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

Re: Biblical Eons

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Oct 27, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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 2 of 13 , Oct 27, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 13 , Oct 27, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          --- 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 4 of 13 , Oct 29, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            ------ 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 5 of 13 , Oct 29, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              > 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 6 of 13 , May 18, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                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.