Evidence for life on Mars

[Jackal1]

Geeez Rev, ya think I could find a translation of what you said into Texican somewhere?

[SunTracker]

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/bible/flatearth.htm

The Bible is not the book to read to learn about physical properties of Earth.  This page lists exact verses that mention the earth being immovable, resting upon pillars, and being flat.

[Seagoon]

Dear Suntracker,

Thank you for sending the link to the "flat-earth bible" page. It's difficult to know where to begin in responding especially without producing something long and unintelligible to honest Texicans. So let me just bring up a few points that I hope will point out a few foundational errors in Mr. Schadewald's (the author of the page) reasoning.

1) While the Bible doesn't presuppose a flat earth, Mr. Shadewald presupposes that we adopt an impossibly flat, atomistic, and contextless reading of the Bible. This would be a bad way of reading anything, save perhaps the instruction manual for assembling a lawn-mower.

For instance, he sites Psalm 93:1 which he quotes as "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..." [Just as an aside, checking 8 English translations I was unable to find this rendering.] Here is the full verse in the New American Standard which is a fairly literal translation: "The LORD reigns, He is clothed with majesty; The LORD has clothed and girded Himself with strength; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved."

The point of the inspired Psalmist in this Psalm* is the sovereignty, eternality, and unchanging nature of the Lord, not to make a point about the "motionlessness" of the earth. In making a poetic comparison to illustrate those concepts, what is he going to use? The passing reign of earthly kings? No, they come and go and are extremely fickle. Civilizations? No they rise and fall too. What from a human perspective endures unchanging? The land, the earth. We are born and return to the dust but the heavens and the earth endure. The Lord who made them all and who upholds them remains steadfast and sure.

Now these are people who experienced earthquakes on occasion, so even the silliest Israelite wouldn't translate "immovable" as crassly as Mr. Schadewald. Given his method of interpretation, Paul is giving fatal advice when he counsels Christians to be "be steadfast, immovable" in 1 Cor. 15:58.

2) The language of the Bible is true but tailored to the understanding of the original audience and often speaks from the perspective of their observations. In other words, God speaks to us at a level we can understand. If your 3 year old asks you "why is the sky blue", do you pull out the chalkboard and begin talking in terms of refraction, giving them countless formulas about dust particles, light waves, etc. Or do you attempt to explain it as simply as possible? If the bible was filled with references to atoms, quarks, and isotopes what good would it have been to the Israelites? As Calvin put it so well in explaining why God the father is sometimes described in the Old Testament as having body parts:

"The Anthropomorphites also, who dreamed of a corporeal God, because mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are often ascribed to him in Scripture, are easily refuted. For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what  kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height.  "

In order to know God at all, he must reveal himself to us, and for us, whose understanding is finite and limited, to understand and obey one whose understanding is infinite requires Him to make an infinite stoop in his communication.

This means that often idioms and expressions are used that speak of phenomena as we observe them. Hey we still use the phrases "Sunrise and Sunset" does this mean we really believe that the Sun literally moves from one side of the sky to the other, or are we using language to describe the phenomena as we observe it?
 
3) The Bible is not concerned with presenting us with an astrophysics text book, its primary emphasis is on "What man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man." The bible therefore will not tell you how to fly a plane or even prepare Matzo Ball soup. It will however, teach you how to live your life as a pilot or a cook to the glory of God. The main points have to do with the three great issues of Creation, Salvation, Judgment, etc. Alpha Centauri is only discussed peripherally.

Anywho, sorry I can't do the simultaneous Texican translation in print. As blessed as I was, I weren't born "Texan by the Grace of God."  

- SEAGOON



*Psalm 93 is short enough that I can quote the rest to illustrate the point about context:
 
NAS Psalm 93:1 The LORD reigns, He is clothed with majesty; The LORD has clothed and girded Himself with strength; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
 2 Thy throne is established from of old; Thou art from everlasting.
 3 The floods have lifted up, O LORD, The floods have lifted up their voice; The floods lift up their pounding waves.
 4 More than the sounds of many waters, Than the mighty breakers of the sea, The LORD on high is mighty.
 5 Thy testimonies are fully confirmed; Holiness befits Thy house, O LORD, forevermore.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Seagoon

Anywho, sorry I can't do the simultaneous Texican translation in print. As blessed as I was, I weren't born "Texan by the Grace of God."  
 

My condolences Rev.

[Leslie]

Scientists tend toward seeing alien life as being  completely different from anything we can imagine, if the alien life is real.  (The idea being, based on evolution from alien enviroments very different from our own, the lifeforms would necessarily be extremely different.)

Mars may not be that different from Earth, as say, Jupiter or Saturn.  It could reasonably be expected any life found there may not be that unusual from that of Earth.  Microbes, etc.

Space is a hostile environment and we don't know what's out there.  NASA scientists were concerned that stepping on the Moon for the first time might be a surprise, i.e the laws of physics weren't completely trusted on that first step (the Moon may have a different set of physical laws as we know them, was the concern).  The radiation level in space would kill humans over a long interspace voyage.  But what about intelligent beings that travel through space?  The technology and robustness to do that would be greater than ourselves, though even with the technology we couldn't stand up to space travel for long distances.

And yes, scientists at NASA do have think tanks inviting thoughts about this very thing.

If the aliens were like us, human like, it seems that would indicate an intelligent creation, as opposed to randomness.  All it would take is just one instance of this discovery to discredit the transmigrational theory of evolution.  It would be strong evidence of God's existence.  The scientists would love to have proof of something like that.  

The Bible states transmigration of species is not how creation operates.  All flesh is not the same flesh.  This is in direct conflict with evolution on Earth as some biologists postulate (transmigration of species).

Given the fact that those who build rockets have admitted the laws of physics may not be universal, can true science afford to not consider the Biblical account as a very real possibility?

If there are little green men from Mars, I don't think that would shake up the creation theory.  It would strengthen it scientifically to my thinking.

Scientists start out thinking alien life would be very strange, perhaps not conforming to our laws of physics, and then base their beliefs/findings on the reality of risk taking and finding out for sure.   Of course by then, it may be too late, far as stepping on another planet goes.  Even Earthly physics, which could be different "out there" is not accepted as a universal fact by these scientists.


Les

[Maverick]

Seagoon,

Just a couple questions here and not posed as sarcasm.

Which bible in your opinion is the correct version?

Second question. How litterally (sp?) should it be taken?

[Siaf__csf]

Leslie if I understood right man was supposed to rule the world, right?

What if aliens appeared to be much more advanced than humans, becoming the dominant race?

I have a hard time to believe any serious scientist would spend one second thinking creationists had it right.

[Leslie]

Probably more logical than provable.  Deductive reasoning says when you eliminate all other possibilities, whatever remains must be true, no matter how unlikely.

Logic has flaws and so does science.  Man needs a spiritual anchor to go on and forward.  I'm not sure if my brother was an athiest or not,  I don't think he was, but he was very inscrutible when it came to God.  He didn't let on one way or the other, but he did leave the idea of God out of the subject when he spoke about science.

The other side of the coin is, something has to be there to strive toward, or we are missing the boat, so to speak.  I am not a scientist, so it's only think tank thoughts here.  I guess it depends on the science and the scientist.  Building rocket engines is not very philosophical, but having men ride them to the Moon is, and I would wager every single one of them was saying a prayer to something bigger than themselves.  Would you call that superstition?




Les

[SunTracker]

The basic fact of the matter is this:  

If there is a planet similar to earth, with an electromagnetic shield (thus allowing an atmosphere), water, carbon, other elements, and a source of energy, there will be life there.  The basic elements of life come together relatively easily.  Given enough time and a bit of energy, they get more complex.

In 1996, a meteorite was found in the artic.  It was believed to have come from Mars.  In it were microfossils, possibly of alien bacteria-

Of the 24,000 or so meteorites that have been discovered on Earth, only 34 have been identified as originating from the planet Mars. These rare meteorites created a stir throughout the world when NASA announced in August 1996 that evidence of microfossils may be present in one of these Mars meteorites.

[storch]

Originally posted by SunTracker
The basic fact of the matter is this:  

If there is a planet similar to earth, with an electromagnetic shield (thus allowing an atmosphere), water, carbon, other elements, and a source of energy, there will be life there.  The basic elements of life come together relatively easily.  Given enough time and a bit of energy, they get more complex.

In 1996, a meteorite was found in the artic.  It was believed to have come from Mars.  In it were microfossils, possibly of alien bacteria-

that piece of rock has already been proven not to contain any fossils.  but what has that got to do with the topic at hand.  extraterrestrial life does not preclude intelligent design and creation, in fact it would only serve to further prove intelligent design.

[Seagoon]

Originally posted by Maverick
Seagoon,

Just a couple questions here and not posed as sarcasm.

Which bible in your opinion is the correct version?

Second question. How litterally (sp?) should it be taken?

Hi Maverick,

I should probably have waited to answer this, as I'm dog tired, but...

The correct version would be the Greek and Hebrew, but in terms of English translations, most of the modern English versions are reliable and convey the true meaning of the text. You can access most of them online here There are only a few "translations" that actually add or twist the wording in order to support or convey a non-biblical theology such as the Jehovah's Witness "New World Translation" for instance or the RSV in some of its decisions (compare the RSV translation of almah "virgin" or "maiden" in  Is. 7:14 to the NIV translation, for instance).

But that said, all of the modern word-for-word translations, the (NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, etc.) teach the same doctrine. The KJV is a good translation as well, but suffers at points from being early 17th century English and thus sometimes unintelligible to the modern reader. In terms of personal preference, I read the New King James (and sometimes the KJV) for pleasure and in the pulpit and use the New American Standard for study.

How literally should it be taken? Well, first the bible should (I recognize that not all will) be read as what it regards itself as, the inspired word of God: "All Scripture is God-breathed..." (2 Tim. 3:16) and "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20)

But when we read it, we keep in mind the genre (i.e. in a historical book, we remember it is history, in a poetical book, we remember it is poetry), and allow for the use of allegory and simile. Thus for instance, we don't adopt a flat reading of passages like: "Your teeth are like a flock of shorn sheep" and assume they are literally furry and bleeting. (see the rest of Song of Sol. 4 for examples of this). But we remember that it tells us that it is all true and that we interpret it in light of other passages. So when John the Baptist says of Jesus "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" we know he doesn't mean that Christ is  literally a lamb, but we don't get hopelessly allegorical and say "that merely means he's humble" we remember that the lamb was a sacrifice for the sins of others, that this was classic OT language pointing to the Messiah. That the Messiah is Immanuel, literally "God with Us."

Hope that helps.

Be smart in your reading, but not cynical.

- SEAGOON

[Maverick]

Seagoon,

Thanks for the reply. I suppose it really should have gone in another thread but your eloquent reply about the bible earlier piqued my interest. It's unusual to have a bible scholar here. This is not meant as a slight to those who study the bible on their own or as part of their religious study.

The 2 volumes I was referring to were the King James version and the Dueay (sp??)(I know it's pronounce dooway but don't know how to spell it. ) version. I guess one is related directly to the common bible found in most Protestant Denominations versus what is normally associated with the Roman Catholic Church. This of course brings up the debate on the "editing" that was done to make the King James version different from the other earlier version.

[Siaf__csf]

extraterrestrial life does not preclude intelligent design and creation, in fact it would only serve to further prove intelligent design.

Actually if earth was unique among planets it would prove intelligent design. If life starts randomly given the proper conditions, there are millions and millions of suitable planets in the universe. If evolutionists are right, they should be populated widely.

A bigger question is if mankind will ever know of another species due to the huge distances and limited lifespan. And by that I mean lifespan as in individuals and as species.

[moot]

this one time, at band camp...

Only missing thing to tie this all together is some good ol numerology.

[Replicant]

Those stupid Earthlings are coming again