In The Beginning? (Origins)

by BBella , Thursday, December 18, 2008, 05:46 (5629 days ago) @ David Turell

But, one thought I see that is often used or refered to in the guide, aand/or sometimes taken for granted, is the question or belief of a beginning, or origin of all that IS...as if a beginning is a must? 
> 
>[David Turell] The way a beginning has been discussed in past threads is.... - Thank you David for your response. My post was not really in response to past threads but mainly a comment, as was asked for, at the end of the guide page of the forum. I had noticed that, altho dhw does not himself claim to 'know' whether there was or was not a beginning, he would make remarks in the guide that sometimes sounds as if he believed there was a beginning, ex: - Absence of Evidence (The limitations of science) by dhw, Saturday, March 01, 2008, 15:52 in response to John Clinch dhw states: "Physical life exists, it must have had an origin, and of course science will advance in its understanding of the origin." - When I posted at the end of the page I was more or less making a comment about what dhw had written so far in the guide but also thought this would be an interesting discussion, as I had not found an indepth discussion on this subject yet, only had skirted around it...altho I may have missed it if it has been discussed indepth. - >So there are only two alternatives: a beginning or an eternal scheme. - Yes, I agree.
 
>You are certainly right about the meaning oF YOM: day, year, eon, whatever is called for in the context of the Hebrew. You might be interested in Judah Landa's book, "In The Beginning Of", 2004, in which he reinterprets Genesis, and for example says "biraishit", the first word of Genesis really means "in the beginning of [God's creation of the heaven and the earth]". - I have read Landa's book a few years back and altho I do not remember it in detail I appreciated his interesting view and expanded studies of the beginning and first chapters of Genesis. - >But Genesis says there was a beginning, and Nahmanides in his 13th century "Commentary on the Torah, Genesis 1:1" describes the creation just as the Big Bang theory states. (See "Genesis and the Big Bang",pg. 65, by Gerald L. Schroeder, Ph. D., 1990) 
 
It seems to me the bible does not agree with the big bang theory because scripture plainly says that God has no beginning nor end, it is only this earth time it is speaking of having a beginning (possibly). God is not nothing, God is something so there was something before this earth time and will be after this earth time. It also says that God is spirit not visible to the eye, which is not all that hard to grasp since molecules and atoms are not visible to the naked eye yet we now know they are there, so maybe God is plainly always before us it's just our eyes cannot see God. - God is also said to be the 3 O's, omnicient, omnipresent and omnipotent, meaning, he is everywhere at all time with all power. That says to me everything that IS is God, that includes all time, all things, anywhere, everywhere, everything, seen and unseen. Just because we can't see something doesnt mean it isnt there? So maybe it is not that God cannot be seen as much as we do not recognize what we are seeing, in just the way we do not recognize molecules or atoms when we look at them and yet they are plainly before us? 
 
I will finish my reply in the next post.