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

RE: [CreationTalk] Day One

Expand Messages
  • Chuck
    From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Victor McAllister Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 2:08 PM To: creationtalk
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 2, 2013

      From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Victor McAllister
      Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 2:08 PM
      To: creationtalk
      Subject: [CreationTalk] Day One


      > A Changing Earth interpretation of creation is not an attempt

      to adapt the beginnings to western languages, science or modern
      concepts of time. Moses’ language had no past, present or
      future verbs. He did not have the language tools for thinking
      of time like westerners. The notion that time actually exists,
      that it can be measured or is linear did not begin until long
      after Moses.
      Modern translators usually follow the western
      traditions that fit the text to our tensed language. style='font-weight:bold'>Most of the
      verbs in the Genesis creation show continuing actions. Evencolor=navy>
      when it says He finished the creation, the Hebrew wordscolor=navy>
      show continuing action,
      suggesting that God is still at work
      in specified parts of creation.

      While it is true that ancient Hebrew did not have past, present and future tenses for verbs but has perfect, imperfect and imperative tenses. All it shows is that ancient Hebrew focused on the nature of the action rather than the time. It does not mean that they had no way of expressing past, present and future they just did not do it by way of verb tenses. In the case of ancient Hebrew past, present and future are generally indicated by context.

      A fundamental assumption of your entire Changing Earth notion is that God has not given us an authoritative copy of His word in our own language. You there fore assume that God had allowed all English translations of the Bible to be corrupted. You assume the God as locked his word in dead languages (ancient Hebrew and Greek) so that we dependent on those who learn these languages for what the Bible says.

      However when you accept the God not only inspired the original writing of His word but the preservation and translation of it as well; which you do not do; then we can know that God had given us a faithful and inspired translation of the Bible into English called the King James Bible. On what bases do I claim the God inspires translation well the best bases possible the Bible itself.   

       Mark 16:15-16 (KJB)
      15  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach
      the gospel to every creature.
      16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
      believeth not shall be damned.

      This is a statement of the Great commission in which Christ commands his disciples to take the Gospel to all the world. Now even in the fist century most living human beings did not speak Greek or Hebrew so this fulfilling the Great commission requires translating the Bible into languages other Hebrew and Greek. As such it is foolish to assume that God would not guide the process so as to prevent distortion. Furthermore the Bible actually has examples of divinely inspired translations. Not only does the New Testament quote the old which qualifies as divinely inspired translations of the Hebrew to the Greek but on the Day of Pentecost God himself translates the Gospel into the native language of the hearer.

       Acts 2:1-6 (KJB)
      1  And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all
      with one accord in one place.
      2  And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing
      mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
      3  And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire,
      and it sat upon each of them.
      4  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to
      speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
      5  And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men,
      out of every nation under heaven.
      6  Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came
      together, and were confounded, because that every man heard
      them speak in his own language.

      Note that it says “every man heard them speak in his own language.” God gave them the word of God in their own language and He has given us His word in the English language such that the King James Bible is God’s inspired word of God in English. This fact is demonstrated by virtue of the fact that God has used the King James Bible win more souls to him self than any other translation and more than the original Hebrew and Greek.

      Your denial of divinely inspired translation has lead you to grossly mistranslate the Greek and Hebrew resulting in obvious distortions.

      > There are several advantages to interpreting creation in Moses

      >’ way of thinking. The problem of
      the vast age of the universe
      > becomes, not a liability, but a powerful weapon. We can see
      > the creation as it occurred long ago with telescopes.

      The vast age of the universe is not a liability for Young Earth Creation either and you don’t have to go to a twist translation of Hebrew to get a young Earth. It comes out clearly from
      God’s inspired word of God in English the King James Bible. The vast age of the universe can only be considered a liability for Young Earth Creation if time passes at the same through out the Universe, which is a view of time shown to be false nearly 100 years ago. Relativity has shown that the passage of time dose vary, in fact when Relativity is plugged into a bounded universe you get Universe that is billions of years old with an Earth that is just 6,000 years old. Because of most of this time dilation occurred on day four of creation we do see creation as it occurred with telescopes and it is a powerful weapon, but we do not need to your Changing Earth false teaching to see it.

      > The visible age of creation cannot be made to fit the scientific

      > concept of time.

      WRONG!!! The visible age of creation fits both the scientific concept of time and a young Earth because time dilation allows for a young Earth and an old Universe. I already dealt with the rest of what you say in past post and I really do not have the time to go over them again, however you do give a couple of points that require some attention.  

      > Once we abandon efforts to adapt the Bible to the western
      > concept of time, we find that the creation is visible exactly
      > as Moses declared it.
      The only history that is visible as it
      > happened is cosmic history. We confirm that the stars did
      > not begin to form until after the galaxies were created at many
      > ranges, in all parts of the light spectrum.style='color:navy'>

      First of there is no effort to adapt the Bible to the western concept of time because it naturally fits with it since God is not limited by the limitations of ,man.

      Further more Moses makes no mention of galaxies unless you equate haven to galaxy something for which there no bases for what so ever.

      >The Bible starts with the narrative of creation. First Elohim

      > (the plural God who uses singular grammar) created
      > (completed action) the heavens and the earth. The first word
      > (often translated beginning) means head, chief, that which is
      > first.

      While re'shiyth can mean head, chief or first it can also mean beginning and in the context of Genesis 1 beginning is a proper translation.

      > Moses makes no mention of the beginning of time. Instead,
      > he focuses on the creation of the plural heavens and earth.color=navy>
      > First God completed creating everything in the material
      >creation: the heavens and Earth, an all inclusive phrase.

      Genesis 1:1 (KJB) In the beginning God created the heaven
      and the earth.

      Once again like any false teacher you fail to actually quote from the Bible but state what you think it says based on a flawed understanding of Hebrew.

      If God has indeed given us a divinely inspired translation of the Bible in English (King James the Bible) then you wrong on all accounts. What is our final authority? God’s word translated in to English by divine inspiration or you own erroneous understanding of Hebrew and Greek.

      The universe has three major components time, space and matter, all three of which are mentioned here. We have the beginning of time and the creation of space and matter in the form of the primordial Earth, not necessary all matter in the entire universe. This verse shows the time, space and matter all came into existence at the same time which is totally consistent with Relativity which show that time, space and matter are interdependent such that they all had to be began together. Moses wrote the original 3500 years ago and the King James the Bible was translated 300 years before Einstein and the Bible hit it dead on.

      >Verse two shifts our focus to the Earth, that was created

      > along with the plural heavens.
      The earth was unformed
      > and void and the face (paniym) of the abyss (tehom) was
      > dark. The word for face suggests that the primordial Earth
      > had a surface. The unformed and void words (tohu wa bohu)
      > suggest that the Earth had very limited extension. style='font-weight:bold'>No one
      > has ever discovered a god particle, so we do not know
      > what it was that He finished that was yet unformed.
      > Evidently the Earth was microscopic in size before it
      > began to have receive form.

      > Then Elohim’s wind, in unbroken continuity, dithered
      > over the face of the waters. I use the word dither because
      > the Hebrew word means to flutter.
      For example, in
      > Deuteronomy 32:11 an eagle “hovers” over its young. Eagles
      > shake back and forth as they extend their wings over their
      > nestlings. The only other time the vibrating word (mrchphth)
      > is used in Scripture is in Jeremiah 23:9. The prophet speaks of
      > his bones “shaking” from distress. Why would Elohim’s wind
      > continue, in unbroken continuity, to vibrate? Perhaps the
      > shaking action is associated with giving form to what was
      > dark and unformed. As Elohim’s
      wind continues to dither
      >, it is no longer called an abyss - but waters. Did the shaking
      > action have anything to do with the birth of the waters?

      Once again you act like a false teacher claiming that the Bible says something with out actually quoting from it so I am once again providing it.

      Genesis 1:2 (KJB)  And the earth was without form, and void;
      and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of
      God moved upon the face of the waters.

      The reference to the Earth being “without form, and void” says nothing about the size of the Earth just that it lacked form and was empty. The reference to “the deep” is a term that tends to be used else where in the Bible in relationship to water, which is the reason for the switch. That is that the Bible is simply using two terms for the same thing.

      > Job 38:8-9 mentions the birth of the sea.  "Or who enclosed

      > the sea with doors when, bursting forth, it went out from the
      > womb; when I made a cloud its garment and thick darkness
      > its swaddling band.”

      At least hare you quote from something other than your own personal translation, even if it is not the King James Bible.

      Job 38:8-9 (KJB)
      8  Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as
      if it had issued out of the womb?
      9  When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick
      darkness a swaddlingband for it,

      Here you are close enough that I have no real problem but I don’t get you point.

      > In verse three (3), Elohim continues to command light

      > to continue to be and the light continues to become.
      > the dithering action (that continues in unbroken continuity)
      > associated with the continuing commands for light to be?style='color:navy'>

      Now you slip back into false teacher mode by not quoting from a real Bible but giving your own personal option of what it says.

      Genesis 1:3 (KJB) And God said, Let there be light: and
      there was light.

      If you insist on using the Hebrew imperfect that it can be worded as “God saying “existing light” light and not what claim.

      > Experiments show that light never ceases to dither around
      > within all substances.


      NO experiment ever conducted show light dithering around with in matter. You don’t know what you are talking about.

      > This suggests that the light referred to in this verse is

      > internal to matter and the dithering action is associated
      > with how light gave form to the formless earth.

      WRONG AGAIN!!!!!

      This suggests noting of the kind. There is a known light that does fit the description it is called Cosmic Background Radiation. If you take a sun light like spectrum and stretch it out by a factor of 3,300 you get a perfect match for the Cosmic Background Radiation.

      > In verse four (4), God continues to see that the light is

      > good and continues to divide it from darkness. The
      > continual dividing of light from darkness suggests that
      > Elohim is dividing internal, never-ending light from th
      >e external world, where darkness is an absence of light.
      Light remains internal to matter unless it responds to an
      > external light-trigger. When atoms shatter, as in an atomic
      > bomb, a blinding light spreads out with great intensity.

      Once again like a typical false teacher you claim the Bible says something but do not quote a real Bible but just state what you think it says.

      Genesis 1:4 (KJB) And God saw the light, that it was good:
      and God divided the light from the darkness.

      God dividing the light from here is suggests that the originally created light was coming from all directions and shining on the Earth and that God block the light from shining on half of the Earth to create a day night cycle.

      > Job 38:19 - 21 God Himself mentions the house of light,

      > the place where light continues to abide. The house of
      > light has a border and light has paths within its house.
      > The residence of light is a standing place for darkness.
      > Both light and darkness are associated with the house of

      Once again like a typical false teacher you claim the Bible says something but do not quote a real Bible but just state what you think it says.

      Job 38:19-21 (KJB)
      19  Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for
      darkness, where is the place thereof,
      20  That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof,
      and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house
      21  Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or
      because the number of thy days is great?

      These verses make no mention of a house of light but the way where light dwelleth, which is consistent with the fact that light has no place but is always in motion at the speed of light.

      > The house of light is the simplest, most accurate description

      > of an atom.  Atoms are filled with dithering light that
      > continually moves at the fastest speed. As light moves within
      > its house, it only leaks out to impinge on our vision when the
      > house of light changes the dimensions of its perimeter.
      > internal light gives matter its ability to have extension and other
      > properties.

      This is totally bogus with no bases in the Bible or physics. It exists only in your imagination.

      > Experiments that shatter subatomic entities, find

      > light-like things all the way down.

      While the subatomic particles that make up atoms and light both exhibit particle-wave duality that does define light-like. There are considerable differences between photons and the subatomic particles that make up atoms including the fact that these particles have rest mass where photons do not.


      > The fifth verse tells us that God continued to call the light day and

      > completed calling the darkness night. The distinction between
      > “continually calling of light ” and “completed calling
      of darkness”
      > suggests that here He is naming the light
      that sometimes escapes
      > from its house. External light interacts with other houses of
      > (atoms), such as the sensors in our eyes. Darkness is an absence of
      > external light, but light continues to dither within all matter, even
      > in the dark.

      Once again like a typical false teacher you claim the Bible says something but do not quote a real Bible but just state what you think it says.

      Genesis 1:5 (KJB) And God called the light Day, and the darkness
      he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

      What God is doing here is naming the light side of the Earth day and the dark side night and then counting off the first day of the creation week.

      > Understanding that matter is a relation with light (phos estin
      > - Ephesians 5:13) is extremely useful for a simple understanding
      > of quantum experiments. 

      Once again like a typical false teacher you claim the Bible says something but do not quote a real Bible but just state what you think it says.

      Ephesians 5:11-13 (KJB)
      11  And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,
      but rather reprove them.
      12  For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done
      of them in secret.
      13  But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light:
      for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

      This verse speaks about the light of truth being shown on hidden things and has nothing to do with the structure of matter. Actually the best and simplest understanding of quantum experiments is that mater is fundamentally information.


      > In verse five we find two uses for the word day. And there was

      > evening and there was morning, one day. God continues to name
      > the “period of daylight” as day. He then numbers the evening
      > the morning as day one, a full day and night cycle. There are no
      > definite articles in the Hebrew for the numbered days 1 through 5.
      > It does not say “the” first day, but day one.

      So what?

      > Many have wondered how there could be a evening and a morning

      > before the Sun began to form on day four.
      Huge new telescopes are
      > even now observing cosmic history at many ranges. Early spiral galaxies
      > were often formless, tiny and naked, without starry arms. Their light also
      > glows at microwave and infrared, which is radically different from the
      > light frequencies of modern atoms.

      What you are describing here is consistent with the idea God formed galaxies from white hole (quasars) that spew out mater and light but that light red shifted by the gravity of the white hole.

      > This suggests that early atoms were much smaller than modern ones.


      If early atoms were much smaller than modern ones then they would all be blue shifted not red shifted. If you shrink the orbit of an electron the energy differences between orbitals increases because the electromagnetic force drops off quicker closer the nucleus, even if you shrink the nucleus.

      Also if as you claim light bonuses around inside an atom the wave length of that light has to be smaller in a smaller atom because longer wave length would not fit in a smaller atom.  

      > If the Earth was close to the glowing, miniature heart of our galaxy,

      > there still would have been a day and night as it rotated, even before
      > the Sun began to take form.

      This is pure speculation and totally un-needed. The light created in Genesis 1 is a omni directional light without a source but created directly by God rather than being emitted by matter. Now there is a know light that does fit this description called Cosmic Background Radiation. If you take a sun light like spectrum and stretch it out by a factor of 3,300 you get a perfect match for the Cosmic Background Radiation. This is makes

      The real key difference however is that I believe that God has given us an authoritative copy of His word in our own language by way of the inspired translation of the Bible into English called the King James Bible. While you think that God locked up His word in two dead languages leaving the average Christian dependent on clergy tell them what the Bible really says despite disagreement with the copy of Bible in their own language they have may say. Your view is a foundational Catholic doctrine that enslaves people to Catholic priests.



      ------ Charles Creager Jr.

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