Project Longshot is a conceptual design for an interstellar spacecraft, an unmanned probe intended to fly to Alpha Centauri powered by nuclear pulse propulsion. Developed by the US Naval Academy and NASA, Longshot was designed to be built at the Space Station Alpha, the precursor to the existing International Space Station. Unlike the somewhat similar Project Daedalus, Longshot was designed solely using existing technology, although some development would have been required.
Do you thing that it would be appropriate to replace the word "Earth" with "Creation" in Genesis 1:28? In so doing would make space exploration and colonization as part of our mandate.
Or could creation in a broader sense be implied in the usage of the word Earth because Space Exploration was something that would never have even been thought of in Old Testament times? _________________ Your Brother and Servant in Christ,
JD
I am only wondering if we could appropriately attribute space exploration and colonization as part of our cultural mandate...
In hind sight, perhaps I could have worded it much better...
In my defense however, I have not slept in 36 hours... So please be gracious and don't burn me at the stake... _________________ Your Brother and Servant in Christ,
JD
In Genesis 1:28 הָאָ֖רֶץ "ha 'aretz" "the earth" as I understand it means "the earth." It could, I suppose, be rightly translated "the ground" but that wouldn't get us into space exporation and colonization either.
jd.morrison wrote:
I am only wondering if we could appropriately attribute space exploration and colonization as part of our cultural mandate...
It seems to me that question is one which is beyond the scope of the intent of the Creation accounts in Genesis. Whether it could rightly be said that space exploration and colonization is part of our cultural mandate is not (in my opinion), a matter of the Genesis record, and if it is indeed part of our "cultural mandate" one ought to look somewhere other than Genesis to find it.
However, where one might find it is a bit of a mystery to me.
Some have tried to find it in Isaiah 45:18--
Quote:
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens God himself that formed the earth and made it he hath established it he created it not in vain he formed it to be inhabited...
They reason that if the earth was made to be inhabited, then so the other planets also have been created to be inhabited, and this has led to everything from Joseph Smith's notion of gods on other planets to a basis for space travel and colonization.
I don't think much of such theories..but that's just my opinion.
Quote:
So please be gracious and don't burn me at the stake...
No stake needed...
_________________ Sterling A. Harmon, Jr.
Deacon
Presbyterian Church of Coventry (PCA)
Reformed Theology Institute
Owner/Admin
"No learning is commendable which is not dipped in the love of God." --John Calvin
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent." --John Calvin
jd.morrison [Universe Explorer and World's in Space Colonizer], Presbyterian Deacon [The Trekkie] and all other participants of the RTI Ship "Enterprise":
First the Hebrew word in Genesis 1:28
הָאָ֖רֶץ
The word (pronounced as "ha-a- ritz") translated literally "earth" with the prefixed definite article (ha) refers entirely to terra firma and never to space.
הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם
This word (pronounced "ha-sha-ma-yim") is translated literally as "the heavens," is dual in form and refers to the blue dome over the earth (blue because of the waters above the dome that open like sluice gates to cause it to rain!). The cosmology is that of a three-story universe with waters above the dome and under the earth so that water wells may be dug.
So, no, heavenly exploration and space travel and colonization cannot legitimately, on the basis of Gen 1:28 and the meaning of "earth," be an element of the cultural mandate. Neither the writer of Genesis 1:1-2:4a nor those who were his intended audience, in their most wildest of dreams, would have so understood the text and, in my opinion, neither should it ever be so interpreted.
That being said, however, the cultural mandade, broadly theologically rather than literally comprehended, may well be understood to undergird every sort of scientific exploration of God's creation -- a creation far more involved than the Genesis record written in terms of the cosmology of its day, suggests. In my opinion a literal rendering of either of the two Genesis creation accounts (Gen 1:1-2:4a and Gen 2:4b-25) is neither required nor valid. Scientific discerment of the data relating to all areas of exploration I would understand as being interpretive of God's general revelation.
In Christ
Lyncx
(aka Spock) _________________ Lynx
Last edited by Lyncx9 on Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:38 pm; edited 2 times in total
.....[Universe Explorer and World's in Space Colonizer], ........[The Trekkie] and all other participants of the RTI Ship "Enterprise":
..........................
Scientific discerment of the data relating to all areas of exploration I would understand as being interpretive of God's general revelation. .....
(aka Spock)
Spock:
As always, that was most logical. Live long and prosper.
Click to see full size image _________________ Sterling A. Harmon, Jr.
Deacon
Presbyterian Church of Coventry (PCA)
Reformed Theology Institute
Owner/Admin
"No learning is commendable which is not dipped in the love of God." --John Calvin
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent." --John Calvin
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Interesting RTI Poll
Who is "the seed" of the woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15
