Saturday, March 14, 2015





 if the universe had a beginning and, as they say. in their own words, nothing existed before the beginning



      Either absolute nothing created something --something as complex as the universe, or there really is a super-super Being, existing outside of creation, that is the creating power-- or God exists



       
          AT THIS POINT, we are stating beliefs. But we must do that in either case--that is believing the Bible or not believing the Bible, believing nothing created everything or not believing it.
          There might also be some who object to the idea that belief, faith, or trust is not in the realm of reality--that is real reality. To this I would say,  we do that all the time. In actual real life, it would be impossible to live in today's world, in fact, without exercising trust--in fact exercising more like a blind trust.

Obviously we trust in the proper functioning of our cars, when we drive a car, or, even more, flying in an airplane. How many have investigated and actually gathered factual information about the airplane that you are, in actual fact, risking your life by trusting in its properly functioning.

The Bible says, "faith is the substance of things hoped for. The evidence of things not seeing." Hebrews 11:1
          There is no article in front of the word, "faith". Which would mean, generally speaking, we act on the basis of expectant facts. And, in reality-- real life, that must be a common occurance.


IN THE STUDY OF SCRIPTURES--notably John's writings and the Synoptic Gospels.

JOHN 1:1-3, 14-18
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.      John 1:1-3 (ASV)

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

JOHN'S WRITINGS--THE OTHER APOSTLES

Language in which the New Testaments is written.
A library has grown up on the subject, and various views have been influentially contended for.
What is relevant at this point are the following facts:
(a) There is no evidence that our canonical Gospel was ever seen and the Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue. The Gospel which Jerome said he had seen in and translated into Greek and Latin, was not Matthew's, but an apocryphal Nazarene Gospel.
(b) Matthew's Gospel was known to the early Church only in Greek. (Matthew's Gospel as the most Hebrew-isms and identified as to the Jew. Certainly it would've been written in Hebrew if any of them were.)
(c) It is certain that the Greek Gospel was an original, and not a translation from a Hebrew text.
(d) all the early writers quote this Gospel, refer only to Matthew in Greek.

This subject is of more than merely academic interest, for it helps us to understand certain references in the record, such as the translation of Hebrew words, which would have been unnecessary in a Gospel written in Hebrew;

One of John the apostle's habits was to explain Hebrew words: (Rabbi--which is to say, being interpreted, Master. John 1:38; "the Messiah--which is, being interpreted, Christ" John 1:41; "Cephas which is by interpretation, Peter"--John 1:42; "Messiah, who is called Christ" John 4:25; "which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda" John 5:2....
 There was also the explanation of customs, which Palestinian Jews would not need.
A Hebrew collection of Logia, and our Greek Gospel, serve to show that at the time of Christ to languages were spoken by Jews. Aramaic was the language of the common people, and Greek was a literary language, show that those who spoke Aramaic could read Greek.

Both Christ and Paul spoke these languages. In converse with Pilate our Lord would speak Greek, but on the cross he spoke Aramaic. Paul, addressing Romans, spoke in Greek, but on receiving permission to address the Jews he spoke in Hebrew. It was quite natural therefore for Matthew to write an ole Tom which would best be understood by Jews everywhere  (Scroggie)

The Septuagint Translation was used often by the Apostlesd--particularly Paul.
It must be remembered that the translators were Jews, full of traditional thoughts of their own as to the meaning of Scriptures; and thus nothing short of a miracle could have prevented them from infusing into their version the thoughts which were current in their own minds. They could only translate passages as they themselves understood them.
It would be however, too much to say that they translated with dishonest  intention; for it cannot be doubted that they wished to express their Scriptures Julie and Greek....
One difficulty which they had overcome was that of introducing theological ideas, which till then had only their proper terms in Hebrew, into a language of Gentiles, which till then they had terms for no religious notions except those of heathens. Hence the necessity of using many words and phrases in new and appropriated senses.     Introduction of Septuagint



Saturday, March 7, 2015

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT I KNOW I EXIST.
(Without going out in the weeds ie...my brain's interpreting things my eyes, ears, etc encounter) --I KNOW MY ENVIORNMENT EXISTS.
BUT HOW? WHY?
The Bible has an answer...
What About Non-biblical? Presently there is the
BIG BANG THEORY...http://www.guangxiedu.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/planet_468x398.jpg
Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe.
Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
            After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory
.
Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions                                                            NOT AN EXPLOSION BUT A LIKE A BALLOON EXPANDING WITHOUT POPPING.
There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.
 

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however,
space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang.
Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3
 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.
·  First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
·  Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
·  Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.- See more at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.hE2UwGd4.dpuf
Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins
Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory? we are using philosophical criteria
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that:


Big Bang Theory   BIG BANG THEORY - AN OVERVIEW


"Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question:"             MOST ABOVE QUOTES ARE FROM THIS WEBSITE AND A FEW BELOW FROM OTHER INTERNET QUOTE

Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory? we are using philosophical criteria
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that:
"Creation was a supernatural event"

Monday, March 2, 2015

GOD'S GREAT LOVE FOR US CALLED THE CHILDREN OF GOD

HOW GREAT A LOVE GOD THE FATHER HAS BESTOWED ON US...                                                                                 ......................................................................................CALLED THE SONS OF GOD
1 JOHN 3:1 Behold, what manner of love (o. agape) the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.
 Verse 1 What manner of love                                                                                                                    .  ................. potaph;n ajgavphn
(potaphn agaphn). Qualitative interrogative as in 2 Peter 3:11; Matthew 8:27. Only here in John's writings. Originally of what country or race.
Verse 1b ...the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.                                                            ......................devdwken hJmi'n oJ path;r........ i&na tevkna qeou' klhqw'men:
 Hath bestowed (dedwken). Perfect active indicative of didwmi, state of completion, "the endowment of the receiver" (Vincent). That we should be called (ina klhqwmen). Sub-final use of ina with the first aorist passive subjunctive of kalew, to call or name, as in Matthew 2:23. Children (tekna).
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God,                                      .....o&soi de; e~labon aujtovn,           e~dwken aujtoi'ß     ejxousivan tevkna qeou' genevsqai,
    even to them that believe on his name:                                                                                                                                                                   ... toi'ß pisteuvousin    eijß to; o~noma aujtou',

12 As many as received him
(osoi elabon auton). Effective aorist active indicative of lambanw "as many as did receive him," in contrast with oi idioi just before, exceptional action on the part of the disciples and other believers. To them (autoiß). Dative case explanatory of the relative clause preceding, an anacoluthon common in John 27 times as against 21 in the Synoptists.

The right (exousian). In Luke 5:27 edwken (first aorist active indicative of didwmi) exousian means authority but includes power (dunamiß). Here it is more the notion of privilege or right. To become (genesqai). Second aorist middle of ginomai, to become what they were not before. Children of God (tekna qeou). In the full spiritual sense, not as mere offspring of God true of all men (Acts 17:28). Paul's phrase uioi qeou (Galatians 3:26) for believers, used also by Jesus of the pure in heart (Matthew 5:9), does not occur in John's Gospel (but in Revelation 21:7). It is possible that John prefers ta tekna tou qeou for the spiritual children of God whether Jew or Gentile (John 11:52) because of the community of nature (teknon from root tek-, to beget). But one cannot follow Westcott in insisting on "adoption" as Paul's reason for the use of uioi since Jesus uses uioi qeou in Matthew 5:9.
Clearly the idea of regeneration is involved here as in John 3:3. Even to them that believe (toiß pisteuousin). No "even" in the Greek, merely explanatory apposition with autoiß, dative case of the articular present active participle of pisteuw. On his name (eiß to onoma). Bernard notes pisteuw eiß 35 times in John, to put trust in or on. See also John 2:23; 3:38 for pisteuw eiß to onoma autou. This common use of onoma for the person is an Aramaism, but it occurs also in the vernacular papyri and eiß to onoma is particularly common in the payment of debts (Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary). See Acts 1:15 for onomata for persons.


13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.                                                                                                                                                             oiJ; oujk ejx aiJmavtwn oujde; ejk qelhvmatoß sarko;ß oujde; ejk qelhvmatoß ajndro;ß ajll# ejk qeou' ejgennhvqhsan.

Verse 13 Which were born
(oi egennhqhsan). First aorist passive indicative of gennaw, to beget, "who were begotten."

By spiritual generation (of God, ek qeou), not by physical (ex aimatwn, plural as common in classics and O.T., though why it is not clear unless blood of both father and mother; ek qelhmatoß sarkoß, from sexual desire; ek qelhmatoß androß, from the will of the male). But b of the old Latin reads qui natus est and makes it refer to Christ and so expressly teach the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Likewise Irenaeus reads qui natus est as does Tertullian who argues that qui nati sunt (oi egennhqhsan) is an invention of the Valentinian Gnostics. Blass (Philology of the Gospels, p. 234) opposes this reading, but all the old Greek uncials read oi egennhqhsan and it must be accepted. The Virgin Birth is doubtless implied in verse Acts 14, but it is not stated in verse Acts 13.