This is modifying the data to fit the theory, it never makes sense. If you use this concept then The Silmarillion is a better fit for a religious text than the Bible !
Actually you are right it does not make sense...but consider these: -One can interpret the bible as wanted...so why not to 'create' inner peace with different own matters like science? At least better than to ridicule it....it can create own personal sense..... -Most things are metaphoric so there is huge room for own interpretation. -People who wrote down the words there probably had their own issues to 'understand'... -Sense is falsified during translation of 'novices'.... -Different terms due to different age. When the bible has been written there was nothing like waves and strings since those theories did not exist yet. A translation to current terms is reasonable. -Finally there is one truth only....from there anything emerges...
What is this the placebo effect ? It's ok if you choose a part of the Bible and ascribe whatever meaning you want to it, might seem plausible, but as a whole it lacks credibility. For example you are trying to explain creation using It would be fine if the rest of the Bible was like this, but there is so much incoherence with the rest of it. For example How does a virgin give birth and remain a virgin and what metaphoric value can you get from this? Why did they try to tone down the psychopathic God presented in the Old Testament ? Why would God even have to be a psychopath ? Apparently sinners go into a pit of fire, maybe we can say that fire is now honey since flesh can be matter in the case you presented. Don't know if drowning in a pit of honey is any more satisfying than a pit of fire ! What the Bible needs to be credible, at the most basic level, is uniformity and it doesn't have it. So in the words of Sherlock Holmes, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Not to forget: I gave it the headline 'for fun'.... I know something from Physics and some parts of the bible and other stuff from other religions.....and I know that we can describe relative truths.....and I assume there is 'one truth'... The motivation to post this fun is to unite things......and I am known to make relations another one would not even think about (I also do that when teaching Chemistry...no religious stuff of course...but social behaviour and chemical behaviour for instance... and terms like affinity, strength of chemical bonding, polarisation, electrostatic attack on it.......etc....) Here I just wanted to post a scientific reply to MJ...and the part below the ----- entered intuitively my mind...so I posted it as well. I do not make efforts to think about the bible and its contents.....but there are parts that make a own relative sense to me. Anything else is personally useless...and if I'd be all of it, then the entire bible would be useless, it is just a book of stories. The amount of those parts changed during my life...it started at zero.
Lol, OK. No issue with that, even though I guess I am not schizo. It plays also a role in art and for instance when interpreting the 'Mars face'....
Well there are people who have dedicated themselves to the Bible Code and other such things so it's nothing new
Logos was the original and logos has many meanings, word is just one of them and I think badly chosen in this case.... Ancient Greek was the language of the educated and of elevated discourse at the time, so Bible's essential bits were written in it... Go figure....
Just saw responses: R29k is right: Bible is essentially incoherent, as it is a rather eclectic compilation of texts from very different persons, times, in very different contexts, addressing very different audiences, so good luck to the apologists and dogmatists...
I know. This is not the only badly chosen word...sometimes it makes sense to translate it again to get more of the original meaning. For instance what is known as sin means literally translated from there to miss the mark as an archer who misses the target. The old testament was written in Hebrew/Aramaic, though. I have no interest in the bible. Intuitive relations enter my mind sometimes though. I take that easy.
My God is BIG and BAD, and all powerfull and knows it! After all, he [or she] created the Universe and knows everything that is capable of being known. He [or she] does not have human failings, does not have the need to acquire wealth and power. He [or she] doesn't care in the least bit if I run around kissing his [or her] ass and telling him [or her] just how big and bad he [or she] is. Those that insist that he [or she] requires for me to do so, are the ones that profit for my doing so. Beware of anyone asserting that they know what God wants from us. What you'll hear from them is what they want from us. So, my question:" God, why do you allow this to happen? I'm thinking that God is busy with more important things than us. I think that the answer is that we are insignificant when compared to the scale of the Universe. We are important only to our myopic self important view of ourselves. That renders everything in this thread to be a waste of time and energy. Including my post. But, it is still a good intellectual exercise.
On the microscopic level things exist that appear to be even more insignificant than us. However their value to our existence is critical. Likewise it would be a logical step to assume that our existence is critical to something else on the macroscopic level. Now, given that everything seems to operate on tiers, with the more fundamental tiers being the microscopic ones. Would it not then be logical to conclude that a God, if it exists, would exist on the microscopic level ?! Quite funny how everyone is looking outward for God when it may actually exist within.
Lol, when I was a kid I thought god is outwards (im Himmel)...(my native language has only one word [Himmel] for two expressions heaven and sky)....and there are also all the souls when one has died... The barriers are created by a limited intellect that determinates finite forms from infinity (form-consciousness..dualistic). What is the difference of micro- and macroscopic? Finally the entire universe has room enough within 'myself'... 'where' happens perception of the universe? Since an individual with a seemingly finite body identity has to 'use' a place where to start 'instructions' focus on 'inside' first....(prayer, meditation.....yoga....) The question about existence of god is actually a question about an universal principle.... Can 'I' unify any appearance/space and 'find' an universal principle/attribute(s)/truth? If yes then it must 'be' .... anywhere and also nowhere, but it must be that much universal/undifferentiated that it cannot be determined/differentiated...it must be the only 'thing' that is real...and it must be in common with anything that exists and not exists....and it can't be differentiated, from 'I' from 'you' --from god ---from your real nature, from myself, from yourself....from any appearance and any non-appearance (un-manifest)... Many people create an idea of god. Then they believe in this idea or not. But that is a joke (idol) compared to the liveliness of 'this universal principle'.... In other words: Do things exist per se (without an god/universal principle)? Or is there 'absolute' Consciousness 'before' they become? This is actually the real question.
I have thought about this again….and want to share my thoughts… There is a logic relation when categorizing objects. Let’s say the smallest particles we intellectually know are Quarks. Protons and Neutrons consist of at least 2 Quarks and they are bigger. This means Quarks are smaller and their amount must be higher than Protons and Neutrons, because they consist at least of 2 of them. An Atom consists at least of one Proton and one Electron (Hydrogen). An Atom is bigger, but there must be fewer Atoms than Protons. A Molecule consists at least of 2 Atoms, a molecule is bigger, but the amount is less. Proteins consist of amino acids (Molecules), they are bigger but their amount must be less. I stop here, but I could go through all branches of science…there seems to be a logical order. Quarks, Protons, Neutrons, Atoms, Molecules, amino acids, DNA, cells, organs, living beings, Planets, solar systems, galaxies, universes, multiverse…. The amount of the objects is decreasing whereas their size is increasing. The object ‘above’ has transcended and included the one below. The object ‘below’ is a part of all objects above. There must be more Atoms than planets since a planet consists of more than one Atom! There must be more stars than galaxies since a galaxy consists of more than one star. This is a finite detail our intellect has objectified…on an infinite arrow, though. Issue: We have finite objects on an infinite order. What happens when approximating infinity? On the one side the ‘objects’ become smaller and smaller and their amount greater and greater->the amount approximates infinity, their size 0. On the other side the amount becomes less but the size bigger and bigger-> the size approximates infinity, the amount approximates one. BUT: This is all based on a flaw. We create 2 ends for an infinite order, in other words We ignore that an infinite amount is actually indistinguishable from an infinite size. When both ends are flawed then each finite object idea must have the same flaw. When there is a universal principle (that is above all) then it must be present in any appearance. And vice versa. Any appearance is ‘a part’ of this principle. Micro and macro differentiation is a barrier of mind, better said it only exists in relation to the body identification. Finiteness and separateness is an illusion and the idea of 'a god (all including/transcendent principle)' should point to it.
Yen sir, I beg to differ here (if I understand you correctly) 'cos infinite- a concept that does not exist in any real terms in the universe, if it did it would break the laws of nature. Usually used to highlight areas where conditions are unknown, undefined or simply in error, or areas which although finite like the universes extent are unbounded, and thus are all there is. Defining infinity as 0 is an axiom, which are concerns for the philosophy of maths.
I was going to reply to him with the same point, as long as the Universe is finite in volume then nothing in it can be infinite. Also i'm not talking about quarks, below that is the soup of queerness. Imagine building a sand castle, but the castle is resting in a pot of boiling water that is only there sometimes. That is pretty much the basis of everything. Very odd that there is such stability on the macroscopic level when at the microscopic there is utter confusion.
It is a logical operation to approximate infinity or zero. I did not state 0 = infinity. I picked a finite snippet of ‚material objects‘…. to illustrate a relationship of amount and size. The bigger the object the less is the amount of appearance. We can create a logical order here. The amount of the objects is decreasing whereas their size is increasing. Can we here still agree on this? And then I wanted to integrate/approximate god as infinite and eternal entity. (I refused from placing god at the right end, though) To come to this conclusion: When there is a universal principle (that is above all) then it must be present in any appearance... The 'one above' is present in anything 'below'......illustrated like: an atom has the construction plan of the universe included....or the construction plan (sense) is present in every human.... @R29k Stability is an illusion. Also tidiness=order. (A product of intellect)...think of an 'tidy' desktop....room..lol... Cosmos actually means order, but it is an order which a human intellect cannot grasp. The ‘soup of queerness’ is also found in space. This soup appears whenever the order of mind (tidiness/logic and so on) gets in conflict with the cosmos ( ‘real’ order). We have the quantum mechanics, particle/wave dualism, energy/matter relation. And there will unveil even more ‘dualisms’. “I was going to reply to him with the same point, as long as the Universe is finite in volume then nothing in it can be infinite.” Yes even god then must be finite and determinable then and if it's not possible then one can say god does not exist. By stating the universe is finite in space one would have to agree with these 2: 1: One can determine ‘the smallest’ that is a part of anything and hence in anything (bigger). It does not consist of anything smaller. Once it had been the átomos = indivisible, ..hmm sadly wrong lol...we even ended up in a ‘soup of queerness’ 2: One can determine the biggest that is including anything smaller. And there is nothing including this (nothing bigger)