Genesis Chronicles
1. Everything has a beginning. Even the word "beginning" begins with the letter "B." (Hmmm, "Bible" begins with the letter "B" also. Shouldn't someone be deciphering this by now?? .......Anyone?).
Anyway, the Bible starts at the beginning of creation. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This is the foundational premise of the whole Bible. It announces Gods creation. Everything after this beginning builds from that starting point. There's no explanation for the beginning of God. There's no reason to. Why would anyone want a God who has a beginning? It would mean the God could have an end. And what would that mean if we had a God that could end? If the Israelites were halfway across the parted waters of the Red Sea and God ended, they would be dead. And State Farm Insurance policies do not cover underwater drownings in a chariot. No God--no miracles. Can you imagine the life insurance God would have to carry? And who would be the beneficiary? And, even more important, if God did "end," how long would it take for the Republicans to create a conspiracy theory about it??
The concept of the "death of God" was created by the same people who created the highly imaginative idea that there is no God. For some unknown reason, they "reasoned" (and I use that term loosely) that since people could not be convinced that there was no God, they had to get people to believe that this God that was never there was now dead. I know..mind boggling isn't it? As this saga continues we will see even clearer how atheism and logic don't really go together all that well.
Anyway, the Bible starts at the beginning of creation. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This is the foundational premise of the whole Bible. It announces Gods creation. Everything after this beginning builds from that starting point. There's no explanation for the beginning of God. There's no reason to. Why would anyone want a God who has a beginning? It would mean the God could have an end. And what would that mean if we had a God that could end? If the Israelites were halfway across the parted waters of the Red Sea and God ended, they would be dead. And State Farm Insurance policies do not cover underwater drownings in a chariot. No God--no miracles. Can you imagine the life insurance God would have to carry? And who would be the beneficiary? And, even more important, if God did "end," how long would it take for the Republicans to create a conspiracy theory about it??
The concept of the "death of God" was created by the same people who created the highly imaginative idea that there is no God. For some unknown reason, they "reasoned" (and I use that term loosely) that since people could not be convinced that there was no God, they had to get people to believe that this God that was never there was now dead. I know..mind boggling isn't it? As this saga continues we will see even clearer how atheism and logic don't really go together all that well.
2.
It takes a very huge imagination to believe there is no God. Lots of people have such an imagination. They are usually called atheists. Atheists spend a lot of time pondering on the God they don't believe exists. They also spend time discussing and debating just so they can find the loophole that says this nonexistent God will let you into heaven even if you don't believe in Him. They generally dislike the God they say don't exist because He doesn't budge from His nonexistent position. Atheists, however, have never been able to prove to God that they exist, so maybe God doesn't believe in them. By their own standards, they say they exist because they do exist and the proof of that is that they are here. God Isn't that insecure, however, and doesn't waste time trying to prove He exists.
So if an atheist says he exists while hiking in a forest when a tree falls and no one hears him, does he really exist?
Atheists could try to present their case for existence before God, as He is usually available, but none of them know which "God" they don't believe in. Is it The One and Only Living God, or any of the many other "Gods" they have created in their imagination and then ingeniously claimed not only does not exist but cannot exist? Until you can say you looked for something, you cant say you cant find it. If you do you're just being lazy and dishonest. And if you are going to look for something you have to know what you're looking for. Atheists are caught in that perpetual state of circular reasoning which often keeps them seeking for the "God" created by their imagination whom they also claim does not exist. And the proof, BTW, that God doesn't exist is that we cant prove to them that the "God" they created in their imagination that doesn't exist does in fact exist. Blessed are those who go in circles, for they shall be known as wheels.
It takes a very huge imagination to believe there is no God. Lots of people have such an imagination. They are usually called atheists. Atheists spend a lot of time pondering on the God they don't believe exists. They also spend time discussing and debating just so they can find the loophole that says this nonexistent God will let you into heaven even if you don't believe in Him. They generally dislike the God they say don't exist because He doesn't budge from His nonexistent position. Atheists, however, have never been able to prove to God that they exist, so maybe God doesn't believe in them. By their own standards, they say they exist because they do exist and the proof of that is that they are here. God Isn't that insecure, however, and doesn't waste time trying to prove He exists.
So if an atheist says he exists while hiking in a forest when a tree falls and no one hears him, does he really exist?
Atheists could try to present their case for existence before God, as He is usually available, but none of them know which "God" they don't believe in. Is it The One and Only Living God, or any of the many other "Gods" they have created in their imagination and then ingeniously claimed not only does not exist but cannot exist? Until you can say you looked for something, you cant say you cant find it. If you do you're just being lazy and dishonest. And if you are going to look for something you have to know what you're looking for. Atheists are caught in that perpetual state of circular reasoning which often keeps them seeking for the "God" created by their imagination whom they also claim does not exist. And the proof, BTW, that God doesn't exist is that we cant prove to them that the "God" they created in their imagination that doesn't exist does in fact exist. Blessed are those who go in circles, for they shall be known as wheels.
3.
The Bible never makes any effort to prove the existence of God. And if you already got past "God created," then its really an irrelevant point anyway. Atheists and skeptics like to say that because we cannot explain or prove where God came from that He cannot exist. So, instead, they offer up "big bangs" and "evolution," among other things to explain the beginning. yet cannot really explain or prove it intelligently.
One thing is for sure: God does not exist by faith. Faith does not create God. God creates faith. Many an atheist has spent time claiming that Christians believe God exists because they have faith that He does. That's utter nonsense, though "utter nonsense" could be defining title of most atheistic reasoning. I may give "skeptics" a pass if they are truly being "skeptical" as they look at issues. A certain amount of skepticism on some Biblical positions should be normal if one is truly pursuing the truth about God. Even I am skeptical of many "doctrines" and theological positions. Much skepticism however is simply masking anti-theistic attitudes. Science does a pretty good job of observing things and events in nature and natural history. It very rarely has the ability to explain where the ingredients came from. Science over compensates by saying that anything offered as "the best explanation at the time" is also called "truth." It's such an insane was to explain a theory but it is the driving force behind what has made "evolution" seem palpable. There is no "missing links," the theory is full of gaps, and has, for the most part, been decided that the theory can exist without explaining its beginnings (since they can't, anyway). But, what the heck, there's enough of it available to call it "truth" and since it's "truth" it can be taught in schools as fact. Considering that most of the original theory was written by a guy named Charles Darwin who took a trip on a boat and looked at birds...the theory itself has been the only thing that has truly evolved. I've read "Origin of the Species" and it reads like stereo instructions so I recommend reading it only if all your other books have caught fire and it is the only one you have left and you are left with only two options: read "Origin of the Species" or kill yourself. Even those options might leave reading the book as the second best option.
The reason for God creating is not explained in Genesis. We will later discover that God does not do anything without a purpose and will be able to connect the idea that God has some purpose for creating "the heavens and earth." "In the beginning" are the first three descriptive words used to describe God's creation "the heavens and the earth." This would probably be the pre-beginning stages of any concept of time, also, as God establishes morning and night and the end of one day.
The Bible never makes any effort to prove the existence of God. And if you already got past "God created," then its really an irrelevant point anyway. Atheists and skeptics like to say that because we cannot explain or prove where God came from that He cannot exist. So, instead, they offer up "big bangs" and "evolution," among other things to explain the beginning. yet cannot really explain or prove it intelligently.
One thing is for sure: God does not exist by faith. Faith does not create God. God creates faith. Many an atheist has spent time claiming that Christians believe God exists because they have faith that He does. That's utter nonsense, though "utter nonsense" could be defining title of most atheistic reasoning. I may give "skeptics" a pass if they are truly being "skeptical" as they look at issues. A certain amount of skepticism on some Biblical positions should be normal if one is truly pursuing the truth about God. Even I am skeptical of many "doctrines" and theological positions. Much skepticism however is simply masking anti-theistic attitudes. Science does a pretty good job of observing things and events in nature and natural history. It very rarely has the ability to explain where the ingredients came from. Science over compensates by saying that anything offered as "the best explanation at the time" is also called "truth." It's such an insane was to explain a theory but it is the driving force behind what has made "evolution" seem palpable. There is no "missing links," the theory is full of gaps, and has, for the most part, been decided that the theory can exist without explaining its beginnings (since they can't, anyway). But, what the heck, there's enough of it available to call it "truth" and since it's "truth" it can be taught in schools as fact. Considering that most of the original theory was written by a guy named Charles Darwin who took a trip on a boat and looked at birds...the theory itself has been the only thing that has truly evolved. I've read "Origin of the Species" and it reads like stereo instructions so I recommend reading it only if all your other books have caught fire and it is the only one you have left and you are left with only two options: read "Origin of the Species" or kill yourself. Even those options might leave reading the book as the second best option.
The reason for God creating is not explained in Genesis. We will later discover that God does not do anything without a purpose and will be able to connect the idea that God has some purpose for creating "the heavens and earth." "In the beginning" are the first three descriptive words used to describe God's creation "the heavens and the earth." This would probably be the pre-beginning stages of any concept of time, also, as God establishes morning and night and the end of one day.
4.
There could have been a big bang as God spoke the heavens and earth into existence. But there was no explosion of matter from nothing except for the creative energy of God. I stray away from saying God created something from nothing because, realistically, it came from the mind of God and that's hardly nothing. Semantics, maybe, but that's the way I view it.
God working could have sounded like a big bang. But man had not been created yet and sound requires an eardrum to exist, so maybe it was a "Big-It-might-have-been-loud-Bang-if-someone-could-hear-it." A Big Bang is hopeful and much shorter to write and that's probably why it caught on. Usually it implies that there was no God at creation, but just this "Big Bang" and voila, energy and particles and planet dust, and cosmic stuff all kind of came together and eventually life grew out of it. And how absurd to think complex physiological beings and even nature itself came from nothing short of an intelligent designer.
Now, I am FOR a few absurd theories when it comes to explaining where congressmen come from or even some news pundits, but it really makes no sense in the scheme of things. The skeptic rebuts with "yes, but you can't explain it" so it cannot be true. They generally act as though they were there to actually witness the beginning. All they have are some theories that they apply the "scientifically approved" method of saying it is "true" if it is only the "best" answer available, and make it sound like it is irrefutable. They stick to their dogma on this point, though. It's one of those points, again, where those who hate religious dogma become nonreligiously dogmatic.
Granted, most congressmen and news pundits don't make sense in the scheme of things so even though it sounds convincing, it isn't. People who aren't scientists like to say "Are you a scientist? Are you claiming to know more than scientists who specialize in their field?" They say this even though they aren't scientists but read about it in a book somewhere. The best response is probably "Are you God? Are you claiming to know more than God?" Of course they will usually reply with some snarky comment but that's that "nonreligious dogma" kicking in again.
Mankind might be pretty messed up in many ways, but physiologically he is a incomparable work of art, as are most creatures and many things under the sun and here on planet Earth.
There could have been a big bang as God spoke the heavens and earth into existence. But there was no explosion of matter from nothing except for the creative energy of God. I stray away from saying God created something from nothing because, realistically, it came from the mind of God and that's hardly nothing. Semantics, maybe, but that's the way I view it.
God working could have sounded like a big bang. But man had not been created yet and sound requires an eardrum to exist, so maybe it was a "Big-It-might-have-been-loud-Bang-if-someone-could-hear-it." A Big Bang is hopeful and much shorter to write and that's probably why it caught on. Usually it implies that there was no God at creation, but just this "Big Bang" and voila, energy and particles and planet dust, and cosmic stuff all kind of came together and eventually life grew out of it. And how absurd to think complex physiological beings and even nature itself came from nothing short of an intelligent designer.
Now, I am FOR a few absurd theories when it comes to explaining where congressmen come from or even some news pundits, but it really makes no sense in the scheme of things. The skeptic rebuts with "yes, but you can't explain it" so it cannot be true. They generally act as though they were there to actually witness the beginning. All they have are some theories that they apply the "scientifically approved" method of saying it is "true" if it is only the "best" answer available, and make it sound like it is irrefutable. They stick to their dogma on this point, though. It's one of those points, again, where those who hate religious dogma become nonreligiously dogmatic.
Granted, most congressmen and news pundits don't make sense in the scheme of things so even though it sounds convincing, it isn't. People who aren't scientists like to say "Are you a scientist? Are you claiming to know more than scientists who specialize in their field?" They say this even though they aren't scientists but read about it in a book somewhere. The best response is probably "Are you God? Are you claiming to know more than God?" Of course they will usually reply with some snarky comment but that's that "nonreligious dogma" kicking in again.
Mankind might be pretty messed up in many ways, but physiologically he is a incomparable work of art, as are most creatures and many things under the sun and here on planet Earth.
5.
Creation establishes the theme for the entire Bible: All things are seen in relation to Him and with God as the central figure. Too much of modern apologetics and theology want to make the world all about us. That is pretty much the position that atheists hold. They refuse to believe in the existence of God because it could really mess up their "me" time. Atheists would likely do well writing theology, but, if the truth be told, a lot of atheists DO write theology. Most of them just don't know they're atheists. Among other names, I refer to many of them as prosperity teachers.
There are two words that describe the creative activity of God: "progression" and "power." The Hebrew words "tohu" and "bohu", used in the expression 'without form and void,' are so striking that it was apparently used to rivet the readers attention on the condition in its initial stages.
Not to be confused with "tofu" which is without form but then is formed by coagulating soy milk.
That God created ex nihilo (a Latin term meaning "out of nothing") while not explicitly stated, is continually implied throughout scripture, as in Paul's statement about God 'who gives life to the dead, and calls into existence the things that do not exist.'(Rom 4:17). Apparently creation progressed from a state of nothingness through a state of formlessness and emptiness to a condition where formlessness gave way to form and emptiness surrendered to fullness. However, one could debate whether creation came from "nothing" if one expounds upon the definition of "nothing." It is conceivable that God could create something to exist that did not exist before. However, the idea would have come from the mind of God. Only God could do such a feat. And, personally, I can't call God's mind "nothing." Man cannot create anything outside of his own knowledge. Nor can he imagine anything beyond that scope. The Hebrew words "asah" and "yatsar" ("make" and "form"), and is something man can do but only with pre-existing materials. Man can create but only by using material or ideas that are already existing. Like finding some soy milk and coagulating it. And mans ideas can be pretty creative. I mean, who first said, "Hey, let's coagulate some soy milk and see if we can eat it??" I rest my case.
Creation establishes the theme for the entire Bible: All things are seen in relation to Him and with God as the central figure. Too much of modern apologetics and theology want to make the world all about us. That is pretty much the position that atheists hold. They refuse to believe in the existence of God because it could really mess up their "me" time. Atheists would likely do well writing theology, but, if the truth be told, a lot of atheists DO write theology. Most of them just don't know they're atheists. Among other names, I refer to many of them as prosperity teachers.
There are two words that describe the creative activity of God: "progression" and "power." The Hebrew words "tohu" and "bohu", used in the expression 'without form and void,' are so striking that it was apparently used to rivet the readers attention on the condition in its initial stages.
Not to be confused with "tofu" which is without form but then is formed by coagulating soy milk.
That God created ex nihilo (a Latin term meaning "out of nothing") while not explicitly stated, is continually implied throughout scripture, as in Paul's statement about God 'who gives life to the dead, and calls into existence the things that do not exist.'(Rom 4:17). Apparently creation progressed from a state of nothingness through a state of formlessness and emptiness to a condition where formlessness gave way to form and emptiness surrendered to fullness. However, one could debate whether creation came from "nothing" if one expounds upon the definition of "nothing." It is conceivable that God could create something to exist that did not exist before. However, the idea would have come from the mind of God. Only God could do such a feat. And, personally, I can't call God's mind "nothing." Man cannot create anything outside of his own knowledge. Nor can he imagine anything beyond that scope. The Hebrew words "asah" and "yatsar" ("make" and "form"), and is something man can do but only with pre-existing materials. Man can create but only by using material or ideas that are already existing. Like finding some soy milk and coagulating it. And mans ideas can be pretty creative. I mean, who first said, "Hey, let's coagulate some soy milk and see if we can eat it??" I rest my case.