrous. Scripture only gives the boundaries. It does not limit what can be proposed within those boundaries. It is not a violoation of SITZ IM LEBEN to propose a more complex explanation within the revealed language. The earliest reader would have understood that RAQIA means Heavens. If someone had come along and explained the physics substructure of the RAQIA or things he did not know, then it is still according to the ancient context. The farmer would merely see that the theory fits the parameters he already knew from revealed truth.

We should not suppose that RAQIA means vaulted firmament in the crass sense of a touchably solid dome. Genesis defines it as "heavens" as I already pointed out in my first response.

In addition to missing the sitz im leben of Genesis 1’s original readers, Bouw fails to address what the text specifies as the purpose for the firmament-rakia. Bouw’s “firmament” appears to serve no real-world function other than to evidence his interpretation of a Hebrew creation myth.

Then you should read Buow's proposal more thoroughly. His theory has the unique advantage of an Earth-Centered-Universe. The RAQIA moves around the earth once each sideral day. The heavenly bodies move in the RAQIA with respect to it as a reference point. Given the Genesis language, it is allowable. Modern Science does not exclude it.

Finally, Bouw’s argument is defensive—not offensive. That is, his argument does not explain anything. Rather, it seeks only to redress the maculatory nature of the Genesis firmament-rakia.

For one, it explains a structure that may guide the heavenly bodies. For two, it explains how the universe might rotate. That's not nothing. "Defensive/Offensive" is all in the eye of the beholder. It is not legitimate argument to win the argument by defining the opposition.


I will develop more about the firmament-rakia in short order…

Biblical Cosmologies, Part II

Biblical
Cosmologies, Part 2: Daniel's Response (in red).

The reader will notice that the term “biblical cosmology” is not used in the singular. The author finds that it is tenuous to assume that the biblical authors envisioned an identical model of the cosmos. Though the models of the cosmos found in the biblical texts contain commonalities, not every portrait is comprehensive. Some portraits focus on only one constituent of the cosmos while others reflect on a more complete
construal. Hence, the author will focus on the explicit cosmological aspects of a given passage before addressing implicit connections.

The thesis continues without the actual evidence argued. It is my observation that evolutionist propaganda is long on assumptions and stated conclusions without actual discussion of the evidence. In fact, you have to wade through pages or rhetoric in many works just to get to a point that argues actual evidence.

For the reasons described above, the author has chosen to deal individually with texts that describe the cosmos. Though a systematic, biblical study could be done of “biblical cosmology” with fruitful results similar to those in this study, the author prefers to focus on each portrait individually. Patterns will emerge through systematic reflection on each portrait, and the author aspires to make connections so as to benefit the cognition of the reader.

Ditto.

The Genesis 1 creation narrative contains numerous convergences with
pre-biblical Sumerian-Babylonian and Canaanite creation traditions. Some of these parallels are of the utmost importance as the exigency of Genesis 1 is likely found in these polytheistic creation myths. Genesis 1 is polemically directed to combat polytheistic cosmogonies through literary reworking and anesthetization of existing polytheistic creation myths.

Errant sources often contain large elements of truth. That's the nature of error, to mix truth with error. So it would not be surprising to find some parallels in ancient Babylonian myths, but it is a methodological mistake to try to reinterpret what Genesis 1 says with the errant portions of the myths.

Peter assumes a priori that the bible descended from these myths.
The truth is reverse. The myths descend from the original truth contained in the Bible.

Leeming (52) explains the Sumerian-Babylonian creation myth contained in Enuma Elish as the victory of order over chaos. In Enuma Elish, the hero-god Marduk combats the dragon goddess Tiamat who represents the chaotic waters of primordial existence. Marduk crushes Tiamat—dividing her dead body in half. Tiamat who was the dragon of primordial watery chaos becomes the vehicle to establish the separation of the chaotic waters. Part of her corpse was used to hold the chaotic waters above at bay while the other half is transformed into the terrestrial abode of humanity and the threshold against the waters below upon which the earth floats.

I see evidence here that this myth is a corruption of the Bible's truth. "Marduk" is generally understood to represent Nimrod. Notice the key consonants MRD.

Contrary to popular assertions of creation ex nihilo, Genesis 1 follows the lead of the ancient cosmologies with the assumption pre-existent primordial water (Beltz, 35).

It may be taken for granted that God created that water even if it is not explicitly stated.

Notice, at no point is there a specific creation of water in Genesis 1. Water is assumed to exist. The Hebrew T’hom (“without form”) of Genesis 1:2 linguistically and thematically correlates with the Sumerian-Babylonian Tiamat. Though sanitized of reference to gods and goddesses, Elohim in Genesis 1 combats the primordial, watery chaos to
achieve victory. Creation itself is initiated through separating order out of chaos (darkness and water).

This is an argument from silence. Just because something is not stated does not mean it did not occur. Once again the paragraph assumes that the Babylonian myth is the source of Gen 1. There may be some connection, but the connection is historical reverse of the claim here. The myth is a corruption of the divine revelation. The disorder in Genesis one is merely the disorder of materials before a construction project. The chaos in the Babylonian myth is a mortal battle between sentient beings involving death and destruction. The Genesis account calls creation "good" seven times. We cannot say the same for the Babylonian myth.

The first act of Elohim in the Genesis 1 creation myth is the separation of light from darkness. This act is followed on day two with the creation of the firmament (Hebrew rakia). The Hebrew word for “firmament” (rakia-- רָקִיעַ) is derived from the root raka. This root means to “spread out by beating” (BDB) or “to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out, stretch” (TWOT). It carries the idea of beating out a solid malleable material such as a metal.

Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) define rakia-
רָקִיע(“firmament”) as follows:

…the firmament of heaven, spread out like a hemisphere above
the earth (from the root [raka]), like a splendid and pellucid sapphire (Ex. 24:10, compare Dan. 12:3), to which the stars were supposed to be fixed, and over which the Hebrews believed there was a heavenly ocean (Gen. 1:17; 7:11; Ps. 104:3; 148:4…

If is often the case that the meaning of words does not correspond exactly to their root etymology. Rather the meaning has a relation to the root meaning. And wherever an author gives a technical definition of a word he used, that definition takes precedence over all others. God gives a definition of RAQIA in Genesis 1:8, "And Elohim called the RAQIA 'heavens'". This self-definition in the text points us in the right direction. This definition is what the ancient's would have used.

In our English conception "heavens" means space outside our atmosphere. However the Hebrew usage includes the atmosphere, and in fact, the RAQIA heavens is the whole expanse from the surface of the earth to the throne of God above the heavens.

The heavens (RAQIA) are bounded both above and below by water. The website at the bottom of this page www.creationscience.com explains a model for the lower boundary of the heavens. Other creationist Cosmologists have constructed models of the heavens
with waters at the perimeter of the Universe.

The waters at the edge of the Universe are not detectible at this time since they are too far away, but the Scripture does allude to them when it speaks of the voice of God as many waters. When God brings his throne to earth it is possible that there is a space time compression of the Universe at the point of his contact with earth so that the waters above become detectible in God's speaking.

It is very possible that the RAQIA is so called because of the solid nature of the lower boundary and possible solid nature of the upper boundary at the edge of the Universe. Some creationist Cosmologists have suggested the possibility of a solid substructure for the expanse itself at the level of super-string physics.

Biblical Creations do hold to the ancient Hebrew view. It is also a modern view that continues. There are waters above and waters below, but the RAQIA has never been understood as a plain "dome" except by simple minded people who neglect to read the definition of RAQIA in Genesis 1:8.

This does not mean that all descriptions one will read about the "dome vault of heaven" are by the simple minded. Very often this is the language of appearance or is used poetically or figuratively. The sky does look like a blue-saphire dome.

Evolutionists often object to the language of appearance and call it "special pleading". However they are at the minimum unwitting hypocrites when they do so. The fact is that modern science uses the language of appearance or uses language in poetic ways way beyond the usual semantic domain of the words used. Why for example is string theory called "STRING" theory? Do they really use strings? Why do quarks have flavors? What is an up quark and a down quark. Why is an evolutionary phylogenic tree called a "TREE"?
The fact is, that real scientific realities OFTEN exceed the development of language, and therefore it is accepted practice to pin words on these realities that might be misleading is taken too literally, or if the context is not paid well attention to. (note: an evolutionary tree is not one of them).

The scripture speaks of "spreading out the heavens like a tent". The idea of spreading (or beating) may be related to RAQIA here.

Somehow the stars and galaxies are fixed to the RAQIA. I doubt that the ancients supposed that they were tied to space by "STRINGS", but this is exactly what some modern physicists would say. In classrooms at least, many a model was hung on a STRING.

When read against the backdrop of the ancient cosmologies and the
literary-etymological etiology of the term rakia-
רָקִיעַthe picture of the cosmos portrayed in Genesis 1 becomes a reciprocation of the pre-scientific cosmologies of the
ancients—a flat earth with domed heavens.

Like I said, the Genesis 1:8 definition of RAQIA given by the author takes precedence. All the other usages of RAQIA will fit within the usage and semantic parameters of "heavens" in the Scripture.

The next post will develop build upon the Genesis 1 references to the firmament.

All this post did was develop a simple caricature of RAQIA. I should point out that what was offered as "evidence" of the ancient Hebrew world view as being unscientific, and being incapable of fitting into the discoveries of true science, has in fact been shown to be compatible with the truth of creation. That modern science has not discovered certain elements of the divinely revealed cosmology is not a problem.

As usual, the pro-evolutionary, anti biblical argument has simply turned out to be another deception. The evolutionists can keep plotting points to their argumentive graph, but one only has to connect the first few points to see that they aim in the direction of a lie. We do not have to connect all the points in a line to see where it leads. If we tried to do that, then we will find ourselves outspent, and out politicked. In this age, there is sufficient evidence for the truth, but God is not ready to restore the kingdom, so creationists will have to be content with being the underdog.

One should be careful to separate true scientific research from evolutionary dogma. The problem is that many scientists mix their research up with their false naturalistic religious dogma. The creationist must be careful not to read so much of this literature that he or she is unable to discern the good parts from the bad. For most people do not have a skill for separating good research impregnated with propaganda. It requires slow reading, understanding of the vocabulary, and asking yourself whether you know whether each clause of a book is true or not.

Often a reader finds himself saying "I don't know, I don't know …" when an author starts making assumptions. When that happens, then there is no way the reader can be certain of the conclusion. Often a reader just trusts what they are reading because it comes from someone they respect. The devil is very good at using "respectable" people to propagate lies.

For those who are willing to slow down and test all things with the observed creation and to listen to the Spirit of God will be given more ability to discern the truth. But for those who and unwilling to check out the first few points on the evolutionary graph, who are dragged down the infinite line of points, these will lose even what discernment they once had. It is better to turn back before one gets too far down the line.

Of course people have free will. All the argument in the world will not stop them from loving the path they have chosen.

Biblical Cosmology, Part 1

Biblical Cosmology, Part 1: A Critique of Peter Sander's Post:
http://daat-erwat.blogspot.com/. My reponses in red. Peter's original post in black.

Surah 2:22 of the Qur’an states,

[Your Lord]…Who made the earth a resting place for you and the heaven a structure…

This passage evidences the pre-scientific cosmology of the Qur’an. It envisions vaulted or domed heavens that consist of a solid structure. Such a picture of the cosmos is common amongst the ancients, and it is readily incorporated by the Qur’an and the biblical authors.

I will not defend the Koran, but I will need a quotation from the Scripture to respond to the claim.


Oddly, if I were writing an article about the scientific absurdities of the Qur’an, most of my Christian readers would take little prodding to convince them of the idea that the Qur’an is lacking with regard to scientific realities. I do ask that my readers consider why it is that they are so willing to accept criticism about a book that nearly one billion religious adherents herald as the precious Word of God while they might be unwilling to countenance the idea that the Bible contains similar, if not more archaic, models of the cosmos.

The Koran and the Bible are different Religions. Only one is the truth. I represent Torah observant Christianity. The Koran probably does contain scientific errors on the a priori position that it is not the true Word of God. We are not obligated to defend that which we do not believe in.

In the next series of posts, I will develop several biblical portraits of the cosmos. It will become evident to the receptive reader that the biblical portraits of the cosmos are in disagreement and contradiction with the physical or material realities of the universe.

The receptive reader will see that this is a claim and not evidence.

How the incongruence between the Bible and science is understood by the reader is her own decision. I have taken this contradiction (and others) as grounds for rejecting the plenary inspiration of the Bible; however, I realize that there are educated, Evangelical [and Jewish] scholars who acknowledge such difficulties yet have
developed exegetical paradigms by which to justify the biblical authors’ use of pre-scientific understandings. It must be noted that I have only encountered a handful of Evangelical scholars that are willing to deal with this difficulty. At the end of this series I hope to mention who they are and refer readers to their works about biblical cosmologies.

This paragraph is all thesis. We are waiting for the evidence to support it.

Deceptions

The world is full of deceptions and lies. Usually deceptions and lies take the form of words, spoken...or in books and art. In art, a lie is any depiction of an event by a human artist or film maker that represents reality as a lie.

Usually when someone wants to sell a lie, they package it up with an appealing set of truths or emotional inducements. That's why sex and flesh play a big part in advertising, and false religions also. The good things that are packaged with lies are prestige, friendship, power, sex, tasty food, pride of position, or one's own accomplishments.

A lie is linked to something else that people love. The thing they love is offered to them, but they have to accept the lie also to get the good thing that they desire. Adam and Eve desired to be like God, being wise about good and evil. Eating from the tree might give them that, but they were taught that eating from the tree would kill them. The serpent came along and repackaged the fruit with a lie: ˆYou shall surely not die.” Adam loved the benefits of eating too much to take the possibility of a lie seriously. He knew what God had said, but he disbelieved God and believed the serpent because he wanted what the fruit would give him.
Let's take a look at evolution. The Bible teaches evolution is a lie.

Evolutionists try to discredit the Bible by claiming it teaches a flat earth. Evolutionists offer acceptance by the scientific and academic world. They offer this friendship, but it comes with a price. You have to believe their lie. If a person is attracted by the offer of friendship with the evolutionary community then they will swallow the lies without doing an investigation.

Is the earth really flat? Not on the large scale. Is the earth locally flat on a small scale in a small part of it? That depends on how you define, "flat." If flat means a Euclidean plane, then there is no flatness anywhere because nothing is exactly flat in that sense. It is purely a mathematical ideal. If flat only means that it looks flat to the parameters of the human eye or the common sense definition of flat, like in a desert plain or a large lake, then those parts of the earth are flat. Actually, the Hebrew word for "earth" (erets) also means "land." One might say that the land of a farmer is "flat" or "hilly." The Bible never calls the Earth "flat" on a large scale. If anything is flat, then it is on a local scale. The Scripture actually implies that the earth's surface is curved when viewed from above:
KJV Isaiah 40:22: It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"So it should be apparent that very little thinking or examination is actually needed to dispense with the lie that the Bible says the earth is flat on a macro-cosmic scale. Sometimes it is said that the Church believed the world was flat.

This is true of the medieval Catholic Church, but we must not blame this view on the Bible. The Bible was chained to the pulpit most of the time and only the clergy learned in Latin could read it. When the Reformation came, men began to read the Bible for themselves and learned that the Bible taught truth, while the Church taught error. As a result of unchaining the Bible, there was a scientific revolution in the world.
Now, the modern Roman Catholic Church has embraced evolution, yet the Bible does not teach evolution. So it should be apparent that what the Church believes is not what the Bible teaches. The institutional Church is merely reflecting the ignorance of whatever age it is in.

Now that we have examined the so called flat earth claim against the Bible, it is apparent that the only real reason for believing this lie is the love and attraction of the academic community that embraces lies about the Bible as a litmus test for their friendship and patronage. The Scripture says that we must love God above all else. If we love the world, then we are liable to swallow the lie with whatever we love.

Edited by a friend.

Fearing God

The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. When someone does not have all the answers, then the wise thing to do is to fear God and follow His ways. If one feels less experience of God than his or her intellect or heart feels should be there, then the wise thing to do is to fear God and follow His ways. If one feels like they have all the answers and they do not need to fear God and follow His ways, then they are proud in their own intellect and have put fear of their own intellect, and their own reasons, and their own evidence in the place of fear of God.

Treacherous indeed is the person who says to his neighbor that he fears God while speaking within himself that there is no need to fear God. The heart is deceitfully wicked. A man lies to himself and allows himself to be lied to. The heart is governed by unpredictable emotions that if not submitted to the fear of God will treacherously deceive the person in the hour of testing.

The one who does not recognize the cognitive potential for deception within his own heart and who trusts in it becomes increasingly blind to his own depravity and need to fear God. The one who fears his own intellect and does not fear God and follow His ways is in fact fearing lies that he has believed. And when lies are in the mix, the claim to be an intellectual is merely pseudo-intellectualism.

Blessed is the man who, after walking with God and seeking His ways, finds the truth after having steadfastly feared God. For you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Blessed is the man who, after seeking God, has learned to corral his heart and his feelings or emotions into submission to God. For then the truth is pleasant, cognitive dissonance disappears, and there is greater clarity, zeal, and boldness for the truth. That person knows the truth and does not have blind faith in the truth.

Sin is like an anti-truth poison. The more of it you take, the more you fall into self-deception. Pride enough to put faith in the assurance of one's own agnosticism is overconfidence in one's position. One who prides himself in stretching his mind and being "open" to hard questions should be open to the hard question of "perhaps I am mistaken."

Few people approach the Bible with an open mind and leave it without an increased sense of truth in it in comparison to all their other choices. It is truly possible that many who approach the Bible approach it with one foot back in the world. Their real love is something worldly that they are emotionally attached to -- something that makes them popular, proud of themselves, or makes them feel good. They may not find support for their other love in the Bible, and so they deceive themselves that their other love lies in the direction of the truth, and not the truth made plain in the Scripture.

God knows what is in a person’s heart. He knows if that other love competing with the truth is in a person’s heart as soon as it exists there. God will see to it that this higher love for the wrong thing is exposed. He will see to it that the person’s will in the matter is made plain.

But He will not force that person so as to overrule his choice. That misplaced love may be simple or complex. It may be as simple as loving the polished and professional manner that evolutionists present their case, with all the worldly prestige that goes with it, combined with an unwillingness to suffer for being against it or unwillingness to do the hard thinking of the underdog in the fight, out funded and out lawyered, and all manner of supports for evolution that have to do with pure political and social POWER and nothing to do with actual truth.

You ask what is the best way to reach someone who has departed? One who departs always loves something else. The best way is to find out what love that person went after, then to take that love away or make it unprofitable. This, however, comes with two problems.

First, the person may resent the party that removed the thing they love and turn to pure hatred of the truth and not truly love anything. That is what demons are. God removed their enjoyments at the Flood. So they became wraiths. Humans can end up like them if the things they love are removed and they choose to resent it.

The second problem is that usually we are not in a position to take away what they love in this complex society. It is not a perfect utopia theocracy yet. Therefore, they get aid and comfort from the thing they love.
That is the essence of idolatry. Anything that comes between a man and the true fear of God is idolatry.

Edited by a friend.