Technology is really amazing. It has been with us from the very beginning. Technology has played a vital role in bringing us humans where we are today. Our ancestors used technology in the form of tools like axes for agriculture. Every small invention is a form of technology. Whatever makes your life easy is a technology. The wheel which was invented thousands of years ago led to many inventions of the modern world, such as cars, planes etc. which made our lives whole lot more easier.
Living in a very modern way of life is a very challenging and interesting kind of living. This is what technology is all about. Look around you, and try to figure out how many people aren’t using technology today, from the simple use of cell phones and iPod to the use of internet and computer, you really cannot say no one, instead you will say everyone. This is what our lives are all about now, full of technology and modern ways. However, we cannot deny how important technology is to our lives. What is important is that we use it in a way that makes our lives better.
So sit back and take a look at how we use math in our everyday life.Everyone uses and it is no surprise that one needs to have the basic knowledge about numbers, signs and digits before using it.
Since proof is difficult, we may even concede that the resultsof anxiety may sometimes, from certain points of view, bedesirable. The larger question we should ask is whether, as amatter of policy, we should ever encourage the use of a techniquethe tendency (if not the intention) of which is psychologicallypathogenic. We hear much talk these days of responsibleparenthood; the coupled words are incorporated into the titles ofsome organizations devoted to birth control. Some people haveproposed massive propaganda campaigns to instill responsibilityinto the nation's (or the world's) breeders. But what is themeaning of the word conscience? When we use the wordresponsibility in the absence of substantial sanctions are we nottrying to browbeat a free man in a commons into acting againsthis own interest? Responsibility is a verbal counterfeit for asubstantial quid pro quo. It is an attempt to get something fornothing.
The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres ofreligion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is theaim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocalconnection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, orlaws of nature, absolutely general validity is required--not proven. Itis mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishmentin principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone couldbe found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to humanself-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able topredict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with greatprecision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of themodern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contentsof those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within thesolar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on thebasis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though notwith the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the modeof operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wirelessapparatus, even when dealing with a novel development.
Instead, we can look in Genesis 1 for the symbolic meaning that surely must be present if the scientific information is not the main story. Conrad Hyers in 1983 described two parallel tracks of creation: on days 1-3 a framework was created, and on days 4-6 that framework was filled.
Van Till declares that we will only get nonsense answers if we ask of Genesis 1 questions about physical properties and chronological sequence. "The days of Genesis 1 have nothing to do with the cosmic timetable; they are simply literary devices in the story, not actual temporal intervals directly corresponding to events in cosmic history." (page 91) Any similarity to the scientific chronology determined by astronomy, geology, and biology is purely coincidental. He adds elsewhere that we will only get nonsense answers if we ask of scientific data questions about meaning and purpose.
When considering the actual living conditions of presentday civilizedhumanity from the standpoint of even the most elementary religious commands,one is bound to experience a feeling of deep and painful disappointmentat what one sees. For while religion prescribes brotherly love in the relationsamong the individuals and groups, the actual spectacle more resembles abattlefield than an orchestra. Everywhere, in economic as well as in politicallife, the guiding principle is one of ruthless striving for success atthe expense of one's fellow. men. This competitive spirit prevails evenin school and, destroying all feelings of human fraternity and cooperation,conceives of achievement not as derived from the love for productive andthoughtful work, but as springing from personal ambition and fear of rejection.
I think the symbolic "meanings" described above are absurd. The most reasonable "explanation" for the details of the resurrection story is that they were recorded because they happened that way! There is no apparent symbolic significance to most of these details. They are simply recorded because they happened, and they are evidence passed down to this day that we might believe in Jesus and have life in His name.
"In the United States today, however, there is emerging anew set of behavior patterns which suggest that the myth iseither dead or dying. Instead of believing and behaving inaccordance with the myth, large sectors of the population aredeveloping life-styles and value hierarchies that givecontemporary Americans an appearance more closely analogous tothe particularistic, primitive forms of 'tribal' organizations ingeographic proximity than to that shining new alloy, the Americancivilization." [p. 56]
But the original Hebrew word has more meanings than that. can mean the planet, the land and its inhabitants, ground, soil, country, or territory (Zodhiates, page 1600-1601). When the late Menachem Begin and other Zionists speak of , or Greater Israel, they are referring to Israel's pre-1967 boundaries plus Jerusalem and the West Bank of the Jordan River. They are not laying claim to the Himalayas. If we understand to mean the region of the Middle East, then the story of Noah's flood does not have to cover Mt. Everest at 29,028 feet.Let the Earth Bring Forth.
The phrase "let the earth bring forth..." occurs three times in Genesis 1 (verses 11, 20 with water, 24). It does not refer to simple growth from nutrients, because this chapter is about creation. The literal meaning of this phrase matches theistic evolution better than any other creation theory! It's almost a definition of theistic evolution, which is why I put it at the top of this essay. God commanded the earth to produce animals, and the planet did so according to His command.These verses contradict the idea of direct creation of non-human life forms. Carnivores
There are several verses in Genesis that are taken to mean that animals were vegetarian until the Flood. Genesis 1:30 states: "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so." After the Flood, God states in Genesis 9:3 "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."I like the idea expressed in Genesis 1:30 of God's providence for all creatures. I also like the idea of the Peaceable Kingdom, where the lion lies down with the lamb and there is no violence. We don't have a clear indication of when the carnivorous animals switched to eating meat, because Genesis 9:3 refers only to mankind. Job 39:27-30 could indicate that eagles were created as carnivorous animals, but it's not clear enough by itself. I have looked at the sharp teeth of a Tyrannosaurus rex, and they don't look like something created by an to chew vegetation. Since I understand the references to death in Romans 5:12 to mean spiritual death, the presence of carnivorous animals does not pose a theological problem. This issue is not essential for salvation. I simply don't know how Genesis 1:30 fits in with what I can observe about animals. When taken with verse 29, the two verses could be merely a description of who gets to eat what kind of vegetation (man - seeds and fruit, animals and birds - grasses and plants). I do know that verse 30 occurs in a section that describes God's providence for all creatures, and that is the faith message I can take from it.With regard to pre-history and evolution, we do not know how long satan has been allowed some measure of influence and interference in the world. The Garden of Eden sounds somewhat like a sanctuary set up by God to guard Adam and Eve against the outside world. Was there trouble and danger out there even before the Fall of Mankind?In any case, the creation account in Genesis 1-2 is incomplete. Astronomy shows us this in a spectacular fashion. I think that the biological account in Genesis is also incomplete. Who can completely describe the mighty work of creation in just 2 chapters? Not Moses, nor any other possible human author of Genesis. God Almighty rested for the only time recorded in the Bible! I think there is a lot more that happened historically than just those relatively few words in Genesis 1-2. I think a few sentences cover millions of historical years, such as in Genesis 2:7: "The time came when the Lord God formed a man's body from the dust of the ground and breathed into it the breath of life. And man became a living person."Is the Bible incomplete? Yes, John says so at the end of his Gospel, in 20:30-31: "There were many other signs that Jesus worked and the disciples saw, but they are not recorded in this book. These are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing this you may have life through his name." John repeats the "incomplete" assertion in 21:25: "There were many other things that Jesus did; if all were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not hold all the books that would have to be written."What we have is sufficient for Faith. The details left out are interesting, but they are not needed for Faith and Salvation. So we need not worry about the Bible being incomplete. We have enough testimony, both for our own faith and to witness to the world. I don't usually grind through the beginning of Genesis verse by verse, trying to match each one individually with a scientific or historical finding. I think that that approach obscures the greater faith message of the Author.