Just if you didn't know, about two to one year ago I was convicted by the Holy Spirit to do something different from Wikipedia, and rather then being "neutral" (which isn't possible) or leaning to modern scholarship we have longs icne moved away from that. I know you created this wiki to move away from that and I want you to know that the wiki is much more focused on glorifiying God then making everyone happy.
I am sorry I missed your reply. I have been away from the wiki for too long.
Any way, I just came from editing at your wiki. Perhaps we can work together, I liked the way you used footnotes to refer to the verses from which you drew your points. I added the Greek -- kurios and theos -- to the 'etymology' section after checking out an edit of the 'Trinity' section.
It does appear that you have done more with your wiki than I have with mine. I can see you have a heart for the work that dwarfs my own! However, since my style is different from yours, it is probably better if we have separate wikis. Compare your article on Genesis to mine, for instance. As I type this, I am also contemplating editing your article to 'improve' the grammar. Much of it is technically correct, but awkward to read. As it is, I will just be correcting factual errors (like the "600 years after creation" for the end of Genesis [Joseph's death])
I welcome any articles you wish to produce for inclusion here -- even copies of what are found on your site. I look forward to editing and contributing at your site as well.
That is exactly why we need more editors! I myself know how to make technical writing, but sometimes I do it awkwardly. Rest assured God has intended our own talents and missions. I see that you have just sumbitted some edits, lets get on Biblicalapedia chat and discuss about this a bit more.
Could you also give me some more detail of how you think the content styles are seperate (in a way we are trying to be an alternate to Wikipedia and their NPOV, but use same of the same encyclopedia-like documentation). The thing is, I feel personally sometimes I am a bit to dictactorial over the content style. Though it should be an encyclopedia-form I don't want to be dominate in the writing style, otherwise that might discourage collaboration. God has seemed to call me to this ministry and so far God hasn't revealed anyone willing to step up and take a leadership position. I know in time God will reveal whoever He has planned to help me.
We can try to scheldue through time zones, or pop in to chat if you see me on so we can chat about it.
Thank for the support, David. I need to return to working on the wiki. Other projects have kept me busy. Based on the linked song, I would recommend you write an article about Simon Peter. Use only the Bible and aids that treat the Bible as the authority. You can then create an article about the episode of walking upon the water - the only miracle recorded in all four gospels.
I will receive a note in my email when you post, so don't worry too much about it. I can check it out and make it a permanent part of the wiki. It will stir me on to posting articles about the New Testament.
I'm assumimg that you don't count the fact Jesus came back to life as a miracle then... But enough nit picking .I'll do my best. I'll get something done on word then post when it's ok. Give me about two weeks to write, check it through, check it through with God and then fit in a holiday...
As soon as I wrote that "only miracle" comment I wanted to add "except the resurrection." Of course, then there is the uncertainty about the ending of Mark. I'm pretty sure that the actual ending went further than the burial, but I'm not sure which reconstruction of the ending to go with.
I have no problem with the Vineyard Movement. My requirement is that your primary source for an article is the Bible. Consider it in line with a Wiki about any other book, movie or television series. The wiki is about the Bible, so the Bible is what should be covered. Interpretation should be clearly identified. Let the Bible "speak" for itself.
Right. Are we open to interpretation though? I mean personaly I don't believe in a six day, 24 hour creation* (I believe He could do it, I just don't believe He did). So with creation are you planning to have a page for 'six day creation' and another for 'other interpretations', under the category 'Creation'?
The word translated as 'day' can prehaps be more accuratley expressed as 'span of time'. In most contexts, obviously this means a 24 hour day, but with Genesis I tend to give science the benefit of the doubt. Fair enough, God being God, he could create everything and set it up so it 'backdates' but why? The Bible says His ways are high above ours but unless it's to give palentologists something to do then...
Actually, David, I want the wiki to let the Bible speak for itself. However, I have included an interpretation of how things might have happened according to the perceived laws of physics. I take the Word of God, and then seek to find scientific explanations, rather than the other way around. In Genesis 1, the day is further defined as containing an evening and a morning. Both the evening and the morning are periods of mixed light and darkness, encasing a period of darkness upon the earth. The "day" is both the full cycle and the fully-lighted portion, so yes, the "span of time" is well defined in context.
There is no need to "give science the benefit of the doubt." For one thing, "science" as you see it seems to be the interpretations of "scientists." You chose paleontologists as the scientists that we have to give this "benefit of the doubt." These are men and women that study "old things" to gather an understanding of what has happened without the benefit of eye witness accounts. Their doubt stems from a lack of trust in the written record. I am not willing to give them this "benefit." This wiki is to present the information found in the Bible. If my section on the six days (which I do not define, by the way) misrepresents those facts, let me know.
Hmm. Sorry I was mulling over what you wrote. I apologise if I have not been clear in my responses so far.
I am slightly puzzled. Prehaps the only way to let the Bible "speak for itself" is to type it up. Humanity is very good at interpretation. For instance you and I look at Genesis and although we agree that the same God created the universe, we have differing ideas about how He went about it, based purely on the same text. Whilst this disagreement has no bearing on our salvation, it has ramifications for the functioning of the wiki... I fear that these disagreements could pop up fairly frequently. Of course I might be misinterpreting what you said... apologies if this is so.
"Science" as I see is what can be proved to happen by experementation. For example pure water freezes at zero degrees celcius or boils at a hundred degrees. Or the conservation of matter. The important thing to note in my view is that God created everything. Science is therefore the study of understanding more about His creation and the way it functions. The more we study the more we can paint a more definite picture of this universe and it's complexity. The more we see, the more we can praise God for... So science is subordinate to Christianity but by no means diminished by it. Indeed science strengthens my faith.
Throughout my studies I have found evidence that science is correct. This does not mean the Bible is not. If God did not exist and athiests were correct then we would have no reason to believe that science would exist. For it has been a subject of puzzlement to the scientific profesion that things stay the same. The way the observable universe is built (according to eyewitness observation) means that there is no reason for things to stay constant. The laws of physics, all the constants? There is no reason for them to stay constant. Yet they persist in doing so, because, as should be obvious to a creationist, God is holding them there. Every quark, muon, boson, atom, electron is all being held by God. Is that not a reason to give thanks? Is that not one pretty good proof of His existance and love? So science helps, not hinders.
Humanity is very good at interpretation. For instance you and I look at Genesis and although we agree that the same God created the universe, we have differing ideas about how He went about it, based purely on the same text.
Let it be known that I don't like this formatting. :-(
Okay, I meant to cut and paste a little bit after some opening remarks, but alas, I am forced by the "reply" function to do it this way. Hmm..
Anyway, this statement is contradictory. First you assert that "humanity" is good at interpretation, but then our interpetations disagree. Do you mean that we are NOT good at interpretation (typo?) or do you mean that we come up with "good interpretations" that just happen to disagree (some times drastically)?
And now, I will post the next response "my" way. :-)
""Science" as I see is what can be proved to happen by experimentation. For example pure water freezes at zero degrees Celsius or boils at a hundred degrees. Or the conservation of matter."
(1) I may be nit-picking, but "science" is literally "what is known," it has no bearing on origins (coming into being, "happening"). Scientific method is what is used in experimentation.
(2) It is curious that you use the example of water freezing and boiling. I cannot help but think that this was a jab at my interpretation. Though at sea level on earth, with almost 15 pounds of air pushing down per square inch, pure water indeed freezes and/or boils at given temperatures, water a mile deep most certainly does not freeze at 0 Celsius. And a mile high it boils quite a bit lower than than 100. The created sphere of water would have no atmosphere (apart from the Spirit of God) and the pressure of the sphere itself would far exceed a mile deep very quickly, providing its own heat.
However, I would be game to change the "deep" to "apparently liquid hydrogen" if you like. The "water" hypothesis fits wonderfully with sonoluminescence, but my remark about "stripping the molecules of their electrons" would work fine with hydrogen. God can use any building blocks he wants.
(3) Again, I'm probably nit-picking, but it is the conservation of energy, not matter. Really, it's the energy-matter "continuum" that is dealt with in the "first law of thermodynamics. The "conservation of mass" encompasses energy as well, since electrons have mass. "Matter" as we know it is mostly protons and neutrons by mass, but from what I've read, scientists usually refer to the 1st Law -- and energy.
Well, I took almost an hour on this "short" response. And it is past my bedtime. I hope that these responses help you understand where I am coming from. And yes, I am prepared for challenges, and as the founder of this wiki I feel certain that it's usefullness will meet a need not met by other wikis.
Good interpretations can differ vastly. I can look at the fall of Rome and attribute it to xyz and someone else look at it and attribute it to abc. Who is right? I don't know. Of course I believe my position is correct, but that is an article of faith on my part in myself and my cognative caperbilities. If I am confronted by evidence that provides sufficient proof of the abc hypothesis over my xyz theory I will naturally discard my weaker reasoning in favour of the abc. Prehaps not even that is right and it is indeed a combination or even nsw. But until I come across evidence to the contrary I will follow my interpretation, and naturally assume others will follow theirs, which i recognise may be different.
I dislike this format too. Talk pages like Alternate History are more understandable, I think.
The water thing was not a jab. I would never intentionaly jab out at anyone, I was just trying to find a demonstratable fact and that's what came to mind. In fact I found it harder than I would expect. Apologies for not putting in the air pressure and other things, I normally try to be more precise.
Not quite sure I understand your first point but I think I get the general idea. I know that God is not limited by science (I'm glad of that, else I would not be alive right now.) I think however God created all the natural forces (self obvious - He created everything). Now given that He has these forces would He not use them? I mean why would He not? The actual creation moment, how God brought everything into existence cannot be defined or understood by any human means. I get that, it would be like trying to open the proverbial box with the crowbar inside it. There is more I would say but trying to put it into words... God's ways are higher than ours. Yes. But what possible line of reasoning could there be that would end up with God putting in a load of information that can be taken to mean other than what actually happened? Why would light seemingly originate from 17.5 billion years away unless it did? Why create a dating method for rocks that would give answers that are millions of years old? Or are we in fact looking at a picture of two faces when we should be seeing a vase?
Yeah to 3. I'm a teenager, still in schooling (though I do my own digging too - nerd) so if my science is slightly off feel free to point it out. I also spend a lot of time writing my response and thak you for doing so. This is the most enjoyable debate I've had in over a week.
Thanks for responding, David. I thought I had more to say about your previous post, but I think I can safely go on to this present post.
(1) Interpretation of recorded history is easier than trying to interpret facts left only in the processes that we now see (observational science based on "laws" of science). What you describe is differences on the "why" rather than the "how" in history. This is beyond scientific method and into phylosophy. I get the idea, though. We can each look at the same facts and come to different conclusions. However, as Christians, our conclusions should be coming from essentially the same viewpoint.
(2) Believing oneself to be right is the definition of faith, for otherwise one would be schizophrenic. Contrary to what many say, faith is not separated from reality. Faith is trusting an authority to be telling the truth. And the truth is defined as that which really is, or that really was (happened) in history. Faith is "going with the evidence." In this wiki, I trust God's revelation to Moses (or his source documents going back to Adam!) as the truth. Any facts drawn from the study of God's creation ("general revelation" [Ps. 19]) are then interpreted through "special revelation" (being directly through God's chosen writers [2 Pet. 2:17-21]).
(3) When I posted my theory of the "how" God might have moved in Genesis 1, I was taken the words recorded as fact. I then took observed facts from nature and applied them into the framework, to come up with a possible "how" -- thus a possible history. That is all scientists can do when explaining origins. Like I pointed out in the article, "the deep" is used exclusively of bodies of water elsewhere in the Bible, and the "deep" is described as the "waters" in the very same verse (Gen. 1:2). It is best to assume the word "waters" (always liquid H2O elsewhere) would mean that here. That is why I defended my "water" interpretation as I did earlier.
Well, I'm going to break this up a little, making it easier to reply to. Remember, God's Word is The Truth, for we know we can trust Him.
The "talk" page format (that which is available in a separate tab) somehow alludes me on this wiki. I was able to set it up on the home page, but elsewhere I am stuck with "comments" at the bottom of the page. This discussion might be more effective at the bottom of the "Creation" page, but I will continue here because it is more like a "private" conversation.
I realize that I was throwing scientific theory at you pretty hard. I am sorry if I confused you. My idea is that God indeed started everything "in one place" and then put stuff elsewhere. This does not mean He used the "big bang" (which denies the "laws of physics), but does imply a possible "big crunch" if left unattended. Based only on the visible universe, the mass of crunched matter-energy (down to neutrons), would be a sphere about 1.5 light years across. That, though, would not look like "water," so I discount that as a possible "what" of the "creation moment.
What was "formless and empty" becomes "the deep," which is then said to be surrounded by the Spirit over "the waters." Those are the facts according to the Word of God. Now, what is the evidence from observing creation? Free gases tend to spread out into formless masses, and pure hydrogen, for example, would be empty of anything else but hydrogen -- formless and void. Scattering everywhere, it would be utter chaos. It needed the "hand" of God to form it into anything. The word picture is more like the "wings" of God, for He "hovered" over the mass.
Once contained, the gas - be it organized hydrogen or loose particles, would compress on its own by the law of gravity. Soon hydrogen would fuse into the first eight elements. Amazingly, those elements are found in our oceans as air dissolved in water (H2O, N, O, CO2, He). The other three elements (Li, Be, and B) have excellent properties for dispersing electrons (ions) in the further creation of the universe after LIGHT is introduced (Gen. 1:3). Light is, of course, mid spectrum electromagnetic energy.
I'll jump now to your questions concerning a "possible line of reasoning" for the rest of creation.
Okay, I'm borrowing code from above! I'll start with your first question:
God's ways are higher than ours. Yes. But what possible line of reasoning could there be that would end up with God putting in a load of information that can be taken to mean other than what actually happened?
You go on to provide the "information" that you are considering, but let me deal first with the idea of "be[ing] taken to mean other than what actually happened." [Emphasis mine.] That is assuming that we humans are coming anywhere close to interpreting the information correctly. As you can see above, I took known information and quite easily explained how it could have come about -- actually happened'. And not only that, it just happens to fit the text. Your examples, though, deal with what came next (after "day one).
Why would light seemingly originate from 17.5 billion years away unless it did?
(1) Of course, original "Light" started at the edge of the universe after in had been contained into a sphere (Gen. 1:3). If that was a cloud of hydrogen, my rough estimate would be somewhere around 138 light years from the center. I might be way off, but even a magnitude of a thousand would be a lot smaller than 17.5 billion.
(2) But by "day 4" that distance would be apparently around 4 to 5 billion light years away (or whatever the age of the universe is figured to be these days). The 17.5 billion light years is projected based on the observed expansion (movement) since the supposed "big bang." This is the "problem" of starlight and time. There are indeed answers that don't require assuming "deep time."
(a) The first two days were the revolution of the original mass around its own axis (days) with the light of the "days" being the shikinah glory cloud of God's presence. Day 3, at the center of the universe, the earth had become a size near what it is now while the universe was created within a couple of thousand light years away, moving away at an accelerating rate from that day on.
On day four, all the stars and other planets were formed, being "lit" by God, who then let his "light bearers" do their job. The light may or may not have been traveling at its present speed (THE constant of the general theory of relativity.
(b) Light has only been measured inside the gravity well of our solar system. With the Voyager probes reaching the edge of that influence, strange measurements are causing scientists to wonder about some of their assumptions. We know that gravity slows light down (see below) and certainly bends it. So what really is the speed of light between the stars? Without knowing that, our measuring of space goes haywire! Other things, like the laws of motion and gravity, help, but we are left wondering nonetheless.
(c) But assuming the Bible is true, the universe has an edge. With that assumption, the theory of relativity works nicely to show that time slows down under great gravity. If that gravity was caused by the sphere of water of Genesis 1:2, then time at the edges and time at the center would be vastly different. And remember, the earth was in the center where the gravity was greatest. The mathematics of it even show "negative" on a graph (meaning "zero" since time doesn't run in reverse). This dip below the line means time "stopped" at the "event horizon (something like a black hole, but not quite).
Why create a dating method for rocks that would give answers that are millions of years old?
That one is a lot easier to answer. The question is, who "created" the dating method? That's right, mankind. More specifically, scientists that wanted to find millions of years on the earth. This does not mean that Hugh Ross of "Reasons to Believe " is wrong, but it does not negate what "young earth" creationists at "Creation Ministries International " and "Answers In Genesis " teach either.
(1) Dating rocks by fossils within them is circular reasoning, so it is easy to dismiss. One has to go to radiometric dating methods to get any large numbers.
(2) However, when it comes to comparing isotopes and decay rates one has to take a lot of assumptions.
(a) What was the original ratio of mother to daughter element?
(b) Was the rate constant for the whole time?
(c) Was there any leaching into the environment around the specimen.
(d) And so forth.
(3) Other methods of dating, such as erosion, sediment, planetary drift, and so on, all give vastly shorter periods than radiometric dating.
(4) Dating methods, along with "time" itself, are man-made. However, God has given us a record that generally tells us how long mankind has been around. Working backwards, the population lands at eight people around the time of Noah. The evidence from genetics backs up three (or four) female and one male variant lines of DNA. Ancient Egyptian records, adjusted by Scripture and assuming exaggeration and/or co-regencies, back the Bible (which we accept as true).
(5) Before man, like the dinosaurs for example, is a construct based on the assumption that these animals died out long before mankind came on the scene (thus denying the clear record in Genesis), even accepting evolution from ape-like ancestors. Again, the population projections alone rule this out. The fossils had to be laid down in massive flooding on the level of continent wide coverage -- that is, world wide. Fossils form no other way. Therefore, Adam saw dinosaurs, and so did Noah. After the flood, the few that rode the ark wondered away to become the "dragons" mentioned in folklore all over the world.
Well, that was quite a load to put on you, David. But remember, I've been at this longer than you have been alive. I am a student of the Bible, though far from a "scholar" and I hope to let it speak for itself in this wiki.
Or are we in fact looking at a picture of two faces when we should be seeing a vase?
I only wish I could use an emoticon here. :-)
You know, one that would turn into an icon. Anyway, Big smiley face!
Yes, it is a matter of perspective. The faces have us looking to the creature, man, instead of to the Creator. To see the vase is to appreciate the "potter" that fashioned it. Same evidence, but totally different conclusions.
I look forward to your work on this wiki. Thank you again for reading what I have to say.
Thank you, Wing. Pick a link or chose your favorite Bible character or story and write an article from scratch. You can even import Bible Commentary articles as long as you give due credit. I am building this thing to be fully interactive, so put links in whenever you mention a person, place or event. I aim to surpass the "bible wiki" as quickly as possible. But I cannot do it by myself.
Take a look at our webinar series -- where you can sign up to interact with Wikia staff, as well as watch past sessions
Be sure to check out Wiki Features to see what features you can enable on your wiki!
Explore our forums on Founder and Admin Central to see what other wiki admins are asking.
Lastly, visit our Help Pages to answer any specific question you may have.
All of the above links are a great place to start exploring Wikia. If you get stuck or have a question you can't find the answer to -- please contact us here. But most importantly, have fun! :)