Little Green Men

[Aaron]

And once again you avoid the question of post 24. Just pointing that out.

We are certainly near the center of the biblical story of God, creation, sin, death, and redemption. But we should be careful not to make us the center of our universe.

Notice the construction here. We are the center of the Biblical story,* but we are not the center of the universe. I don't think he is arguing about physical location. I think he is arguing about purpose. It's hard to tell with someone who is afraid to come right out and say what he thinks. But he says we should be very careful to avoid that thought.

My question to him is, Why? Why should we be careful not to think that the Cross was the central work of the universe, nay, of Heaven?

In the absence of an explanation to the contrary (other than being overly concerned with the sin of pride) isn't that to say that the story of Redemption is smaller than the universe?

We should not add to scripture, especially to exalt ourselves.

I'm agreed there, but it's one thing to add. It's quite another to understand something differently, especially when it exalts Christ.

It is very important to Van that we leave the door open to the idea of life elsewhere in the physical universe. Not just life, but "children of God."

My question is, Why? But that is another question I think he will avoid.

*Actually, Christ is the center, but let's save that for one of his anticalvinist tirades in another thread.

I

 

[Van]

Edited to show misrepresentation

And once again you avoid
I think he is arguing about purpose. It's hard to tell with someone who is afraid to come right out and say what he thinks. But he says we should be very careful to avoid that thought.

My question to him is, Why? Why should we be careful not to think that the Cross was the central work of the universe, nay, of Heaven?
isn't that to say that the story of Redemption is smaller than the universe?

It is very important to Van that we leave the door open to the idea of life elsewhere in the physical universe. Not just life, but "children of God."
I

Note the focus on speculation concerning my views.

These posters are the bane of our online forum, always finding fault and eschewing truth.

Once again we get a you, you, you post devoid of content, and filled with speculation.

To argue that the Bible teaches we are the only children of God is to interpret according to presupposition. We are certainly near the center of the biblical story of God, creation, sin, death, and redemption. But we should be careful not to make us the center of our universe. We should not add to scripture, especially to exalt ourselves.

We should stick to what the bible specifically teaches and eschew speculative assertions by those who would add to scripture.

 

[Van]

When we look at the night sky with our naked eye, we see the sun, moon, some of our solar system planets, and some of the stars of our galaxy, the Milky Way. And we can see light from a few other galaxies, but just a speck of the entire known universe.

To claim the Bible teaches us about the unknown parts of creation is speculation, an argument from silence.

 

[Aaron]

Note the focus on speculation concerning my views.

Obfuscation on your part necessitates speculation on our part.

 

[Aaron]

When we look at the night sky with our naked eye, we see the sun, moon, some of our solar system planets, and some of the stars of our galaxy, the Milky Way. And we can see light from a few other galaxies, but just a speck of the entire known universe.

Actually only about 20% of the universe is hidden, and that by the Milky way. And the largest, most distant, and oldest feature of the universe, the Cosmic Background Radiation, has been mapped, and to the atheistic astronomers' surprise and consternation, its features are in alignment with the earth's ecliptic plane.

To claim the Bible teaches us about the unknown parts of creation is speculation, an argument from silence.

Does Genesis 1 tell us the purpose of those stars or not? That's a straightforward question I asked early on.

 

[Van]

Obfuscation on your part necessitates speculation on our part.

Petty pride on your part necessitates finding fault with others.

 

[Van]

Actually only about 20% of the universe is hidden, and that by the Milky way. And the largest, most distant, and oldest feature of the universe, the Cosmic Background Radiation, has been mapped, and to the atheistic astronomers' surprise and consternation, its features are in alignment with the earth's ecliptic plane.

Does Genesis 1 tell us the purpose of those stars or not? That's a straightforward question I asked early on.

Yes I know you think the cosmic radiation was well known in the first centenary but you are alone.

 

[Aaron]

Yes I know you think the cosmic radiation was well known in the first centenary but you are alone.

We aren't as ignorant about the heavens as you are postulating.

Now. Would you please answer a straightforward question? Do the Scriptures tell us the reason for the stars, or do they not?

 

[Van]

Would you please answer a straightforward question? Do the Scriptures tell us the reason for the stars, or do they not?

What reason is given for the stars that cannot be seen with the naked eye? I say scripture does not address those stars.

 

[Aaron]

What reason is given for the stars that cannot be seen with the naked eye? I say scripture does not address those stars.

Are you saying there are regions of space that are not part of the heavens and the earth spoken of in Genesis 1:1?

 

[Van]

Are you saying there are regions of space that are not part of the heavens and the earth spoken of in Genesis 1:1?

Note the endless questions designed to waste space and avoid sound discernment.
1) Travel of material with mass is limited to less than light speed.
2) We can see less than 1% of the stars in our galaxy, and none of the stars in other galaxies with the naked eye.
3) Pay no attention to those who would take us back to the dark ages before the age of enlightenment.

 

[Aaron]

Note the endless questions designed to waste space and avoid sound discernment.
1) Travel of material with mass is limited to less than light speed.
2) We can see less than 1% of the stars in our galaxy, and none of the stars in other galaxies with the naked eye.
3) Pay no attention to those who would take us back to the dark ages before the age of enlightenment.

Is that a yes, you believe there are regions of space that are not part of the heavens and the earth spoken of in Genesis 1:1?

 

[Van]

Is that a yes, you believe there are regions of space that are not part of the heavens and the earth spoken of in Genesis 1:1?

Yet another question designed to find fault!! These one trick ponies are the bane of our forum.
Calvinists add to scripture by pouring in their endless speculation concerning what is not said. Pay no attention to those who would take us back to the dark ages before the age of enlightenment.

 

[percho]

Unacknowledged | FULL DOCUMENTARY - YouTube

 

[Aaron]

Yet another question designed to find fault!! These one trick ponies are the bane of our forum.
Calvinists add to scripture by pouring in their endless speculation concerning what is not said. Pay no attention to those who would take us back to the dark ages before the age of enlightenment.

That sure sounds like a yes to me. Anyone else?

 

[Van]

That sure sounds like a yes to me. Anyone else?

The accuracy of this bogus assertion reflects his discernment of biblical doctrine.

 

[Van]

Just as Calvinism finds evidence by reading presupposition into scripture, adherents of extraterrestrial life find evidence in UFO mythology.

 

[Aaron]

The accuracy of this bogus assertion reflects his discernment of biblical doctrine.

So, "no"? (Note that's not an admission to your assessment of my discernment. I just know you're disgusted with Calvinists, and especially with those who are adept at holding your feet to the fire.)

Well, that is a relief to know that you don't think the Creation narrative is only about the things we can see with "the naked eye."

 

[Van]

So, "no"? (Note that's not an admission to your assessment of my discernment. I just know you're disgusted with Calvinists, and especially with those who are adept at holding your feet to the fire.)

Well, that is a relief to know that you don't think the Creation narrative is only about the things we can see with "the naked eye."

You make up falsehoods and post them non-stop. That should be a relief to no one.

 

[Van]

SNIP

Genesis 6:17
The flood was a judgment on "all flesh wherein is the breath of life from under heaven"

Genesis 6:17 (NASB95)
“Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.

Here the implication was Genesis 6:17 supported that "all flesh" (in which is the breath of life) was located on earth. But just as likely all flesh refers only to all the flesh on earth and is silent concerning unknown life on unknown worlds beyond the naked eye.

Thus once more, evidence we are the only life in the universe from the bible is based on presupposition. "From under heaven" probably refers to the visible heaven, indicating the full known expanse of the earth.

Sound bible interpretation includes an effort not to expand the intended scope of a reference, to some unintended greater scope.
Rather than the least something could include (creation refers to born anew believers) an expansionist would claim the reference includes what was unknown to the author.