CANADIEN

Interesting that somehow means talking about whether or not certain passages of the Bible describe something found through science turns into a discussion on the origin of the Universe, but at the same time one is not to mention evolution. Guess we know who sets the parameters of what can and cannot be mentioned... But I digress... Interesting, the "God is in the gaps" argument. Intersting, because one it is simplistic (if something in the physical realm cannot be explained... yet, that proves that God exists). And second, because then it opens the door wide to the argument that each new discovery proves that God doesn't exist. I do not base my knowedge of the existence of God on the fact there are things science have not found an answer to yet. Many of the gaps will be filled - God will still be.

I'd think most people would know that my disagreement is with your reading of the Bible, I'd also think they would notice that I have said, more than one time, that I KNOW through faith God exists and is the Creator of the Universe, that and He tells so through the Bible. And I'd think they would notice that I do not believe His message in the Bible is about the way the Universe he created works, or that His Word includes a scientific valid description of the Universe. I am sure many here do not agree with me on all or any of these things. Only one person keeps stating that i say, or mean, something different. I won't dignify this with an answer.

The assumption that the Bible provides a description of the way the Universe expends is based on one translation, in one language, when other translations use words that do not have the exact same meaning... If that,s the case, the next logical step is that God inspired the writers of one translation of the Bible to include certain knowledge, but that He didn't do so for other translations - which is non-sense... Scientists who have described the metric expansion of space have used comparisons such as an expanding rubber ballon and a rising raisin bread, which is not quite the same as streching out like a tent... The verbs to stretch OUT and to strech FORTH, the actual verbs used in the KJV, are not same verbs as to stretch - at least according to the Oxford dictionary... Apparently, that's not enough of an explanation. But then, I begin to suspect that the only words that would qualify as an explanation would be "Betsy is right".

I don't think it is accidental that you found this verse in the Bible this morning. I think you went looking for it. Difference. Interestingly, when I opened my Bbile this morning, it was on a passage about Wisdom working through the ages. A reminder of what I KNOW through faith - that the Universe is God's creation. But then, of course, you know better than me that I confused about it.

Nope, we are talking about whether or not the expension of the Universe is described in the Bbile. BTW, news to you. You do not decide, or dictate what people talk about in this thread. Stick to deciding for me what I think and what I have problems with, will you?

To paraphrase you, the issue, which is the fact there is no descrption of the way the Universe extends in the Bible, has been addressed. The incomprehension is yours - unless of course, you know better than I what I address and do not address. I'll admit it. I am very good at slicking around explaining why I have a problem with something I have no problem with, namely the fact that science (the scientific process) is one of the intellectual capacities given tuo us by God. You think I have a problem with this, I KNOW I have no problem with this. I'll also slick around every time I'm ask to explain why I saw Elvis exiting a flying saucer three nights ago (hint: I didn't see Elvis exiting a flying saucer three nights ago ).

Indeed. There is nothing incompatible between evolution and Creation.

For me too, but I love your choice of words.

Not bitching about anything. Just having fun with the fact betsy keeps telling me what I think even when I have the distinct impression I think something else. Now, if you have something to contribute on the topic, you're welcome.

I could have sworn there is a difference between KNOWING, through faith, that God has he ability do ANYTHING He wants - and concluding through a bad reading of one translation of the Bible (remember, it is streched OUT and streched FORTH, not streched) that God inspired the writers of one translation to include words which, when misread later would appear to match an anslogy used by scientists when talking about a recent discovery. But as usual, you will in due time inform me that I do not believe there is a difference between the two. And then, of course, you will expect me to explain how come I don't believe something I didn't know I don't believe.

Sorry, but I still have to absorb the fact I find it hard to accept that science come from God. After all, I was under the mistaken impression that I believed science (that is, in the Oxford dictionary definition, `the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experimen"), or more exactly the intellectual capacity to engage in science, is, like other intelectual capacities, part of the attributes God has given human. I even thought, and I even have a faint memory of stating it in a thread here in a distant past, that in that sense it can be said that science comes from God. But now, you have proven to me, once again, that I didn't think what i thought I thought. So why why don't YOU tell me why I have problems accepting something I didn't even know I had problems accepting?

Thanks for letting me know I do not believe the Universe was created by God. For years and years I thought I believed God created the Universe.

Thanks again for reaching my own conclusion for me. I didn't know knowledge was invented.

Now this merits its own separate reply. Since unlike you, I lack the uncanny capacity to know better than others what they mean or think, let me ask you: should I conclude from this paragraph that English-speaking people are the new Chosen People? That God has chosen the translators who produced the KJV to be entrusted with knowledged denied to translators who have translated the Bible in other languages? Or perhaps all good Christians should try to figure out who will make the next big scientific breakthrough and start reading the Bible in that person's language... BTW, you didn't know, you really didn't know, that the Bible HAS been translated in a number of Chinese languages? some info

Ever crossed your mind that most people who read you find the answer lacking? That's what I imply? Thanks for letting me know. Err... Betsy... Stretches (or most exactly, as I pointed out stretches out and stretches forth) in the KJB is a translation from the original Hebrew text... Not the other way around. Again, it is streches OUT and stretches FORTH. I do that? Thanks for letting me know. Since, once again, YOU are enlighting me by letting me know I have a problem accepting something something I thought I have no problem accepting... I'll let you give the honours. You express my opinions better than I do - even those I don't have.

Interesting, by the way... The bit about the Universe stretching... (now, I will not pretend to be a scientist, so those with better KNOWLEDGE of science than I are free to tell me where I get it wrong) Interesting because, if one is to take, for example, the metric expansion of space (the growing distance, over time, between parts of the Universe), analogies that have been offered are the expansion of a rubber balloon and the rising of a loaf of raisin bread. Some view this as stretching. Fair enough. This is not, though the same kind of stretching as the one referred to in the Bible. Some of the passages where the terms stretch(ed) out and stretch(ed) forth are used use the analogy of a canopy or a tent. Not the same as a a rubber ballon or a rising loaf of raisin bread. BTW, the terms used are not stretch(ed), but strech(ed) OUT and stretch(ed)FORTH. Not quite the same thing. The Oxford Concise dictionary define stretch as "draw or be drawn or admit to being drawn out into greater lenght or size" and stretch out as "extend (a hand, a foot, etc.)" (interestingly enough, the same meaning as in the Hebrew word graciously provided by... betsy ). There is no doubt to me that the Bible IS the Word of God. There is also no doubt in my mind that it does not include a description of the way God's Universe works, placed in it ages ago so that people could some day exclaim "see... the Bible talks this recent scientific discovery".

Indeed, what is the point? Whatever I say is never clear enough (to you, and only you). And you, and only you, understand better than me what I think or don't think, what I mean or don't mean. Besides, I think more people would agree if I said that your idea of discussion is you berating whoever fails to agree with you. I am wondering why it is that most other people don't seem to need clarifications on what I said. So, that's why I am gaining so much weight. . Thanks for informing me that I used the word adultery in the first place. What can I say... I though I was not talking about something irrelevant to the issue at hand, but once again you know better than I what I think. The new drill is that, after saying what I think clearly enough for others, I serve you the mockery that is the appropriate response to your arrogance. And I'm enjoying every second of it

Just go back to your posting saying to Bambino your claims regarding stretching are facts. Then to the following one when you tell me it's speculation - after that... Well, as you have proven so often, I don't know what I think, so I'll you do your own thinking. Especially if you don't know a negative cannot be proven.

In one post, it's a fact, in the next one a speculation. In one poster you claim that people re-hash the same argument, in the next one you ask that people do exactly that. And now to ask people to prove a ngative, namely that the Word of God doesn't include a description of the working of His Creation that is scientifically accurate... One can only wonder at your logic. That's what I thinl? Thanks for telling me so. I would have never thought I thought that.

The PQ takes the Maple Leaf out again... Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnn

Harper's lack of shall we say enthoousiasm about the Charter has little to do with Quebec. He and a number of his partisans just don't like how it provides for a check on government actions through Courts aoolying it.

Don't you know? OF COURSE the whole point of laws against teachers abusing their authority in that fashion is to make work for lawyers.

I am simply pointing that many people would have a hard time equating the laying out of a hand with the stretching of the Universe. As for my opinion of it, thanks for you for saying I can have it. Now, if you would be kind enough to give it to me...

Actually, there is a response. It consists in treating as non-relevant anything that doesn't fit her own interpretation of what people what is the meaning of "the Bible is the Word of God". Speaking of which. I DO believe the Bible is the word of God. From beginning to end. It is also clear to me that God uses various ways of telling His Word, including allegories, poetry and imagery. I suspect not many people would argue today that He actually stopped the Sun to help Joshua win a battle. The truth that text reveals seems to me to be that He stands by His people, not that He stopped the Sun. Somehow, that makes unworthy of being a Christian. And of course, that can not be what I actually believe.

That would be a first.