Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Still looking for a complete Changing Earth model

Expand Messages
  • Chuck
    Victor. While your motives may be noble one major problem with you entire Changing Earth idea is that it lacks specifics. The entire concept seems vague and
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 14, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Victor. While your motives may be noble one major problem with you entire
      Changing Earth idea is that it lacks specifics. The entire concept seems
      vague and incomplete. If you want to be taken seriously you need to present
      us with a model that is detailed enough that we can examine it to see if
      it's even viable. Based on what you have said so far it does not seem to be
      a viable model, because there seems to be too much that is just unworkable.
      However this may be because as presented it lacks the detail need to be a
      viable model, so I ask you to provide those details.



      1. You speak of matter intrinsically changing itself, but what exactly about
      it do you consider to be changing? What properties do you think are
      changing and at what rates are they changing? To make it possible to answer
      this part in a meaningful manner please use 21st century units as a
      standard. Also use accepted terms so that we know what you mean. If you need
      to refer to your specific interpretations at least do us the courtesy of
      putting the accepted terms in parenthesis next to yours.



      2. I under stand the notion of cyclic time, however I also know that it can
      be translated into linear time, so please give us a model of your idea of
      cyclic time that we can use to translate between it and linear time for
      comparison so that we can put your model in perspective.



      3 Since you obviously reject the General Relativity idea that space itself
      is a stretchable, bendable structure, when you refer to the firmament
      (raqiya) as the spreading place what exactly do you think is spreading and
      at what rate is it spreading.



      In answering this be specific and use accepted terms so that we all will
      under stand even if you need to put them in parenthesis next to yours term.
      Part of the problem has been you refusal to use accepted terms makes it hard
      to understand what you referring too. If you really want us to understand
      what you are saying then use accepted terms even if in parenthesis and give
      us a detailed model that we can evaluate rather than the vague notion you
      keep presenting.







      ------ 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]
    • Chuck
      More baseless claims made without giving any references. You also continue your erroneous claims about what the Bible says based on you own flawed and
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 16, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        More baseless claims made without giving any references. You also continue
        your erroneous claims about what the Bible says based on you own flawed and
        unauthoritative translation of the Hebrew.



        What you are saying here sounds a lot like the work of Zecharia Sitchin. He
        is a new ager who has drawn claims about solar system history from the
        Sumerian creation myth, doing basically what you are doing here. So Victor
        are you also expecting the planet Nibiru to show up?



        Also Victor I am still waiting for a complete Changing Earth model. As usual
        you are just spewing out the same vague and baseless claims. Give us a real
        model that we can actually evaluate. My guess is that you can not produce a
        detailed model because such a model would never stand up to scrutiny. By not
        producing a detailed model you can continue to spew out the same vague and
        baseless claims without the possibility of being proven wrong, since your so
        called first law allows you to just dismiss any evidence that does not fit
        your idea by explaining it away being based on your "first law".









        ------ 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/>

        _____

        Archaic pagans believed that the planet gods were the controllers of
        history. Good or bad harvests, victories or defeats were caused by gods,
        perhaps because they failed to preform some ritual. They did not measure
        time, but rather tuned their lives to the observed cycles of nature. How
        could you measure what was sometimes chaotic, the observed paths of the
        heavenly bodies? They mentioned devastation when Venus passed and described
        the battle when a planet was shattered. Eventually the Babylonians invented
        angles for measuring the sky but they were not measuring time. They were
        predicting conjunctions for use with their 7,000 omens, which might recur if
        the planet god was not placated. They also used their calendars for
        celebrating how Marduk shattering the planet Tiamat. They even preserved the
        record of how their first kings reigned for tens of thousands of years -
        during the great time.



        The Jewish concept of history also focused on God. At their festivals, they
        thanked God for the harvest and remembered how God freed them from Egyptian
        slavery. When they triumphed, their God gave them victory. When they were
        defeated, God allowed their enemy to subjugate them for their faithless
        disobedience. Their Scriptures also mentioned the shattering of a planet and
        close passages but forbade worshiping the planets or participating in Baal
        (Jupiter) or Ashtoreth (Venus) orgies. One of their sacred books recorded
        the geological changes that had transpired during the long lives of the
        early people who lived alongside dinosaurs (Job). Geological ages did not
        violate their genealogical records, since Jacob pointed out that the days
        and years of the son are shorter and worse than the days and years of the
        fathers. The Hebrews did not have a concept of an actual time since even
        their grammar did not have past,

        present or future verbs. Besides, Solomon recorded that olam (long time)
        exists in the mind. They looked for the climax of history when God would
        establish a righteous kingdom and people again would live like a tree.



        Ancient calendars changed from 30-day months and 360-day years to 365 days
        with 11 days added to the moon's cycle to fit the sun. Over the centuries
        the planets became more distant and people forgot when a planet was crushed
        nearby during the age of their ancestors. Then the Greek philosophers tried
        to invent scientific reasoning to replace the planet-god omens.



        One of the pagan philosophers, Plotinus, had a profound effect on the
        beginning of time. He explained nature using a god who exists outside of
        time. One of his disciples, Augustine, became a Christian and interpreted
        the Bible with Plotinus' notions. Augustine speculated that God created time
        in the beginning and that He exists in a timeless dimension and sees all the
        future. Augustine's ideas about time had a profound effect on all single-god
        religions. Hundreds of years later, philosophically minded friars adjusted
        Aristotle's system to fit the Bible. They accidentally "solved" the problem
        that prevented the Greeks from inventing an empirical science, the problem
        of everything changing. The new metaphysic was: the essence of substance is
        changeless. This became the dogma of the West, that matter is not
        intrinsically changing relationally.



        Linear time began in the minds of Europeans when philosophers combined
        Augustine's ideas with the ticking of new pendulum clocks. Over the next few
        centuries, scientists built an empirical, symbolical version of mathematical
        reality - contriving thousands of measuring units from clock-time. Unlike
        the early people who claimed that planets sometimes moved chaotically,
        scientists used clocks to measure clock-like orbits.



        Eventually scientists built massive telescopes for observing the history of
        the cosmos. What they observed produced myths even more ridiculous than the
        planet-god stories. The vacuum of space time was allegedly stretching all
        light passing through the void. This was necessary because ancient galaxies
        shone at tiny fractions of the frequencies of modern atomic clocks. They
        invented four times as much invisible matter as the natural kind because
        star stream orbits in billions of galaxies never following their clock-like
        laws. Supposedly the universe is crammed full of dark energy that pulls
        energy out of the vacuum to accelerate the expansion of the vacuum - thereby
        pushing distant galaxies away. Their most absurd myth concerns the explosion
        of a tiny speck of vacuum that created everything out of nothing.
        Astronomers, instead of accepting ancient light, filled the universe with
        magical, invisible things to preserve their blind creed that the essence of
        substance is changeless.



        According to the Bible, Elohim created the plural heavens (the galaxies)
        first. At that early stage the Earth was without form until Elohim continued
        to command light to continue to be. It was then that substances began to
        have an extension as a relation with light. Indeed, matter is a dynamic
        relation with light, as countless experiments show. Half way through the
        creation week, Elohim continued to form the Sun, Moon and stars and
        continued to place them in the spreading place, Hebrew raqiya. We visibly
        confirm that the earliest galaxies were often

        tiny and naked, without starry appendages. We observe how the stars
        continued to emerge, often in equally spaced strings of star globs, as
        billions of galaxies at many ranges intrinsically grew into huge, local,
        growth spirals. The atomic clocks and the emerging star-streams are both
        observed to accelerate together as matter's volume continues to increase.
        What we observe is exactly what the Biblical God says He does in unbroken
        continuity, calling the stars to come out. Scientists sent two spin
        stabilized spacecraft out of the solar system 40 years

        ago. Their clock signals kept on accelerating with increasing distance (the
        past) at the Hubble ratio that astronomers use to estimate the distance to a
        galaxy using its observed light frequencies. We do not observe a single
        clock in billions of ancient galaxies clocking the frequencies of modern
        clocks.



        Changing Earth Creationists predict that the Creator is about to make
        foolish the wise of this age, as He promised. Soon, ordinary people only
        lightly trained in philosophical reasoning, will believe the visible history
        of the cosmos as photographed by the telescopes. They will glorify the
        Creator who has taken the wise in their skills. Scientists will not be able
        to defend their blind faith in atomic perpetual motion. Why would God make a
        universe in which every clock and every orbit in billions of galaxies
        accelerates together? Man cannot come to

        know Him through philosophy, only by child-like faith in the sacrifice of
        Jesus for our sins. How great will be the triumph of the word of God over
        science!



        Victor



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • VictorM
        ... Yet a literal translation is supported by visible galactic history. The authorized trnalstions that follow the Catholic metaphysics and Augustine /
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 17, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
          >
          > More baseless claims made without giving any references. You also continue
          > your erroneous claims about what the Bible says based on you own flawed and
          > unauthoritative translation of the Hebrew.
          >
          Yet a literal translation is supported by visible galactic history. The authorized trnalstions that follow the Catholic metaphysics and Augustine / Newton's concept of time have to close their eyes to galactic history even through the Bible commands us to look and even says in the plural heavens and the spreading place - knowledge of His glory is available to all day and night without words.

          >
          >
          > What you are saying here sounds a lot like the work of Zecharia Sitchin. He
          > is a new ager who has drawn claims about solar system history from the
          > Sumerian creation myth, doing basically what you are doing here. So Victor
          > are you also expecting the planet Nibiru to show up?
          >


          Zecharia Sitchin goes to extremes, such as his theory of Nibiru's elliptical, backward orbit etc. He is right that early societies mentioned when the planets passed at catastrophic ranges, as Velikovsky documented. The Bible makes similar statements as the pagans, but without honoring the planets as gods. That does not mean the pagan stories are accurate, only that they form the context of how ancient people thought. For example, the Bible mentions when the stars (kokabiym) fought from their courses and heavy rain fell - bogging down Sisera's chariots - Judges 5:20. The Sumerians claimed Venus sometimes was bright like the Sun and mentioned which direction its horns pointed. Ancients all over the world recorded that Venus had long hair, a beard - what we would call a vapor tail. A coma remnant still exists on Venus and Mercury today. The Sumerians said the mountains flooded when Venus (Ninsianna) approached. The Amizaduga Tablets mention heavy rains at a Venus' conjunction. If the Earth passed through Venus' coma, it could have rained in the mountains. In Judges 5:20 kokabiym (round, rolling, blazing, stars, planets) is plural. Kokab was Mercury and Kokab Nogah was Venus. An ancient person would have understood this in their context, as a catastrophic passage of planets.

          We have photographed snowballs (about the size of houses) hitting the earth and estimate that twenty hit every minute on our leading hemisphere. If this has been going on for long, oceans of water have reached Earth from space. Where did this water come from? On day two, God continued to command water to separate about the spreading atmosphere. Perhaps this happened as it is occurring on Enceladus, as a water ring forms along the orbit.

          Does evidence exist that the Earth and Venus interacted tidally? Venus has a rotational resonance with Earth at every conjunction as though we affected it tidally. The Bible mentions the shattering of a planet four times, something recorded by all ancient societies. The Bible uses the same descriptive language as the Canaanites for the planet shattering. Comets and asteroids contain rocks that formed in warm liquid water (cubanite) and crystals the grew deep underground under volcanic conditions. They are made of solid rock (have long cliffs) and have irregular shapes like pieces of a shattered planet. There is a simple causal explanation for why orbits and rotations (days and years) should accelerate from one generation to the next, as Jacob explained. The propagation delay of the gravitational effect produces a stronger pull on the trailing side of earth and this must affect all orbits in the solar system, accelerating all bodies outwards as it concurrently accelerated their rotation rates. When you apply a continuous force, you get logarithmically spaced orbits, just as we find in our solar system and in the proposed planets orbiting distant suns. You say, we measured the orbits and they are clock-like. Galactic history reveals how the orbits accelerate outward along with the accelerating atomic clocks.

          Why can't modern creationists accept the Bible as the ancients would have understood it? No contemporary of a biblical author could have interpreted the text with science, a system of reasoning that did mature until a few centuries ago. Evidently modern people have a mindset. What mindset? We interpret all reality with a first law. What first law? That all things remain the same as Peter predicted. In modern lingo - scientists used their notion that atoms are perpetual motion engines to contrive their definitions of symbolical ideas like time, empirical measuring units (most of which are scaled from the western concept of time) and mathematical formulas.

          >
          > Also Victor I am still waiting for a complete Changing Earth model. As usual
          > you are just spewing out the same vague and baseless claims. Give us a real
          > model that we can actually evaluate. My guess is that you can not produce a
          > detailed model because such a model would never stand up to scrutiny. By not
          > producing a detailed model you can continue to spew out the same vague and
          > baseless claims without the possibility of being proven wrong, since your so
          > called first law allows you to just dismiss any evidence that does not fit
          > your idea by explaining it away being based on your "first law".
          >
          >

          There is no Changing Earth Model. Changing Earth is not mathematically structured like science. You cannot invent a system of science once you accept what the Bible says that the creation is enslaved to change. Solomon plainly states that science is impossible, even in the solar system (Ecclesiastes 8:16-17). Did you ever notice that Peter said gold is corrupting itself (1 Peter 1:7)? What sort of evidence supports changing earth? The visible history of the universe. We observe exactly what the Bible states - that God made the plural heavens first although at that stage the earth had a limited extension until He continued to command light to continue to be. Then He continued to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continued to place them in the spreading place. Orbits that spread - accelerate. Although the intensity of creating the heavens and earth finished in six days, the verb finished (Gen 2:1) is imperfect - he continues to finish the heavens and the earth (the physics). Three times the authoritative Bible says God spreads out the earth in unbroken continuity. Evidence? The continents only fit together on a tiny globe without major surface seas. Evidently He is continuing to spread out the earth above the waters as a global expansion seam continues to form young sea floor. The subduction myth is denied by the layered undisturbed sediments in the ocean trenches.

          Eleven passages claim God spreads out the plural heavens, some with completed action verbs and some with unbroken continuity verbs, sometimes in the same verse. The galaxies spread out long ago, each major elliptical rooted in place. When we compare the earliest galaxies with closer ones, we observe how small galaxies emerged as galaxy clusters grew. Innumerable spirals grew as the stars came out, spread out into huge, local, growth spirals. He is not spreading out the vacuum of spacetime as in scientific myths. He is visibly spreading out billions of galaxies as the star orbits continue to accelerate outwards. You say, the earth is only 6,000 years old. I agree and I also agree that the creation happened in six cycles of light and dark. Yet ancient years were vast geological ages and years and days continue to shorten (Gen 47:9). We all notice life speeding up as we age. Job listed the geological markers for the few days of life during the dinosaur age. The Mediterranean dried and their faces doubled before they died, which is supported by drill cores and fossils. We measure orbits with clocks and they are linear, shouts the scientist. Answer: We observe in billions of galaxies at many ranges how the clocks and the orbits both accelerate as the space matter takes up also increases.

          The visible history of the universe is the most powerful evidence for a hermeneutic interpretation of creation and cosmic history. This is why I claim that in a few decades God will make science into the greatest joke. He will make foolish science for His great glory. No one can come to him in their wisdom. Yet sinners who come in faith with nothing but their sin, He saves and makes them His children. It was His work that brought the sinners to trust Christ, not science.

          Victor
        • Chuck
          ... However what you are pushing is NOT a literal translation but a total mistranslation. I have checked the Hebrew myself and do seen in it what you claim to
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 18, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            >> More baseless claims made without giving any references.
            >> You also continue your erroneous claims about what the
            >> Bible says based on you own flawed and unauthoritative
            >> translation of the Hebrew.
            >
            >Yet a literal translation is supported by visible galactic history.
            >
            However what you are pushing is NOT a literal translation but a total
            mistranslation. I have checked the Hebrew myself and do seen in it what you
            claim to be there. Furthermore what you call visible galactic history is a
            superficial comparison of different galaxies, the conclusions of which are
            refuted by other facts.

            >Zecharia Sitchin goes to extremes, such as his theory of Nibiru's
            > elliptical, backward orbit etc. He is right that early societies
            > mentioned when the planets passed at catastrophic ranges, as
            > Velikovsky documented. The Bible makes similar statements
            > as the pagans, but without honoring the planets as gods. That
            > does not mean the pagan stories are accurate, only that they
            > form the context of how ancient people thought.

            I am well aware of Velikovsky's work and many of his conclusions do not
            stand up to close scrutiny.

            > For example, the Bible mentions when the stars (kokabiym)
            > fought from their courses and heavy rain fell - bogging down
            > Sisera's chariots - Judges 5:20.

            There is no mention here of a heavy rain bogging down Sisera's chariots.

            >The Sumerians claimed Venus sometimes was bright like the
            > Sun and mentioned which direction its horns pointed.
            > Ancients all over the world recorded that Venus had long
            > hair, a beard - what we would call a vapor tail. . The
            > Sumerians said the mountains flooded when Venus
            > (Ninsianna) approached. The Amizaduga Tablets mention
            > heavy rains at a Venus' conjunction. If the Earth passed
            > through Venus' coma, it could have rained in the mountains.

            One possible explanation would be confusion between the Venus and a comet.
            If a comet came from near Venus as it became obscured by sun the comet may
            have become confused for Venus itself.

            > In Judges 5:20 kokabiym (round, rolling, blazing, stars, planets)
            > is plural. Kokab was Mercury and Kokab Nogah was Venus. An
            > ancient person would have understood this in their context, as
            >a catastrophic passage of planets.

            The same word could refer to meteorites and so Judges 5:20 could refer to
            meteorites falling on Sisera. Just a suggestion.

            > A coma remnant still exists on Venus and Mercury today.

            Please give a reference for this claim.

            > We have photographed snowballs (about the size of houses)
            > hitting the earth and estimate that twenty hit every minute
            > on our leading hemisphere.

            Once again give us a reference to this claim

            > Does evidence exist that the Earth and Venus interacted tidally?
            > Venus has a rotational resonance with Earth at every conjunction
            > as though we affected it tidally. The Bible mentions the shattering
            > of a planet four times, something recorded by all ancient societies.

            First of all this is not an exact resonance, but even if it were it could
            just be a coincidence. The rotation rate of Venus has been measured as
            slowing and as at some point in the process it would be in resonance with
            its conjunction with Earth, so it is not a problem. In addition God could
            have set it up that way just to tweak atheists.

            >> Also Victor I am still waiting for a complete Changing Earth
            >> model. As usual you are just spewing out the same vague and
            >> baseless claims. Give us a real model that we can actually
            >> evaluate. My guess is that you can not produce a detailed model
            >> because such a model would never stand up to scrutiny. By not
            >> producing a detailed model you can continue to spew out the same
            >> vague and baseless claims without the possibility of being proven
            >> wrong, since your so called first law allows you to just dismiss any
            >> evidence that does not fit your idea by explaining it away being
            >> based on your "first law".
            >
            > There is no Changing Earth Model. Changing Earth is not

            > mathematically structured like science.



            Translation you have put forth a notion that you can claim is supported by
            any superficial observation you declare as such and that further can not
            even be tested for internal consistency. Your Changing Earth notion is thus
            a blinder that you can put on that allows you to ignore any thing does not
            fit while allowing any that superficially can be made to fit to be claimed
            as supporting evidence with no ability to see check for any type of
            objective fit. You have created a notion of that allows you exalt yourself
            above others while being allowed you to ignore any thing that does not fit
            the idea.



            > Solomon plainly states that science is impossible, even in the
            > solar system (Ecclesiastes 8:16-17).

            Ecclesiastes 8:16-17 says nothing of the kind.



            Ecclesiastes 8:16-17

            16 When I applied mine heart to know

            wisdom, and to see the business that is done

            upon the earth: (for also there is that neither

            day nor night seeth sleep with his eyes:)

            17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a

            man cannot find out the work that is done

            under the sun: because though a man labour to

            seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further;

            though a wise man think to know it, yet shall

            he not be able to find it.



            These verses do limit them selves to the Earth, by such terms as "the
            business that is done upon the earth", and "the work that is done under the
            sun." They are talking about our inability to know all that is happening on
            the Earth, because we can not see it all. Clearly can know some of it since
            I know what I am doing at this moment. This in no way says that science is
            impossible though it could indicate that it can never be completed.


            > Did you ever notice that Peter said gold is
            > corrupting itself (1 Peter 1:7)?



            One again 1 Peter 1:7 says nothing of the kind.



            1 Peter 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more

            precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried

            with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and

            glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:



            It simply says that gold become corrupt NOT that it is intrinsically
            corrupting itself. This verse is fully consistent with thermodynamic decay.



            The simple fact is that none of what you are claiming the Bible says is what
            it actually says not even in Hebrew and Greek. Your changing earth idea is
            based entirely on misinterpretation of the Bible and observations. It is a
            theory that can not even be shown to be internally consistent since you
            eliminate any means of check that consistency as a starting assumption.











            ------ 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/>





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Chuck
            ... As usual you did not provide a reference. Will you please start doing so because I m getting tiered of having to find them for you? This has a full
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 21, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              > An article in Nature claims the earliest galaxy yet detected.
              > Wei Zhang calculated that the galaxy, MACS 1149-JD, is
              > 13.2 billion light years away. How do astronomers know
              > that the light from this ancient galaxy came from 500
              > million years after the big bang?



              As usual you did not provide a reference. Will you please start doing so
              because I'm getting tiered of having to find them for you? This has a full
              resolution copy of the image.



              http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/multimedia/pia15806.html



              In answer to your question evolutionary cosmologists currently date the "Big
              Bang" at 13.7 billion years ago. Based on the galaxy's red shift they
              estimate its distance at 13.2 billion light years, which means that it
              should have taken13.2 billion years for its light to reach us. The rest of
              it is just math: 13.7 billion -13.2 billion = 0.5 billion = 500 million
              years after the "Big Bang."



              That said this is only the conclusion drawn from the Big Bang model, there
              are three other possible scientific conclusions that I can see.



              1. This is a much nearer galaxy that is still emerging from its central
              white hole that would later become a central black hole and is hence vary
              small and gravitationally red shifted.



              2. The images of this "galaxy" is just above the background noise and in
              fact I can not find it when I enlarge that part of the main image. Now this
              from a jpeg image and so that could be the problem however given how close
              it is to the background noise, that may be all it is.



              3. The is one other possibility though I would surmised thar the astronomers
              working with the Spitzer Space Telescope would have considered and
              eliminated it but maybe not. Since they do not show a spectrum it is most
              likely that the 9.6 redshift is base only on the color. If that is the case
              then it is possible that this object is not a galaxy at all but a rogue red
              dwarf star just out side the Milkyway.



              The rest of you post is not worth responding to since we have been over that
              material before and it is just the same anti-science babel, and twisted
              interpretations of the Bible and superficial observations that I refuted it
              several times already.







              ------ 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/>





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • VictorM
              ... Victor: Since you say you see what I say is in the original language, then you might want to consider other hermeneutic evidence. (1) Other biblical texts
              Message 6 of 10 , Sep 21, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
                >
                > >> More baseless claims made without giving any references.
                > >> You also continue your erroneous claims about what the
                > >> Bible says based on you own flawed and unauthoritative
                > >> translation of the Hebrew.
                > >
                > >Yet a literal translation is supported by visible galactic history.
                > >
                > However what you are pushing is NOT a literal translation but a total
                > mistranslation. I have checked the Hebrew myself and do seen in it what you
                > claim to be there. Furthermore what you call visible galactic history is a
                > superficial comparison of different galaxies, the conclusions of which are
                > refuted by other facts.

                Victor: Since you say you see what I say is in the original language, then you might want to consider other hermeneutic evidence. (1) Other biblical texts support a literal interpretation, rather than the traditional Catholic exegesis. (2) The epistemic context of how ancient people thought also supports a literal interpretation. No ancient person could think scientifically. Indeed, western science is young and was founded on the idea the Bible predicts for the false teachers of the last days.

                The evidence from different galaxies at different ranges is the only history that we observe as it happened. Consider that God Himself commands us to observe the plural heavens, the spreading place raqiya. (You cannot observe spreading vacuums - but you can observe billions of spreading out galaxies). He says He calls the stars to come out, to emerge, in unbroken continuity. He spreads out the plural heavens like a tent.

                Consider the damage done by tailoring the text to fit science. Paul said that if he presented the gospel with cleverness of speech, it might (subjunctive mood) neutralize the message of the cross. Why? God plans to destroy the wisdom of the wise and to set aside the cleverness of the clever (1 Corinthians 1:17 - 21). All over the world the modern church is embracing culture, emotions, technology, science as tools for bring people to trust Christ. The way I read my Bible, doing so makes the message less effective because the power of the gospel is not achieved through human wisdom - but in the foolishness of the cross of Christ. God's power is perfected in our weakness. We are saved by grace through faith alone in the atoning work of Jesus. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God, not scientific arguments and not even by the will of man but of God.

                It is the glory of God to conceal a matter (Prov 25:2). Ecc 1:13 "And I set my mind to seek and explore by wisdom concerning all that has been done under heaven. It is a grievous task which God has given to the sons of men to be afflicted with." There is one place where knowledge is available day and night without words - the spreading place - the plural heavens (Psa 19). The very place God commands us to look - is where we observe the evidence that supports the biblical version of Earth's vast ages - yet few orbits have passed because he continues to place the Sun, Moon and stars in the spreading place. The visible evidence from galactic history refutes western notions of linear time and substantiates biblical accelerating days and years (Gen 47:9).

                >
                > >Zecharia Sitchin goes to extremes, such as his theory of Nibiru's
                > > elliptical, backward orbit etc. He is right that early societies
                > > mentioned when the planets passed at catastrophic ranges, as
                > > Velikovsky documented. The Bible makes similar statements
                > > as the pagans, but without honoring the planets as gods. That
                > > does not mean the pagan stories are accurate, only that they
                > > form the context of how ancient people thought.
                >
                > I am well aware of Velikovsky's work and many of his conclusions do not
                > stand up to close scrutiny.
                >
                > > For example, the Bible mentions when the stars (kokabiym)
                > > fought from their courses and heavy rain fell - bogging down
                > > Sisera's chariots - Judges 5:20.
                >
                > There is no mention here of a heavy rain bogging down Sisera's chariots.
                >
                > >The Sumerians claimed Venus sometimes was bright like the
                > > Sun and mentioned which direction its horns pointed.
                > > Ancients all over the world recorded that Venus had long
                > > hair, a beard - what we would call a vapor tail. . The
                > > Sumerians said the mountains flooded when Venus
                > > (Ninsianna) approached. The Amizaduga Tablets mention
                > > heavy rains at a Venus' conjunction. If the Earth passed
                > > through Venus' coma, it could have rained in the mountains.
                >
                > One possible explanation would be confusion between the Venus and a comet.
                > If a comet came from near Venus as it became obscured by sun the comet may
                > have become confused for Venus itself.
                >
                > > In Judges 5:20 kokabiym (round, rolling, blazing, stars, planets)
                > > is plural. Kokab was Mercury and Kokab Nogah was Venus. An
                > > ancient person would have understood this in their context, as
                > >a catastrophic passage of planets.
                >
                > The same word could refer to meteorites and so Judges 5:20 could refer to
                > meteorites falling on Sisera. Just a suggestion.
                >
                > > A coma remnant still exists on Venus and Mercury today.
                >
                > Please give a reference for this claim.
                >
                > > We have photographed snowballs (about the size of houses)
                > > hitting the earth and estimate that twenty hit every minute
                > > on our leading hemisphere.
                >
                > Once again give us a reference to this claim
                >
                > > Does evidence exist that the Earth and Venus interacted tidally?
                > > Venus has a rotational resonance with Earth at every conjunction
                > > as though we affected it tidally. The Bible mentions the shattering
                > > of a planet four times, something recorded by all ancient societies.
                >
                > First of all this is not an exact resonance, but even if it were it could
                > just be a coincidence. The rotation rate of Venus has been measured as
                > slowing and as at some point in the process it would be in resonance with
                > its conjunction with Earth, so it is not a problem. In addition God could
                > have set it up that way just to tweak atheists.
                >

                Victor:
                God never deceives in word or action. Yet He decrees that those who reject Him will be deceived. However, He even warns them about the "fist law" of the last days so they cannot complain in His court that He deceived them.

                It could only be an exact resonance if both the Earth and Venus had circular orbits. Venus' synodic period is only an average. It varies by a few days mostly from the elliptical nature of both orbits. If you compare the longitude of Venus at inferior conjunction (radar observation) and arrange the observations into five groups each eight years apart, you will see that in each group the longitude varies only a few degrees plus or minus. None of the groups shows incrementing longitude. This is a real resonance that may have originated when Venus's axis flipped over by precession and tidal interactions during Joshua's long day.

                You are comparing orbits to clocks as though clocks are the standard. We can observe in hundreds of billions of galaxies how both the clocks and the orbits accelerate together.

                By the way, my claim is (1) the gravitational effect is not perpetual motion (as in Newton and Einstein's theories). We observe how atoms keep changing their clock rates throughout cosmic history and that orbits concurrently accelerate as galaxies intrinsically grew. Probably gravity is an emergent phenomenon. As matter changes, it emits something (that no one has yet detected) that we call gravity. (2) The propagation delay of "gravity" traveling from the Sun to Earth pulls more on our trailing hemisphere than the leading side. This slight imbalance (which is observed with the motion of paraconical pendula) must accelerate Earths days and years together (Genesis 47:9). (3) The same effect accelerated Venus's orbit outward but SLOWS down its rotation rate, since it is rotating backward from any other planet. All the planets interact gravitationally, but because they were closer together a few thousand years ago, they affected each other more then. (4) Outer planets move away from the Sun faster because they have a greater angular offset from the Sun's gravity. The continuous incrementing acceleration on all the planets causes them to spread out with logarithmic spacing (Titius Bode relationship). This explains why both the Bible and the ancients mention close passages and the shattering of a nearby planet yet today the planets are distant. (5) Other star systems and the moons of the major planets also have logarithmic spacing and resonances. The synodic ratios stay about the same as the whole solar system continues to spread out. The Bible plainly states that God continues to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continues to place them in the spreading place. Does he continue to still form the Earth? He uses imperfect verbs for the finishing of the heavens and earth in Genesis 2:1 -2. The continents fit together on a much smaller planet, exactly as one should expect from the literal text of the Bible. If you remove the Moons Mare (which are mostly on the earth-facing side) the highlands join together on a much smaller moon. Ptolemy measured a larger angular size of the Moon and planets 1850 years ago but evidently the Mare were already formed by then.

                We all notice that life speeds up age we age, but we have all been trained with the first law of the last days - to think of time as linear. How long were the earliest years? There are no fixed references. There is no way to measure the vast ages that passed during one Earth rotation back in Adam's days. The only reference we have is from Job's description of living for geological ages in few days but that was only 4,000 years ago. We do find the skulls of the ancient with huge protruding brows as though they lived for geological ages, which surely supports Jobs statements. By the way, in Job's opinion life was very short. He must have been comparing it to the lives of his ancestors. The Sumerian king lists show that the earliest kings reigned for tens of thousands of years, but latter ones only for decades. Perhaps the scribe was estimating how long their ancestors lived back during the great time.

                Notice that because Changing Earth Creationists try to avoid the first law of the last days (2 Peter 3:3 - 6), we have no problems with the vast age of the earth in only six thousands years. We also have visible evidence in the way the galaxies formed to support the visible evidence for a changing earth.

                Victor



                > >> Also Victor I am still waiting for a complete Changing Earth
                > >> model. As usual you are just spewing out the same vague and
                > >> baseless claims. Give us a real model that we can actually
                > >> evaluate. My guess is that you can not produce a detailed model
                > >> because such a model would never stand up to scrutiny. By not
                > >> producing a detailed model you can continue to spew out the same
                > >> vague and baseless claims without the possibility of being proven
                > >> wrong, since your so called first law allows you to just dismiss any
                > >> evidence that does not fit your idea by explaining it away being
                > >> based on your "first law".
                > >
                > > There is no Changing Earth Model. Changing Earth is not
                >
                > > mathematically structured like science.
                >
                >
                >
                > Translation you have put forth a notion that you can claim is supported by
                > any superficial observation you declare as such and that further can not
                > even be tested for internal consistency. Your Changing Earth notion is thus
                > a blinder that you can put on that allows you to ignore any thing does not
                > fit while allowing any that superficially can be made to fit to be claimed
                > as supporting evidence with no ability to see check for any type of
                > objective fit. You have created a notion of that allows you exalt yourself
                > above others while being allowed you to ignore any thing that does not fit
                > the idea.
                >
                >
                >
                > > Solomon plainly states that science is impossible, even in the
                > > solar system (Ecclesiastes 8:16-17).
                >
                > Ecclesiastes 8:16-17 says nothing of the kind.
                >
                >
                >
                > Ecclesiastes 8:16-17
                >
                > 16 When I applied mine heart to know
                >
                > wisdom, and to see the business that is done
                >
                > upon the earth: (for also there is that neither
                >
                > day nor night seeth sleep with his eyes:)
                >
                > 17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a
                >
                > man cannot find out the work that is done
                >
                > under the sun: because though a man labour to
                >
                > seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further;
                >
                > though a wise man think to know it, yet shall
                >
                > he not be able to find it.
                >
                >
                >
                > These verses do limit them selves to the Earth, by such terms as "the
                > business that is done upon the earth", and "the work that is done under the
                > sun." They are talking about our inability to know all that is happening on
                > the Earth, because we can not see it all. Clearly can know some of it since
                > I know what I am doing at this moment. This in no way says that science is
                > impossible though it could indicate that it can never be completed.
                >
                >
                > > Did you ever notice that Peter said gold is
                > > corrupting itself (1 Peter 1:7)?
                >
                >
                >
                > One again 1 Peter 1:7 says nothing of the kind.
                >
                >
                >
                > 1 Peter 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more
                >
                > precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried
                >
                > with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and
                >
                > glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
                >
                >
                >
                > It simply says that gold become corrupt NOT that it is intrinsically
                > corrupting itself. This verse is fully consistent with thermodynamic decay.
                >
                >
                >
                > The simple fact is that none of what you are claiming the Bible says is what
                > it actually says not even in Hebrew and Greek. Your changing earth idea is
                > based entirely on misinterpretation of the Bible and observations. It is a
                > theory that can not even be shown to be internally consistent since you
                > eliminate any means of check that consistency as a starting assumption.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------ 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/>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • Chuck
                ... conclusions ... That was a typo, I meant to say that I have checked the Hebrew myself and do NOT see in it what you claim to be there. Sorry for the
                Message 7 of 10 , Sep 22, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  >>>> More baseless claims made without giving any references.

                  >>>> You also continue your erroneous claims about what the

                  >>>> Bible says based on you own flawed and unauthoritative

                  >>>> translation of the Hebrew.

                  >>>

                  >>>Yet a literal translation is supported by visible galactic history.

                  >>>

                  >> However what you are pushing is NOT a literal translation but a total

                  >> mistranslation. I have checked the Hebrew myself and do [not] seen in it
                  >> what you claim to be there. Furthermore what you call visible galactic
                  >> history is a superficial comparison of different galaxies, the
                  conclusions
                  >> of which are refuted by other facts.

                  >

                  > Victor: Since you say you see what I say is in the original language,
                  > then you might want to consider other hermeneutic evidence.



                  That was a typo, I meant to say that "I have checked the Hebrew myself and
                  do NOT see in it what you claim to be there." Sorry for the slip up.



                  > (1) Other biblical texts support a literal interpretation, rather than
                  > the traditional Catholic exegesis.



                  If you will give me the references I will check it out. If your track record
                  is any indication these are probably just your own erroneous translations of
                  the text and not what it actually says.



                  > (2) The epistemic context of how ancient people thought also
                  > supports a literal interpretation.



                  Except that you are not using a literal interpretation but you own erroneous
                  one.



                  > No ancient person could think scientifically.



                  Prove it! Yes ancient languages up until Greek were very poor for expressing
                  scientific thought, but that does not mean that out of the millions of
                  people that lived from Adam to about 300 BC that not one of them could think
                  scientifically. Any one who did would have had a huge problem communicating
                  their ideas in a language ill-equipped for it. The point is that you are
                  making an over generalization.



                  Even if true that's not really relevant since God can supersede Human limits
                  such that we should not expect God to have limited his words to the mode of
                  thought of the ancient Israelites. What you are say is akin to the
                  accommodation theory, which I think we can both agree is a liberal
                  compromise view,



                  > Indeed, western science is young and was founded on the idea
                  > the Bible predicts for the false teachers of the last days.



                  Yes western science is young but it is not founded what is predicted in II
                  Peter 3. You only get your so called first law in your erroneous
                  interpretation and no place else. Second western science is not even found
                  on the principle of you so called first law. Actually the first law of
                  western science is that the Universe is understandable. The idea that the
                  laws of nature as we know them are consistent through out space and time is
                  a general principle and both creationists and evolutionists recognize that
                  that it is not an absolute rule. Creationists see that God has tweaked those
                  laws from time to time for his purposes and even evolutionary cosmologists
                  recognize that the laws of physics beak down at the moment of their so
                  called big bang.



                  > The evidence from different galaxies at different ranges is the only
                  > history that we observe as it happened.



                  However you ignore much of what can be observed in that history limiting
                  yourself to superficial observations. When you include more detailed
                  observable data such as the doppler affects in Galactic rotation much of
                  what you claim is shown to be wrong.



                  > Consider that God Himself commands us to observe the plural heavens,
                  > the spreading place raqiya.



                  I can not find any such thing. This is most likely just one of you own
                  personal erroneous interpretations. However if you provide a book, chapter
                  and verse reference I will look at it. I give it about a 99.99% chance that
                  I will find that it says nothing of the kind but there is still the 0.01%
                  chance that I'll agree with you.



                  > (You cannot observe spreading vacuums - but you can observe
                  > billions of spreading out galaxies).



                  You clearly think that the Hebrew word "raqiya" is refereeing to individual
                  galaxies. You are justifying this interpretation by the use of the plural
                  form heaven, however all 17 times "raqiya" is used it is singular not plural
                  clearly the use is heavens has another meaning.



                  > He says He calls the stars to come out, to emerge, in
                  > unbroken continuity. He spreads out the plural heavens like a tent.



                  Will you stop giving your own person interpretations of the Bible without
                  giving a reference so that I can find what the Bible really says?



                  >>> Does evidence exist that the Earth and Venus interacted tidally?

                  >>> Venus has a rotational resonance with Earth at every conjunction

                  >>> as though we affected it tidally. The Bible mentions the shattering

                  >>> of a planet four times, something recorded by all ancient societies.

                  >>

                  >> First of all this is not an exact resonance, but even if it were it could

                  >> just be a coincidence. The rotation rate of Venus has been measured as

                  >>slowing and as at some point in the process it would be in resonance with

                  >> its conjunction with Earth, so it is not a problem. In addition God could

                  >> have set it up that way just to tweak atheists.

                  >

                  > Victor:

                  > God never deceives in word or action.



                  I never said any thing about God deceiving any one. The reference to God
                  tweaking atheists was simply referring to annoying them, by giving them some
                  evidence that suggests design. Also suggesting that it is a coincidence
                  implies not deception just that the phenomenon has no relation to either
                  Earth's or Venus' history.



                  > It could only be an exact resonance if both the Earth and Venus had
                  > circular orbits. Venus' synodic period is only an average. It varies by
                  > a few days mostly from the elliptical nature of both orbits. If you
                  > compare the longitude of Venus at inferior conjunction (radar
                  > observation) and arrange the observations into five groups each
                  > eight years apart, you will see that in each group the longitude
                  > varies only a few degrees plus or minus. None of the groups shows
                  > incrementing longitude. This is a real resonance that may have
                  > originated when Venus's axis flipped over by precession and tidal
                  > interactions during Joshua's long day.



                  I never claimed the resonance was not real, just that it does not prove a
                  past interaction between the Earth and Venus. You clearly got this idea from
                  Velikovsky, since this is basically what he described. However there
                  evidence from legends around the world that support the idea that God
                  supernaturally affected the Earth's rotation, you find long day, long nights
                  and long sun sets legions in places you would expect to find each if they
                  are all based on local observations of Joshua's long day. No references to
                  Venus however.



                  The rest of your post was just material we have already gone over and that I
                  have refuted several times already.







                  ------ 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/>





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • VictorM
                  ... The early peoples left records which are not remarkably different from the Bible in some respects. 1. They never tried to understand the universe with
                  Message 8 of 10 , Sep 26, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >
                    >
                    > > No ancient person could think scientifically.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Prove it! Yes ancient languages up until Greek were very poor for expressing
                    > scientific thought, but that does not mean that out of the millions of
                    > people that lived from Adam to about 300 BC that not one of them could think
                    > scientifically. Any one who did would have had a huge problem communicating
                    > their ideas in a language ill-equipped for it. The point is that you are
                    > making an over generalization.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Even if true that's not really relevant since God can supersede Human limits
                    > such that we should not expect God to have limited his words to the mode of
                    > thought of the ancient Israelites. What you are say is akin to the
                    > accommodation theory, which I think we can both agree is a liberal
                    > compromise view,
                    >

                    The early peoples left records which are not remarkably different from the Bible in some respects.

                    1. They never tried to understand the universe with scientific thinking. They explained things with god-stories. For the Jews, Elohim created and managed the universe but He was good to all that He made. For the pagan, planet gods were responsible although they were mean-spirited and often fought wars with each other.

                    2. With respect to history, they saw change in the very places we use mathematical modeling to imagine constants. All the ancients considered that the first generations lived in the great time. Josephus lists the historians of the major societies of his day and says all of them agreed that the earliest people lived for a thousand years. The King Lists from Mesopotamia showed that their earliest kings reigned for tens of thousands of years - compared to later kings. Job clearly mentions that the seas dried as a marker for the few days of their lives and their faces changed before they died during the dinosaur age. Yet Job lived around the time of Abraham - after the flood. (Dinosaurs and geological ages in few days are biblical and are supported by the evidence from the fossils).

                    3. The Earth and the planets continued to change. The oceans were newly formed, according to Ovid. The planets had devastated the Earth during close passages when they became giants, Titans. Later generations, although they still feared Venus, no longer mention its horns. The Bible also mentions close passages and planet shatterings.

                    4. The pagan Greeks tried to invent science for hundreds of years, but were unsuccessful because they could not find a way around the problem of intrinsic change, phthora. Science only arose in the Catholic west after the friars invented brand new ideas about being and essence. They did so because they were following pagan ideas about how God was changeless and existed in an eternal state outside of time. The Catholic idea that God created time was central to their doctrine of God. Yet the Bible never says these things.

                    5. Only in western Europe did those who were philosophically minded build science on this notion that the intrinsic properties of matter are fixed, not emerging. Scientists think, measure and mathematicate with a first law, the law Peter predicted for the last days. This prophesy has come true. Scientists have filled the universe up with magical things to preserve their blind creed that the properties of matter are fixed, not continually emerging.

                    So how could the prophets of the Bible even imagine science. The law of science had not been invented until westerners imagined it?

                    Changing Earthers accept what is visible as real, that every atom changes as it ages. The visible history of the universe is the most powerful evidence for a literal, biblical creation, rather that a westernized interpretation. God is going to get great glory when He makes foolish the wisdom of this age, science, as He promised. How could science fail? When we fight with the word of God and when our obedience is complete, we will bring down the great fortress of speculative reasoning raised up against the knowledge of God.

                    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2cor10:3-6&version=NASB

                    I recommend to you the ancient way of thinking used by the biblical prophets, which Changing Earthers try to follow, instead of tailoring the Bible to fit western science.

                    Victor
                  • Chuck
                    You totally missed my two points be. The first being that you are making an over generalization about ancient people when it is quite possible that some of
                    Message 9 of 10 , Sep 27, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      You totally missed my two points be. The first being that you are making an
                      over generalization about ancient people when it is quite possible that some
                      of then that we have no record of may have made that break through in
                      thought and were simply stifled by the society in which they lived I was not
                      making any statements about the general mode of thinking. Your description
                      of the general mode of thinking of post-flood ancient people is basically
                      correct but it may not have been absolute, and it may not have even been
                      pre-flood.



                      You seem to have totally missed my main point being that God is not limited
                      by the mode of thinking of the humans that wrote and originally received the
                      Bible. In communicating to us, God is however limited by our language, but
                      if you limit the Bible to the mode of thinking of the humans of the time it
                      was written not only do you miss out on amazing evidence for divine
                      inspiration but you are be risking great error.



                      I under stand your claims about intrinsic change as being corruption as well
                      as the fact that your entire first law bit is base on a grouse
                      mistranslation and misinterpretation of II Peter 3:3-6.



                      II Peter 3:3-6

                      3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days

                      scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

                      4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for

                      since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they

                      were from the beginning of the creation.

                      5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word

                      of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing

                      out of the water and in the water:

                      6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed

                      with water, perished:



                      The reason the idea that the intrinsic properties of matter are fixed is not
                      what is being referred to here is that it does not fit the entire
                      description.



                      Not only do you have discount over four hundred years of English
                      translations and replace it with your own personal translation. By the way
                      the Latin Vulgate which was translated in the 4th century (only about 300
                      years after II Peter was written) backs up "beginning of the creation"
                      translation of verse 4. The point is that I cam point to translation after
                      translation spanning 1700 years and all you can do is point to your own
                      unauthoritative translation.



                      That said while idea that the intrinsic properties of matter are fixed does
                      fit "all things continue as they were" to a degree, it does not mach the
                      rest of the context because that is not what the scoffers are using or even
                      have used to attack creation and the Genesis Flood. The principle that has
                      been and is being used by scoffers to attack creation and the Genesis Flood
                      is geological uniformitarianism. It fits the phase "all things continue as
                      they were" perfectly while actually being used by scoffers against creation
                      and the Genesis Flood.



                      So the entire bases for your Changing Earth notion does not fit the text and
                      your translation is clearly at odds with every other translator of last 1700
                      years.







                      ------ 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 VictorM
                      Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:12 PM
                      To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: The Beginning of Time





                      >
                      >
                      > > No ancient person could think scientifically.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Prove it! Yes ancient languages up until Greek were very poor for
                      expressing
                      > scientific thought, but that does not mean that out of the millions of
                      > people that lived from Adam to about 300 BC that not one of them could
                      think
                      > scientifically. Any one who did would have had a huge problem
                      communicating
                      > their ideas in a language ill-equipped for it. The point is that you are
                      > making an over generalization.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Even if true that's not really relevant since God can supersede Human
                      limits
                      > such that we should not expect God to have limited his words to the mode
                      of
                      > thought of the ancient Israelites. What you are say is akin to the
                      > accommodation theory, which I think we can both agree is a liberal
                      > compromise view,
                      >

                      The early peoples left records which are not remarkably different from the
                      Bible in some respects.

                      1. They never tried to understand the universe with scientific thinking.
                      They explained things with god-stories. For the Jews, Elohim created and
                      managed the universe but He was good to all that He made. For the pagan,
                      planet gods were responsible although they were mean-spirited and often
                      fought wars with each other.

                      2. With respect to history, they saw change in the very places we use
                      mathematical modeling to imagine constants. All the ancients considered that
                      the first generations lived in the great time. Josephus lists the historians
                      of the major societies of his day and says all of them agreed that the
                      earliest people lived for a thousand years. The King Lists from Mesopotamia
                      showed that their earliest kings reigned for tens of thousands of years -
                      compared to later kings. Job clearly mentions that the seas dried as a
                      marker for the few days of their lives and their faces changed before they
                      died during the dinosaur age. Yet Job lived around the time of Abraham -
                      after the flood. (Dinosaurs and geological ages in few days are biblical and
                      are supported by the evidence from the fossils).

                      3. The Earth and the planets continued to change. The oceans were newly
                      formed, according to Ovid. The planets had devastated the Earth during close
                      passages when they became giants, Titans. Later generations, although they
                      still feared Venus, no longer mention its horns. The Bible also mentions
                      close passages and planet shatterings.

                      4. The pagan Greeks tried to invent science for hundreds of years, but were
                      unsuccessful because they could not find a way around the problem of
                      intrinsic change, phthora. Science only arose in the Catholic west after the
                      friars invented brand new ideas about being and essence. They did so because
                      they were following pagan ideas about how God was changeless and existed in
                      an eternal state outside of time. The Catholic idea that God created time
                      was central to their doctrine of God. Yet the Bible never says these things.

                      5. Only in western Europe did those who were philosophically minded build
                      science on this notion that the intrinsic properties of matter are fixed,
                      not emerging. Scientists think, measure and mathematicate with a first law,
                      the law Peter predicted for the last days. This prophesy has come true.
                      Scientists have filled the universe up with magical things to preserve their
                      blind creed that the properties of matter are fixed, not continually
                      emerging.

                      So how could the prophets of the Bible even imagine science. The law of
                      science had not been invented until westerners imagined it?

                      Changing Earthers accept what is visible as real, that every atom changes as
                      it ages. The visible history of the universe is the most powerful evidence
                      for a literal, biblical creation, rather that a westernized interpretation.
                      God is going to get great glory when He makes foolish the wisdom of this
                      age, science, as He promised. How could science fail? When we fight with the
                      word of God and when our obedience is complete, we will bring down the great
                      fortress of speculative reasoning raised up against the knowledge of God.

                      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2cor10:3-6
                      <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2cor10:3-6&version=NASB>
                      &version=NASB

                      I recommend to you the ancient way of thinking used by the biblical
                      prophets, which Changing Earthers try to follow, instead of tailoring the
                      Bible to fit western science.

                      Victor







                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Alan Cassidy
                      Also, the language didn t exactly limit the science or prophecy we can find in the Bible with the ancient languages, as long as the Bible is translated with
                      Message 10 of 10 , Oct 7, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Also, the language didn't exactly limit the science or prophecy we can find in the Bible with the ancient languages, as long as the Bible is translated with fidelity and in the fear of God.


                        I quoted Psalm 139:15-18 once in a forum discussion to show how you find a description of DNA in the Bible, and one atheist responded by asking why I changed the wording around to make it look like DNA. He was reading a different translation no doubt. Here find the King James translation, where "members" makes much more sense in context than the word "days", because it refers grammatically to the word "substance". All your members were written in God's book before they were formed.


                        15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
                        16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.
                        17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
                        18 [If] I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.


                        Another favorite of mine is Nahum's vision of either cars at night on a busy freeway or, taken in context, military vehicles that shoot fire out their nozzles like happened at Waco in 1993 (as shown in this clip<http://tinyurl.com/8actgkm> which is part of the documentary at <http://tinyurl.com/9jv4u4k>, the clip that NBC showed once a year later):

                        3 The shield of his mighty men is made
                        red, the valiant men [are] in scarlet: the chariots [shall be] with
                        flaming torches in the day of his preparation, and the fir trees
                        shall be terribly shaken.
                        4 The chariots shall rage in the
                        streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways:
                        they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings.


                        But "chariots shall rage in the streets" invokes an image of traffic jams... And it's talking about context for "the day of his preparation".


                        We have a FACT-based faith, based on demonstrable overwhelming sets of eyewitness accounts, history, repeatable science, and honest logic. Paul said our beliefs are NOT old wives' tales or old fables --ancient people's pagan views of the world-- but are based on the eyewitness account of more than 500 people, and his own first-person encounter, and the entire history of the Hebrew peoples, documented miracles. Of course the ones who wrote it all down are the ones who believed the evidence before them, and so we have the Creation-deniers of today saying that the Bible doesn't count simply because it was written down by the ones who experienced it, saw it and felt it personally, simply because they made the obvious conclusions.

                        Prophecy was one landmark on my way from atheism to belief in Genesis One. If the Bible had no problem describing events thousands of years ahead into the future, would describing history be more difficult?






                        ________________________________
                        From: Chuck <chuckpc@...>
                        To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:19 AM
                        Subject: RE: [CreationTalk] Re: The Beginning of Time


                         
                        You totally missed my two points be. The first being that you are making an
                        over generalization about ancient people when it is quite possible that some
                        of then that we have no record of may have made that break through in
                        thought and were simply stifled by the society in which they lived I was not
                        making any statements about the general mode of thinking. Your description
                        of the general mode of thinking of post-flood ancient people is basically
                        correct but it may not have been absolute, and it may not have even been
                        pre-flood.

                        You seem to have totally missed my main point being that God is not limited
                        by the mode of thinking of the humans that wrote and originally received the
                        Bible. In communicating to us, God is however limited by our language, but
                        if you limit the Bible to the mode of thinking of the humans of the time it
                        was written not only do you miss out on amazing evidence for divine
                        inspiration but you are be risking great error.

                        I under stand your claims about intrinsic change as being corruption as well
                        as the fact that your entire first law bit is base on a grouse
                        mistranslation and misinterpretation of II Peter 3:3-6.

                        II Peter 3:3-6

                        3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days

                        scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

                        4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for

                        since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they

                        were from the beginning of the creation.

                        5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word

                        of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing

                        out of the water and in the water:

                        6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed

                        with water, perished:

                        The reason the idea that the intrinsic properties of matter are fixed is not
                        what is being referred to here is that it does not fit the entire
                        description.

                        Not only do you have discount over four hundred years of English
                        translations and replace it with your own personal translation. By the way
                        the Latin Vulgate which was translated in the 4th century (only about 300
                        years after II Peter was written) backs up "beginning of the creation"
                        translation of verse 4. The point is that I cam point to translation after
                        translation spanning 1700 years and all you can do is point to your own
                        unauthoritative translation.

                        That said while idea that the intrinsic properties of matter are fixed does
                        fit "all things continue as they were" to a degree, it does not mach the
                        rest of the context because that is not what the scoffers are using or even
                        have used to attack creation and the Genesis Flood. The principle that has
                        been and is being used by scoffers to attack creation and the Genesis Flood
                        is geological uniformitarianism. It fits the phase "all things continue as
                        they were" perfectly while actually being used by scoffers against creation
                        and the Genesis Flood.

                        So the entire bases for your Changing Earth notion does not fit the text and
                        your translation is clearly at odds with every other translator of last 1700
                        years.

                        ------ 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 VictorM
                        Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:12 PM
                        To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: The Beginning of Time

                        >
                        >
                        > > No ancient person could think scientifically.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Prove it! Yes ancient languages up until Greek were very poor for
                        expressing
                        > scientific thought, but that does not mean that out of the millions of
                        > people that lived from Adam to about 300 BC that not one of them could
                        think
                        > scientifically. Any one who did would have had a huge problem
                        communicating
                        > their ideas in a language ill-equipped for it. The point is that you are
                        > making an over generalization.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Even if true that's not really relevant since God can supersede Human
                        limits
                        > such that we should not expect God to have limited his words to the mode
                        of
                        > thought of the ancient Israelites. What you are say is akin to the
                        > accommodation theory, which I think we can both agree is a liberal
                        > compromise view,
                        >

                        The early peoples left records which are not remarkably different from the
                        Bible in some respects.

                        1. They never tried to understand the universe with scientific thinking.
                        They explained things with god-stories. For the Jews, Elohim created and
                        managed the universe but He was good to all that He made. For the pagan,
                        planet gods were responsible although they were mean-spirited and often
                        fought wars with each other.

                        2. With respect to history, they saw change in the very places we use
                        mathematical modeling to imagine constants. All the ancients considered that
                        the first generations lived in the great time. Josephus lists the historians
                        of the major societies of his day and says all of them agreed that the
                        earliest people lived for a thousand years. The King Lists from Mesopotamia
                        showed that their earliest kings reigned for tens of thousands of years -
                        compared to later kings. Job clearly mentions that the seas dried as a
                        marker for the few days of their lives and their faces changed before they
                        died during the dinosaur age. Yet Job lived around the time of Abraham -
                        after the flood. (Dinosaurs and geological ages in few days are biblical and
                        are supported by the evidence from the fossils).

                        3. The Earth and the planets continued to change. The oceans were newly
                        formed, according to Ovid. The planets had devastated the Earth during close
                        passages when they became giants, Titans. Later generations, although they
                        still feared Venus, no longer mention its horns. The Bible also mentions
                        close passages and planet shatterings.

                        4. The pagan Greeks tried to invent science for hundreds of years, but were
                        unsuccessful because they could not find a way around the problem of
                        intrinsic change, phthora. Science only arose in the Catholic west after the
                        friars invented brand new ideas about being and essence. They did so because
                        they were following pagan ideas about how God was changeless and existed in
                        an eternal state outside of time. The Catholic idea that God created time
                        was central to their doctrine of God. Yet the Bible never says these things.

                        5. Only in western Europe did those who were philosophically minded build
                        science on this notion that the intrinsic properties of matter are fixed,
                        not emerging. Scientists think, measure and mathematicate with a first law,
                        the law Peter predicted for the last days. This prophesy has come true.
                        Scientists have filled the universe up with magical things to preserve their
                        blind creed that the properties of matter are fixed, not continually
                        emerging.

                        So how could the prophets of the Bible even imagine science. The law of
                        science had not been invented until westerners imagined it?

                        Changing Earthers accept what is visible as real, that every atom changes as
                        it ages. The visible history of the universe is the most powerful evidence
                        for a literal, biblical creation, rather that a westernized interpretation.
                        God is going to get great glory when He makes foolish the wisdom of this
                        age, science, as He promised. How could science fail? When we fight with the
                        word of God and when our obedience is complete, we will bring down the great
                        fortress of speculative reasoning raised up against the knowledge of God.

                        http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2cor10:3-6
                        <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2cor10:3-6&version=NASB>
                        &version=NASB

                        I recommend to you the ancient way of thinking used by the biblical
                        prophets, which Changing Earthers try to follow, instead of tailoring the
                        Bible to fit western science.

                        Victor

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.