Re: [CreationTalk] Sagittarius A*
- On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Chuck <chuckpc@...>wrote:
> **unauthorized translation of the Old Testament? The copies of the Septuagint
> The mass is there are a number of stars orbiting the Milky Ways center at
> such a rate so as to show a mass of about 4.2 million solar masses. So the
> mass is there and you can see it even with your purely concrete thinking.
> However purely concrete thinking will not allow you to even consider the
> possibility that there is a 4.2 million solar mass black hole because it is
> too small and dark for us to see it directly at this time.
> You also continue to use ideas base on you own unauthoritative translation
> as though it really was what the Bible says, while not openly informing you
> readers that it is your own translation and a real Bible. Your claims about
> what we see out in the universe are baseless as ever with no references to
> back them up, or they are based on superficial observation. The simple fact
> is that none of you claims have an bases infact.
> ------ Charles Creager Jr.
> Did you ever notice that the Apostle Paul quoted extensively from an
that survived contain apocrypha. Yet Jesus and the Apostles did NOT quote
from the apocrypha. All translations contain unintentional errors in
grammar and interpretation. When Jerome made his translation from the
Hebrew, You are changing God�s Word, the Christians who were familiar with
the Septuagint, complained. He was rendering it from the Hebrew, rather
than the Greek. Jerome claimed to have seen a copy of Matthew in the
library at Caesarea written in its original form, which the Aramaic
speaking Jewish believers (Nazarenes and Ebonites) used. He said the
quotations of the Old Testament in it quoted from the Hebrew Bible, not the
Septuagint. God uses our uninspired translations and our propensity to make
errors to bring people to trust Christ. How? It is His word because He
empowers it, not because our exegesis is perfect and that includes what I
How do we know what the Bible means about Creation? We need to examine the
grammar carefully, not just follow the traditional Catholic exegesis that
imagines God created time and it is linear. The Hebrew text makes no
mention of time. On the fourth Day, He continued to form the Sun, Moon and
stars continues to place them in the spreading place, raqiya. Despite the
grammar, YE and OE creationists interpret creation with western linear-time
ideas. To imagine that the center of the Milky Way has mass, is to try and
interpret what we see with science, rather than simple, visible evidence.
The galactic center has enormous jets - some of which moved out to form the
plane of the galaxy - and other perpendicular jets formed huge gamma lobes.
How did these emerge if the nucleus had so much gravity?
Yet the creation is not without clear evidence. Faith is the underling
support for the assurance of hope, the proof of things not seen, according
to Hebrews 11. What kind of proof does faith see? "By faith we understand
that the aionas (the plural eons) were prepared (katartizoo) by the word of
God." The phrase "word of God" is NOT logos, but God's command - rheemati
Theou. The verb translated prepared is perfect, passive infinitive. He once
for all fit out, equipped, put in order the plural eons. He did not
actively create the eons or create time. They passively came about by God�s
command. Solomon states that long time (olam) is in our minds (Ecc. 3:11).
Can we see the evidence for the plural eons? Of course we can. In the
plural heavens (the galaxies) the spreading place (raqiya) knowledge of
God�s glory is available to all day and night. In galactic history we
observe the very actions declared to have occurred in Genesis chapter One
and that Isaiah claims continue in unbroken continuity. We observe how tiny
globs packed densely with minuscule stars came out of originally naked
galactic nuclei. Those ancient nuclei shone at tiny fractions of the light
frequencies of modern atoms. We observe how billions of galaxies grew into
huge, local growth spirals. The stars continued to come out and continued
to spread out, exactly as the Bible states.
No scientist can accept the only history that is visible as it happened,
galactic history. Why not? Their structured system was founded on the
�first law - arche ktiseous� the Bible predicted for the last days - that
all things remain the same. Scientists try to decode the universe with
their empirical system. ConseqTheir universe is filled with undetectable
things like the vacuum of space-time that allegedly stretches light or four
times as much invisible matter as the natural kind. None of the laws of
physics works in the distant universe. They only �work� locally because
they measure mathematical things that do not actually exist - things like
mass, energy and time. To be scientifically minded is to be a disciple of
the �first law� Peter predicted for the last days.
I recommend you spend a few hours looking at the 2004 Hubble Ultra Deep.
I have the GRAPES data for the spectra of most of these galaxies on my
computer. Here is a place where you can download a grism spectroscopy
version of the HUDF.
Place your mouse over a galaxy and you will see the �red shift�. Click and
you will see the spectral wave shapes, size in arc seconds and photometric
data. I recommend you download a copy of this to your hard drive, since it
is 64 megs long. Don�t be intimidated by the fact that scientists interpret
the data with words like red-shift - as though the vacuum of space-time
altered the light in transit.
If you (1) question the first law of the last days that Peter predicted and
(2) believe what is visible in galactic history - you will likely become a
Changing Earth Creationist. CEC accept what the Bible states - that the
creation is enslaved to change and that God continues to call the stars to
come out and emerge. CEC are free to accept what is visible as real, rather
than force everything to fit the mind numbing first law of science.
You say, galactic history cannot fit 6,000 years. Look at how the star
streams and atomic clocks both accelerate throughout cosmic history. Our
ancestors really did live for geological ages, just like Job so plainly
described during the dinosaur age. We even find the skulls of our
ancestors from 4000 years ago with great thick brows as though they lived
for geological ages. The Bible mentions the very things that ancients also
mention, the crushing of a nearby planet and close planet encounters. The
whole solar system was much smaller 4,000 years ago. Why didn�t we get
burned up by the Sun? The Sun shone red in those days and was also much
smaller. To accept what is visible, that all matter keeps on changing
relationally, is to have the basis for taking the Bible literally with
respect to creation and earth history - using the system of reasoning of
the authors rather than western science.
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- On Behalf Of Victor McAllister
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Sagittarius A*
>> The mass is there are a number of stars orbitingFirst of all other than some fragments we have no copies of the Septuagint
>> the Milky Ways center at such a rate so as to
>> show a mass of about 4.2 million solar masses.
>> So the mass is there and you can see it even with
>> your purely concrete thinking. However purely
>> concrete thinking will not allow you to even
>> consider the possibility that there is a 4.2
>> million solar mass black hole because it is too
>> small and dark for us to see it directly at this
>> You also continue to use ideas base on you own
>> unauthoritative translation as though it really
>> was what the Bible says, while not openly
>> informing you readers that it is your own>
> translation and not a real Bible. Your claims
>> about what we see out in the universe are
>> baseless as ever with no references to back
>> them up, or they are based on superficial
>> observation. The simple fact is that none of
>> you claims have an bases in fact.
> Did you ever notice that the Apostle Paul quoted
> extensively from an unauthorized translation of
> the Old Testament? The copies of the Septuagint
> that survived contain apocrypha. Yet Jesus and
> the Apostles did NOT quote from the apocrypha.
that predate Paul. The earliest copies we do have date from 4th and 5th
centuries and so it is possible and even likely that, Paul's writing were
use at some point in revising the Septuagint. Lets say you have a damaged
portion of the Septuagint that was part of the Old Testament translated by
Paul into Greek for quoting the Old Testament in the New Testament, would it
not make sense to use Paul's translation to fix your damaged copy of the
Septuagint? Furthermore since there are at least two versions of the
Septuagint it is possible that they are descended from an original that
could have qualified as an authoritative Greek Translation that is now lost.
> All translations contain unintentional errors inThat is you option. What you call errors are nothing more than what you
> grammar and interpretation.
personally think a translation should say. Yes there are differences in
grammar in the Hebrew and English translations including the KJV, but that
is no surprise since Hebrew and English are such different languages. When
you translate between two languages you can not just translate the words but
you also have to translate the grammar as well. What you are doing is seeing
the normal and non-error differences between a translation and the original
and concluding that an error was made, when more likely than not YOU are the
one that is making the error.
> How do we know what the Bible means about Creation?I have looked carefully at the Hebrew grammar and still do not see what you
> We need to examine the grammar carefully, not just
> follow the traditional Catholic exegesis that
> imagines God created time and it is linear. The
> Hebrew text makes no mention of time.
> On the fourth Day, He continued to form the Sun,
> Moon and stars continues to place them in the
> spreading place, raqiya.
see. By the way it does mention time. If nothing else it says six times
"evening morning nth day" those are definitely time references. Your
repeated use of the word "continued" in your unauthoritative translation is
an addition to text that is not justified by the Hebrew grammar. A more
accurate way to sate it would be to say, "On the fourth Day, God forming the
Sun, Moon and stars placing them in the spreading place. Now this does not
sound right in English which is why the KJV translators and other use the
past tense which Hebrew does not have, however it is better rendering of the
imperfect tense than they way you keep saying it and it lacks you notion of
action prior to or after the 4th day. Now it may indicate that God took all
of the fourth day to create the sun moon and stars, or it could simply be
the best way the express the past tense here giving Hebrews lack of a past
verb tense in either case it does not fit with your unauthoritative
translation, but it does fit with the authoritative translation of the KJV
and other unauthoritative English translations.
> To imagine that the center of the Milky WayThe visible evidence is several stars rapidly going around the center of the
> has mass, is to try and interpret what we
> see with science, rather than simple,
> visible evidence.
Milky Way showing that there is indeed 4.2 million solar masses located
> The galactic center has enormous jets - someWe have been down this road before and there are two possibilities.
> of which moved out to form the plane of the
> galaxy - and other perpendicular jets formed
> huge gamma lobes. How did these emerge if
> the nucleus had so much gravity?
1) The jets would shot out by the forces going on just above the Black holes
Event horizon. In this case if the jets were going at nearly the speed of
light they could have easily escaped the area near but not in the black
2) If the center were originally a white hole these jets would have emerged
at nearly the speed of light easily escaping the shrinking gravity of the
shirking Wight hole.
I know that you will dismiss these possibilities as being based on your so
called first law but even if that were true it does not change that fact
that these two explanations do explain those enormous jets. The fact that
you refuse to accept those explanations dose not change the fact that they
exist and that there is indeed 4.2 million solar masses at the center of the
Milky Way is not any kind of issue. You keep stating things as though they
are some kind of big problem when they are not.
> I recommend you spend a few hours looking atThanks for the resource but it's not as though galaxy red shifts are any
> the 2004 Hubble Ultra Deep.
> I have the GRAPES data for the spectra of most
> of these galaxies on my computer. Here is a place
> where you can download a grism spectroscopy
> version of the HUDF.
> Place your mouse over a galaxy and you will see
> the "red shift". Click and you will see the spectral
> wave shapes, size in arc seconds and photometric
> data. I recommend you download a copy of this to your
> hard drive, since it is 64 megs long.
kind of mystery. It a potentially useful resource but if you think it will
convince of your interpretation you are mistaken. I never claimed that red
shifts did not exist so what's your point.
> Don't be intimidated by the fact that scientistsI'm not intimidated by how any one interprets data beside I happen to agree
> interpret the data with words like red-shift - as
> though the vacuum of space-time altered the light
> in transit.
with that interpretation in that some of the observed red shift is a result
of the stretching of space-time stretching the light in transit. By the way
the term "red shift" has noting to do with the cause of the observed
decrease in frequency of the light just the fact that it is a lower
frequency of the light. You own intermediation still qualifies as a red
shift; it would be called an intrinsic red shift.
> If you (1) question the first law of the last days1. Your so called first law noting by only on your own grouse mistranslation
> that Peter predicted and (2) believe what is visible
> in galactic history - you will likely become a
> Changing Earth Creationist.
of II Peter 3:3-4 and not what the Bible actually says, not in English and
not even in Greek.
2. What you call "visible galactic history" is nothing but a superficial
interpretation of observations of data that are easily shown to be erroneous
by a closer look at that data.
Besides it would take more than just these two points from me to accept your
Changing Earth notion. It would take denying that the Bible says what it
says not only in English but in Greek and Hebrew as well. It would take
denying that God has preserved an authoritative copy of his word and denying
that he has translated an authoritative copy of it in English for us.
> You say, galactic history cannot fit 6,000 years.I say nothing of the kind. If nothing else time dilation makes it possible.
------ Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science Mission <http://gscim.com/>
Online Store <http://store.gscim.com/>
Genesis Mission <http://genesismission.4t.com/>
Creation Science <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/> Talk
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Mars had to be more than just warmer but it needed a higher atmospheric
pressure than today. Some places on Mars get temperatures above the melting
point of water, but pressure is just a little too low for liquid water. The
best way to explain both a warmer Mars and higher atmospheric pressure is
massive volcanic and impacts this would put a sufficient amount of material
in to the atmosphere to raise the pressure to the point where water could
stay on the surface and the average temperature above the melting point of
By the way Andesites have been seen to form in last hundred years so its not
too slow for a Young Earth model.
------ Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/> Mission
Online <http://store.gscim.com/> Store
Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/> Mission
Creation Science Talk <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/>
From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Victor McAllister
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 3:21 PM
Subject: [CreationTalk] Martian Andesite?
Back in 1997, the Pathfinder craft bounced to a stop on the Martian plains
of Ares Vallis. The Sojourner rover then drove up to a rock called Barnacle
Bill that had a grainy surface. Sojourner placed its APXS spectrometer on
the rock and found a high SiO2 content. Barnacle Bill had the appearance
and composition of Andesite rocks on Earth. Andesite is named after the
Andes mountains that are rich in these rocks. Evidently the processes that
formed the Martian crust were similar to what formed Earth's crust.
formed by partial melting and crystal fractionalization when molten basalt
intruded into crustal rocks. Crystals rich in iron and magnesium are
believed to have formed as the partially melted rocks gradually cooled.*
Mars' northern plains were evidently once inundated with water. Opportunity
found concretions that evidently formed slowly in warm, acidic water on the
plains of Meridiani. Spirit found pure silica powder that formed in a steam
/ hot water spring in the hills inside Gusev crater. Opportunity found
conglomerates of rocks that solidified in a watery slurry and even veins of
gypsum deposited under water in the rim of Endeavour crater. It is
presently examining an outcrop whose signature from orbit suggests it may
have once been water deposited clay. Yet we also see evidence for
catastrophes. Both Spirit and Opportunity found nickle-iron meteorites
lying on the surface. They evidently came from the core of a shattered
In the left picture, the cat-sized Sojourner sits next to Barnacle Bill,
evidently an andesite rock. The picture on the right is of a rock
photographed by the Mars Science Rover on the floor of Gale. The rock has
split into pieces, evidently fairly recently since the concave areas are
not filled with the rusty Martian dust. Rocks can split from cycles of
heating and cooling.* Notice the large light-colored islands in the darker
rock. Without a spectroscopic analysis, we cannot conclusively say it is
Andesite, but it is certainly igneous. Large crystals in rocks are evidence
for slow cooling during partial melts and crystal fractionalization.
for the photos are to NASA.*
*Mars apparently went through various stages in its formation.* At some
point lots of volcanism. Gale crater has fan-shaped deposits at the end of
valleys that seem to be ancient stream beds. Yet the rocks encountered so
far by Curiosity are not rounded pebbles, as though water ran for long
periods. Today Mars is mostly cold and dry. If liquid water runs on the
surface today, it would have to be very salty and would sublime rapidly.
*Is Mars old or young? Like Earth, there is much evidence to suggest it is
extremely old. A Christian might think, that can't be because God created
the universe only 6,000 years ago. It is important to realize the Bible
never says the Earth is young. It uses eon-age words both for mountains and
for early peoples. According to the Bible, God continued to form the Sun,
Moon and stars and continued to place them in the spreading place, Hebrew
raqiya. Evidently, Mars, like Earth, has continued to form.* Martian rocks
retain a global pattern of magnetic stripes, showing that it once had a
magnetic field. The stripes run around the entire planet in the southern
hemisphere. The offsets in the magnetic stripes shift at fault lines as
though the whole planet has grown in size. If one removes the dark,
low-lying areas, the cratered highlands fit together on a much smaller
planet. Palm 136:6 states that the Earth spreads out in unbroken
continuity. Indeed, Earth's continents also fit together on a much smaller
planet, without major surface seas as one should expect from a literal
reading of three biblical passages.
*What is the geological age of Mars and Earth? Consider the Hebrew words
for the fourth day. A body that continues to form is continuing to change.
Orbits that continue to spread apart are by nature accelerating.
Accelerating relative to what? Certainly not clocks, since we observe in
galactic history how atomic clocks have accelerated along with the
spreading star orbits as billions of galaxies intrinsically grew into huge
growth spirals. How could galactic history fit into only 6,000 years? *Job
describes, in the dinosaur age, that they lived for geological ages in few
days as the sea (Hebrew west) dried and their faces deformed before they
died. Indeed, drill cores of the deep Mediterranean show that it
repeatedly dried, just like Job stated. We also find the skulls of the
ancient ones with huge thick brows. If we lived for geological ages, our
skulls would grow Neanderthal. Our grandchildren would not have the
Neanderthal skulls, as the fossils show.
*Why was Mars once a warm, wet planet? It was once much closer to the Sun,
as also was the Earth. What changed? Everything changes. The Bible plainly
states that the creation is enslaved to change that is an orderly and a
together-corruption (Romans 8:19 - 22). *We observe the light signals from
billions of ancient galaxies that clock minuscule frequencies compared to
modern atoms. Carefully examine the first law of science, the presumption
that atoms are perpetual motion engines. Scientists have invented a great
structure of empirical measuring and mathematicating based on their
presumption of atomic perpetual motion. Look at the visible universe. We
see that it is extremely old, exactly as the Bible states. We see that
orbits always accelerate, exactly as one should expect from the creation
*Changing Earth Creationists try not to tailor the Bible to fit western
science. We simply notice that the whole universe is visibly doing what the
Bible states. The Earth is extremely ancient, yet it evidently has only
orbited 6,000 times as all orbits continue to accelerate. *Carefully
examine the arche ktiseous (first law) of the last days that Peter
predicted. He predicted that mockers will obfuscate the age of the plural
heavens and the geological history of the twice inundated earth because
they have a first law, that all things remain the same. Everything physical
changes, as the Bible states. Think about it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]