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

Biblical Eons

Expand Messages
  • VictorM
    Chuck, I answer your objections with a post on the biblical eons. Changing Earth Creationists differ from Young Earthers and Old Earthers due to our exegetical
    Message 1 of 13 , Oct 23, 2012
      Chuck, I answer your objections with a post on the biblical eons.

      Changing Earth Creationists differ from Young Earthers and Old Earthers due to our exegetical methods. (1) We believe that we should understand creation in the grammatical and cultural context of biblical author. No biblical author had a scientific mindset. (2) We avoid interpreting the evidence with the first law (arche ktiseous) of the last day mockers, that all things remain the same (2 Peter 3:3 - 6). Since this idea is the historical foundation for western science, we try not to tailor the Bible to fit science. (3) We use simple, visible evidence, not mathematical arguments, to support creation.

      Hebrews 11:1 - 3 tells us that faith is the underling support for the assurance of hope, the proof of things not seen. "By faith we understand (we continue to exercise our minds) that the aionas (the plural eons) were prepared by the command of God." The verb "prepared" is perfect, passive infinitive showing that He did not actively create eons by creating time. The Bible never states that God created time. He passively prepared the plural eons out of things that do not appear.

      Can we find evidence for plural eons? There exists more than 230 layers of coal in the Ruhr district of Germany. The coal beds reach the surface along the Ruhr river and dip down towards the north, reaching a depth of 4000 meters. The coal consists of trees that once grew in marshes. The beds are separated by sandstone layers that contain the fossils of giant ammonites, which like the modern nautilus were free swimmers. Forests grew and died and alternately deep water extended up the river valleys. Job listed one of the markers for the few days of a lifetime during the dinosaur age was, the sea (Hebrew west) dried (Job 14). Indeed, we find alternate layers of marine oozes, salt, stromatolites and gypsum in the deep Mediterranean, clear evidence that the oldest sea on the planet repeatedly dried. The layers of coal and the sea floor layers support the writer's claim for plural eons.

      The writer says faith understands that things that are seen were assembled out of things not seen. How does faith know this? The Bible plainly states that God created the plural heavens and the Earth (completed action) first. However, at that stage the earth was not formed; its dark surface (Hebrew face) did not have extension. It was not until Elohim continued to command light to continue to be that visible things (matter) were formed (not created) as a relation with light. We know this because we believe the literal text.

      Faith can see the proof for these things. In our day, powerful telescopes show us cosmic history back to the creation age. In hundreds of billions of galaxies through many eons, we observe the evidence for His continuing commands for light to continue to be - giving form to the things we see. We observe tiny point sources shooting out pulsed jets as matter continues to receives form as a relation with light. We observe how the stars continue to form and continue to spread out in the spreading place, exactly as the literal creation account states. According to the Bible, He spreads out the plural heavens in unbroken continuity. He is not spreading the vacuum of space, as in scientific myths. He continues to form the galaxies as they visibly grew from things not seen, the unformed and dark material created first. According to the Genesis text, He continues to finish the plural heavens and earth even after the sixth day. Indeed, Earth's continents only fit together on a tiny globe without surface seas, that supports several biblical passages.

      A young earth creationist might insist that the Bible refers to 24-hour creation days and that the genealogies only add up to 6,000 years, which cannot encompass multiple eons. This is why it is so important for creationists not to allow the first law (arche ktiseous) of the last days, the idea that substance does not continue to change, to control our thinking. The concept of linear time did not even exist when Moses wrote. Moses quoted Jacob that the days and years of the son are shorter and worse than the days and years of the fathers (Genesis 47:9). Indeed, we can see that the earliest atomic clocks pulsed at tiny fractions of the frequencies of modern atoms. We confirm that this is real because we see in billions of galaxies how the star stream orbits accelerated outwards along with the accelerating atomic clocks. This is supported by the clock signals transmitted from the past by NASA's Pioneer 10 & 11. Their clock signals accelerated, relative NASA clocks of the moment, at the Hubble ratio, with respect to distance. Astronomers use this ratio to estimate the distance to ancient galaxies using their observed light clock rates.

      http://www.godsriddle.info/2012/10/biblical-eons.html

      This is an image of a PKS 0637-752 taken at radio frequencies by Dr Leith Godfrey, ICRAR and Dr Jim Lovell, UTas. The bright quasar on the left shines at 60% of the frequencies of modern atoms. The region around the quasar glows in X-rays that extend along the knotted jet until the bend. X-rays also extend to the left of the quasar to a large blob (evidently part of a counter jet) not shown in this view. The jet is far too long to support theories of magnetic acceleration. The matter in the jet begins to bend from gravity as it ages around the bend. What we are observing is the biblical creation - that God continues to command the Sun, Moon and stars to continue to form and continue to spread out in the spreading place.

      Changing Earth Creationists try not to tailor the Bible to fit the visibly false idea that atoms are perpetual motion engines. Scientists contrived their empiricism, their methods and mathematics with their presumption that the properties of matter are fixed, not relationally emerging. They obfuscate the age of the plural heavens with their empirical methods, as the Bible predicted. Not a single physical constant is visible anywhere in the vast creation as billions of galaxies intrinsically grew. Our faith is confirmed in the way He formed billions of galaxies as unseen things continue to take form as we confirm with sight. The literal words of God will completely vanquish Western science.
    • Chuck
      From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of VictorM Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 11:19 PM To:
      Message 2 of 13 , Oct 24, 2012
        From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
        Behalf Of VictorM
        Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 11:19 PM
        To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [CreationTalk] Biblical Eons





        > Changing Earth Creationists differ from Young Earthers and
        > Old Earthers due to our exegetical methods. (1) We believe
        > that we should understand creation in the grammatical and
        > cultural context of biblical author. No biblical author had a
        > scientific mindset. (2) We avoid interpreting the evidence
        > with the first law (arche ktiseous) of the last day mockers,
        > that all things remain the same (2 Peter 3:3 - 6). Since this
        > idea is the historical foundation for western science, we try
        > not to tailor the Bible to fit science. (3) We use simple, visible
        > evidence, not mathematical arguments, to support creation.

        I am well a ware of your claims but in the process you deny that that God
        has preserved and transmitted his word to us. To draw the conclusions you do
        from the Bible you have to invent you own translation and interpretation and
        not what the Bible actually says. You gave the best possible example above
        in you mistranslation of the Greek phrase arche ktiseous which every other
        translator over last 2000 years has translated as "beginning of Creation".
        So what you are really claiming is that the Bible as we have it has become
        corrupt and the God gave you the answer as to how to uncorrupt it and that
        every one else is to bow their knee and intellect to your correction of the
        Bible There are other men who have made such claims the two most notable of
        which are Muhammad and Joseph Smith. They produced entirely new books but
        give your own personal unique translation and interpretation of the Bible
        but the principle is the same and can be found in the leader of any cult.

        You are further wrong in your notion that the first principle of science is
        that all things remain the same. Yes certain things are considered to remain
        the same but that is a far cry from the meaning of 2 Peter 3:3 - 6.

        > Hebrews 11:1 - 3 tells us that faith is the underling support for
        > the assurance of hope, the proof of things not seen. "By faith
        > we understand (we continue to exercise our minds) that the
        > aionas (the plural eons) were prepared by the command of God.
        >" The verb "prepared" is perfect, passive infinitive showing that
        > He did not actively create eons by creating time. The Bible
        > never states that God created time. He passively prepared the
        > plural eons out of things that do not appear.

        Once again you use your own you own translation and interpretation and not
        Bible actually says.

        > Can we find evidence for plural eons? There exists more than
        > 230 layers of coal in the Ruhr district of Germany. The coal
        > beds reach the surface along the Ruhr river and dip down
        > towards the north, reaching a depth of 4000 meters. The coal
        > consists of trees that once grew in marshes. The beds are
        > separated by sandstone layers that contain the fossils of giant
        > ammonites, which like the modern nautilus were free swimmers.
        > Forests grew and died and alternately deep water extended up
        > the river valleys.

        Like all compromisers of the word of God you use as evidence of your
        compromises the interpretations of the scoffers. Like them you are assuming
        that the layers represent successive periods of time in accordance with the
        principles of uniformitarianism which is actually the principle of the
        scoffer predicted in 2 Peter 3:3 - 6. Like them you are starting with the
        assumption that the plants and animals in fossil recorded are buried where
        they lived and that they where there is succession to each other. Like them
        you are ignoring the affects of the Genesis Flood which would have
        transported and buried organisms and material from distant locations.
        Studies in Sedimentology have shown that these layers could have been laid
        down together during the Genesis Flood.
        http://www.sedimentology.fr/

        > A young earth creationist might insist that the Bible refers to 24-hour
        > creation days and that the genealogies only add up to 6,000 years,
        > which cannot encompass multiple eons. This is why it is so important
        > for creationists not to allow the first law (arche ktiseous) of the last
        > days, the idea that substance does not continue to change, to control
        > our thinking.

        Not only is you so fake first law not found in modern science despite the
        fact that you intrinsic change in not either but young earth creationists
        allow for plenty of change including in properties such as nuclear decay
        rates the difference is that we see it as an act of God and not the
        intrinsic change you spout and have never fully defined.



        ------ 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]
      • Stevee Matthews
        The following is an observation. There exists more than 230 layers of coal in the Ruhr district of Germany. The coal beds reach the surface along the Ruhr
        Message 3 of 13 , Oct 24, 2012
          The following is an observation.
          "There exists more than 230 layers of coal in the Ruhr district of Germany.
          The coal beds reach the surface along the Ruhr river and dip down towards
          the north, reaching a depth of 4000 meters. "

          The following is an interpretation not an observation. The interpretation is
          based on a uniformitarian worldview.

          "The coal consists of trees that once grew in marshes (this is not science
          simply an interpretation)

          The beds are separated by sandstone layers that contain the fossils of giant
          ammonites, which like the modern nautilus were free swimmers. (and were
          buried suddenly in a great flood which is also an interpretation from a
          Biblical worldview not observed but consistent with the Biblical flood)

          Forests grew and died and alternately deep water extended up the river
          valleys. (an interpretation not an observation also explained well by PHD
          geologist Dr. Steven Austin from a Biblical worldview and observational
          evidence from Mt. St. Helens which is the most credible science known)

          Job listed one of the markers for the few days of a lifetime during the
          dinosaur age (dinosaur age is an interpretation not an observation of
          science, many mammals are found buried together with dinosaurs as well)

          was, the sea (Hebrew west) dried (Job 14). Indeed, we find alternate layers
          of marine oozes, salt, stromatolites and gypsum in the deep Mediterranean,
          clear evidence that the oldest sea on the planet repeatedly dried. (also an
          interpretation that can be explained by global flood)

          The layers of coal and the sea floor layers support the writer's claim for
          plural eons. ( incorrect, layers do not support eons of time these are
          interpretations placed on observations and not science simply well stated
          stories of possibly how it could have happened and there are Biblical
          alternatives.)


          A young earth creationist might insist that the Bible refers to 24-hour
          creation days and that the genealogies only add up to 6,000 years, which
          cannot encompass multiple eons. (this is not an interpretation of the Bible
          it is an accurate record of what the Bible states as history)

          This is why it is so important for creationists not to allow the first law
          (arche ktiseous) of the last days, the idea that substance does not continue
          to change, to control our thinking. The concept of linear time did not even
          exist when Moses wrote. (God gave his revelation directly to Moses on the
          mountain including Genesis. I Tim 3:16 "All scripture is God-Breathed" this
          includes all of Moses that God gave us directly from his mouth. For you to
          deny this or claim Moses was simple or ignorant is simply anti-God,
          anti-Biblical truth, and wrong and you need to repent and change your mind.
          You also need to read the Book of Revelation. God is going to recreate us
          with new Physical bodies and He is going to do so in an instant not millions
          of years. Our new physical bodies will be like the resurrected body of Jesus
          who did some pretty amazing things with that resurrected body including
          getting into places where doors were locked. We know this new body will
          Never perish, never be painful, or suffer, and most likely will have a
          superior energy packed design. Jesus Christ the creator will do this and he
          will also bring a new heaven and new earth and this will not take millions
          of years either. So if you are a Christian and willing to believe what is to
          come (unless you also foolishly interpret what is to come over millions of
          years through evolutionary processes, then why can you not accept the
          Biblical historical record of what our Creator did instead of trying to
          compromise with an Anti-God, Anti-Creator worldview based on evil ideas of
          evolution over millions of years. You need to carefully think about your
          worldview and beliefs and promoting false anti-Biblical stories like this.







          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • VictorM
          ... Victor: Since you use strong language, I will respond with emphasis - promoting a hermeneutical interpretation of the Bible rather than a scientific
          Message 4 of 13 , Oct 24, 2012
            --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, Stevee Matthews <phonehero@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > The following is an observation.
            > "There exists more than 230 layers of coal in the Ruhr district of Germany.
            > The coal beds reach the surface along the Ruhr river and dip down towards
            > the north, reaching a depth of 4000 meters. "
            >
            > The following is an interpretation not an observation. The interpretation is
            > based on a uniformitarian worldview.
            >

            Victor:
            Since you use strong language, I will respond with emphasis - promoting a hermeneutical interpretation of the Bible rather than a scientific interpretation.

            All earth histories are interpretations, based on assumptions. The interpretation I present is the exact opposite of all uniformitarian world views. Why? Because all people during the biblical age accepted that everything changes. A hermeneutic interpretation of the Bible should interpret the words of the Bible in the grammatical and epistemic context of the writer. No one in the biblical age could have been a uniformitarian since they all accepted change as fundamental. The Bible plainly states that the creation is enslaved to change (Romans 8:21). I accept literally what it says. Nowhere in the vast universe do we see any evidence for unchanging atoms or unchanging orbits. We see plain evidence for accelerating orbits, exactly as one should expect from the literal text of the Bible. The Bible states three times that the Earth spreads out in unbroken continuity. The continents only fit together on a tiny globe without major surface seas, which confirms the literal text. Yet it is the most unscientific statement one can make. Changing Earth Creationists can back up their NON uniformitarian interpretation with simple, visible evidence.

            > "The coal consists of trees that once grew in marshes (this is not science
            > simply an interpretation)
            >
            > The beds are separated by sandstone layers that contain the fossils of giant
            > ammonites, which like the modern nautilus were free swimmers. (and were
            > buried suddenly in a great flood which is also an interpretation from a
            > Biblical worldview not observed but consistent with the Biblical flood)
            >
            > Forests grew and died and alternately deep water extended up the river
            > valleys. (an interpretation not an observation also explained well by PHD
            > geologist Dr. Steven Austin from a Biblical worldview and observational
            > evidence from Mt. St. Helens which is the most credible science known)
            >

            Mount St. Helens does not have sandstone containing ammonites sandwiched between hundreds of layers of tree formed coal. There is no way a flood (which was chaotic) where water is rushing up from deep underground as the tehom collapsed, could deposit even layers of coal and sandstone. By the way, the deposits of the flood only occur on the continents, because the modern seas did not exist during the flood, exactly as one should expect from a non uniformitarian interpretation of the biblical text.

            > Job listed one of the markers for the few days of a lifetime during the
            > dinosaur age (dinosaur age is an interpretation not an observation of
            > science, many mammals are found buried together with dinosaurs as well)
            >

            Victor:
            God Himself describes two kinds of dinosaurs, one living in the Jordan river. God Himself gives clear descriptions - even calling them the first of God's works (the greatest of his works).

            > was, the sea (Hebrew west) dried (Job 14). Indeed, we find alternate layers
            > of marine oozes, salt, stromatolites and gypsum in the deep Mediterranean,
            > clear evidence that the oldest sea on the planet repeatedly dried. (also an
            > interpretation that can be explained by global flood)
            >

            Victor:
            On the contrary there is no way for young earthers to explain the thick layers of dead plankton (marine oozes that gradually settle to the ocean floor over eons) inter spaced with thick layers of stromatolites that grew in hot, brackish shallow water on the bottom of the Med. This is thousands of meters below the modern surface. Clearly Job is right that the sea (Hebrew west dried) and he used this as a marker for the few days of their lives. Job mentions how water wears away stones. Close to where Job lived was the Nile river that incised through a mile and a half of granite as it cut a narrow gorge down to a much lower Med. Today the Nile has silted its delta to even with the modern sea and the ancient Nile channels is bried in slowly deposited sediments. The very geological markers that Job listed for the duration of a human life is attested to by the geological evidence, none of which could fit the flood. Clearly Job is describing geological ages in few days and lists the geological evidence to support his claim. Job certainly was a non uniformitariran. Indeed, the western concept of uniformitarian time had not even been invented during Job's days. All people during that age believed that the earliest people lived for vast eons. Aristotle even said the Greek word for eon originally meant the duration of a human lifetime.


            > The layers of coal and the sea floor layers support the writer's claim for
            > plural eons. ( incorrect, layers do not support eons of time these are
            > interpretations placed on observations and not science simply well stated
            > stories of possibly how it could have happened and there are Biblical
            > alternatives.)
            >

            Victor:
            I did not says anything about time. I said they represent plural eons. Solomon plainly states that eons (Hebrew olam) exist in our minds. There is no actual time. The cycles of the heavens, according to the Bible, are markers for days, seasons and years. We can see with sight that no orbits are linear in billions of galaxies. The Bible never says God created time. Yet it repeatedly uses eon words for the wast antiquity of the earth and the early humans. People who think that way CANNOT be fundamental UNIFORMITARIANS, as modern scientists are.


            >
            > A young earth creationist might insist that the Bible refers to 24-hour
            > creation days and that the genealogies only add up to 6,000 years, which
            > cannot encompass multiple eons. (this is not an interpretation of the Bible
            > it is an accurate record of what the Bible states as history)
            >

            Victor:
            Of course it is an accurate record. It is God's word. You are INTERPRETING what the Bible SAYS with UNIFORMITARIAN western ideas about time that were only invented a few centuries ago, which no one during the Biblical age could have contemplated. Changing Earth Creationist try to understand the Bible hermeneutically, in the system of reasoning of the biblical authors which was NON UNIFORMITARIAN.

            The Bible plainly states that the days and years of the son are shorter and worse than the days and years of the fathers. Ancient writers plainly described how the earliest generations lived for eons, which the Bible also admits. We see plain evidence that the modern oceans did not form until after the flood, when the Earth was divided, exactly as the Bible states. Even the pagans admitted that the oceans are new. The Bible describes close planet passages and the crushing of a nearby planet four times, which all ancient societies accepted. So why do you persist in interpreting the Bile with uniformitarian ideas that originated with the medieval Catholic friars. They invented the idea that the essence of substance is changeless, upon which all uniformitarianism is based.


            > This is why it is so important for creationists not to allow the first law
            > (arche ktiseous) of the last days, the idea that substance does not continue
            > to change, to control our thinking. The concept of linear time did not even
            > exist when Moses wrote. (God gave his revelation directly to Moses on the
            > mountain including Genesis. I Tim 3:16 "All scripture is God-Breathed" this
            > includes all of Moses that God gave us directly from his mouth. For you to
            > deny this or claim Moses was simple or ignorant is simply anti-God,
            > anti-Biblical truth, and wrong and you need to repent and change your mind.

            Victor:
            Moses did not describe the first law of the last days, that all things remain the same, which is the UNIFORMITARIAN basis of western science. Peter, a disciple of Jesus, predicted the false idea upon which western science was historically founded, the uniformitarian idea that matter (all things) remain the same.

            > You also need to read the Book of Revelation. God is going to recreate us
            > with new Physical bodies and He is going to do so in an instant not millions
            > of years. Our new physical bodies will be like the resurrected body of Jesus
            > who did some pretty amazing things with that resurrected body including
            > getting into places where doors were locked. We know this new body will
            > Never perish, never be painful, or suffer, and most likely will have a
            > superior energy packed design. Jesus Christ the creator will do this and he
            > will also bring a new heaven and new earth and this will not take millions
            > of years either. So if you are a Christian and willing to believe what is to
            > come (unless you also foolishly interpret what is to come over millions of
            > years through evolutionary processes, then why can you not accept the
            > Biblical historical record of what our Creator did instead of trying to
            > compromise with an Anti-God, Anti-Creator worldview based on evil ideas of
            > evolution over millions of years. You need to carefully think about your
            > worldview and beliefs and promoting false anti-Biblical stories like this.
            >

            Victor:
            I agree with you about the book of Revelations. I accept the Bible LITERALLY. For example, the Bible is very clear about how animals and the ground were PASSIVELY cursed so that they would Change. Passive means it was natural for animals to change, but not into different kinds. Animal changes come from two sources, according to the Bible. God Himself changes animals since the flood. Read Job 38 - 41. Animals and plants naturally change, in accordance with the curse. Matter itself, continues to degenerate in an orderly together manner, exactly as described in Romans 8:19 - 22). The evolution of the galaxies, how they formed as the stars came out, is clearly described in the Bible. Try to accept the Bible in its context which was NON UNIFORMITARIAN - unlike science which is based on a uniformiatirans assumption - the very idea the Bible predicted for the false teachers of the last days.

            Tailoring the Bible to fit science has driven millions away from the truth of the Bible. There is not a single verse in the Bible that could have been interpreted with a scientific mindset during the age of the author. Yet the visible history of the galaxies, how the stars continued to come out, exactly fits the very things God says HE continues to do in unbroken continuity. He says that knowledge of His glory is available to all in the plural heavens (the galaxies) the spreading place (raqiya). He commands us to lift up our eyes and look at the plural heavens that He spreads out in unbroken continuity. The history of how galaxies formed is the most powerful evidence for a NON UNIFORMITARIAN interpretation of the Bible, We can see with our eyes that eons passed exactly as the Bible describes, how HE continues to call the stars to come out, but the Bible is NON UNIFORMITARIAN, unlike science.

            Victor
          • VictorM
            ... I received an off list comment that I will respond to here. Here is the content of the e-mail. Check out The Lost Book of Peter
            Message 5 of 13 , Oct 25, 2012
              --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "VictorM" <godsriddle@...> wrote:
              >

              I received an off list comment that I will respond to here. Here is the content of the e-mail.

              Check out "The Lost Book of Peter"

              http://www.amazon.com/Book-Peter-C-E-Daffin/dp/0615604498/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351163266&sr=1-1&keywords=the+lost+book+of+peter


              My answer:

              The lost book of Peter is fiction. It purports to be the words of Clement of Rome, who was one of the earliest bishops of Rome. It is not the words of Clement. It is probable that we only have one ancient document from Clement written to the church of Corinth relating to church leadership.

              It may be an interesting book of fiction, but it is fiction and includes lots of sources, some Apocrypha.

              I write every day trying to persuade people to go back to interpreting creation and earth history with the system of reasoning that existed during the days of the biblical authors, instead of adjusting the Bible to fit science. Such an interpretation is supported by the greatest evidence possible, the visible creation. God Himself mentions the galactic evidence for His existence, - that He calls the stars to come out in unbroken continuity, that He spreads out the plural heavens like a tent to dwell in in unbroken continuity.

              I am sorry but I do not have time to read fiction.

              Victor
            • VictorM
              ... The pharisees accused Jesus of not following their Sabbath laws. He answered that they were violating the commandments of God for the sake of their
              Message 6 of 13 , Oct 25, 2012
                --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                > Behalf Of VictorM
                > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 11:19 PM
                > To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [CreationTalk] Biblical Eons
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > > Changing Earth Creationists differ from Young Earthers and
                > > Old Earthers due to our exegetical methods. (1) We believe
                > > that we should understand creation in the grammatical and
                > > cultural context of biblical author. No biblical author had a
                > > scientific mindset. (2) We avoid interpreting the evidence
                > > with the first law (arche ktiseous) of the last day mockers,
                > > that all things remain the same (2 Peter 3:3 - 6). Since this
                > > idea is the historical foundation for western science, we try
                > > not to tailor the Bible to fit science. (3) We use simple, visible
                > > evidence, not mathematical arguments, to support creation.
                >
                > I am well a ware of your claims but in the process you deny that that God
                > has preserved and transmitted his word to us. To draw the conclusions you do
                > from the Bible you have to invent you own translation and interpretation and
                > not what the Bible actually says. You gave the best possible example above
                > in you mistranslation of the Greek phrase arche ktiseous which every other
                > translator over last 2000 years has translated as "beginning of Creation".
                > So what you are really claiming is that the Bible as we have it has become
                > corrupt and the God gave you the answer as to how to uncorrupt it and that
                > every one else is to bow their knee and intellect to your correction of the
                > Bible There are other men who have made such claims the two most notable of
                > which are Muhammad and Joseph Smith. They produced entirely new books but
                > give your own personal unique translation and interpretation of the Bible
                > but the principle is the same and can be found in the leader of any cult.
                >
                > You are further wrong in your notion that the first principle of science is
                > that all things remain the same. Yes certain things are considered to remain
                > the same but that is a far cry from the meaning of 2 Peter 3:3 - 6.
                >
                > > Hebrews 11:1 - 3 tells us that faith is the underling support for
                > > the assurance of hope, the proof of things not seen. "By faith
                > > we understand (we continue to exercise our minds) that the
                > > aionas (the plural eons) were prepared by the command of God.
                > >" The verb "prepared" is perfect, passive infinitive showing that
                > > He did not actively create eons by creating time. The Bible
                > > never states that God created time. He passively prepared the
                > > plural eons out of things that do not appear.
                >
                > Once again you use your own you own translation and interpretation and not
                > Bible actually says.
                >
                > > Can we find evidence for plural eons? There exists more than
                > > 230 layers of coal in the Ruhr district of Germany. The coal
                > > beds reach the surface along the Ruhr river and dip down
                > > towards the north, reaching a depth of 4000 meters. The coal
                > > consists of trees that once grew in marshes. The beds are
                > > separated by sandstone layers that contain the fossils of giant
                > > ammonites, which like the modern nautilus were free swimmers.
                > > Forests grew and died and alternately deep water extended up
                > > the river valleys.
                >
                > Like all compromisers of the word of God you use as evidence of your
                > compromises the interpretations of the scoffers. Like them you are assuming
                > that the layers represent successive periods of time in accordance with the
                > principles of uniformitarianism which is actually the principle of the
                > scoffer predicted in 2 Peter 3:3 - 6. Like them you are starting with the
                > assumption that the plants and animals in fossil recorded are buried where
                > they lived and that they where there is succession to each other. Like them
                > you are ignoring the affects of the Genesis Flood which would have
                > transported and buried organisms and material from distant locations.
                > Studies in Sedimentology have shown that these layers could have been laid
                > down together during the Genesis Flood.
                > http://www.sedimentology.fr/
                >
                > > A young earth creationist might insist that the Bible refers to 24-hour
                > > creation days and that the genealogies only add up to 6,000 years,
                > > which cannot encompass multiple eons. This is why it is so important
                > > for creationists not to allow the first law (arche ktiseous) of the last
                > > days, the idea that substance does not continue to change, to control
                > > our thinking.
                >
                > Not only is you so fake first law not found in modern science despite the
                > fact that you intrinsic change in not either but young earth creationists
                > allow for plenty of change including in properties such as nuclear decay
                > rates the difference is that we see it as an act of God and not the
                > intrinsic change you spout and have never fully defined.
                >
                >
                >
                > ------ Charles Creager Jr.


                The pharisees accused Jesus of not following their Sabbath laws. He answered that they were violating the commandments of God for the sake of their traditions and that they taught as doctrines the precepts of men.

                When I was a child, I was taught to think with the elementary ideas of philosophy, the teachings of men, in Christianized western schools. I did not know that God had warned me that such teaching would lead to mental imprisonment. Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

                I did not know that the traditions of men had been added to the Bible by the medieval Catholics, so that even our translators adjusted the Bible to fit western traditions. For example, the Bible says that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have EON life. The Greek word for eternal is only used twice in the New Testament and not with respect to salvation. Does the eon life of believers end? No! They will never perish. Then why have the traditions of men modified the Bible, even the verse we use every day to declare the gospel?

                Augustine, a philosopher / theologian seized on the Latin word aeternum which the Vulgate used to translate the Greek word aeon (eon) and gave it extra biblical meanings. He had studied the teaching of the pagan philosopher Plotinus. In Plotinus system a demiruge god, who could not change at all, existed outside of time and could see all of time. We mortals were in time but the demiurge was not. Augustine interpreted the creation account with Plotinus - that God created time, that god exists in a state that sees all of time at once (which he called eternal) while we are swept along by time. For hundreds of years the Catholics taught Augustine as gospel and also taught the nonsense of neo platonism. Eventually the monks invented ticking clocks for calling the faithful to prayer five times a day (as the Moslems still do). Then the philosopher / theologian Aquinas and his disciple Dons Scotus came up with new ideas to fit their concept of a God who ABSOLUTELY could not CHANGE since He was not in time. Since God had a changeless BEING (based on Latin verbs turned into nouns), created things must also have a being (again a noun) that is changeless. It was upon the metaphysical notion that the essence (the noun being) of substance is changeless, that western science was founded. The Bible predicted science, that in the last days mockers will come obfuscating the age of the plural heavens and the twice inundated geology of our planet because they believe that all things remain the same. Scientists daily fulfill Peter's predictions because they have a first law, that all things remain the same.

                Changing earth creationist promote accepting the WORDS of the Bible as they meant before the traditions of men distorted their meaning. When the creation account says He continues to speak to the land for it to continue to sprout vegetation, then we should not distort the Bible to make it fit the tradition of men that He spoke only once and instantly created things. When it says that the finishing of the plural heavens and earth are incomplete and that He continues to call the stars to come out and spread out, then we must not distort the text to fit the traditions of men, even though they were learned translators. This is especially true with regard to time, a tradition of the western system that is so powerful that it grips the minds of westerners like a vise. Some young earthers are prepared to say God lies, in order to protect their concept of time with which they think and measure. According to these, God created light already in place with images of exploding stars that did not happen to deceive people to thinking the universe is ancient when it is actually young, something the Bible never states, only the traditions of men state. The Bible says God cannot lie. He never deceives in word or action. Yet He has made a universe in which all who refuse to honor Him as Creator are deceived and will be proved to be fools.

                How does He do that? He commanded the universe to change itself, as the Apostle Paul states. Not a single physical constant is visible anywhere in the vast universe. Every atom keeps changing, even the ones we calibrated and sent out of the solar system on the spin stabilized (unaccelerated) Pioneers. Orbits keep accelerating in billions of galaxies as the stars continue to come out and spread out as galaxies intrinsically grew from their tohu wa bohu beginnings. We can see with our eyes that He continues to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continues to place them in the spreading place, exactly as the BIBLICAL WORDS state, in the original languages. Even our moon, if one removes the volcanic plains, the highlands fit together on a tiny globe. Even our planet, the continents fit together on a tiny globe, exactly as per the WORDS of the Bible. Even our local orbits have been continuing to accelerate, the days and the years accelerating, as the Bible states and as the optical parallax to the Sun continuing to change demonstrates.

                What does He want us to do? Fight with His word, instead of science. When our obedience is complete, we will bring down the great castle of speculative reasoning ever raised up against the knowledge of God, science itself. (2 Corinthians 10: 3 - 6) What glory He will get when He makes foolish the wisdom of this age, as He promised. How great will be the triumph of His literal words over science, the system that was founded on the very idea the Bible predicted for the false teachers of the last days.

                Consider becoming a Changing Earth Creationist. I am not the only one. Some fundamentalists pastors are prepared to say they also are changing earthers because of what the Bible says, not what science says. It will liberate your mind from all the atomic perpetual motion empiricism. It is not difficult. It simply requires that one take the WORDS of the Bible, with respect to creation and Earth history, in their grammatical and historical context and use the simplest evidence from galactic history to triumph for His great glory.

                Victor
              • Chuck
                From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of VictorM Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:32 PM To:
                Message 7 of 13 , Oct 26, 2012
                  From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of VictorM
                  Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:32 PM
                  To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: Biblical Eons

                  > I did not know that the traditions of men had been added to the Bible
                  > by the medieval Catholics, so that even our translators adjusted the Bible
                  > to fit western traditions. For example, the Bible says that whoever believes
                  > in Him shall not perish but have EON life. The Greek word for eternal is
                  > only used twice in the New Testament and not with respect to salvation.
                  > Does the eon life of believers end? No! They will never perish. Then why
                  > have the traditions of men modified the Bible, even the verse we use every
                  > day to declare the gospel?

                  You seem to be referring to John 3:16 which the KJV reads as:

                  John 3:16 For God so loved the world,
                  that he gave his only begotten Son, that
                  whosoever believeth in him should not
                  perish, but have everlasting life.

                  The term “everlasting life” simply means non-ending life and so the KJV clearly does not fit you claim though many of the modern translations do. However you are making a huge mistake in your claim. The Greek word translated everlasting in John 3:16 is αἰώνιος which means “without beginning and/ or without end” and can properly be translated as either everlasting or eternal. You are mistaking it for its root word αἰών form we get the word “eon” for a “period of time or age” but can also mean perpetuity of time or eternity. As you have done so often you are taking a word with more than one meaning and insisting that it means only a single meaning that fits you own personal interpretation.

                  > Augustine, a philosopher / theologian seized on the Latin word
                  > aeternum which the Vulgate used to translate the Greek word
                  > aeon (eon) and gave it extra biblical meanings. He had studied
                  > the teaching of the pagan philosopher Plotinus. In Plotinus system
                  > a demiruge god, who could not change at all, existed outside of
                  > time and could see all of time. We mortals were in time but the
                  > demiurge was not. Augustine interpreted the creation account
                  > with Plotinus - that God created time, that god exists in a state
                  > that sees all of time at once (which he called eternal) while we are
                  > swept along by time. For hundreds of years the Catholics taught
                  > Augustine as gospel and also taught the nonsense of neo platonism.
                  > Eventually the monks invented ticking clocks for calling the faithful
                  > to prayer five times a day (as the Moslems still do). Then the philosopher
                  > / theologian Aquinas and his disciple Dons Scotus came up with new
                  > ideas to fit their concept of a God who ABSOLUTELY could not
                  > CHANGE since He was not in time. Since God had a changeless
                  > BEING (based on Latin verbs turned into nouns), created things must
                  > also have a being (again a noun) that is changeless.

                  Please give some references for this claim. You repeatedly make these claims with NO references at all. You repeatedly give absolutely NOTHING to back up your claims. You seem to expect us to take these claims based on faith. Well you have repeatedly shown a tendency to put you own private spin on things, including God’s word itself as though your spin was what the Bible actually says, however when I check the Bible my self even in Greek and Hebrew I hardly ever seen any hint of your personal interpretation. I submit that the reason you never give references is because if you did people would seen from the actual source material that what your claim is a bunch of malarkey.

                  > It was upon the metaphysical notion that the essence (the noun being)
                  > of substance is changeless, that western science was founded.

                  A lot of concourse depends up what you mean by the essence of substance because at some fundamental level it would logically be true the essence of substance is changeless even in your scheme of things. After all if for example at fundamental level it most fundamental level what we call substance is information it will remain information even if the content changes. However as modern science has progressed some of the earlier ideas of changelessness have disappeared. The atom was originally thought to be indestructible and changeless but the last 200 years have shown that idea to wrong to the point where I am writing this using energy that is produced by the splitting of atoms. Even properties like mass are no longer seen as changeless. Not only does relativity show that observed mass is related to relative velocity, but the combined rest mass of the two atoms produces by nuclear fission is less than the mass a Uranium-235 atom. The point is that most of the earlier notions of changelessness in science have despaired with even space and time being considered changeable.

                  >The Bible predicted science, that in the last days mockers will come
                  > obfuscating the age of the plural heavens and the twice inundated
                  > geology of our planet because they believe that all things remain
                  > the same. Scientists daily fulfill Peter's predictions because they
                  > have a first law, that all things remain the same.

                  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:

                  NOTE that I actually quote from a REAL Bible (KJV) and not my own personal translation and interpretation . It is not surprising that you do not quote from an actual Bible because not only dose a REAL Bible not support your claim but by your own admission you don’t believe that we have a real Bible so what would you quote from other than own personal unauthoritative translation. That said you first law claim is malarkey since no one but yourself or you minuscule number of followers translates it that way. One again you have take an obscure usages of the Greek word (uses only once in the Bible where it is forced by the context) and demand that it be used here where it really does not fit.

                  Further more it is not the first law of science that all things remain the same because the real first law of science is that the Universe is understandable. What the Peter is really predicting is that men will come scoffing at the Bible claming that “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” and that this claim will cause these men to be ignorant of both creation and the flood. The principle in question is not your so called first law about the essence of substance which existed for about 1000 years before the scoffers came and started denying creation and the flood. The real principle of the scoffers that the history of the Earth and now the entire Universe can and must be explained in term of processes we observe to day. This idea is called uniformitarianism and while it started with geology it has expanded to all historical sciences including cosmology. The general principle of uniformitarianism denies by definition even the possibility of miracles or any form divine intervention and it is literally saying “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” It is because of this principle and not you fake first law that they are ignorant of creation and the flood. It is the denial of miracles that is at the hart of the issue. Young Earth Creationists such as my self do not accept your notion of intrinsic change but yet because we allow for the possibility of miracles or other forms divine intervention we see plenty of evidence for both creation and the flood. The real difference is the acceptance or denial of miracles and not the acceptance or denial of your notion of intrinsic change. In fact your notion of intrinsic change actually seems to get in the way of seeing evidence for the Genesis Flood since you have actually accepted the scoffer’s interpretation of rocks laid down during the Genesis Flood to support your changing Earth idea, which is really just another old Earth compromise view.





                  ------ 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: It never meant that during the age of the author. It meant exactly what our English word eon means - eon. The meaning was changed to fit the
                  Message 8 of 13 , Oct 27, 2012
                    --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of VictorM
                    > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:32 PM
                    > To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: Biblical Eons
                    >
                    > > I did not know that the traditions of men had been added to the Bible
                    > > by the medieval Catholics, so that even our translators adjusted the Bible
                    > > to fit western traditions. For example, the Bible says that whoever believes
                    > > in Him shall not perish but have EON life. The Greek word for eternal is
                    > > only used twice in the New Testament and not with respect to salvation.
                    > > Does the eon life of believers end? No! They will never perish. Then why
                    > > have the traditions of men modified the Bible, even the verse we use every
                    > > day to declare the gospel?
                    >
                    > You seem to be referring to John 3:16 which the KJV reads as:
                    >
                    > John 3:16 For God so loved the world,
                    > that he gave his only begotten Son, that
                    > whosoever believeth in him should not
                    > perish, but have everlasting life.
                    >
                    > The term “everlasting life” simply means non-ending life and so the KJV clearly does not fit you claim though many of the modern translations do. However you are making a huge mistake in your claim. The Greek word translated everlasting in John 3:16 is αἰώνιος which means “without beginning and/ or without end” and can properly be translated as either everlasting or eternal.
                    Victor:
                    It never meant that during the age of the author. It meant exactly what our English word eon means - eon. The meaning was changed to fit the Catholic philosopher / theologians who founded the western system.

                    >
                    You are mistaking it for its root word αἰών form we get the word “eon” for a “period of time or age” but can also mean perpetuity of time or eternity. As you have done so often you are taking a word with more than one meaning and insisting that it means only a single meaning that fits you own personal interpretation.
                    >

                    The Bible menas what is says in the orginal languages and in its grammatical / historical context. In many cases the original meanings of words, especially with respect to creation and earth history, were modified by the Catholics. Neither Young Earth or Old Earth creationists are defending the Bible text when they claim the world is young or that billions of years passed. They are defending ther CONCEPT OF TIME, that was built on metaphysical ideas from the Catholic friars of western Europe. Ever wonder why the Catholics founded the western civilization? By the time the protestants came on the scene, the system was already strongly in place so the protestat translators simply followed the tradition - changing the menaing of words to fit the Catholic metaphysic. For example, all modern translations start Genesis with the words in the beginning - as through God created time. Why do they alter the simple meaning of words. No wonder creationists are loosing the war of ideas. THey are defending their traditions, instead of the grammatical meaning of the Hebrew text. When it says He continues to command earth to continually sprout vegetation that grew up into trees bearing fruit in 1/4th of a day, it means what it says, not what the Catholic tradition and concept of time dictates.

                    > > Augustine, a philosopher / theologian seized on the Latin word
                    > > aeternum which the Vulgate used to translate the Greek word
                    > > aeon (eon) and gave it extra biblical meanings. He had studied
                    > > the teaching of the pagan philosopher Plotinus. In Plotinus system
                    > > a demiruge god, who could not change at all, existed outside of
                    > > time and could see all of time. We mortals were in time but the
                    > > demiurge was not. Augustine interpreted the creation account
                    > > with Plotinus - that God created time, that god exists in a state
                    > > that sees all of time at once (which he called eternal) while we are
                    > > swept along by time. For hundreds of years the Catholics taught
                    > > Augustine as gospel and also taught the nonsense of neo platonism.
                    > > Eventually the monks invented ticking clocks for calling the faithful
                    > > to prayer five times a day (as the Moslems still do). Then the philosopher
                    > > / theologian Aquinas and his disciple Dons Scotus came up with new
                    > > ideas to fit their concept of a God who ABSOLUTELY could not
                    > > CHANGE since He was not in time. Since God had a changeless
                    > > BEING (based on Latin verbs turned into nouns), created things must
                    > > also have a being (again a noun) that is changeless.
                    >
                    > Please give some references for this claim. You repeatedly make these claims with NO references at all. You repeatedly give absolutely NOTHING to back up your claims. You seem to expect us to take these claims based on faith. Well you have repeatedly shown a tendency to put you own private spin on things, including God’s word itself as though your spin was what the Bible actually says, however when I check the Bible my self even in Greek and Hebrew I hardly ever seen any hint of your personal interpretation. I submit that the reason you never give references is because if you did people would seen from the actual source material that what your claim is a bunch of malarkey.
                    >

                    I suggest you look up the Latin words ipsum esse. There are many documents from the Catholics bragging about how Friar Thomas laid the foundation from the modern metaphysics. Here is just one, there are many.

                    http://catholic-church.org/grace/ecu/v/3.pdf

                    The importance of Aquinas in laying the foundation for westernizm is acknowledged in many books. Aquinas used the phrase ipsum esse subsistens in his massive book on philosophy and doctrine, The Summa, that had a profound effect on the western system and was taught in all European schools for hundreds of years (and is still used as a text book in Catholic schools 700 years after it was written.

                    Friar Thomas argument goes something like this:
                    God has a Being (having pure essence) that is not dependent on the existence of anything else. In some respects Thomas is correct. God calls Himself the I AM, so He is certainly the self existent One. However the Bible does not talk about the BEING of God or His ESSENCE (nouns). Thomas reasoned, that since God made things, they also must have the property of being and essence. Aquinas use of the verb "to be" (which in Greek einai cannot mean changeless existence) introduced a whole new metaphysic to the west - especially after the Fransican Duns Scotus claimed essence and being are the same things. Since in their doctrine God is absolutely changeless, existing in an eternal state that sees all the future at once, created things can change, but their being their essence, what they are does not change. That eventually became the first law of science, as Peter predicted. For example, scientists define undetectable things like, mass energy and time using their assumption that what matter IS - its intrisic being is not changing. Yet we can see the past back to the creation era. Every atom in hundreds of billions of galaxies signals with light that it was relationally different in the past and the differences generally increase with distance. No one has ever detected any being or any essence. They are fictions, upon which western science was contrived.


                    > > It was upon the metaphysical notion that the essence (the noun being)
                    > > of substance is changeless, that western science was founded.
                    >
                    > A lot of concourse depends up what you mean by the essence of substance because at some fundamental level it would logically be true the essence of substance is changeless even in your scheme of things. After all if for example at fundamental level it most fundamental level what we call substance is information it will remain information even if the content changes. However as modern science has progressed some of the earlier ideas of changelessness have disappeared. The atom was originally thought to be indestructible and changeless but the last 200 years have shown that idea to wrong to the point where I am writing this using energy that is produced by the splitting of atoms. Even properties like mass are no longer seen as changeless. Not only does relativity show that observed mass is related to relative velocity, but the combined rest mass of the two atoms produces by nuclear fission is less than the mass a Uranium-235 atom. The point is that most of the earlier notions of changelessness in science have despaired with even space and time being considered changeable.
                    >

                    All the basic definitions of physics were contrived with the assumption that matter is not intrinsically changing itself. THey are operationally defined. No one has seen any time. It is operationally defined with clocks and then scientists circle back to define hundreds of other measuring units and constants based on their mathematical concept of time. Yet the clocks from teh past run slower than modern one, even when we calibrated them before sending them so far away that their signals arrive from the past (the Pioneer anomaly).

                    > >The Bible predicted science, that in the last days mockers will come
                    > > obfuscating the age of the plural heavens and the twice inundated
                    > > geology of our planet because they believe that all things remain
                    > > the same. Scientists daily fulfill Peter's predictions because they
                    > > have a first law, that all things remain the same.
                    >
                    > 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:
                    >
                    > NOTE that I actually quote from a REAL Bible (KJV) and not my own personal translation and interpretation . It is not surprising that you do not quote from an actual Bible because not only dose a REAL Bible not support your claim but by your own admission you don’t believe that we have a real Bible so what would you quote from other than own personal unauthoritative translation. That said you first law claim is malarkey since no one but yourself or you minuscule number of followers translates it that way. One again you have take an obscure usages of the Greek word (uses only once in the Bible where it is forced by the context) and demand that it be used here where it really does not fit.
                    >

                    We have been down this road before as you defend the Catholic tranditions. Woudl mocker who follow their lusts and mock the return of Christ, really believe there is a beginning of creation? Look around you. Scientists have filled the universe up with pure magic, a universe that is 99 + % invisible to protect the very idea Peter predicted. They totally disregard the evidence that the Earth was twice inundated - exactly as Peter claimed.

                    > Further more it is not the first law of science that all things remain the same because the real first law of science is that the Universe is understandable. What the Peter is really predicting is that men will come scoffing at the Bible claming that “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” and that this claim will cause these men to be ignorant of both creation and the flood. The principle in question is not your so called first law about the essence of substance which existed for about 1000 years before the scoffers came and started denying creation and the flood. The real principle of the scoffers that the history of the Earth and now the entire Universe can and must be explained in term of processes we observe to day. This idea is called uniformitarianism and while it started with geology it has expanded to all historical sciences including cosmology. The general principle of uniformitarianism denies by definition even the possibility of miracles or any form divine intervention and it is literally saying “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” It is because of this principle and not you fake first law that they are ignorant of creation and the flood. It is the denial of miracles that is at the hart of the issue. Young Earth Creationists such as my self do not accept your notion of intrinsic change but yet because we allow for the possibility of miracles or other forms divine intervention we see plenty of evidence for both creation and the flood. The real difference is the acceptance or denial of miracles and not the acceptance or denial of your notion of intrinsic change. In fact your notion of intrinsic change actually seems to get in the way of seeing evidence for the Genesis Flood since you have actually accepted the scoffer’s interpretation of rocks laid down during the Genesis Flood to support your changing Earth idea, which is really just another old Earth compromise view.
                    >

                    You are defending the very law Peter attributes to the last day mockers. You measure and mathematicate with that law. You cannot even imagine that visible galactic history is real, even though it exactly fits what the Bible says, because you are forcing all of reality to fit mathematical, symbolical representations of reality that were contrived with the notion that atoms are intrinsically unchanging - perpetual motion engines.

                    You can't get a Changing Earth understanding from where you are. You cannot reason about a contrary first principle from withing the structure that was historically built on the opposite assumption. The only way to be set free from the mind numbing idea that all things remain the same, is to (1) study the original text of the Bible, while asking God to help you not to be double minded. If you come to the Bible with an a priori system (double minded) He cannot give you wisdom (James 1). (2) and lift up your eyes and examine the plural heavens which God commands us to do - and there we see His glory, how utterly and completely He will make foolish the wise of this age. You don't need mathematics or empiricism to see that He did exactly what He said, He made things that were unformed, and then He continues to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continues to spread them out, exactly as He says in Isaiah and Genesis.

                    Victor
                  • Chuck
                    ... I get it. Now I really get it. You are saying that the Bible as we have it to day has been corrupted by Catholics views and that even the meaning of the
                    Message 9 of 13 , Oct 27, 2012
                      Victor:

                      > The Bible menas what is says in the original languages and in
                      > its grammatical / historical context. In many cases the original
                      > meanings of words, especially with respect to creation and
                      > earth history, were modified by the Catholics.



                      I get it. Now I really get it.



                      You are saying that the Bible as we have it to day has been corrupted by
                      Catholics views and that even the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words of
                      been likewise corrupted. The result is you can claim you own personal
                      translation and interpretation of the Bible as what the Bible actually says
                      even though it disagrees with every other translator of last 2000 years. Not
                      that but when I look any Greek or Hebrew text of the Bible I don't see your
                      personal translation and interpretation popping out as obvious or even
                      possible. When I then say I don't see it and in fact the Greek and Hebrew do
                      not say what you claim., then you are not at fault but every one else is
                      because in YOUR VEIW we are looking ar corrupt texts with a corrupt
                      understanding of the even the Greek and Hebrew languages them selves.



                      You are claiming that God not only failed to preserve and transmit his word
                      to us in the 21st century by that he even allow the understanding vary
                      original languages to become corrupt so that even efforts to translate from
                      an original autograph (if one were available) would produce a corrupt
                      translation. You would then have us believe the God came to you one day and
                      gave and only the key to undoing corruption. As a result we are suppose to
                      bow the knee of our intellect to you despite the fact that every other
                      source including the Bible I grew up on the KJV says you are wrong. What you
                      are claiming much like that of a cult leader.



                      What is at the hart of the issue is not what the first principle of science
                      is or what Augustine or Friar Thomas said but do we have a faithful,
                      accurate authoritative copy of the word of God.



                      You clearly think that the answer is NO, since you don't see any copy of
                      Bible we have as authoritative not even in Greek and Hebrew. Further more
                      you think that (except for you of course) our understanding of Greek and
                      Hebrew has become so corrupted that even our best effort to faithfully
                      translate the Bible results in a corrupt translation.



                      I on the other hand see that God has not only preserved his word in Greek
                      and Hebrew and has preserved the original meaning of the words as well, but
                      that He has given us His inspired word of God in our own language in the
                      King James Bible. Unlike you I do not believe that God is too inept to
                      prevent Satan's efforts to destroy the word of God. In fact I believe that
                      God has preserved his word not only in Greek and Hebrew but in English and
                      other languages as well.



                      As a result of our differences here we will never agree so the rest is a
                      point less waist of time.





                      ------ 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
                      ... We have the text of the Bible accurately preserved in its original languages, in most cases - although Matthew probably was originally written in Aramaic.
                      Message 10 of 13 , Oct 27, 2012
                        --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Victor:
                        >
                        > > The Bible menas what is says in the original languages and in
                        > > its grammatical / historical context. In many cases the original
                        > > meanings of words, especially with respect to creation and
                        > > earth history, were modified by the Catholics.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > I get it. Now I really get it.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > You are saying that the Bible as we have it to day has been corrupted by
                        > Catholics views and that even the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words of
                        > been likewise corrupted. The result is you can claim you own personal
                        > translation and interpretation of the Bible as what the Bible actually says
                        > even though it disagrees with every other translator of last 2000 years. Not
                        > that but when I look any Greek or Hebrew text of the Bible I don't see your
                        > personal translation and interpretation popping out as obvious or even
                        > possible. When I then say I don't see it and in fact the Greek and Hebrew do
                        > not say what you claim., then you are not at fault but every one else is
                        > because in YOUR VEIW we are looking ar corrupt texts with a corrupt
                        > understanding of the even the Greek and Hebrew languages them selves.
                        >
                        >

                        We have the text of the Bible accurately preserved in its original languages, in most cases - although Matthew probably was originally written in Aramaic. What I am saying is it is illegitimate for religious tradition to change the meaning of words to fit their religious concepts. E.g. changing the Greek word for eons (aion) the Greek word used for the Old Testament Hebrew word "olam" to eternal. How do we know what the words meant? We have documents in Greek and Hebrew. Moses said take 12 stones out of the Jordan and set them up as a memorial for olam. The stones are long gone, they are not in place for eternity, but for ages.

                        Here is Aristotle's description of the word aion both with respect to the pagan gods and with respect to mortal men.

                        It is therefore evident that there is neither space, nor time, nor vacuum beyond. Wherefore the things there are not adapted by nature to exist in place; nor does time make them grow old; neither under the highest (heaven) is there any change of any one of these things, they being placed beyond it; but unchangeable, passionless - they continue through all aióna. For indeed, the word itself according to the ancients, divinely expressed this. For the period which comprehends the time of every one's life, beyond which, according to nature, nothing exists, is called his aión. And for the same reason, the period of the whole heaven even the infinite time of all things, and the period comprehending that infinity is aión, eternity, deriving its name from aei, einai, always being, immortal and divine."

                        With respect to the pagan gods, who unlike the biblical God absolutely could not not change, it was an infinite duration. With respect to mortals, in ancient times it was used for the duration of a lifetime. The Greek poets agreed with the Bible that the earliest generations lived for vast ages.

                        What am I saying. Words HAVE MEANING IN THEIR HISTORICAL CONTEXT. Translators have no right to change the meaning to fit their religious persuasion or their philosophical concepts.

                        >
                        > You are claiming that God not only failed to preserve and transmit his word
                        > to us in the 21st century by that he even allow the understanding vary
                        > original languages to become corrupt so that even efforts to translate from
                        > an original autograph (if one were available) would produce a corrupt
                        > translation. You would then have us believe the God came to you one day and
                        > gave and only the key to undoing corruption. As a result we are suppose to
                        > bow the knee of our intellect to you despite the fact that every other
                        > source including the Bible I grew up on the KJV says you are wrong. What you
                        > are claiming much like that of a cult leader.
                        >

                        I am not wise. I am not introducing some new teaching. I am not corrupting God's word. I advocate accepting the biblical words as they meant when they were written. The message I have is we must not tailor the Bible to fit the western system. The western system is mindset. When I was a child, my mind was forced into a mold by my schooling. (BTW, schooling is not usually to teach one to think freely, but to think within the mindset of the society one is raised in). I did not even know that my mind was incarcerated until I read the biblical warning about the dangers of the elementary ideas of philosophy (Col 2:8). I realized that the western system was contrived by well meaning Christians monks who adjusted the Bible to fit the philosophy of the pagan Greeks. They actually thought that philosophy could be the handmaiden to the Bible, bringing skeptics to faith


                        >
                        >
                        > What is at the hart of the issue is not what the first principle of science
                        > is or what Augustine or Friar Thomas said but do we have a faithful,
                        > accurate authoritative copy of the word of God.
                        >


                        I beg you to read the original text. Don't read the traditions of men.


                        The issues Creationist (both young and old earthers) has a simple, literal answer in the original languages. In fact, the age of the universe is probably the most powerful evidence for a literal creation, since we see the vast eons back to the creation age and we SEE exactly what the literal text states. However, we must stop tailoring our interpretations to fit the false first law of the last days.

                        I challenge you to look up at the galaxies - which in our age you can do without a telscopoe - sinc e we taxpayers have access to the photos we pay for with the Hubble and hopefully someday the James Webb.

                        Isaiah 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these stars, The One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power, Not one of them is missing.

                        Here is a double imperative - look up and see! God expects us to see the evidence for what He does in the sky. He created something - a verbally completed action. The next verb is a hiphil participle to cause to go, to come out, bring out, lead out. Hiphil expresses the causative action and the participle shows an action in its unbroken continuity. He expects us to see something coming out as he continues to call to his starry army in the sky. Because of the strength of His power, none of the stars fails. (What we see in galactic history is that orbits accelerate outward as matter keeps on changing its clock frequencies and the space it takes up as stars continue to form out of things that do not appear. What we see is the evidence that God will make foolish the scientists. Man cannot find Him through humanistic wisdom. Yet the evidence for His creation is simple and visible.

                        Changing Earth Creationist are not a new cult. We preach that people should accept the literal words of the Bible as they were written (verbal, plenary authority) and not tailor the text to fit the modern mindset of scientists who reason with the very first law the Bible predicted for the last days. Of course when we bring down the great fortress of speculative reasoning raised up against the knowledge of God (science - 2 cor 10:3 -6) it will probably bring on persecution. But we will bring great glory to our Creator when we use HIS LITERAL WORDS as weapons of war, not keep on adjusting the meaning to fit the latest scientific theory as has been going on for some centuries now.

                        Victor
                      • Chuck
                        ... Genesis Science Mission Online Store Genesis Mission Creation Science
                        Message 11 of 13 , Oct 29, 2012
                          ------ 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

                          _____

                          >> You are saying that the Bible as we have it to day has been>> corrupted
                          by Catholics views and that even the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words
                          of

                          > been likewise corrupted. The result is you can claim you own personal

                          > translation and interpretation of the Bible as what the Bible actually
                          says

                          > even though it disagrees with every other translator of last 2000 years.
                          Not

                          > that but when I look any Greek or Hebrew text of the Bible I don't see
                          your

                          > personal translation and interpretation popping out as obvious or even

                          > possible. When I then say I don't see it and in fact the Greek and Hebrew
                          do

                          > not say what you claim., then you are not at fault but every one else is

                          > because in YOUR VEIW we are looking ar corrupt texts with a corrupt

                          > understanding of the even the Greek and Hebrew languages them selves.

                          >

                          >



                          We have the text of the Bible accurately preserved in its original
                          languages, in

                          most cases - although Matthew probably was originally written in Aramaic.
                          What I

                          am saying is it is illegitimate for religious tradition to change the
                          meaning of

                          words to fit their religious concepts. E.g. changing the Greek word for eons

                          (aion) the Greek word used for the Old Testament Hebrew word "olam" to
                          eternal.

                          How do we know what the words meant? We have documents in Greek and Hebrew.

                          Moses said take 12 stones out of the Jordan and set them up as a memorial
                          for

                          olam. The stones are long gone, they are not in place for eternity, but for

                          ages.



                          Here is Aristotle's description of the word aion both with respect to the
                          pagan

                          gods and with respect to mortal men.



                          It is therefore evident that there is neither space, nor time, nor vacuum

                          beyond. Wherefore the things there are not adapted by nature to exist in
                          place;

                          nor does time make them grow old; neither under the highest (heaven) is
                          there

                          any change of any one of these things, they being placed beyond it; but

                          unchangeable, passionless - they continue through all aióna. For indeed, the

                          word itself according to the ancients, divinely expressed this. For the
                          period

                          which comprehends the time of every one's life, beyond which, according to

                          nature, nothing exists, is called his aión. And for the same reason, the
                          period

                          of the whole heaven even the infinite time of all things, and the period

                          comprehending that infinity is aión, eternity, deriving its name from aei,

                          einai, always being, immortal and divine."



                          With respect to the pagan gods, who unlike the biblical God absolutely could
                          not

                          not change, it was an infinite duration. With respect to mortals, in ancient

                          times it was used for the duration of a lifetime. The Greek poets agreed
                          with

                          the Bible that the earliest generations lived for vast ages.



                          What am I saying. Words HAVE MEANING IN THEIR HISTORICAL CONTEXT.
                          Translators

                          have no right to change the meaning to fit their religious persuasion or
                          their

                          philosophical concepts.



                          >

                          > You are claiming that God not only failed to preserve and transmit his
                          word

                          > to us in the 21st century by that he even allow the understanding vary

                          > original languages to become corrupt so that even efforts to translate
                          from

                          > an original autograph (if one were available) would produce a corrupt

                          > translation. You would then have us believe the God came to you one day
                          and

                          > gave and only the key to undoing corruption. As a result we are suppose to

                          > bow the knee of our intellect to you despite the fact that every other

                          > source including the Bible I grew up on the KJV says you are wrong. What
                          you

                          > are claiming much like that of a cult leader.

                          >



                          I am not wise. I am not introducing some new teaching. I am not corrupting
                          God's

                          word. I advocate accepting the biblical words as they meant when they were

                          written. The message I have is we must not tailor the Bible to fit the
                          western

                          system. The western system is mindset. When I was a child, my mind was
                          forced

                          into a mold by my schooling. (BTW, schooling is not usually to teach one to

                          think freely, but to think within the mindset of the society one is raised
                          in).

                          I did not even know that my mind was incarcerated until I read the biblical

                          warning about the dangers of the elementary ideas of philosophy (Col 2:8). I

                          realized that the western system was contrived by well meaning Christians
                          monks

                          who adjusted the Bible to fit the philosophy of the pagan Greeks. They
                          actually

                          thought that philosophy could be the handmaiden to the Bible, bringing
                          skeptics

                          to faith





                          >

                          >

                          > What is at the hart of the issue is not what the first principle of
                          science

                          > is or what Augustine or Friar Thomas said but do we have a faithful,

                          > accurate authoritative copy of the word of God.

                          >





                          I beg you to read the original text. Don't read the traditions of men.





                          The issues Creationist (both young and old earthers) has a simple, literal

                          answer in the original languages. In fact, the age of the universe is
                          probably

                          the most powerful evidence for a literal creation, since we see the vast
                          eons

                          back to the creation age and we SEE exactly what the literal text states.

                          However, we must stop tailoring our interpretations to fit the false first
                          law

                          of the last days.



                          I challenge you to look up at the galaxies - which in our age you can do
                          without

                          a telscopoe - sinc e we taxpayers have access to the photos we pay for with
                          the

                          Hubble and hopefully someday the James Webb.



                          Isaiah 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these stars,
                          The

                          One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because
                          of

                          the greatness of His might and the strength of His power, Not one of them is

                          missing.



                          Here is a double imperative - look up and see! God expects us to see the

                          evidence for what He does in the sky. He created something - a verbally

                          completed action. The next verb is a hiphil participle to cause to go, to
                          come

                          out, bring out, lead out. Hiphil expresses the causative action and the

                          participle shows an action in its unbroken continuity. He expects us to see

                          something coming out as he continues to call to his starry army in the sky.

                          Because of the strength of His power, none of the stars fails. (What we see
                          in

                          galactic history is that orbits accelerate outward as matter keeps on
                          changing

                          its clock frequencies and the space it takes up as stars continue to form
                          out of

                          things that do not appear. What we see is the evidence that God will make

                          foolish the scientists. Man cannot find Him through humanistic wisdom. Yet
                          the

                          evidence for His creation is simple and visible.



                          Changing Earth Creationist are not a new cult. We preach that people should

                          accept the literal words of the Bible as they were written (verbal, plenary

                          authority) and not tailor the text to fit the modern mindset of scientists
                          who

                          reason with the very first law the Bible predicted for the last days. Of
                          course

                          when we bring down the great fortress of speculative reasoning raised up
                          against

                          the knowledge of God (science - 2 cor 10:3 -6) it will probably bring on

                          persecution. But we will bring great glory to our Creator when we use HIS

                          LITERAL WORDS as weapons of war, not keep on adjusting the meaning to fit
                          the

                          latest scientific theory as has been going on for some centuries now.



                          Victor



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Chuck
                          ... You indicated the opposite previously but OK. ... I would agree if that is what is being done but I disagree with you that it has been done. ... The
                          Message 12 of 13 , Oct 29, 2012
                            > We have the text of the Bible accurately preserved in its
                            > original languages, in most cases - although Matthew
                            > probably was originally written in Aramaic.



                            You indicated the opposite previously but OK.



                            >What I am saying is it is illegitimate for religious tradition to
                            > change the meaning of words to fit their religious concepts.



                            I would agree if that is what is being done but I disagree with you that it has been done.


                            > E.g. changing the Greek word for eons (aion) the Greek word
                            > used for the Old Testament Hebrew word "olam" to eternal.
                            > How do we know what the words meant? We have documents
                            > in Greek and Hebrew. Moses said take 12 stones out of the
                            > Jordan and set them up as a memorial for olam. The stones are
                            > long gone, they are not in place for eternity, but for ages.



                            The passage in question is Joshua 4:4-7

                            4 Then Joshua called the twelve men, whom

                            he had prepared of the children of Israel, out

                            of every tribe a man:

                            5 And Joshua said unto them, Pass over

                            before the ark of the LORD your God into the

                            midst of Jordan, and take ye up every man of

                            you a stone upon his shoulder, according unto

                            the number of the tribes of the children of

                            Israel:

                            6 That this may be a sign among you, that

                            when your children ask their fathers in time to

                            come, saying, What mean ye by these stones?

                            7 Then ye shall answer them, That the

                            waters of Jordan were cut off before the ark of

                            the covenant of the LORD; when it passed

                            over Jordan, the waters of Jordan were cut off:

                            and these stones shall be for a memorial unto

                            the children of Israel for ever.



                            First of all it was Joshua not Moses that set up the 12 stones as a memorial.

                            Second Prove that they are not there we may have the wrong spot or they may have be buried or both.

                            Third when the Bible quotes some one it quotes that person accurately even if that person is lying through their teeth. Now I am not saying that Joshua was lying but he could have been in error on how long they would last. Note this is Joshua speaking not God.

                            Forth if these stones are indeed gone then you can’t even say they lasted for ages since it has been at most 3500 years since these events took place and most likely they did last more than 1000 years or so, hardly qualifying as ages.

                            Finally in a way the memorial can be said to last for ever since it is enshrined in the Bible which as the word of God will last for ever.



                            > Here is Aristotle's description of the word aion both with respect
                            > to the pagan gods and with respect to mortal men.

                            >

                            > It is therefore evident that there is neither space, nor time, nor
                            > vacuum beyond. Wherefore the things there are not adapted by
                            > nature to exist in place; nor does time make them grow old;
                            > neither under the highest (heaven) is there any change of any
                            > one of these things, they being placed beyond it; but unchangeable,
                            > passionless - they continue through all aióna. For indeed, the

                            > word itself according to the ancients, divinely expressed this.
                            > For the period which comprehends the time of every one's life,
                            > beyond which, according to nature, nothing exists, is called his
                            > aión. And for the same reason, the period of the whole heaven
                            > even the infinite time of all things, and the period comprehending
                            > that infinity is aión, eternity, deriving its name from aei, einai,
                            > always being, immortal and divine."

                            >

                            > With respect to the pagan gods, who unlike the biblical God
                            > absolutely could not not change, it was an infinite duration.
                            > With respect to mortals, in ancient times it was used for the
                            > duration of a lifetime.



                            This is totally consistent with αἰών have more than one meaning ranging from a period of time or age, to eternity. So I see no evidence of any change in word meaning in these cases, I do however see the KJV translators using the appropriate English word given the context.



                            > What am I saying. Words HAVE MEANING IN THEIR
                            > HISTORICAL CONTEXT. Translators have no right to
                            > change the meaning to fit their religious persuasion or their
                            > philosophical concepts.



                            I never said they did, but then again I do not believe the KJV translators changed a thing but that they faithfully translated the Bible in English by God’s direction, such that it is God’s inspired and inerrant word in English.



                            >I am not wise.



                            I will agree 100% on this point!



                            > I am not introducing some new teaching. I am not corrupting
                            > God's word. I advocate accepting the biblical words as they
                            > meant when they were written.



                            By the way I was not calling you a cult leader but trying to show that you sound a lot like one. However I do see what you are doing as twisting the actual meaning of the Biblical text even if you do not think that is what you are doing. As I have said before I simply do not see your interpretation in the Bible even when I do check the Greek and Hebrew and probably never will.



                            > I beg you to read the original text. Don't read the traditions
                            > of men.



                            Since we do not have the original text (autographs) I take you mean the Greek and Hebrew and in that case in fact I have read them. I can read and understand Greek and I have studied Hebrew as well. When I do, I do not see your interpretation but tend to agree with the KJV.



                            > I challenge you to look up at the galaxies - which in our age

                            > you can do without a telescope - since we taxpayers have

                            > access to the photos we pay for with the Hubble and hopefully

                            > someday the James Webb.



                            I do look up at the galaxies with and with Hubble. I have my own telescope as well.



                            However when I look at those galaxies, I do not see your interpretation of the data. This is because there is more date coming in from Hubble than the visible light image and that data tells a different story than you are telling. It’s that simple I am looking and what I see fits well with Biblical creation from a young Earth perspective.



                            > Changing Earth Creationist are not a new cult.



                            You missed my point which is that some of what you say is reminiscent of a cult. I was giving you a warning about the direction I see you heading not a condemnation of where you are.









                            ------ 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]
                          • Victor McAllister
                            People in the Old Testament era could not imagine that time is substance-like because that idea was popularized much later by Christians. For centuries
                            Message 13 of 13 , May 18, 2013
                              People in the Old Testament era could not imagine that time is substance-like because that idea was popularized much later by Christians. For centuries Europeans studied the Bible in Latin that did not have a tenseless verb like the Greek aorist or the untensed biblical Hebrew verbs. The western tradition affected the exegesis of the Bible as they interpreted it using new ideas about time. One of the effects of interpreting the Bible with western tensed grammars is the age of the universe dichotomy. If creationists would accept the text in the grammar and epistemic system of a contemporary, they could see that galactic history as the strongest evidence for a literal creation.

                              All early people believed in geological eons in few years. Job 14 lists the geological events that passed during the lives of Noah’s grandsons. One of Job’s life-span markers was: the Mediterranean dried. Indeed drill cores show that the Mediterranean dried repeatedly. According to scientific estimates, the last drying was 5 million years ago. According to the Bible, Job lived about 4500 years ago, during the dinosaur age. Job also mentioned how their faces changed before they died. If we lived for eons, our skulls would grow Neanderthal features. Neanderthal children had skulls like moderns, which supports Job’s statement that their faces changed (doubled) before they died.

                              We directly compare billions of galaxies at many ranges. The fact that the universe is eons old is clearly visible in galactic history. Hebrew 11:3 By faith we are apprehending that the plural eons were passively equipped by the command of God out of things unseen.

                              What unseen thing allowed eons to passively form? We use the word gravity to explain why the Earth orbits the Sun. However, the cause of the gravitational phenomena is invisible. Perhaps He formed the plural eons by establishing the gravitational phenomena long ago.

                              What is gravity? Gravity theories are based on assumptions. The best way to test gravity theories is to compare visible galactic history with a theory’s predictions.
                              We observe that the earliest galaxies were often tiny and naked, sometimes surrounded by equally spaced globs with different spectral colors than the core. At many ranges we observe how the globs accelerate outward, taking up more space, changing their spectral frequencies as the stars accelerated out forming growth spirals. The star streams move opposite from Newton or Einstein’s theories.

                              If what we see in the distance is real, then Earth’s orbit should also accelerate.
                              Over the centuries, astronomers measured with angles a decreasing solar parallax. Thirty five hundred years ago, our ancestors mentions close planet passages and the shattering of a nearby planet, which the Bible also records. The solar system contains tens of thousands broken planet pieces in the form of comets and asteroids. They contain rocks whose crystals formed deep underground in volcanic conditions and sedimentary rocks like cubanite that formed in warm liquid water. Evidently a planet was smashed just like our ancestors claimed a few thousand years ago.

                              A scientist might insist that they measure clock-like orbits, which prohibits planet collisions 4000 years ago. In 1970 NASA sent calibrated clocks out of the solar system on Pioneers 10 and 11. Their clock signals, transmitted from the past, kept changing with distance, relative to NASA’s hydrogen maser clocks of the moment. The Pioneer clocks changed with distance at the Hubble ratio, which astronomers use to estimate the distance to galaxies using their light clock rates. Clocks from the past are running slower than modern clocks. Some distant light-clocks, observed with telescopes, clocked about 7% of the frequencies emitted by modern atoms.

                              We need a gravity theory based on biblical principles to account for why orbits visibly accelerate throughout cosmic history.

                              1. The Bible plainly states that the creation is enslaved to change. Paul used orderly submission and together verbs to describe this deterioration in Romans 8:19 - 22. We observe that atoms continue to change relationally by comparing the shape and spectra of galaxies at many ranges.

                              2. The gravitational phenomena is not a perpetual motion effect, as in Newton and Einstein. As atoms change their clock rates, they emit invisible gravity.
                              Inertia and the gravitational phenomena were different a few millennium ago, which is why giant dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. If they were alive today, they would have trouble standing.

                              3. Gravitational phenomena do not propagate at infinite speed as in Newton’s formulas. The aberration effect, the angular offset of the Sun’s gravity, pulls more on one hemisphere than the other.
                              Paraconical pendulum demonstrate that the gravitational effect from the Sun and Moon vary depending on the positions of those distant objects. The aberration of gravity accelerates both days and years, pushing the earth (and all the planets) outwards in their orbits. It also accelerates the earth’s spin so that the ratio between days and years stays about the same.  The aberration of gravity also causes the distances between consecutive planets to increase logarithmically (the Titius Bode effect). It is not time that is accelerating, but rather orbits and rotations relative to their previous states, not relative to clocks.

                              Someone might insist that there is a balance between the Earth’s inertia and the pull of the Sun’s gravity. If one of them were to change, the earth would be ejected from the solar system. Relational change is where everything changes in parallel, together. You cannot model relational changes with mathematics. Mathematical models are based on the notion that atoms are perpetual motion engines. The effects of relational changes are visible. We observe how billions of galaxies intrinsically grew into growth spirals.

                              Lift up your eyes and look at galactic history. How great will be the triumph of the Word of God over science.

                              http://www.godsriddle.info/2013/05/biblical-eons.html

                              This cylinder seal from Kish is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It depicts a common theme from 4000 years ago, a battle between planet gods. We know they are planets because they are wearing hats with horns, perhaps depictions of ice rings or the crescent shapes when a planet is at an angle from the sun. Two planet gods are down and being brained with maces. One planet god has gripped the horned hat of another and has raised his mace. The Bible condemns the worshiping of planet gods, however, it uses similar words as the pagans to describe a planet shattering.

                              Victor, Changing Earth Creationist

                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.