Board Thread:Community Engagement/@comment-5175866-20180622001334/@comment-1777104-20180623175058

Full disclosure, I am the source of Supe's consternation. If you check these articles, I have used the language of scripture for the most part. Yes, I speak of the time/space and energy/matter continua. But time, distance, fire and dust are concepts that everyone understands.

I can take out anything that might sound "semi-scientific"--though to say that the writers were not scientific is a mistake. The scientific method is based on observation, or "phenomenological language" (describing things as they look to be). The method was developed by Christians, for the most part, to glorify God by discovering how, and to some extent why, God works in the world.

From "The Creation":
 * Based on these definitions, drawn from the immediate context, a correlation to observable space, time and matter are clearly seen. With the introduction of light, the two continua of space-time and matter-energy are begun.

I clearly based the concept of forming the universe out of "raw materials" on the text. I plan to link light and fire in the Light article. In the Day article, I did use the concept of rotation, a concept not directly "understood" in the Ancient Near East, but which is clearly taught. Should we leave the wiki open to attack by atheists and other skeptics by assuming that Moses and the other writers accommodated to their culture in "believing" in a flat earth on columns over Sheol and a dome across which the sun, moon and stars traveled?

Now, it is true that Moses probably didn't make a connection between matter and energy, but he certainly understood the correlation between distance and time. The concept of "distance" is measured by "a day's journey" in the law, prophets , Gospel , and Acts.

I agree that the information must be drawn from the Book, but I do not want to leave the impression that the Bible is so written as to not display the true glory of God and His Creation.