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

Creation versus Time Ideas

Expand Messages
  • Victor McAllister
    Chuck wrote: “Frankly your notion of time is a totally bogus imagination of your own mind that exists no place else and frankly never has.” “This
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 3, 2013
      Chuck wrote:  “Frankly your notion of time is a totally bogus imagination of your own mind that exists no place else and frankly never has.”  “This purely is your own erroneous and perverted interpretation of Hebrew and a result of your denial that God has given us His inerrant word in the English language, specifically the King James Bible.”

      According to the Oxford Dictionary,  “time” is the most used noun in the English language. Indo-European languages also have tensed (timing) verbs in almost every sentence. (Tense is an old French word for time). Our concept of time affects not just our grammar, but how we think. However, ancient languages often used verbs that express aspect instead of tense. Aspect can show duration, but relative to the narrative, rather than to a symbolical idea that time exists. Tagalog verbs can refer to complete, incomplete, or contemplated actions, but these are not past, present of future tenses. The Hopi language has no words or grammar that refers to time, past, present, future or enduring. The Hopi language contains no reference to time. (Whorf 1956). Biblical Hebrew had few adjectives and adverbs so verbs convey a great deal of meaning, but they do not reference things to time (tense). Hebrew verbs can show an incomplete aspect (imperfect) showing continuity or repetition, but “when” this happens comes from the narration rather than a tense. Hebrew verbs can also convey a completion aspect (perfect), but this may indicate completion anywhere from the past to the future, depending on the context. Real events happen or will happen and events have sequence. Jews could relate the sequence to events in the perspective of the narrator or in the perspective of something in the narration (such as a yearly cycle), but not to an abstract time. Aspectual grammars were common before people began to imagine that time actually exists. Modern Hebrew has three verb tenses. The notion that time actually exists has infected modern Jews despite what Solomon said: olam (long time, over the horizon, unseen events) are in our minds (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Time has no existence.

      Augustine analyzed the text for the first creation day in Confessions, Book 12. He wondered how could we understand formless, lightless matter, an Earth made of quasi-nothingness. How could formless matter experience time or change? Augustine concluded that we cannot know what the words for creation day-one actually mean, although he believed they are true.


      Why was the Earth at first a formless, dark abyss? What happened to the Earth when He continued (imperfect verbs) to command light to continue to be? Since the heavens and the earth were created first (perfect verb), why did the Sun, Moon and stars only begin to form (imperfect verbs) half way through the creation week? Why did God continue (imperfect verbs) to place the Sun, Moon and stars in the spreading place (raqiya)? Why didn’t he put them in fixed orbits, instead of spreading orbits?


      Experiments show that light dithers around within all atoms. Indeed, when atoms are shattered, the remnants have light-like properties all the way down. No one has discovered a god-particle, something that cannot be reduced to light-like properties. Is it light that gives form to matter? Is that what day one is telling us?

      Ephesians 5:13 states that light reveals the truth and exposes error because everything that is visible is light. Paul does not just say we see because of light but we see because what we see is light (phos estin). Evidently he means that matter is a relation with light.
      Telescopes gather the light from the earliest universe so that we see cosmic history to the creation era. We see that most galaxies are grouped into clusters that are dense with small galaxies clumped around one or more large ones. The local group has about 30 small galaxies clustered around two large spirals. The miniature Magellanic galaxies are connected to the Milky Way by a river of hydrogen gas, suggesting that they were ejected. Other small galaxies surrounding the Milky Way also sport gas trails, suggesting that they also were ejected long go. Distant clusters are awash with X-ray and radio waves, evidence that the galaxies in the cluster are all related and at the same range. Some of the small cluster galaxies also have gas tails, revealing their motions. In some cases, we see jets coming out of the large galaxies in the cluster with a quasar at the end of the jet.

      We observe pulsed jets emerging from point sources in the core of many galaxies at many ranges. Many early spirals are surrounded by equally spaced blue beads. At closer ranges, we observe how those blue globs accelerated outward, rotated around more, spread out more as billions of spiral galaxies grew into huge, local, dusty, growth spirals. The stars grow in volume as their light clocks accelerate and their orbits concurrently accelerate outwards. What we see is relational changes in all matter.

      We do not observe accretion (diffuse matter condensing into objects that grow in size)  anywhere in the universe. Instead we observe ejections as something formless takes on form and emerges from point sources.
      Even in our own Milky Way, we observe double jets coming out of Herbig Haro stars. The jets form huge clouds of gas (nebulas) as the stars continue to eject matter. Even on our own planet, the continents only fit together on a tiny globe and new earth crust continues to form along a global undersea expansion seam. Evidently God continues to command light to continue to be, thus giving form to the originally formless Earth. NASA observes about one gamma ray burst arriving from the early universe per day. These intense bursts of light are often positioned in the areas where the arms are beginning to develop in ancient spirals.

      Scientists have invented the greatest system of mythology in history.
      They imagine that a tiny bit of vacuum exploded and created everything out of nothing. They speculate that black holes inhabit the core of galaxies, instead of formless matter. The black holes allegedly have so much gravity that light cannot escape. Yet emerging jets do not even bend from gravity. Allegedly there is 20 times as much invisible matter as the visible kind in galaxy clusters. Scientists also claim invisible matter surrounds every galaxy in order to force their laws on an non-cooperating universe. The vacuum of space time is supposed to be stretching itself out, pushing galaxies away as it stretches all light passing through the void. This is necessary because ancient light clocks clocked less than 10% of the frequencies of modern atoms. If only they could just believe the simple Creation account that we confirm with the light from long ago.

      One of the reasons scientists cannot accept visible cosmic history is their concept of time. They actually measure undetectable things like mass, energy and time with the concept of atomic perpetual motion. Almost every one of their empirical measuring units and mathematical constants depends on the notion that time exists and is measured by unchanging atoms. Lift up your eyes and look at the heavens. It is there that we see His great glory, how He made perhaps more than a trillion galaxies as He continues to command light to continue to be, thus continuing to give form to matter. How great will be the glory of God when He foolish those who measure things with their symbolical notion that time actually exists.


      http://www.godsriddle.info/2013/04/creation-versus-time-ideas.html
                         
      Abell 370 is a galaxy cluster whose light shines at 73% of the frequencies of modern atoms. Notice two small galaxies at the end of jets emerging from the one of the giant ellipticals. The spiral galaxy with the long tail is known as the Dragon. A tail of stars and gas has emerged from this galaxy and threaded past four small galaxies. The presence of OII in the tail shows that it is a single object that shines at 57 % of the frequencies of modern atoms. What is visible supports a literal account of creation.                           

      Victor

    • Chuck
      ... English ... Victor you are being blatantly dishonest here. You are willfully taking what I said out of context and putting two sentences together that do
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 4, 2013

        > Chuck wrote:  “Frankly your notion of time is a totally bogus imagination

        >
        of your own mind that exists no place else and frankly never has.”  “This
        >
        purely is your own erroneous and perverted interpretation of Hebrew and
        >
        a result of your denial that God has given us His inerrant word in the English
        >
        language, specifically the King James Bible.”color=navy>

        Victor you are being blatantly dishonest here. You are willfully taking what I said out of context and putting two sentences together that do not belong together to make it look as though I said something I did not say. You could only have gotten these two quotes from my last post to this group. Look at the following real quote, I put the parts you quoted in bold the sections indicated by > are quotes from vicotor.

        > You are using the western concept of clock time and clock-like

        >
        orbits to calculate where the Moon may have been in the past.

        I was making calculations to test the validity of the evolutionary /
        uniformitarian model of Earth’s history that requires using the
        concept of time and orbits that model I was testing assumes.
        Besides I happen to think the western concept of time and orbits
        is correct so of course I would use it. I do so in part because
        concept of time and orbits you present is 100% totally unworkable
        garbage. Frankly your notion of time is a totally bogus imagination
        of your own mind that exists no place else and frankly never has. 

        > Such ideas were unknown back when the Judges, Joshua, Job

        >
        and Isaiah mentioned close planet passages and the shattering
        >
        of a nearby planet.

        Not one of them says any such thing. This purely is your own
        erroneous and perverted interpretation of Hebrew and a result
        of your denial that God has given us His inerrant word in the
        English language, specifically the King James Bible.
        Instead you
        follow the traditions of the 19 centaury heretics Westcot and Hort,
        and this leads you to that perverted interpretation. Like all false
        teachers you claim the Bible says such and such but neither quote
        from a real Bible nor even give any references. The obvious reason
        is that you don’t believe we have a real Bible but only human
        corrupted commentaries on it.

        The two segments quoted were from to totally different statements. What all this means is that you are clearly deliberately lying which makes you a liar. Since you clearly deliberately twisted what I said there is no other possibility than that you are deliberately trying to be deceptive. You are clearly trying to deceive people. That not only means that you are a false teacher but a lying false teacher, who has clearly deliberately twisted scripture to make it appear to fit your claims. This explains why you hardly ever give any actual references to any thing you say since it is hard to lies when people can easily check the source. This also means that you have absolutely no credibility in any claim you make.

        > According to the Oxford Dictionary,  “time” is the most used noun

        > in the English language. Indo-European languages also have tensed
        > (timing) verbs in almost every sentence. (Tense is an old French word
        > for time). Our concept of time affects not just our grammar, but how
        > we think. However, ancient languages often used verbs that express
        > aspect instead of tense. Aspect can show duration, but relative to the
        > narrative, rather than to a symbolical idea that time exists. Tagalog
        > verbs can refer to complete, incomplete, or contemplated actions, but
        > these are not past, present of future tenses. The Hopi language has
        > no words or grammar that refers to time, past, present, future or
        > enduring. The Hopi language contains no reference to time.
        > (Whorf 1956). Biblical Hebrew had few adjectives and adverbs so
        > verbs convey a great deal of meaning, but they do not reference
        > things to time (tense). Hebrew verbs can show an incomplete
        > aspect (imperfect) showing continuity or repetition, but
        “when”
        > this happens comes from the narration rather than a tense.
        > Hebrew verbs can also convey a completion aspect (perfect), but
        > this may indicate completion anywhere from the past to the
        > future, depending on the context.
        Real events happen or will
        > happen and events have sequence. Jews could relate the sequence
        > to events in the perspective of the narrator or in the perspective of
        > something in the narration (such as a yearly cycle), but not to an
        > abstract time. Aspectual grammars were common before people
        > began to imagine that time actually exists. Modern Hebrew has
        > three verb tenses. The notion that time actually exists has infected
        > modern Jews despite what Solomon said: olam (long time, over
        > the horizon, unseen events) are in our minds (Ecclesiastes 3:11).
        > Time has no existence.

        This only shows that modern languages have time based tenses while ancient languages do not.  

        Ecclesiastes 3:11 (KJB) He hath made every thing beautiful
        in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no
        man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning
        to the end.

        Looking at a real Bible it is clear that Solomon says nothing of the kind. “Olam” means more long time, over the horizon, or unseen events but includes world and eternity so you are clearly narrowing the meaning of the Hebrew word. Note that does not mean time it self the proper word for time is `eth. However even if the proper translation were time (which it is not) it would mean that time does not exist only that God put it in our minds.

        Further more I was refer to more than where or not time exists as an real entity but you entire notion about the measuring of time as well including your expanding orbits bit.

        > Augustine analyzed the text for the first creation day in Confessions,

        > Book 12. He wondered how could we understand formless, lightless
        > matter, an Earth made of quasi-nothingness. How could formless
        > matter experience time or change? Augustine concluded that we
        > cannot know what the words for creation day-one actually mean,
        > although he believed they are true.
        >
        >Why was the Earth at first a formless, dark abyss? What happened
        > to the Earth when He continued (imperfect verbs) to command light
        > to continue to be? Since the heavens and the earth were created first
        > (perfect verb), why did the Sun, Moon and stars only begin to form
        > (imperfect verbs) half way through the creation week? Why did God
        > continue (imperfect verbs) to place the Sun, Moon and stars in the
        > spreading place (raqiya)? Why didn’t he put them in fixed orbits,
        > instead of spreading orbits?

        Even if Augustine did not understand the Hebrew imperfect tense it dose not support you position. The proper meaning of the imperfect is that God was saying let there be light or God was placing the Sun, Moon and stars is does not mean God did not make fixed orbits but that at the time in the past under discussion he was performing the action, which is the way Ancient Hebrew did narratives. When translating from Hebrew to English that going to the English past tense is the proper translation, even Rabbis who it is safe to say know ancient Hebrew better than you  would agree with that.

        > Experiments show that light dithers around within all atoms. Indeed,

        > when atoms are shattered, the remnants have light-like properties all
        > the way down. No one has discovered a god-particle, something that
        > cannot be reduced to light-like properties. Is it light that gives form to
        > matter? Is that what day one is telling us?

        Wrong no such experiments exist. While experiments show that particles of matter have the same particle-wave duality as does light that does not make them light-like. Light travels a fixed speed relative to all observers and have no rest mass. Particles of matter on the other hand not only have rest mass bus travel ate carrying speed relative to each other that are less than the speed of light and that speed can change by applying force to an object. So exercitation proves that you notion is wrong.

        Since I have shown you this several times with out you refuting it your counted use of this claim is further proof of you dishonesty.   

        > Ephesians 5:13 states that light reveals the truth and exposes error

        > because everything that is visible is light. Paul does not just say we
        > see because of light but we see because what we see is light (phos estin).
        > Evidently he means that matter is a relation with light.

        Wrong again lets look at what the Bible actually says.

        Ephesians 5:12-13 (KJB)
        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.

        Fist of all it these verse are talking about the revealing of thing done in secret not physical objects. Also it does not say that “everything that is visible is light” but “whatsoever doth make manifest is light.” So it is calling what makes things visible light not what is made visible.

        The simple fact is that every thing you are presenting is clearly erroneous and base on your clearly deliberate misquote from earlier post. You probably know you are in error but you keep pushing it why? Regardless of the reason you are clearly a deceptive manipulator of scripture who is seeking to spread false teaching among Christians. Why, I don’t know.

         

         

         

        ------ Charles Creager Jr.

        Genesis Science Mission

        Online Store

        Genesis Mission

        Creation Science Talk

         

      • Victor McAllister
        ... I am sorry I offended. I was not trying to be dishonest - but to single out the fundamental issue. I used two of your quotes to focus on the issue of time,
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 5, 2013
          On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Chuck <chuckpc@...> wrote:
           

          > Chuck wrote:  “Frankly your notion of time is a totally bogus imagination
          >
          of your own mind that exists no place else and frankly never has.”  “This
          >
          purely is your own erroneous and perverted interpretation of Hebrew and
          >
          a result of your denial that God has given us His inerrant word in the English
          >
          language, specifically the King James Bible.”

          Victor you are being blatantly dishonest here. You are willfully taking what I said out of context and putting two sentences together that do not belong together to make it look as though I said something I did not say. You could only have gotten these two quotes from my last post to this group. Look at the following real quote, I put the parts you quoted in bold the sections indicated by > are quotes from vicotor.

          > You are using the western concept of clock time and clock-like
          >
          orbits to calculate where the Moon may have been in the past.

          I was making calculations to test the validity of the evolutionary /
          uniformitarian model of Earth’s history that requires using the
          concept of time and orbits that model I was testing assumes.
          Besides I happen to think the western concept of time and orbits
          is correct so of course I would use it. I do so in part because
          concept of time and orbits you present is 100% totally unworkable
          garbage. Frankly your notion of time is a totally bogus imagination

          of your own mind that exists no place else and frankly never has. 

          > Such ideas were unknown back when the Judges, Joshua, Job
          >
          and Isaiah mentioned close planet passages and the shattering
          >
          of a nearby planet.

          Not one of them says any such thing. This purely is your own

          erroneous and perverted interpretation of Hebrew and a result
          of your denial that God has given us His inerrant word in the
          English language, specifically the King James Bible. Instead you
          follow the traditions of the 19 centaury heretics Westcot and Hort,
          and this leads you to that perverted interpretation. Like all false
          teachers you claim the Bible says such and such but neither quote
          from a real Bible nor even give any references. The obvious reason
          is that you don’t believe we have a real Bible but only human
          corrupted commentaries on it.

          The two segments quoted were from to totally different statements. What all this means is that you are clearly deliberately lying which makes you a liar. Since you clearly deliberately twisted what I said there is no other possibility than that you are deliberately trying to be deceptive. You are clearly trying to deceive people. That not only means that you are a false teacher but a lying false teacher, who has clearly deliberately twisted scripture to make it appear to fit your claims. This explains why you hardly ever give any actual references to any thing you say since it is hard to lies when people can easily check the source. This also means that you have absolutely no credibility in any claim you make.


          I am sorry I offended. I was not trying to be dishonest - but to single out the fundamental issue. I used two of your quotes to focus on the issue of time, rather than just the peripheral issues.  Young Earthers and Old Earthers struggle with the evident ago of the universe, which because they use the western concept of time.

          What I am recommending is that we get down to the fundamentals, specifically the fundamentals upon which western science was contrived. To understand the BIble in its context, back when people had not yet invented the notion of an actual time, is really important and helps us get to the one issue that will win the battle, the visible evidence for galactic history.

          God commands us to look up - because there in the heavens His glory is displayed without words in every language (Psalm 19).

          >
          According to the Oxford Dictionary,  “time” is the most used noun

          > in the English language. Indo-European languages also have tensed
          > (timing) verbs in almost every sentence. (Tense is an old French word
          > for time). Our concept of time affects not just our grammar, but how
          > we think. However, ancient languages often used verbs that express
          > aspect instead of tense. Aspect can show duration, but relative to the
          > narrative, rather than to a symbolical idea that time exists. Tagalog
          > verbs can refer to complete, incomplete, or contemplated actions, but
          > these are not past, present of future tenses. The Hopi language has
          > no words or grammar that refers to time, past, present, future or
          > enduring. The Hopi language contains no reference to time.
          > (Whorf 1956). Biblical Hebrew had few adjectives and adverbs so
          > verbs convey a great deal of meaning, but they do not reference
          > things to time (tense). Hebrew verbs can show an incomplete
          > aspect (imperfect) showing continuity or repetition, but “when”
          > this happens comes from the narration rather than a tense.
          > Hebrew verbs can also convey a completion aspect (perfect), but
          > this may indicate completion anywhere from the past to the
          > future, depending on the context.
          Real events happen or will
          > happen and events have sequence. Jews could relate the sequence
          > to events in the perspective of the narrator or in the perspective of
          > something in the narration (such as a yearly cycle), but not to an
          > abstract time. Aspectual grammars were common before people
          > began to imagine that time actually exists. Modern Hebrew has
          > three verb tenses. The notion that time actually exists has infected
          > modern Jews despite what Solomon said: olam (long time, over
          > the horizon, unseen events) are in our minds (Ecclesiastes 3:11).
          > Time has no existence.

          This only shows that modern languages have time based tenses while ancient languages do not.  

          Ecclesiastes 3:11 (KJB) He hath made every thing beautiful
          in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no
          man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning
          to the end.

          Looking at a real Bible it is clear that Solomon says nothing of the kind. “Olam” means more long time, over the horizon, or unseen events but includes world and eternity so you are clearly narrowing the meaning of the Hebrew word. Note that does not mean time it self the proper word for time is `eth. However even if the proper translation were time (which it is not) it would mean that time does not exist only that God put it in our minds.

          Further more I was refer to more than where or not time exists as an real entity but you entire notion about the measuring of time as well including your expanding orbits bit.


          The notion that olam meant world or eternity came from the Catholics who were using Augustine's philosophy to interpret the Bible. The western civilization is founded on metaphysics invented by Catholic philosopher / theologians - people like Augustine and Thomas.

          The word eternal is only found twice in the original text of the Bible. It is never found in the Old Testament which had no separate word for time or eternal, only things like events, long events, ancient eras, anticipate events etc. God is the olam God, not because He is outside of "time" because He is the God of eons. The Septuagint translated olam as eons. The two places where the New Testament uses the Greek for for eternal are:

          Jude 1:6  And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal (aidos) bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day

          Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal (aidos) power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

          The Bible uses the word eons, instead of eternal, for the believer's life that never ends. He gives us eon life. We will reign with him for eons upon eons. The Catholics substituted world and eternal for eons or for kosmos when it did not seem to fit Augustine's philosophy about God and time.

          In the Old Testament the word olam is used for an ancient marker, the ancient generations, God promises to Israel that are for eons etc. It is important to remember that no ancient society seemed to believe that time exists or was measurable. The fact that eons existed is without question. In fact I have shown you in previous posts that Jesus made the eons (Hebrew 1:2) and that he formed the eons out of unseen things (Hebrews 11:3).
           
          The reason we struggle with accepting the literal text about the eons that Jesus made, that He came at the terminus of the eons, is that we are interpreting the Bible with the western notion of linear time. There is not a single verse in the Bible that even remotely suggest linear time and there are several that show accelerating (spreading) orbits for stars and even the Sun and Moon.
           

          > Augustine analyzed the text for the first creation day in Confessions,
          > Book 12. He wondered how could we understand formless, lightless
          > matter, an Earth made of quasi-nothingness. How could formless
          > matter experience time or change? Augustine concluded that we
          > cannot know what the words for creation day-one actually mean,
          > although he believed they are true.
          >
          >Why was the Earth at first a formless, dark abyss? What happened
          > to the Earth when He continued (imperfect verbs) to command light
          > to continue to be? Since the heavens and the earth were created first
          > (perfect verb), why did the Sun, Moon and stars only begin to form
          > (imperfect verbs) half way through the creation week? Why did God
          > continue (imperfect verbs) to place the Sun, Moon and stars in the
          > spreading place (raqiya)? Why didn’t he put them in fixed orbits,
          > instead of spreading orbits?

          Even if Augustine did not understand the Hebrew imperfect tense it dose not support you position. The proper meaning of the imperfect is that God was saying let there be light or God was placing the Sun, Moon and stars is does not mean God did not make fixed orbits but that at the time in the past under discussion he was performing the action, which is the way Ancient Hebrew did narratives. When translating from Hebrew to English that going to the English past tense is the proper translation, even Rabbis who it is safe to say know ancient Hebrew better than you  would agree with that.

          > Experiments show that light dithers around within all atoms. Indeed,
          > when atoms are shattered, the remnants have light-like properties all
          > the way down. No one has discovered a god-particle, something that
          > cannot be reduced to light-like properties. Is it light that gives form to
          > matter? Is that what day one is telling us?

          Wrong no such experiments exist. While experiments show that particles of matter have the same particle-wave duality as does light that does not make them light-like. Light travels a fixed speed relative to all observers and have no rest mass. Particles of matter on the other hand not only have rest mass bus travel ate carrying speed relative to each other that are less than the speed of light and that speed can change by applying force to an object. So exercitation proves that you notion is wrong.


          no one has ever measured any mass or rest mass apart from assumptions. They are calculated with the assumption that the Bible predicts for the last days, that all things remain the same. Particles, whatever they may be, can  diffract and turn into light like things. The light coming from atoms has a tiny smearing in its spectrum that QED uses to show that light is continually interacting within atoms, bouncing off electrons. Colliding beams of light can turn into electrons. An electron passing through a grating turns into a wave.  Quantum weirdness is not weird at all if we just accept that matter is a relation with light.
             

          Since I have shown you this several times with out you refuting it your counted use of this claim is further proof of you dishonesty.   


          I am questioning the elementary assumption, that is the historical basis for western science. I am using the words of the Bible to do so, as I have shown in previous posts. Even what scientists consider to be mathematical evidence is largely based on the assumption I am arguing with.

          You can't get to where I am without examining the elementary assumption. You can't test a system that is based on a different assumption from within the system that was built on a contradictory assumption. I am arguing that matter is a relation with light and that this relation is dynamic, always changing. One of the evidences for this is that the Bible states the Earth spread out in unbroken continuity. It is not suprising that the continents only fit together on a tiny globe. It is not surprising that a global expansion seam keeps forming new seafloor. It is not surprising that the "subduction trenches" contain undisturbed soft sediments, which proves subduction is a scientific myth. It is not surprising since the Bible says this spreading is above the waters and even what issues forth (or is born of the earth) also spreads out. That is an utterly unscientific statement, since it cuts to the fundamental assumption upon which science was founded. Isaiah 42:5, Psalm 136:6, Isaiah 44:24 all tell that He is actively in unbroken continuity spreading out the earth. Zech 12:1 He continues in unbroken continuity to lay the foundations of the Earth. Again the Hebrew is important - because most translators are following tradition. It makes no sense to them to write - the earth continues to get bigger, but evidently that is what the simple, evidence suggests it means


           

          > Ephesians 5:13 states that light reveals the truth and exposes error
          > because everything that is visible is light. Paul does not just say we
          > see because of light but we see because what we see is light (phos estin).
          > Evidently he means that matter is a relation with light.

          Wrong again lets look at what the Bible actually says.

          Ephesians 5:12-13 (KJB)
          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.

          Fist of all it these verse are talking about the revealing of thing done in secret not physical objects. Also it does not say that “everything that is visible is light” but “whatsoever doth make manifest is light.” So it is calling what makes things visible light not what is made visible.

          The simple fact is that every thing you are presenting is clearly erroneous and base on your clearly deliberate misquote from earlier post. You probably know you are in error but you keep pushing it why? Regardless of the reason you are clearly a deceptive manipulator of scripture who is seeking to spread false teaching among Christians. Why, I don’t know.

           

           

          He is using the example of light to illustrate that light always reveals the truth. Why? Because everything IS LIGHT phos estin. He is not says light reveals just the sins done in secret but light always a reveals truth and exposues error because everything is light. God made a relation with light on the first day. Prior to His continuing to command light to continue to be, the earth was formless, evidently was tiny without extension, although twice its surface is mentions (Hebrew paniym).

          Let me give you another example of a true metaphor that applied to the world of human experience. 1 Peter 1:7 "that the proof of your faith,being more precious than gold that is perishing, even though tested by fire.

          Peter compared a believer's trials to gold that is tested and purified by fire.

          He used the phrase chrusiou tou apollumenou - gold that is perishing. The verb perishing is present, middle participle.  The present in Greek means continuing action now and going onwards. The middle voice means gold is acting upon itself, a reflexive verb,  to perish, to corrupt itself. Now gold is considered to be stable, to remain unchanged except in the presence of powerful chemical agents. Is gold continually corrupting itself right now. We can see the past with telescopes. Every atom in the whole universe is observed to be different at different ranges. I am not aware of an ancient gold spectrum, but I suggest that Peter is absolutely right, since we observe that no atoms have a realtionally fixed nature in billions of galaxies at many rnages.

          1. Ancient galaxies took up less volume just like the ancient earth.

          2. Ancient orbits were slower, since in spiral galaxies we observe them accelerating outward in billions of example, their shapes not closing as the arms continue to form and the stars continue to spread out.

          3. Ancient matter had low inertia (gravity) since we observe it forming (recieving form) as it emerges from point sources at many ranges in many galaxies and quasars. I submit that what we observe is the very things the literal text says about creation. The traditional version of Creation clearly are not able to explain cosmic history while the Hebrew grammar explains exactly what we see.

          This is why I suggest we stop trying to understand creation with traditions. The traditions based on the Latin exegesis, such as for day seven, simply does not fit the visible history of the universe. The grammatical text does.

          It is only when we fight with the text, not traditions, that we will be able to do what the Bible predicts (when our obedience is complete) bring down the great fortress of speculative reasoning raised up against the knowedge of God (2 Cor 10:3  6).

          Sorry to offend, but I think these issues are important which is why I am trying to get Christians to examine the basic assumption.

          Victor

           

        • Chuck
          ... If that is the case you were at best careless since the second quote was not even in reference to time but to your claim that certain Bible passages refer
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 5, 2013

            >I am sorry I offended. I was not trying to be dishonest – but

            > to single out the fundamental issue. I used two of your quotes
            > to focus on the issue of time, rather than just the peripheral issues.
            color=navy>

            If that is the case you were at best careless since the second quote was not even in reference to time but to your claim that certain Bible passages refer to a shattered planet. By putting them together you misrepresented what I said even if unintentionally.

            >  Young Earthers and Old Earthers struggle with the evident ago of

            > the universe, which because they use the western concept of time.

            I can’t speak for Old Earthers but Young Earth Creationists don’t really struggle with any evident about the age of the universe any more and precisely because of the modern scientific concept of time. According to which time does not flow at rate in every place in the universe. According to 21 century Young Earth Creation cosmology the Earth was time dilated on day four of the Creation week. In fact Young Earth Creation cosmology has come a long way in the last 20 years. It has taken Creationist physicists like Humphreys, Hartnett and even myself to expand Young Earth Creation into the Universe. Modern Young Earth Creation has really only been a scientific effort for a little over 50 years. Humphreys and myself are part of only the second generation of Young Earth Creation scientists and yet our generation has made way more progress that our predecessors. The struggle you refer too no longer exists and it was done be embracing not abandoning the modern scientific concept of time.  


            > What I am recommending is that we get down to the

            > fundamentals, specifically the fundamentals upon which
            > western science was contrived. To understand the BIble in its
            > context, back when people had not yet invented the notion of
            > an actual time, is really important and helps us get to the one
            > issue that will win the battle, the visible evidence for galactic
            > history. God commands us to look up - because there in the
            > heavens His glory is displayed without words in every language
            > (Psalm 19).

            The problem is that you are missing to major factors.

             

            1. God did not just write the Bible to the people of the time each part was written but to all of use that would come after them. Yes some aspects of the Bible particularly the historical portions are best understood when you have the historical and cultural context but the Bible is not limited to that. God is not limited by the limited knowledge or understanding of the humans authors nor ours. Put another way just because Moses may not have had a modern scientific concept of time but that dose no mean that the Bible is inconsistent with it nor does it mean that our modern scientific concept of time is wrong.

             

            2, Thanks to time dilation Young Earth Creationists have no problem with the visible evidence for galactic history. We can describe what is happening with the context of modern physics and without throwing out our English Bible. (KJB) The key is to not just look the superficial visible evidence as you do but by also look at the data beneath it, which is a part of the visible evidence for galactic history that YOU victor totally and willfully ignore because it show that you superficial interpretation is wrong by show that the stars go the opposite direction from what you claim.

            >>> According to the Oxford Dictionary,  “time” is the most used noun

            >>> in the English language. Indo-European languages also have tensed

            >>> (timing) verbs in almost every sentence. (Tense is an old French
            word
            >>> for time). Our concept of time affects not just our grammar, but
            how
            >>> we think. However, ancient languages often used verbs that express
            >>> aspect instead of tense. Aspect can show duration, but relative to
            the
            >>> narrative, rather than to a symbolical idea that time exists.
            Tagalog
            >>> verbs can refer to complete, incomplete, or contemplated actions,
            but
            >>> these are not past, present of future tenses.
            class=apple-converted-space> The Hopi language has
            >>> no words or grammar that refers to time, past, present, future or
            >>> enduring. The Hopi language contains no reference to time.
            >>> (Whorf 1956). Biblical Hebrew had few adjectives and adverbs so
            >>> verbs convey a great deal of meaning, but they do not reference
            >>> things to time (tense). Hebrew verbs can show an incomplete
            >>> aspect (imperfect) showing continuity or repetition, but
            “when”
            >>> this happens comes from the narration rather than a tense.
            >>> Hebrew verbs can also convey a completion aspect (perfect), but
            >>> this may indicate completion anywhere from the past to the
            >> future, depending on the context.
            class=apple-converted-space> Real events happen or will
            >>> happen and events have sequence. Jews could relate the sequence
            >>> to events in the perspective of the narrator or in the perspective
            of
            >>> something in the narration (such as a yearly cycle), but not to an
            >>> abstract time. Aspectual grammars were common before people
            >>> began to imagine that time actually exists. Modern Hebrew has
            >>> three verb tenses. The notion that time actually exists has infected
            >>> modern Jews despite what Solomon said: olam (long time, over
            >>> the horizon, unseen events) are in our minds (Ecclesiastes 3:11).
            >>> Time has no existence.

            >> This only shows that modern languages have time based tenses

            >> while ancient languages do not.  
            color=black face=Georgia>

            >>        Ecclesiastes 3:11 (KJB) He hath made every thing beautiful 

            >>        in his time: also he hath
            set the world in their heart, so that no 
            >>        man can find out the work
            that God maketh from the beginning 
            >>        to the end.
            size=2 color=black face=Georgia>

            >> Looking at a real Bible it is clear that Solomon says nothing of the

            >> kind. “Olam” means more long time, over the horizon, or
            unseen
            >> events but includes world and eternity so you are clearly narrowing
            >> the meaning of the Hebrew word. Note that does not mean time it
            >> self the proper word for time is `eth. However even if the proper
            >> translation were time (which it is not) it would mean that time does
            >> not exist only that God put it in our minds.
            color=black>

            > The notion that olam meant world or eternity came from the Catholics who

            > were using Augustine's philosophy to interpret the Bible. The western
            > civilization is founded on metaphysics invented by Catholic philosopher
            > / theologians - people like Augustine and Thomas.
            class=apple-converted-space> 

            PROVE IT!! This is a 100% baseless claim and probably nothing but the product of your own mind based on a flawed understanding of Hebrew. I challenge you to produce just one source that agrees with you. The fact is that EVERY translator of the Bible for the last 2000 years disagrees with you including not just Catholics, but Protestant, Baptists which were NEVER EVER part of the Catholicism but persecuted by them and Jews including Messianic Jew. I challenge you to find one just one source that agrees with you.    

            > The word eternal is only found twice in the original text of the Bible. It is

            > never found in the Old Testament which had no separate word for time or
            > eternal, only things like events, long events, ancient eras, anticipate
            events
            > etc. God is the olam God, not because He is outside of "time"
            because He
            > is the God of eons. The Septuagint translated olam as eons. The two places
            > where the New Testament uses the Greek for for eternal are:
            color=navy>

            Actually the word “eternal” is found no place in the original text of the Bible because “eternal” is a English word meaning “Lasting or existing forever” and the original text of the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek which had different words which can be translated into English as “eternal.” In the King James Bible uses the word “eternal” 47 times, twice in the Old Testament. Apparently you only agree with two of them. So this is not a question whether or not the original Bible text says but your disagreement with the King James Bible Translators and every other translator of the Bible into English as well.

             

            > The Bible uses the word eons, instead of eternal, for the believer's life that never

            > ends. He gives us eon life. We will reign with him for eons upon eons. The
            > Catholics substituted world and eternal for eons or for kosmos when it did
            not
            > seem to fit Augustine's philosophy about God and time.
            class=apple-converted-space> 

            Lets Look at the meaning of the English word eternal again

            Eternal: Lasting or existing forever or without end or beginning.

            It communicates the idea of never ending which what you admit the Bible is saying about the believer's life. So you are the one that is choosing word meanings based on it fitting your view of time.

             

            > no one has ever measured any mass or rest mass apart from assumptions.

            > They are calculated with the assumption that the Bible predicts for the
            > last days, that all things remain the same.

             

            WRONG!!!! The Bible predicts NO SUCH THING.

             

            What you are doing mistranslating 2 Peter 3:4.

             

            2 Peter 3:4 (KJB)  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.

             

             Note it says “all things continue as they were” thus indicating the idea that processes continue unchanged or uninterrupted specifically without interruption by miracles, which is the essence of uniformitarianism which the actual claim of the scoffers.

             

            You yourself have to twist your claim about it being “all things remain the same” to mean denial only of you notion of intrinsic change, even if we accept all other forms of change.

             

             

            > Particles, whatever they may be, can diffract and turn into light like things.

            While particle of matter do exhibit wave properties as does light, they do not be have in a light like manner in other ways. Light always moves at the same speed while particles of matter can speed up and slow down. They are affected by forces that do not affect light. They do not turn into light like things.

            > The light coming from atoms has a tiny smearing in its spectrum
            > that QED uses to show that light is continually interacting within
            > atoms, bouncing off electrons. Colliding beams of light can turn
            > into electrons. An electron passing through a grating turns into a
            > wave.  Quantum weirdness is not weird at all if we just accept
            > that matter is a relation with light. 
                

            Actually the best answer to so called Quantum weirdness is that the Universe is fundamentally information.

            If your notion that matter is a relation with light is supposed to explain Quantum weirdness, please tell me how it explains quantum erasure experiments.

            http://genesismission.4t.com/Physics/Quantum_Mechanics/double_slit_experiment.html

            I contend that your claim that you notion explains Quantum weirdness is base on a lack of understand the relevant experiments. However I will be more than happy to admit to being wrong on this point if you post a viable explanation of quantum erasure based on you ideas.

            > I am questioning the elementary assumption, that is the historical

            > basis for western science. I am using the words of the Bible to do
            > so, as I have shown in previous posts. Even what scientists consider
            > to be mathematical evidence is largely based on the assumption I am
            > arguing with. 
            class=apple-converted-space>

             

            Except for the fact that you can not be using the words of the Bible since like the 19 centaury heretics Westcot and Hort, you deny that we have a reliable copy of the Bible. What you are using is you own erroneous and narrow understanding of Greek and Hebrew to twist the words of the Bible to fit your ideas.  


            >
            You can't get to where I am without examining the elementary assumption.
            > You can't test a system that is based on a different assumption from
            within
            > the system that was built on a contradictory assumption. I am arguing that
            > matter is a relation with light and that this relation is dynamic, always
            changing.

             

            I get that but what you claim as “evidence” for your idea is ether bogus or explained better by other means.

             

            > One of the evidences for this is that the Bible states the Earth spread

            > out in unbroken continuity. It is not suprising that the continents only
            > fit together on a tiny globe.

             

            1. The Bible says NO SUCH thing. You just twist the Hebrew to claim it does.

            2. You so call fitting of the continents is bogus. You have to twist and them to make it work and you have to ignore the continual shelves by which the Americas , Europe and Asia are joined. This notion does not work as claimed.

            > It is not surprising that a global expansion seam keeps forming new
            > seafloor. It is not surprising that the "subduction trenches"
            contain
            > undisturbed soft sediments, which proves subduction is a scientific myth.

            As  I have said several times that undisturbed soft sediments in subduction trenches is only a problem for uniformitarian plate tectonics and not Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. That is because the in Catastrophic Plate Tectonics most of the subduction occurred before undisturbed soft sediments was laid down and there has not been enough subduction since to disturb it. Show that you have the capacity to admit that you are wrong by admitting it here.

             

            I submit that instead of a admitting that your are wrong about “undisturbed soft sediments, which proves subduction is a scientific myth” that you will just make the claim again some other time

            without acknowledging the differences between the two form of plate tectonics or the fact that Catastrophic Plate Tectonics explains it.

             

            >>> Ephesians 5:13 states that light reveals the truth and exposes error

            >>> because everything that is visible is light. Paul does not just
            say we
            >>> see because of light but we see because what we see is light (phos
            estin).
            >>> Evidently he means that matter is a relation with light.
            size=2 color=black face=Georgia>

             

            >> Wrong again lets look at what the Bible actually says.

            >>        Ephesians 5:12-13 (KJB)

            >>        12  For it is a shame even
            to speak of those things which are done 
            >>        of them in secret.
            class=apple-converted-space> 
            >>        13  But all things that are
            reproved are made manifest by the light: 
            >>        for whatsoever doth make manifest
            is light.

            >> Fist of all it these verse are talking about the revealing of thing done in

            >> secret not physical objects. Also it does not say that
            “everything that is
            >> visible is light” but “whatsoever doth
            class=apple-converted-space> make manifest is light.” So it is
            >> calling what makes things visible light not what is made visible.
            color=black>

            >> The simple fact is that every thing you are presenting is clearly erroneous

            >> and base on your clearly deliberate misquote from earlier post. You
            probably
            >> know you are in error but you keep pushing it why? Regardless of the
            reason
            >> you are clearly a deceptive manipulator of scripture who is seeking to
            spread
            >> false teaching among Christians. Why, I don’t know.
            color=black>

             > He is using the example of light to illustrate that light always reveals the truth.

            > Why? Because everything IS LIGHT phos estin. He is not says light reveals
            just
            > the sins done in secret but light always a reveals truth and exposues
            error because
            > everything is light.

            But that Paul NEVER says every thing is light. You clearly can not accurately translate Greek and Hebrew but you also seem to not be able to accurately interet English as well.

            Look, I understand your idea, however not only is it based on an erroneous understanding of Greek and Hebrew as well the traditions of the 19th centaury heretics Westcot and Hort but it is totally unworkable.

             

             

          • Victor McAllister
            ... There are two issues here - and I am trying to focus on each of them. 1. The western concept of time is based on metaphysics that originated in the
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 6, 2013
              On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Chuck <chuckpc@...> wrote:
               

              >I am sorry I offended. I was not trying to be dishonest – but
              > to single out the fundamental issue. I used two of your quotes
              > to focus on the issue of time, rather than just the peripheral issues.


              If that is the case you were at best careless since the second quote was not even in reference to time but to your claim that certain Bible passages refer to a shattered planet. By putting them together you misrepresented what I said even if unintentionally.


              There are two issues here - and I am trying to focus on each of them.

              1. The western concept of time is based on metaphysics that originated in the medieval age. Moses could not have imagined our ideas about time. We need to be careful about elementary ideas.
              http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col%202:8&version=NASB

              Paul makes it clear that philosophy, the teaching of men and the elementary ideas of the kosmos that can take us prisoner.  Science is based on philosophy, the teaching of men and the elementary ideas of the kosmos (the orderly arrangement). It is those elementary ideas, those basic assumption that are a part of the western concept of time that we need to watch out for and that is what I am trying to get Christians to focus on. We are perfectly capable of deceiving ourselves when we focus on philosophy and the teaching of men, rather thatn the literal text.
              http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%203:18-20&version=NASB

              2. No translator was inspired. God did not preserve the original meaning in modern translations. This is why we are told to study and to ask God for wisdom. That does not mean we don't have God's Word. Only that we can interpret the words in a system (such as science) that was incompatible with the way a contemporary would understand the text. Our ideas can affect how we read the Bible and this is especially so with creation and earth history. All modern translations are tradition bound with respect to creation and earth history, following the Latin Vulgate tradition, rather than the literal grammar that makes little sense in a western mindset. All ancient people during the Old Testament age had stories about close planet passages and the crushing of a nearby planet. The Bible uses very similar words to describe the same kind of events as the pagans - close passages and a planet shattering in Job, Isaiah, Judges, and Psalms. However, what it says makes little sense because of our metaphysical ideas about linear time, so we interpret it (as our translators also do) to fit our way of thinking.

              Yet it is the literal text that has the answers. In fact, it is the literal text that we can confirm in the only history that is visible as it happened to the creation era, cosmic history. Only the literal version of creation, how the heavens (the galaxies)  were created before the Sun, Moon and stars continued to form and continued to be placed in the spreading place is confirmed in galactic history. 

              >  Young Earthers and Old Earthers struggle with the evident ago of
              > the universe, which because they use the western concept of time.

              I can’t speak for Old Earthers but Young Earth Creationists don’t really struggle with any evident about the age of the universe any more and precisely because of the modern scientific concept of time. According to which time does not flow at rate in every place in the universe. According to 21 century Young Earth Creation cosmology the Earth was time dilated on day four of the Creation week. In fact Young Earth Creation cosmology has come a long way in the last 20 years. It has taken Creationist physicists like Humphreys, Hartnett and even myself to expand Young Earth Creation into the Universe. Modern Young Earth Creation has really only been a scientific effort for a little over 50 years. Humphreys and myself are part of only the second generation of Young Earth Creation scientists and yet our generation has made way more progress that our predecessors. The struggle you refer too no longer exists and it was done be embracing not abandoning the modern scientific concept of time.  


              Humphreys idea about white holes is just as absurd as black holes.

              Many YE creationists think God deceived us by making the light already in place (including images of exploding stars) to make it look like the universe is old when it is only 6,000 LINEAR years old. God never deceives nor does He tempt anyone to evil (James 1). He decrees that those who do not honor Him as creator are deceived. He made the universe exactly as the literal words state in the Hebrew grammar so that (without deception on His part) He can bring science into shame and disrepute - for His great glory. No one was ever saved by means of science. He is only pleased with the faith of a sinner who looks to Him alone, His atonement. We are not capable of bringing anyone to Christ through philosophy, music, culture or any other methods. He is the only One who can draw sinners to Himself. Salvation is of the Lord, not from evangelists, although He uses us, especially when the focus is the gospel, not cultural methods - such as science. 


              > What I am recommending is that we get down to the
              > fundamentals, specifically the fundamentals upon which
              > western science was contrived. To understand the BIble in its
              > context, back when people had not yet invented the notion of
              > an actual time, is really important and helps us get to the one
              > issue that will win the battle, the visible evidence for galactic
              > history. God commands us to look up - because there in the
              > heavens His glory is displayed without words in every language
              > (Psalm 19).

              The problem is that you are missing to major factors.

               

              1. God did not just write the Bible to the people of the time each part was written but to all of use that would come after them. Yes some aspects of the Bible particularly the historical portions are best understood when you have the historical and cultural context but the Bible is not limited to that. God is not limited by the limited knowledge or understanding of the humans authors nor ours. Put another way just because Moses may not have had a modern scientific concept of time but that dose no mean that the Bible is inconsistent with it nor does it mean that our modern scientific concept of time is wrong.

               

              2, Thanks to time dilation Young Earth Creationists have no problem with the visible evidence for galactic history. We can describe what is happening with the context of modern physics and without throwing out our English Bible. (KJB) The key is to not just look the superficial visible evidence as you do but by also look at the data beneath it, which is a part of the visible evidence for galactic history that YOU victor totally and willfully ignore because it show that you superficial interpretation is wrong by show that the stars go the opposite direction from what you claim. 


              It is much better to describe galactic history with visible evidence than with physics. Few understand physics, which assumption dependent, whereas the heavens declare God's glory without words in every language - visibly. It is the visible history of the universe that alone fits the creation account. Changing Earth Creation is not some new theory. It is simply accepting the text in the epistemic system and g\rammar of the writer, back before people came to believe that time exists and invented empirical ways of "measuring" their metaphysical ideas with clocks.


              >>> According to the Oxford Dictionary,  “time” is the most used noun

              >>> in the English language. Indo-European languages also have tensed
              >>> (timing) verbs in almost every sentence. (Tense is an old French word
              >>> for time). Our concept of time affects not just our grammar, but how
              >>> we think. However, ancient languages often used verbs that express
              >>> aspect instead of tense. Aspect can show duration, but relative to the
              >>> narrative, rather than to a symbolical idea that time exists. Tagalog
              >>> verbs can refer to complete, incomplete, or contemplated actions, but
              >>> these are not past, present of future tenses. The Hopi language has
              >>> no words or grammar that refers to time, past, present, future or
              >>> enduring. The Hopi language contains no reference to time.
              >>> (Whorf 1956). Biblical Hebrew had few adjectives and adverbs so
              >>> verbs convey a great deal of meaning, but they do not reference
              >>> things to time (tense). Hebrew verbs can show an incomplete
              >>> aspect (imperfect) showing continuity or repetition, but “when”
              >>> this happens comes from the narration rather than a tense.
              >>> Hebrew verbs can also convey a completion aspect (perfect), but
              >>> this may indicate completion anywhere from the past to the
              >> future, depending on the context.
               Real events happen or will
              >>> happen and events have sequence. Jews could relate the sequence
              >>> to events in the perspective of the narrator or in the perspective of
              >>> something in the narration (such as a yearly cycle), but not to an
              >>> abstract time. Aspectual grammars were common before people
              >>> began to imagine that time actually exists. Modern Hebrew has
              >>> three verb tenses. The notion that time actually exists has infected
              >>> modern Jews despite what Solomon said: olam (long time, over
              >>> the horizon, unseen events) are in our minds (Ecclesiastes 3:11).
              >>> Time has no existence.

              >> This only shows that modern languages have time based tenses


              >> while ancient languages do not.  

              >>        Ecclesiastes 3:11 (KJB) He hath made every thing beautiful 
              >>        in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no 
              >>        man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning 
              >>        to the end.

              >> Looking at a real Bible it is clear that Solomon says nothing of the
              >> kind. “Olam” means more long time, over the horizon, or unseen
              >> events but includes world and eternity so you are clearly narrowing
              >> the meaning of the Hebrew word. Note that does not mean time it
              >> self the proper word for time is `eth. However even if the proper
              >> translation were time (which it is not) it would mean that time does
              >> not exist only that God put it in our minds.

              > The notion that olam meant world or eternity came from the Catholics who


              > were using Augustine's philosophy to interpret the Bible. The western
              > civilization is founded on metaphysics invented by Catholic philosopher
              > / theologians - people like Augustine and Thomas. 

              PROVE IT!! This is a 100% baseless claim and probably nothing but the product of your own mind based on a flawed understanding of Hebrew. I challenge you to produce just one source that agrees with you. The fact is that EVERY translator of the Bible for the last 2000 years disagrees with you including not just Catholics, but Protestant, Baptists which were NEVER EVER part of the Catholicism but persecuted by them and Jews including Messianic Jew. I challenge you to find one just one source that agrees with you.    



              Victor:

              We are trained to think with metaphysical assumptions from our youngest age as westerners. No one ever examines the elementary assumption that is the basis of modern science. Yet the Bible predicted it. In the last days mockers will come with a first law that all things remain the same. You will NOT find modern people questioning their assumption. Yet you can read the writing of the founders of westernism.


              1. The pagan Greeks tried but were not able tin invent an empirical science because of their grammar and the basic assumption of that age, that everything is changing - matter receiving more form as it ages.


              2. The medieval Catholics, especially Friar Thomas were able to solve the ancient problem of everything changing because they used Latin instead of Greek. They were trying to convince skeptic to have faith when they came up with the idea that everything changes except the essence of substance - that what matter intrinsically IS does not change.


              3. When the protestant reformation came about, the issue of salvation by faith alone became the focus, but the western way of thinking was already established and the protestants did not question the metaphysics of the Catholics. The fundamental assumption upon which western science was contrived is the very idea that the Bible predicted for the last days - the notion that all things remain the same. Yet with our eyes we can see how those orbits spiraled out in billions of galaxies as the properties of all matter kept on changing. There is not a single physical constant visible in cosmic history. ALl of the constants were contrived with the elementary assumption (invented by Catholic scholastics) that the essence of substance is changeless.



              1. All people during the biblical age accepted that matter is changing, to which the Bible agrees.

              > The word eternal is only found twice in the original text of the Bible. It is
              > never found in the Old Testament which had no separate word for time or
              > eternal, only things like events, long events, ancient eras, anticipate events
              > etc. God is the olam God, not because He is outside of "time" because He
              > is the God of eons. The Septuagint translated olam as eons. The two places
              > where the New Testament uses the Greek for for eternal are:


              Actually the word “eternal” is found no place in the original text of the Bible because “eternal” is a English word meaning “Lasting or existing forever” and the original text of the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek which had different words which can be translated into English as “eternal.” In the King James Bible uses the word “eternal” 47 times, twice in the Old Testament. Apparently you only agree with two of them. So this is not a question whether or not the original Bible text says but your disagreement with the King James Bible Translators and every other translator of the Bible into English as well.

               

              > The Bible uses the word eons, instead of eternal, for the believer's life that never
              > ends. He gives us eon life. We will reign with him for eons upon eons. The
              > Catholics substituted world and eternal for eons or for kosmos when it did not
              > seem to fit Augustine's philosophy about God and time. 

              Lets Look at the meaning of the English word eternal again

              Eternal: Lasting or existing forever or without end or beginning.

              It communicates the idea of never ending which what you admit the Bible is saying about the believer's life. So you are the one that is choosing word meanings based on it fitting your view of time.

               

              Not exactly. The word eternal was a code word in the Catholic system for a timeless existence, allegedly God is outside of time seeing all the future. In Augustine's system, therefore, it was important to imagine that God created time, if we are in time and He is not. It is much better to take the text literally. We receive eon life on the basis of faith in Jesus. Eon life is without end in the resurrection. However, it is not some sort of eternal (outside of time) existence as the Catholics imagined. You see, you must imagine that time exists and that God created it (even though the Bible never says that) in order to put God in a separate category form us - seeing the future while we live in a sea of time. The Bible never says God sees the future. It gives examples of how God brings about his plans (predeclared) about the future actively and without injustice. Tha is a separate issue, apart from creation, but I can give you examples from scripture of how God brings about his plans without seeing the future.



               

              > no one has ever measured any mass or rest mass apart from assumptions.
              > They are calculated with the assumption that the Bible predicts for the
              > last days, that all things remain the same.

               

              WRONG!!!! The Bible predicts NO SUCH THING.

               

              What you are doing mistranslating 2 Peter 3:4.

               

              2 Peter 3:4 (KJB)  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.

               

               Note it says “all things continue as they were” thus indicating the idea that processes continue unchanged or uninterrupted specifically without interruption by miracles, which is the essence of uniformitarianism which the actual claim of the scoffers.

               

              You yourself have to twist your claim about it being “all things remain the same” to mean denial only of you notion of intrinsic change, even if we accept all other forms of change.

               

              Please notice what the mockers (by implication false teachers) do with their idea that all things remain the same.


              1. They obfuscate the history of the plural heavens. The word ekpalai is very interesting. Ek means to come out - from a point of origin. Pali is related to vibrations, circuits. The ancient gods of Greece during Homers days were called Pale Athene because they circled the heavens. The mockers reject the visible evidence that the stars came out from point sources long ago, which is what we see in galactic history and which visibly confirms a literal creation account,


              2. They reject the evidence that the Earth was twice inundated. They reject the evidence that the early earth emerged from the water. According to the text of Genesis, this water was gathered into one place, underground in the tehom. Evidently the seas seeped underground during the first part of day three. Later the world was destroyed by water when the underground tehom collapsed and the ice above the atmosphere also came down as rain.


              3. Notice that Peter is talking about the physical history of the universe and the physical history of our planet. Whey do scientists reject the physical history of the cosmos and the planet, because they have a first law - that all things remain the same.  Why can't they just get rid of their first law? Even their definitions of physics. their empirical way of measuring undetectable things (like mass, energy and time) and their mathematical laws and constants were contrived upon the assumption that matter is not changing itself relationally as it ages.


              This is why we Changing Earth Creatinist expect that God is going to get once of His greatest victories when He makes foolish western science. In contradiction to the assumptions of science, we can see a literal creation as in the literal HEbrew in galactic history, how the stars continue to come our as billions of galaxies grew from tiny clumps of formless matter as He continues to call the stars to come out. Evey clock and galactic orbit in the universe accelerates, but the western concept of linear time is so powerful that scientists have invented a mythical, invisible universe to preserve their blind faith in atomic perpetual motion, upon which their empiricism is based.


              > Particles, whatever they may be, can diffract and turn into light like things.

              While particle of matter do exhibit wave properties as does light, they do not be have in a light like manner in other ways. Light always moves at the same speed while particles of matter can speed up and slow down. They are affected by forces that do not affect light. They do not turn into light like things.


              > The light coming from atoms has a tiny smearing in its spectrum
              > that QED uses to show that light is continually interacting within
              > atoms, bouncing off electrons. Colliding beams of light can turn
              > into electrons. An electron passing through a grating turns into a
              > wave.  Quantum weirdness is not weird at all if we just accept
              > that matter is a relation with light. 
                  

              Actually the best answer to so called Quantum weirdness is that the Universe is fundamentally information.

              If your notion that matter is a relation with light is supposed to explain Quantum weirdness, please tell me how it explains quantum erasure experiments.

              http://genesismission.4t.com/Physics/Quantum_Mechanics/double_slit_experiment.html

              I contend that your claim that you notion explains Quantum weirdness is base on a lack of understand the relevant experiments. However I will be more than happy to admit to being wrong on this point if you post a viable explanation of quantum erasure based on you ideas.

              > I am questioning the elementary assumption, that is the historical
              > basis for western science. I am using the words of the Bible to do
              > so, as I have shown in previous posts. Even what scientists consider
              > to be mathematical evidence is largely based on the assumption I am
              > arguing with. 

               

              Except for the fact that you can not be using the words of the Bible since like the 19 centaury heretics Westcot and Hort, you deny that we have a reliable copy of the Bible. What you are using is you own erroneous and narrow understanding of Greek and Hebrew to twist the words of the Bible to fit your ideas.  


              On the contrary, I am trying to interpret the literal words of the Bible in the epistemic system of the authors, rather than western science. The two systems are not compatible.

              > You can't get to where I am without examining the elementary assumption.


              > You can't test a system that is based on a different assumption from within
              > the system that was built on a contradictory assumption. I am arguing that

              > matter is a relation with light and that this relation is dynamic, always changing.

               

              I get that but what you claim as “evidence” for your idea is ether bogus or explained better by other means.

               

              > One of the evidences for this is that the Bible states the Earth spread
              > out in unbroken continuity. It is not suprising that the continents only
              > fit together on a tiny globe.

               

              1. The Bible says NO SUCH thing. You just twist the Hebrew to claim it does.

              2. You so call fitting of the continents is bogus. You have to twist and them to make it work and you have to ignore the continual shelves by which the Americas, Europe and Asia are joined. This notion does not work as claimed.


              > It is not surprising that a global expansion seam keeps forming new
              > seafloor. It is not surprising that the "subduction trenches" contain
              > undisturbed soft sediments, which proves subduction is a scientific myth.

              As  I have said several times that undisturbed soft sediments in subduction trenches is only a problem for uniformitarian plate tectonics and not Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. That is because the in Catastrophic Plate Tectonics most of the subduction occurred before undisturbed soft sediments was laid down and there has not been enough subduction since to disturb it. Show that you have the capacity to admit that you are wrong by admitting it here.

               

              I submit that instead of a admitting that your are wrong about “undisturbed soft sediments, which proves subduction is a scientific myth” that you will just make the claim again some other time

              without acknowledging the differences between the two form of plate tectonics or the fact that Catastrophic Plate Tectonics explains it.

               

              There is evidence for catastrophism in one trench. A huge ice dam in the mid west repeatedly broke (probably every year during repeated ice ages) and washed sediments across several states filling up the Cascades trench with sediments from the land. This was long after the flood. The other trenches have thin layers of sediments, no scrapped off sea mounts, not volcanic vents, no scraped off marine oozes. It is important to remember how the theory of subduction came to be. Once the expansion seam was found in all the oceans the problem was - we can't allow the earth to get bigger so they invented the theory without any evidence. Later when the drill cores brought up the sediments that proved subduction is a myth, they could not go back on the theory because a growing earth is unscientific, but it is not unbiblical because the Bile mentions it several times.    


              >>> Ephesians 5:13 states that light reveals the truth and exposes error
              >>> because everything that is visible is light. Paul does not just say we
              >>> see because of light but we see because what we see is light (phos estin).
              >>> Evidently he means that matter is a relation with light.

               

              >> Wrong again lets look at what the Bible actually says.

              >>        Ephesians 5:12-13 (KJB)
              >>        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.

              >> Fist of all it these verse are talking about the revealing of thing done in
              >> secret not physical objects. Also it does not say that “everything that is

              >> visible is light” but “whatsoever doth make manifest is light.” So it is
              >> calling what makes things visible light not what is made visible.

              >> The simple fact is that every thing you are presenting is clearly erroneous
              >> and base on your clearly deliberate misquote from earlier post. You probably
              >> know you are in error but you keep pushing it why? Regardless of the reason
              >> you are clearly a deceptive manipulator of scripture who is seeking to spread
              >> false teaching among Christians. Why, I don’t know.

               > He is using the example of light to illustrate that light always reveals the truth.
              > Why? Because everything IS LIGHT phos estin. He is not says light reveals just
              > the sins done in secret but light always a reveals truth and exposues error because
              > everything is light.

              But that Paul NEVER says every thing is light. You clearly can not accurately translate Greek and Hebrew but you also seem to not be able to accurately interet English as well.

              Look, I understand your idea, however not only is it based on an erroneous understanding of Greek and Hebrew as well the traditions of the 19th centaury heretics Westcot and Hort but it is totally unworkable.

               

              The Greek says everything is light - phos estin. I will  accept the original, against the translations.


              Matter is a relation with light, as we read of in the first creation day. The Earth was formless, a dark, abyss - evidently not extended in space - until Elohim continued to command light to continue to be.


              Victor



              ------ Charles Creager Jr.

              Genesis Science Mission

              Online Store

              Genesis Mission

              Creation Science Talk

               

               

               


            • Chuck
              I forgot to comment on your statement in my last post about gold that perisheth . ... Here is the full verse I don t know why you did not quote the entire
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 6, 2013

                I forgot to comment on your statement in my last post about “gold that perisheth”.

                 

                > Let me give you another example of a true metaphor that

                > applied to the world of human experience. 1 Peter 1:7 "that
                > the proof of your faith,being more precious than gold that is
                > perishing, even though tested by fire.

                >

                >Peter compared a believer's trials to gold that is tested and
                > purified by fire.

                >

                > He used the phrase chrusiou tou apollumenou - gold that is

                > perishing. The verb perishing is present, middle participle.
                >  The present in Greek means continuing action now and going
                > onwards. The middle voice means gold is acting upon itself, a
                > reflexive verb,  to perish, to corrupt itself. Now gold is
                > considered to be stable, to remain unchanged except in the
                > presence of powerful chemical agents. Is gold continually
                > corrupting itself right now.

                Here is the full verse I don’t know why you did not quote the entire verse, but I commend you for actually quoting an English translation of the Bible rather just than declaring  the Bible says something.

                 

                1 Peter 1:7 (KJB) That the trial of your faith, being much
                more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried
                with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory
                at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

                 

                However with regards to “gold that perisheth” you are correct that gold is acting upon itself to corrupt itself but that does not require the intrinsic change you are pushing. Because gold is chemically and nuclear stable, the possess of gold perishing takes a long time. There are two main mechanisms at work causing gold to corrupt it self.

                 

                1. Like all pieces of solid with in a piece of gold the atoms are not sitting still but move around, this movement is what is called heat. This motion is highly random and in time will cause the peace of gold to disintegrate in to individual atoms of gold.

                 

                2. While the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of a gold atom are quite stable they are not completely stable in that the do eventually decay. Evidence for this decay has been observed with the mean life a proton being about 10^31 years. While this is an extremely long time it is still a process by which not only gold but every atom in the universe is actively corrupting it self. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0008074

                 

                 The point is that the Gold is corrupting it self as Peter indicates though extremely slowly.

                 

                 

                 

              • Pete Miles
                Do you two need to compete on who can write the most on a relatively simple and straight forward topic? Though I find both of your viewpoints interesting, the
                Message 7 of 12 , Apr 6, 2013
                  Do you two need to compete on who can write the most on a relatively simple and straight forward topic?
                   
                  Though I find both of your viewpoints interesting, the sheer length of them gets to the point where I, and probably many others, just stop reading, especially when the comments tend toward personal attacks.
                   
                  We need to remember that Scripture was written by men that were inspired by God.  The grammer that these men used was based on their experiences, and written in such a way that those contemporary to them would clearly understand the writings.  Today we have a tendency towards different interpretations of the clear writings.  If Daniel or John grew up in today's 21st century, I just wonder how differently they would have written about the end times.  We need to be careful not to fall down the slippery slope of selectively picking pieces of scriputure to follow and ignore others because it doesn't fit with our desires/expectations.
                   
                  Has time as we know it today been the same as the first day of creation?  I have absoluetly no idea.  And since it is all in the past, it is nothing but forensic studies now.
                   
                  But there is nothing wrong with using "western time" as we know it today, and plug that same time models that the uniformitarian models that the anti-God world uses to point out holes in their arguments.  For the uniformitarian models to be plausible, then all of them have to be.  But taking things like moon orbits, radial change of the sun's diameter, change in rate in the cosmic radiation, earths magnetic fields, radiometric dating, etc.  they all must be in agreement with each other.  But when using their same time models and plugging them into their other time models to show the vast problems that they have, then there is nothing wrong with using the "western time" concept.  Use their own data to poke hole in their own arguements.
                   
                  Getting lost on the arguments of the definition of time in the choice of words that certain book writers chose to use in specific message they were writing as opposed to sticking to the original topoic (i.e. in this case lunar recession) only gets people lost on rabit trails as opposed to seeing that using the current concept of time and the uniformitarian models that the moon could not have been orbiting the earth for billions of years, yet even millions.  The uniformitarian world doesn't run the numbers to see how impossible it is for the moon to be in existance using today's understanding of time.  Because they don't they just blindly accept it.  When we point out these seemingly unimportant topics to them, we begin to help open their eyes that the everything isn't as old as they think it is.
                   
                  The unbeleiving world needs the existance of uniformitarian and time to be billions and billions of years old.  This helps them to remain ignorant, which is what they want.  Having one's eyes opened to God's Truth, is a devistating event.  They then have to make the "willful" choice to either follow God or ignore Him.  Ignorance is bliss to the world, inwardly they know it, so they will refuse to look at the holes in their uniform time concept.
                   
                  We can not make people believe in God.  But we can present holes in the consistency in their beliefs and how the Bible fits the history of the world much better.
                   
                  Pete
                   
                • Chuck
                  ... Not really. I never actually saw it that way, but you make a good point. The only reason I responded at all was because of Victors misquote looked like a
                  Message 8 of 12 , Apr 7, 2013

                    > Do you two need to compete on who can write the most on a

                    > relatively simple and straight forward topic?

                     

                    Not really. I never actually saw it that way, but you make a good point.

                     

                    The only reason I responded at all was because of Victors misquote looked like a deliberate deception. Hopefully he’ll be more careful in the future.

                     

                    I was not trying to compete for length, but unfortunately some times getting lengthy has been necessary to properly respond Victor’s material.

                     

                    > Though I find both of your viewpoints interesting, the sheer length

                    > of them gets to the point where I, and probably many others, just
                    > stop reading, especially when the comments tend toward personal
                    > attacks.

                     

                    I will keep that in mind.  I will try to watch it in the future.

                     

                    > Has time as we know it today been the same as the first day of

                    > creation?  I have absoluetly no idea.  And since it is all in
                    the past,
                    > it is nothing but forensic studies now.

                     

                    Correct. The problem with forensic studies is that they are highly dependent on assumptions ultimately it is impossible to know for certain what had really happened. That is a major argument used by creationists against uniformitarian models of Earth and universe history.

                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                  • Chuck
                    ... I Peter 1:7 (KJB) That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto
                    Message 9 of 12 , Apr 9, 2013

                      > New thread on 1 Peter 1:7 gold corrupting.

                      > As
                      Pete reminded - we need to keep it brief.  There are two fundamental
                      > ways of interpreting this text. The ancient way is incompatible with the
                      > Western way.


                      I Peter 1:7 (KJB) That the trial of your faith, being much more

                      precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire,

                      might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing

                      of Jesus Christ:

                       

                      This verse says that faith is more valuable than “gold that perisheth”  the Greek word translated as that “that perisheth” is “apollymi” which does not simply mean corrupting but “to destroy” hens the KJB’s translation.  “Apollymi” is in the Present Middle Participle indicating that he the gold is destroying it self.  In an earlier post I indicted that any object of gold is destroying it self by way of molecular motion and proton decay so this verse is in total agreement with modern science.

                       

                      > The Greeks were unable to invent an empirical science because they lived

                      > in the era when everyone believed that everything changes. Their grammar
                      > did not even allow them to imagine unchanging matter, since their present
                      > tense of the verb to be - einai - could not be static. In the ancient
                      system
                      > everything changes together, in parallel.

                      Actually the main reason the Greeks were unable to invent an empirical science was that they never tested their ideas experimentally or observationally which is an important part of modern science. Your claim that they could to imagine unchanging matter is shown false because the Greek idea of the atom was that of an unchanging bit of matter.

                       

                      > Paul wrote, "For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the

                      > pains of childbirth together until now (Romans 8:22)." He is
                      admitting
                      > what everyone in that era believed, “we know” that everything
                      is changing.
                      > In this verse he used two Greek together verbs. He also used two Greek
                      > orderly submission verbs to describe how the creation is enslaved to
                      change.

                      Let’s look at the actual verses.

                       

                      Romans 8:21-22 (KJB)

                      21  Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage
                      of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

                      22  For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain
                      together until now.

                       

                      The Greek word translated bondage in verse 21 is “douleia” which literally means bondage or slavery and it does not imply an orderly submission. Furthermore it does not say that thingd are enslaved to change but corruption which is a vary specific type of change and the exact type of change resulting from thermodynamic affects.

                       

                      Verse 22 must be taken at least in part figuratively since only living things literally groan and feel pain. Even if Paul was thinking in terms of intrinsic change the wording is not inconsistent with the affects of the thermodynamic degeneration that is observed in creation, because the thermodynamic changes in an object causes thermodynamic degeneration in the environment and then on to other object so thermodynamic degeneration in a real way dose cause “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together.”

                       

                      > Relational changes cannot be precisely measured because there are no physical

                      > constants anywhere in the universe.
                      style='color:navy;background:white'>

                      Not true all that is needed is a pattern in the relational changes. If there is a patter to relational change then it can be mathematically modeled even with absolutely no constants, it just needs to follow a mathematical pattern like a spiral or logarithmic pattern. However what you are pushing is a relational change that follow not discernable or logical pattern.


                      > Relational changes are observable, however, because we see the past back to

                      > the creation era with telescopes.  Not a single ancient galaxy clocks
                      the light
                      > frequencies of modern atoms.
                      style='color:navy;background:white'>

                      Not correct! Neither galaxies nor modern atoms clock any light frequencies but atoms do emit and absorb light and they have preferred frequencies depending on the atoms. What you are referring to is galactic red-shifts that are not an indication of relational changes but a result of gravity, motion and the stretching of space. The first two of these have been wxpermentally verified to occur and the physic that allows for gravitational redshift also allows for the expansion of space..   

                       

                      > Ancient orbits were vastly slower than modern ones. We observe how the stars
                      > continued to accelerate outward as billions of galaxies grew into growth
                      spirals. 

                      NO such thing is actually observed. On the contrary this interpretation of spiral galaxies is proven wrong by the observed fact that the stars in a galaxy orbit in the opposite direction of the galaxy’s spiral.

                       

                      I will end here to keep from getting too long.

                       

                       

                      ------ Charles Creager Jr.

                      Genesis Science Mission

                      Online Store

                      Genesis Mission

                      Creation Science Talk

                       

                       

                    • Victor McAllister
                      ... Ancient people could not imaging that matter is not continually changing itself. This was the historical impediment to inventing science that stymied the
                      Message 10 of 12 , Apr 10, 2013
                        On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Chuck <chuckpc@...> wrote:
                         

                        > New thread on 1 Peter 1:7 gold corrupting.
                        > As Pete reminded - we need to keep it brief.  There are two fundamental
                        > ways of interpreting this text. The ancient way is incompatible with the
                        > Western way.


                        I Peter 1:7 (KJB) That the trial of your faith, being much more

                        precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire,

                        might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing

                        of Jesus Christ:

                         

                        This verse says that faith is more valuable than “gold that perisheth”  the Greek word translated as that “that perisheth” is “apollymi” which does not simply mean corrupting but “to destroy” hens the KJB’s translation.  “Apollymi” is in the Present Middle Participle indicating that he the gold is destroying it self.  In an earlier post I indicted that any object of gold is destroying it self by way of molecular motion and proton decay so this verse is in total agreement with modern science.

                         

                        > The Greeks were unable to invent an empirical science because they lived
                        > in the era when everyone believed that everything changes. Their grammar
                        > did not even allow them to imagine unchanging matter, since their present
                        > tense of the verb to be - einai - could not be static. In the ancient system
                        > everything changes together, in parallel.

                        Actually the main reason the Greeks were unable to invent an empirical science was that they never tested their ideas experimentally or observationally which is an important part of modern science. Your claim that they could to imagine unchanging matter is shown false because the Greek idea of the atom was that of an unchanging bit of matter.

                        Ancient people could not imaging that matter is not continually changing itself. This was the historical impediment to inventing science that stymied the Greeks for hundreds of years.

                        Greek atoms were uncutable things. The motion of the uncuttables continued to change so that all things grew old with age, as Lucretius the Roman atomists explained.

                        Ovid told a story of the second Roman king traveling to Croton to meet Pythagoras. The story is factually unlikely, since they lived in different centuries, yet it encodes the way of thinking of that era. Ovid has Pythagoras state, "Nothing keeps its original shape and nature, ever renewing the world, creates new forms from the old ones endlessly. Believe me when I say that nothing perishes, ever, anywhere in the world. Rather, things chang; they make
                        their forms anew; and to be born simply means that something is other than it was before; to die, that it has ceased to be what it was. While things change from one state to another, now to this one, now to that one, the sum of things stays constant. But truly, nothing keeps the same for long, or so I believe. Thus it is, O ages past, that you have gone from gold to iron . . . Metamorphosis Book 15."

                        Claudius Ptolemy, the great Greek astronomer, agreed that mathematics tracks with the changing nature of things. "It is an attribute of all existing things without exception, both mortal and immortal: for those things which are perceptually changing in their inseparable form, it (mathematics) changes with them, . . ." "physics (is guesswork) because of the unstable and unclear nature of matter; hence there is no hope that philosophers will ever be agreed about them." (Almagest Book 1). He agrees that everything is continuing to change.

                        The idea that substance has an intrinsic fixed nature took centuries to develop even after Friar Thomas' invented the notions of being and essence. Modern people have great difficulty thinking without total dependence on the notion that atoms have a fixed, unchanging  nature.

                         

                        > Paul wrote, "For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the
                        > pains of childbirth together until now (Romans 8:22)." He is admitting
                        > what everyone in that era believed, “we know” that everything is changing.
                        > In this verse he used two Greek together verbs. He also used two Greek
                        > orderly submission verbs to describe how the creation is enslaved to change.

                        Let’s look at the actual verses.

                         

                        Romans 8:21-22 (KJB)

                        21  Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage
                        of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

                        22  For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain
                        together until now.

                         

                        The Greek word translated bondage in verse 21 is “douleia” which literally means bondage or slavery and it does not imply an orderly submission. Furthermore it does not say that thingd are enslaved to change but corruption which is a vary specific type of change and the exact type of change resulting from thermodynamic affects.

                         

                        Verse 22 must be taken at least in part figuratively since only living things literally groan and feel pain. Even if Paul was thinking in terms of intrinsic change the wording is not inconsistent with the affects of the thermodynamic degeneration that is observed in creation, because the thermodynamic changes in an object causes thermodynamic degeneration in the environment and then on to other object so thermodynamic degeneration in a real way dose cause “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together.”


                        The two orderly submission (hupotasso) verbs are in verse 20. Hupotasso is a compound of hupo (under) and (tasso) to order or arrange. Polybius used hupotasso for troops who were arranged in orderly submission under their officers. This is the exact opposite of the 2nd law which is based on random disorder. The universe in an orderly manner submitts to God's command to deteriorate.  How? Two together verbs explain that it does it together, that is as a relation. The word phthora was used by the philosophers for matter itself deteriorating - fundamental change. Aristotle used it for a city that changes its constitution - fundamental change. Plato used it in his expression "genesis ka phthora" where everything continues to change since the beginning. Ancient people could not imagine a scientific way of thinking because the first law of the last days had not yet been invented - that atoms are perpetual motion engines. There is not a single verse in the BIble that requires one to view earth history scientifically. There are many that contradict a scientific mindset.

                         

                        > Relational changes cannot be precisely measured because there are no physical
                        > constants anywhere in the universe.


                        Not true all that is needed is a pattern in the relational changes. If there is a patter to relational change then it can be mathematically modeled even with absolutely no constants, it just needs to follow a mathematical pattern like a spiral or logarithmic pattern. However what you are pushing is a relational change that follow not discernable or logical pattern.


                        You cannot even define precise measuring of symbolical things like mass or time without total reliance on the first law - that all things remain the same. Mathematical science can only approach differential changes. Relational change, because things change in parallel,  is outsdie the domain of science. Einstein's student, Hans Reichenbach's investigated this problem in his book, the Philosophy of Space and Time. He shows that universal forces (that effect all bodies) must be disregarded by definition.] Such effects could not be measured with the scientific empirical system. There is no way to build an empirical system if all clocks are changing their speed relationally. If that were allowed, the laws of science would all fail. Yet we observe clocks always changing speed when we compare clocks at different ranges - both the atomic and the inertial clocks are observed to change since we see galaxies intrinsically growing throughout cosmic history, exactly as described in the literal text of the Bible..

                         

                        > Relational changes are observable, however, because we see the past back to
                        > the creation era with telescopes.  Not a single ancient galaxy clocks the light
                        > frequencies of modern atoms.


                        Not correct! Neither galaxies nor modern atoms clock any light frequencies but atoms do emit and absorb light and they have preferred frequencies depending on the atoms. What you are referring to is galactic red-shifts that are not an indication of relational changes but a result of gravity, motion and the stretching of space. The first two of these have been wxpermentally verified to occur and the physic that allows for gravitational redshift also allows for the expansion of space..   

                         
                        > Ancient orbits were vastly slower than modern ones. We observe how the stars
                        > continued to accelerate outward as billions of galaxies grew into growth spirals. 


                        NO such thing is actually observed. On the contrary this interpretation of spiral galaxies is proven wrong by the observed fact that the stars in a galaxy orbit in the opposite direction of the galaxy’s spiral.

                         

                        Scientists have a blind creed, so they cannot accept the visible history of how galaxies grew - the stars globs coming out ALONG the spiral arms not rotating counter to the sweep of the arms. Examine cosmic history with the light from long ago, rather than trying to decode it mathematically with their creed. Science was founded on the notion that all things remain the same, as predicted in the Bible.
                         

                        I will end here to keep from getting too long.

                         

                         

                        Victor


                         
                      • Chuck
                        ... While you are correct on this point victor, Peter’s description is fully compatible with a thermodynamic interpretation. ... Except that neither Romans
                        Message 11 of 12 , Apr 10, 2013

                          > The verb future passive for when the heavens will melt and the

                          > fundamental things (stoicheion) will be dissolved. 
                          class=apple-converted-space> 

                          > Peter
                          says gold is present and continually corrupting itself right
                          > now (reflexive action). 
                          style='word-spacing:0px'>

                          While you are correct on this point victor, Peter’s description is fully compatible with a thermodynamic interpretation.


                          > There are two utterly incompatible
                          fundamental ways of seeing the
                          > world. The biblical way is that everything corrupts relationally,
                          > together (Romans 8:19 - 22).

                          Except that neither Romans 8:19-22 nor any other place in the Bible says any such thing. Looking at what a real Bible says.

                          Romans 8:19-22 (KJB)
                          19  For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for
                          the manifestation of the sons of God.
                          20  For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly,
                          but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
                          21  Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the
                          bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children
                          of God.
                          22  For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth
                          in pain together until now.

                          There here that even remotely implies “corrupting relationally”, not in the sliest. Not in English and not in Greek.

                           The Greek word translated bondage in verse 21 is “douleia” which literally means bondage or slavery and it does not imply an orderly submission.

                           

                          Verse 22 must be taken at least in part figuratively since only living things literally groan and feel pain. However the thermodynamic changes in an object causes degeneration in the environment and then on to other object so degeneration in a real way dose cause “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together.”

                           

                          In verse 20 the Greek word “subject” and “subjected” is “hypotassō” which means to subordinate. While in military usage it referrers to arranging troops under a commander in non-military use, it was used to referrer to voluntarily giving in. In both cases the idea is about being “put in subjection” subjection to some one or some thing.

                           

                          Nothing here has any thing to do with relational corruption what ever that means.

                           

                          > Science was founded on an idea, invented by medieval monks in the west, that the essence of substance is changeless.

                          No it was not! Science was founded on the ideas of observation and experimentation. While the idea “that the essence of substance is changeless” may have helped lead to empirical science, modern science has move beyond that idea. Quantum Mechanics shows that there is a lot of change constantly occurring in matter just not the type of change you demanded.

                          > There is a great gulf between the two systems - the ancient way of thinking (used by all bible authros) and western science.

                          You are assuming that you actually understand the ancient way of thinking and in particular that of all Bible human authors. That said it is irrelevant because the Bible was inspired by God, who is not limited to any human ways of thinking. Regardless of what the Bible’s human authors thought, divine inspiration extended the Biblical texts beyond what human authors thought. This occurred repeatedly in prophecy.   

                          > You cannot arrive at a biblical version of earth history from the

                          > perspective of western science.
                          style='color:navy;background:white'>

                          WRONG!! Young Earth Creation Science does just.

                          Young Earth Creation Science has not only been phenomenally successful in arriving at a Biblical version of earth history but a Biblical version of the history of the Universe as well.

                           

                           

                          ------ Charles Creager Jr.

                          Genesis Science Mission

                          Online Store

                          Genesis Mission

                        • Chuck
                          ... True but you are confusing interpretation and context. The context is the setting in which a verse of or word while the interpretation is what a verse
                          Message 12 of 12 , Apr 12, 2013

                             

                            > Pete says I am taking the scriptures out of context.

                            > We all have interpretive bias.

                            True but you are confusing interpretation and context.  The context is the setting in which a verse of or word while the interpretation is what a verse means. Taking a verse or word out of its context usually results in a flawed interpretation regardless of any bias, in fact it tends to enhance one’s bias.

                             

                            A common and some what humorous example of this is as follows.

                             

                            Matthew 27:5 (KJB)   And he ... went and hanged himself.

                            Luke 10:37b (KJB) Go, and do thou likewise.

                            John 13:27b  (KJB) That thou doest, do quickly.

                             

                            Stringing these references together outside their individual contexts could lead one to commit suicide.

                             

                            The simple fact is victor is that you do often take verses and words out of their context in drawing some of your interpretation. The aforementioned example taken with no bias but out of context could lead to tragic results.

                             

                            > I try prayerfully to take the text in its grammatical and cultural

                            > context especially in the areas of creation and earth history.
                            color=navy>

                            The problem is that you limit the meaning of scripture to that grammatical and cultural context. We need to remember that the real writer of the Bible is God and He is not limited to the grammatical and cultural context of the human authors. Not limiting scripture to the grammatical and cultural context of the human authors is particularly necessary in prophecy where the text refers to events 100’s and even 1,000’s of years after the text was written. An excellent example of this comes from Revelation in talking about the death if the two witnesses.

                             

                            Revelation 11:9 (KJB) And they of the people and kindreds

                            and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days

                            and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in

                            graves.

                             

                            This verse indicates that the entire world will see the dead bodies if the two witnesses. Only those of use living in the last 60 years or so have been fully capable of understanding how this could happen. Past generations tendered to spiritualize this or even assume some form of supernatural vision from God. But with the advent of TV and the internet it is now clear how this can happen. John (the human author of Revelation) would not have been fully capable of understanding his own prophecy. By way of TV and the internet I have witnessed many events as they happened that I would have never seen other wise. I have seen five U.S. presidential inaugurations, the 911 attacks as they happened, including the second plane hitting and both towers collapsing. I have seen events not only from all over the world as they happened but I have seen events on other planets as they happened as well. By way of TV I saw man’s step first on another planetary body (the Moon) as it happened.  Having seen men walk on the Moon to me the entire world will seeing the dead bodies of the two witnesses is no big deal while the Apostle John could never have even imagined how it could happen. If I limited my interpretation of Revelation 11:9 what John would have thought I would never get the right answer but I buy looking beyond his limitation the answer is obvious to me.

                            > All translators try to render the text into a different grammatical
                            > structure and into a way of thinking unlike that of the writer.
                            color=navy>

                            You are ignoring what constitutes proper translation between languages. Properly translating from one language to another requires not just translating words but the grammar as well. English and ancient Hebrew have radically different grammars and so proper translation from ancient Hebrew to English would require using different verb tenses in English since they are not perfect parallels.   

                             

                            You are also assuming God never works though translators inspiring them in the process. For the English language God, inspired the translation of the King James Bible as shown not only by God’s unique blessing on it, using it to win more sols to Jesus than all other translate and even the original autographs. You are assuming that God has locked his word up in two dead ancient languages leaving those who do not read Greek and Hebrew with out an uncorrupted copy of the Bible. However despite your Westcott and Hort based claim to the contrary God had given us His inspired, inerrant word in English so that we can not only preach the Gospel with authority but fulfill the Great Commission as well.

                             

                            >  Traditions also influence how we interpret the text. The Latin

                            > tradition is so powerful that even though the Hebrew says He
                            > continues to command light to continue to be, we go with
                            > tradition - that He commanded once - because the Latin used
                            > perfect verbs - but the Hebrew uses imperfect.
                            style='color:navy'>

                            However you are not accurately translating the Hebrew even in it own grammar. Since ancient Hebrew did not have time tenses, when doing narratives about the past in which an action was in progress the ancient Hebrews would use the imperfect, In the case of Genesis 1:3 the closest word for word translation would be “God saying being light, light” with the context showing that is occurred in the past. The proper English translation is "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Genesis 1:3 (KJB) .

                             

                            I don’t know about Latin but the King James Bible uses the past tense not the perfect tence, so the King James Bible does not follow the Latin but uses the proper English translation. The problem when going from ancient Hebrew to English is that English does not have an imperfect unrelated to time and so does not have a perfect match to the Hebrew imperfect. Using the English past imperfect in Genesis 1:3 would render it as “God was saying was being light, light” which dose not work. The simple fact is that King James Bible got it right not surprising since the author of the original autographs (God) had His inspired the translation of the King James Bible and then has used it win many many sols to Himself.

                             

                            Part of your problem is that you are mistranslating the imperfect as “continues to command” and “continue to be” while you are totally misunderstanding the process of translation. The other part of your problem is that you are ignoring God in the translation process. No surprise since you when you use a translation other than your own, it is usually NASV which is not inspired.  

                             

                             

                             

                             

                             

                            ------ Charles Creager Jr.

                            Genesis Science Mission

                            Online Store

                            Genesis Mission

                            Creation Science Talk




                             

                             

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