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

The Bible and the Second Law

Expand Messages
  • VictorM
    Graphic for this post is located at: http://www.godsriddle.info/2012/06/bible-and-second-law.html According to the Apostle Paul, the creation will at some
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 1 1:13 AM
      Graphic for this post is located at:
      http://www.godsriddle.info/2012/06/bible-and-second-law.html
      According to the Apostle Paul, the creation will at some future point be passively liberated from its slavery to change (phthora - Romans 8:21). What did he mean by phthora? Plato used the phrase "genesis ka phthora" for the process that corrupts everything since the beginning. Aristotle used the word phthora for a city that changed to another constitution: fundamental change. In this text the phthora change is in the direction of ruin. Origen, in his commentary on Romans, understood Paul to refer to qualitative changes in all things, including the Sun and stars.

      Paul began this section by stating that we know (eidon): to perceive with the eyes, to notice, to look at. Others saw these things since Paul said we know. In Paul's days, even the pagan philosophers acknowledged that everything changes. The only thing that Plato could imagine that is not changing is an undetectable parallel universe, the form of things. Aristotle acknowledged that everything corrupts but he imagined that hypokeimenon (what is under) suffers no change. Claudius Ptolemy wrote that all things without exception are changing. He thought that mathematics was reliable because when things change, mathematics tracks with the changing things. He claimed that physics was like guesswork because the nature of things is unstable. Evidently no one in the biblical age could imagine that matter is unchanging.

      Paul used the word gar in verse Romans 8:19, 20 & 21. It is a particle that can mean truly, especially the causal reason for something. He used the compound verb hupotasso twice. Hupo means under and tasso to appoint, arrange, to order. Polybius used hupotasso for troops arranged in order under the commands of their general. The first hupotasso verb is aorist passive. The creation did not originate its orderly corruption. The curse of the animals and the ground in Genesis is also passive. God did not create thorns and thistles, they came about by means of the passive curse. The second hupotasso verb is an aorist active participle. The creation actively and in an orderly manner carries out the command to become futile, to inutility and transitoriness.

      In verse 21 Paul explained that at some future point the creation will be liberated from its slavery to phthora. Then in verse 22 he explained that the whole creation groans together [sustenazo] and pains together [sunodino]. Groaning together was the common experience of the citizens of a city that fell to the Roman army. Everyone in the city experienced the horror of the army's payday at their expense, so they groaned together. Sunodino means to travail together and was used for the together pains of childbirth when many muscles contract together and in sequence.

      Let's review Paul's statements.
      1. We know by seeing that the creation is corrupting itself.
      2. The changes began at an unspecified point (the curse?) and are continuous until now.
      3. The changes in creation are orderly - in obedience to God's command.
      4. The things that are changing are not just local, since they extend to the whole creation.
      5. The changes in creation are not for the better, since they are in the direction of inutility.
      6. The changes in creation are together changes. Things that change together in an orderly manner, change relationally. Relational change is where nothing is independent or unchanging, but all things change together, in parallel.

      Now let's examine the Second Law interpretation to see if it fits the text.
      1. No one during Paul's days saw or knew anything about the Second Law.
      2. The Second Law is not an orderly process. It expects orderly things to become disorderly by random processes.
      3. The second law is not applied to the whole creation. The internal processes in all atoms are excluded from the Second Law. Scientists assume that atoms are perpetual motion engines since they define their measuring units using atomic clocks that allegedly are always clocking the same frequencies. Most scientific definitions, measuring units, methods and mathematical formulas presume that atoms remain the same, since scientific empiricism depends on that assumption.
      4. The second Law is not about relational changes, things that change in parallel.

      What if Paul had a vision of the future predicting the Second Law and intended that interpretation. He should have written, someday people will know through mathematical reasoning that the things created after the first day, groan and suffer the pains of childbirth together until now.

      The double emphasis on orderly change and togetherness suggest that Origen was closer to Paul's intended meaning than creation scientists. Today we can see with telescopes in billions of galaxies that all atoms are changing relationally and have been doing so for vast ages. The earliest atomic clocks we have analyzed to date clocked less than 1/10th the frequencies of modern atoms. The changes in the light from all atoms must have been orderly since modern atoms still function in an orderly manner.

      Paul never suggests that we fight with science. He says the weapons of our warfare are divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete. (2 Corinthians 10:3 - 6). Changing Earth Creationists believe that someday, when our obedience is complete, we will use the word of God to bring down science itself. What glory the Creator will get when he makes foolish the wisdom of this age, as He promised. Look at galactic history and you will see the simple answer to the age of the universe puzzle. The stars continued to come out and spread out as galaxies grew into huge local growth spirals as every atom has changed in an orderly manner. The inertial orbits, the atomic clocks and the space matter takes up all changed relationally, together. The only history that is visible as it happened is galactic history and what is visible exactly fits the literal, biblical text both for creation and cosmic history.


      This is galaxy number HUDF 4491 from NASA's Hubble Ultra Deep Field. Notice the distinct separate globs (evidently of close together stars) emerging from the redder core. Evidently this is a spiral arm just beginning to form and emerge. The light from this ancient galaxy shines at less than 50% of the frequencies of modern atoms.
    • Randy C
      ... Randy C: Why do you use the plural form of creationist ? There is only ONE Changing Earth Creationist . That would be YOU. ... But that is impossible.
      Message 2 of 10 , Jun 1 5:20 PM
        > Victor M"
        > Graphic for this post is located at:
        > http://www.godsriddle.info/2012/06/bible-and-second-law.html
        > [snip - same delusional nonsense as always]
        > Changing Earth Creationists...

        Randy C:
        Why do you use the plural form of "creationist"? There
        is only ONE "Changing Earth Creationist". That would be
        YOU.

        > ...believe that someday, when our obedience is complete,
        > we will use the word of God to bring down science
        > itself.

        But that is impossible. Science works everywhere. Even
        you admit that science works locally.

        That's the only place that it has to work.

        Even if, in some alternate universe, you convinced people
        that science didn't work in some distant galaxy, no one
        would care.

        Why should they?

        There would probably be a small clique of scientists
        that would be intensely interested.

        But why would 99.999% of the population give a crap?
        All they are interested in is having science work
        locally. If someone sitting on a park bench can
        text to their best friend, that's all they need or
        want.

        So the claim that your ideas would "bring down science"
        even if [cough, cough] there was a shred of validity
        to them is utterly laughable.
      • VictorM
        ... Actually I got an email this morning from a man who was a bible institute president. After having read my CEC essays for a few years, he now claims that he
        Message 3 of 10 , Jun 1 11:00 PM
          --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
          >
          > > Victor M"
          > > Graphic for this post is located at:
          > > http://www.godsriddle.info/2012/06/bible-and-second-law.html
          > > [snip - same delusional nonsense as always]
          > > Changing Earth Creationists...
          >
          > Randy C:
          > Why do you use the plural form of "creationist"? There
          > is only ONE "Changing Earth Creationist". That would be
          > YOU.
          >

          Actually I got an email this morning from a man who was a bible institute president. After having read my CEC essays for a few years, he now claims that he has stopped accepting young earth creationism and is now a changing earth creationist.

          He now travels around doing seminars on bible doctrine. He tells me that one of the things he does is recommends my writing on changing earth creationists interpretation of the Bible and earth history.


          > > ...believe that someday, when our obedience is complete,
          > > we will use the word of God to bring down science
          > > itself.
          >
          > But that is impossible. Science works everywhere. Even
          > you admit that science works locally.
          >

          1. It only works within the domain of its assumption and only locally. The assumption is used to define undetectable things that are used circularly locally for measuring units, methods, laws and mathematical constants.

          2. However, since none of these work in the distant past, they have had to fill the universe up with myths about invisible things . . . .

          > That's the only place that it has to work.
          >
          > Even if, in some alternate universe, you convinced people
          > that science didn't work in some distant galaxy, no one
          > would care.
          >
          > Why should they?
          >

          Your destiny (glory or fire) hangs in the balance. You reject the biblical creator because you interpret the universe and earth history with the assumption the Bible predicted for the last days.

          Yet if we simply accept visible cosmic history using light, not mathematics, we can see the creation of the universe as it happened long ago - exactly as described in the Bible.

          > There would probably be a small clique of scientists
          > that would be intensely interested.
          >
          > But why would 99.999% of the population give a crap?
          > All they are interested in is having science work
          > locally. If someone sitting on a park bench can
          > text to their best friend, that's all they need or
          > want.
          >
          > So the claim that your ideas would "bring down science"
          > even if [cough, cough] there was a shred of validity
          > to them is utterly laughable.
          >

          My ideas have no importance. The words that are powerful for the destruction of science are God's words - as found in the Bible. It is He who says He will make fools of the wise of this age. He is the one who says He is taking the wise with their own skills. It is He who says man cannot come to Him through their wisdom - only child-like faith in His word.

          He will get great glory when His Word vanquishes science.

          Victor
        • Randy C
          ... Randy C: So there s now two people who believe in your ideas. Congratulations. ... Was he convinced by reading your posts on a discussion forum? ... How
          Message 4 of 10 , Jun 2 7:44 AM
            > > > Victor M"
            > > > Graphic for this post is located at:
            > > > http://www.godsriddle.info/2012/06/bible-and-second-law.html
            > > > [snip - same delusional nonsense as always]
            > > > Changing Earth Creationists...
            > >
            > > Randy C:
            > > Why do you use the plural form of "creationist"? There
            > > is only ONE "Changing Earth Creationist". That would be
            > > YOU.

            > Victor M:
            > Actually I got an email this morning from a man who was
            > a bible institute president. After having read my CEC
            > essays for a few years, he now claims that he has
            > stopped accepting young earth creationism and is now a
            > changing earth creationist.

            Randy C:
            So there's now two people who believe in your ideas.

            Congratulations.

            > He now travels around doing seminars on bible doctrine.
            > He tells me that one of the things he does is recommends
            > my writing on changing earth creationists interpretation
            > of the Bible and earth history.

            Was he convinced by reading your posts on a discussion
            forum?

            > > > ...believe that someday, when our obedience is complete,
            > > > we will use the word of God to bring down science
            > > > itself.

            > > But that is impossible. Science works everywhere. Even
            > > you admit that science works locally.

            > 1. It only works within the domain of its assumption and
            > only locally.
            > [snip - same nonsense as always]

            > > That's the only place that it has to work.
            > >
            > > Even if, in some alternate universe, you convinced people
            > > that science didn't work in some distant galaxy, no one
            > > would care.
            > >
            > > Why should they?

            > Your destiny (glory or fire) hangs in the balance.
            > You reject the biblical creator because you interpret
            > the universe and earth history with the assumption
            > the Bible predicted for the last days.

            How does a rejection of your ideas reject God? There
            are many other types of creationists. Do they not
            believe in God? Are they going to hell? Sounds like
            heaven is going to be a very lonely place - you and
            one other person.

            People would still use science locally so nothing would
            change, except that some people may go to church more
            often.

            But don't get your hopes up. It's never going to happen.
            It could only happen in some alternate universe. Your
            ideas are nothing but delusions you suffer from.

            > Yet if we simply accept visible cosmic history using
            > light, not mathematics, we can see the creation of the
            > universe as it happened long ago - exactly as described
            > in the Bible.

            Since mathematics cannot be used with your ideas, that
            means that your ideas are illogical.

            But then, delusions are always illogical.

            > > There would probably be a small clique of scientists
            > > that would be intensely interested.

            > > But why would 99.999% of the population give a crap?
            > > All they are interested in is having science work
            > > locally. If someone sitting on a park bench can
            > > text to their best friend, that's all they need or
            > > want.

            > > So the claim that your ideas would "bring down science"
            > > even if [cough, cough] there was a shred of validity
            > > to them is utterly laughable.

            > My ideas have no importance.

            Your ideas have no rationality.

            But don't go all humble on us. Nothing could be more
            obvious than the undeniable fact that you consider
            yourself some sort of messiah figure.

            > The words that are powerful for the destruction of science
            > are God's words - as found in the Bible.

            But the Bible is demonstrably wrong about EVERYTHING it
            says about the natural world.

            The Bible says that the Earth is flat. It's not.

            The Bible says that the Earth doesn't move. It does.

            It goes on and on.

            If anything, your claim that you got your ideas came from
            the Bible actually diminishes the likelihood that they
            are correct.

            > It is He who says He will make fools of the wise of
            > this age.

            Then that is just another thing that the Bible is wrong
            about.

            The list of such things is VERY long.

            > He is the one who says He is taking the wise with
            > their own skills. It is He who says man cannot come
            > to Him through their wisdom - only child-like faith
            > in His word.

            > He will get great glory when His Word vanquishes science.

            But you have been unable to explain how people would
            consider science to be vanquished! I guarantee that
            99.9999% of people would still use science.

            People are not going to stop using computers. People
            are not going to stop using airplanes. People are
            not going to stop using cars, etc, etc.

            You suffer from numerous, very serious delusions. But
            the idea that there is any chance that people would
            give up science is one of the more absurd ones.
          • VictorM
            ... Another man I have met on line has written to various creation science organizations asking them to consider my papers. Naturally they are horrified.
            Message 5 of 10 , Jun 2 9:49 AM
              --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
              >
              > > > > Victor M"
              > > > > Graphic for this post is located at:
              > > > > http://www.godsriddle.info/2012/06/bible-and-second-law.html
              > > > > [snip - same delusional nonsense as always]
              > > > > Changing Earth Creationists...
              > > >
              > > > Randy C:
              > > > Why do you use the plural form of "creationist"? There
              > > > is only ONE "Changing Earth Creationist". That would be
              > > > YOU.
              >
              > > Victor M:
              > > Actually I got an email this morning from a man who was
              > > a bible institute president. After having read my CEC
              > > essays for a few years, he now claims that he has
              > > stopped accepting young earth creationism and is now a
              > > changing earth creationist.
              >
              > Randy C:
              > So there's now two people who believe in your ideas.
              >
              > Congratulations.
              >
              Another man I have met on line has written to various creation science organizations asking them to consider my papers. Naturally they are horrified. Creation scientists have good intentions. But they are trying to do something ridiculous. They are trying to use their poodle lap dog, science, to defend the Bible instead of using the Bible to vanquish the enemy totally.

              > > He now travels around doing seminars on bible doctrine.
              > > He tells me that one of the things he does is recommends
              > > my writing on changing earth creationists interpretation
              > > of the Bible and earth history.
              >
              > Was he convinced by reading your posts on a discussion
              > forum?
              >

              He has compared my posts to the text of the Bible. The Bible is the authority, not me.


              > > > > ...believe that someday, when our obedience is complete,
              > > > > we will use the word of God to bring down science
              > > > > itself.
              >
              > > > But that is impossible. Science works everywhere. Even
              > > > you admit that science works locally.
              >
              > > 1. It only works within the domain of its assumption and
              > > only locally.
              > > [snip - same nonsense as always]
              >
              > > > That's the only place that it has to work.
              > > >
              > > > Even if, in some alternate universe, you convinced people
              > > > that science didn't work in some distant galaxy, no one
              > > > would care.
              > > >
              > > > Why should they?
              >
              > > Your destiny (glory or fire) hangs in the balance.
              > > You reject the biblical creator because you interpret
              > > the universe and earth history with the assumption
              > > the Bible predicted for the last days.
              >
              > How does a rejection of your ideas reject God? There
              > are many other types of creationists. Do they not
              > believe in God? Are they going to hell? Sounds like
              > heaven is going to be a very lonely place - you and
              > one other person.
              >

              Salvation is by God's grace through faith. The object of true faith is not the church, good works or creation science. It is the person and work of Jesus who died for our sins.

              What will happen to creation scientists if they are wrong? The Bible says if we seek to be wise in this age we defeat ourselves. Why? Because GOd is taking the wise with their own skills. Creation scientists will not loose their salvation. They will simply be shown to be wrong - a humiliating defeat rather than a glorious conquest.

              > People would still use science locally so nothing would
              > change, except that some people may go to church more
              > often.
              >
              > But don't get your hopes up. It's never going to happen.
              > It could only happen in some alternate universe. Your
              > ideas are nothing but delusions you suffer from.
              >

              Creationists who encounter a CEC interpretation of creation and cosmic history (such as the visible solution to the age of the earth mystery) have to change their most basic assumption - their first principle. You can't change your foundations while waving a flag in your lofty tower. You have to dig down and examine your elementary foundations upon which your castle in the air was constructed.

              Not everyone is prepared to give up their western way of thinking in order to have truth. It is easier to believe in a magical universe that is 99% invisible, as most cosmologists today do, rather than question the first principle. Even God fearing creationists have to do some careful thinking in order to discard the western first principle.


              > > Yet if we simply accept visible cosmic history using
              > > light, not mathematics, we can see the creation of the
              > > universe as it happened long ago - exactly as described
              > > in the Bible.
              >
              > Since mathematics cannot be used with your ideas, that
              > means that your ideas are illogical.
              >
              > But then, delusions are always illogical.
              >

              As I have pointed out, logic itself is illogical if the first principle is false. Mathematics cannot be used to decode the universe if the first principle is false. SInce the Bible predicted it and the visible history of galaxies denies it, even matheamtics will fail before the power of God's word.

              > > > There would probably be a small clique of scientists
              > > > that would be intensely interested.
              >
              > > > But why would 99.999% of the population give a crap?
              > > > All they are interested in is having science work
              > > > locally. If someone sitting on a park bench can
              > > > text to their best friend, that's all they need or
              > > > want.
              >
              > > > So the claim that your ideas would "bring down science"
              > > > even if [cough, cough] there was a shred of validity
              > > > to them is utterly laughable.
              >
              > > My ideas have no importance.
              >
              > Your ideas have no rationality.
              >
              > But don't go all humble on us. Nothing could be more
              > obvious than the undeniable fact that you consider
              > yourself some sort of messiah figure.
              >

              On the contrary. God could not use me unless I am a fool with respect to the world while making every effort to analyze the Bible in the culture and language of the author, not science.

              > > The words that are powerful for the destruction of science
              > > are God's words - as found in the Bible.
              >
              > But the Bible is demonstrably wrong about EVERYTHING it
              > says about the natural world.
              >

              The Bible only makes limited statements about the natural world. It tells us when and how the universe began, that laws govern the universe and the same ones govern the earth etc. and some of the major events that have happened during Earth history (such as the shattering of a nearby planet). What it states is visibly confirmed, not with science (which is assumption dependent) but with optics. For example, we find the shattered remnants of planets containing crystals formed under volcanic conditions and other rocks formed in liquid water on comets and asteroids. Scientists, because of their first principle, cannot acknowledge this kind of simple evidence and instead have invented more unnatural, undetectable things like acretional histories. The only history that we can observe back to the creation era is cosmic history and what we see exactly fits the literal text of the Bible..


              > The Bible says that the Earth is flat. It's not.
              >
              > The Bible says that the Earth doesn't move. It does.
              >
              > It goes on and on.
              >
              Of course you are not interpreting this with the language of the ancients. You say the sun rose and it doesn't so you also use word pictures just like ancient people did. The four corners of the earth was a phrase used for the four astronomical directions (the soltices).

              > If anything, your claim that you got your ideas came from
              > the Bible actually diminishes the likelihood that they
              > are correct.
              >
              > > It is He who says He will make fools of the wise of
              > > this age.
              >
              > Then that is just another thing that the Bible is wrong
              > about.
              >
              > The list of such things is VERY long.
              >
              > > He is the one who says He is taking the wise with
              > > their own skills. It is He who says man cannot come
              > > to Him through their wisdom - only child-like faith
              > > in His word.
              >
              > > He will get great glory when His Word vanquishes science.
              >
              > But you have been unable to explain how people would
              > consider science to be vanquished! I guarantee that
              > 99.9999% of people would still use science.
              >
              > People are not going to stop using computers. People
              > are not going to stop using airplanes. People are
              > not going to stop using cars, etc, etc.
              >
              > You suffer from numerous, very serious delusions. But
              > the idea that there is any chance that people would
              > give up science is one of the more absurd ones.
              >

              Randy, carefully consider the claims of Christ.

              He came to die for all, but the wise cannot find him. Yet even a child can come to know him by simple faith and then He can open their eyes. You might see how great will be His predicted triumph over the world order. You could then fight for Him instead of against Him.

              Victor
            • Randy C
              ... Randy C: Victor, the claims of Christ have NOTHING to do with anything you say. I think that you are insane. That s not a figure of speech. I m not a
              Message 6 of 10 , Jun 2 11:10 AM
                > Victor M:
                > ...
                > Randy, carefully consider the claims of Christ.
                > ...

                Randy C:
                Victor, the claims of Christ have NOTHING to do with
                anything you say.

                I think that you are insane. That's not a figure of
                speech. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I sincerely think
                that you suffer from many very serious delusions.

                You're only speaking for Christ if Christ is also insane.

                If you want to change opinion and the opinion of others
                'on this and other forums, you have to start answering
                questions. The fact that you don't do so is all the
                more reason to insist that you are, indeed, quite
                insane.

                Getting professional help would be a good first step.
              • Gerry M.
                ... You mean that when the Bible speaks of the Jordan river, there actually is no Jordan river? Ditto for the Dead Sea? Or when a writer considered it a
                Message 7 of 10 , Jun 2 4:36 PM
                  On 6/2/2012 9:44 AM, Randy C wrote:

                  > But the Bible is demonstrably wrong about EVERYTHING it
                  > says about the natural world.

                  You mean that when the Bible speaks of the Jordan river, there actually
                  is no Jordan river? Ditto for the Dead Sea? Or when a writer considered
                  it a miracle for an iron axe head to float on water, he should have
                  accepted that as natural because he didn't know that iron doesn't float
                  on water? Every miracle spoken of in the Bible is considered a miracle
                  precisely because they new that it was a violation of how things work in
                  the natural world.

                  > The Bible says that the Earth is flat. It's not.

                  Where does it say that?

                  > The Bible says that the Earth doesn't move. It does.

                  Where does it say that?

                  I guess you have never read any poetry and have no familiarity with
                  figurative language. The fact that an ancient writer uses
                  phenomenological language does not mean that the Bible is in conflict
                  with reality.

                  > It goes on and on.

                  Yup.
                • Randy C
                  ... Randy C: It s true that some of the geographical features mentioned in the Bible are true. That s sort of a trivial correspondence to the real world, don t
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jun 2 5:20 PM
                    > > Randy C:
                    > > But the Bible is demonstrably wrong about EVERYTHING it
                    > > says about the natural world.

                    > Gerry:
                    > You mean that when the Bible speaks of the Jordan river,
                    > there actually is no Jordan river? Ditto for the Dead
                    > Sea?

                    Randy C:
                    It's true that some of the geographical features mentioned
                    in the Bible are true.

                    That's sort of a trivial correspondence to the real
                    world, don't you agree? Aren't the names of things
                    assigned by humans? How's that different from assigning
                    the names of historical figures? If you insist on
                    saying that they are part of the natural world, I
                    guess I can't disagree, but I was referring more to
                    things that might be talked about in a physics text
                    book.

                    If the name of the river had changed, the Bible could
                    be viewed as wrong. That has happened too. I'm not
                    counting those as additional flaws in the Bible.

                    Should I?

                    > Or when a writer considered it a miracle for an iron
                    > axe head to float on water, he should have accepted
                    > that as natural because he didn't know that iron
                    > doesn't float on water?

                    Except for the fact that didn't really happen.

                    > Every miracle spoken of in the Bible is considered a
                    > miracle precisely because they new that it was a
                    > violation of how things work in the natural world.

                    But since none of those miracles actually happened
                    the Bible is, at best, half right. It describes
                    something that never happened and then calls that
                    mythical event a "miracle". How do you classify that
                    as being supported by the natural world or not?

                    > > The Bible says that the Earth is flat. It's not.

                    > Where does it say that?

                    One example: Daniel 4:10-11 which says that the king
                    "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...
                    reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the
                    earth's farthest bounds." If the earth were flat, a
                    sufficiently tall tree would be visible to "the earth's
                    farthest bounds," but this is impossible on a spherical
                    earth.

                    Similarly, in describing the temptation of Jesus by
                    Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, "Once again, the devil took
                    him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the
                    kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory."
                    Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth
                    were flat.

                    The same is true of Revelation 1:7: "Behold, he is
                    coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him..."

                    Furthermore, if you want to get into the nitty gritty
                    of the original languages, Isaiah 40:22 says:

                    "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth…"

                    But the word "circle" in the original Hebrew is
                    'chuwg'. That means compass or circuit which are
                    flat circles. The Hebrew word 'Duwr' - which means
                    'ball' or 'sphere' - is used elsewhere in Isaiah
                    but, significantly, not in this verse.

                    > > The Bible says that the Earth doesn't move. It does.

                    > Where does it say that?

                    1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

                    Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."

                    Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."

                    Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so
                    that it never can be shaken."

                    Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and
                    himself fixed it fast..."

                    > I guess you have never read any poetry and have no
                    > familiarity with figurative language.

                    Here are the rules for Creationist interpretation of the
                    Bible. You are already up to step 10. Congratulations.

                    1. Open up a Bible. Any Bible. As you'll see it doesn't
                    really make any difference.

                    2. Read a passage.

                    3. Ask yourself, "Does this passage say what I want it
                    to say?"

                    4. If the answer to this question is `Yes', then accept
                    it and then marvel at the "clear message" given by the
                    Bible. <nudge, nudge> <wink, wink> Then proceed to the
                    next passage in the Bible.

                    5. If the answer to the question in step 3 is `No',
                    then read versions of that passage in other translations.
                    (On-line resources such as www.biblegateway.com have more
                    than 20 English translations.) Each translation differs
                    slightly within just about every passage. The King James
                    Version is especially useful here because it uses a much
                    earlier version of English.

                    6. As you read those various translations, ask yourself,
                    "Did I just find a translation that matches what I want
                    the Bible to say?"

                    7. If the answer to this question at any point is `Yes',
                    then accept it, once again tell yourself how the Bible
                    provides such a "clear message". Go onto the next passage
                    either in the new translation you just found or the
                    original one you had been using. As we see, it doesn't
                    make any difference.

                    8. If, after reading through numerous translations in
                    your native language (English, for example) and you
                    still haven't found one that has the passage saying what
                    you want it to say, go back to the original language in
                    which that passage was written. (If you are not
                    familiar with those languages, it is no real bother.
                    A little bit of research over the Internet will give
                    you the answer because others who are familiar with
                    those languages have probably struggled with that passage
                    as well.)

                    9. Because of vocabulary differences with modern languages,
                    many of the words in the original languages had multiple
                    possible meanings. By taking different combinations of
                    those different meanings in each word in each Biblical
                    passage you can likely come up with a combination that
                    is nothing like what you read in the translations
                    from a modern language. If there is a two word phrase
                    that bothers you, often if you go back to the original
                    language and do something like adopting the third usage
                    for the first word and the eighth usage for the second
                    word, you will find a combination that is acceptable to
                    you (while being totally different from any of the
                    translations into your modern language). So, once again,
                    you move on after telling yourself about the "clear
                    message" that you got from the Bible.

                    10. If all else fails, say that the passage was intended
                    to be read "poetically". (Answers in Genesis is very
                    fond of using this tactic.) Effectively you are ignoring
                    the issue. But: Problem solved! You've once again
                    discovered that the Bible says exactly what you wanted
                    it to say. Congratulations on being such a Biblical
                    scholar!

                    > The fact that an ancient writer uses phenomenological
                    > language does not mean that the Bible is in conflict
                    > with reality.

                    What you are arguing is that you can get ANY message
                    that you want from the Bible.

                    I agree. You can get ANY message you want from the
                    Bible.

                    But a book that can say anything actually says NOTHING!

                    Effectively you are arguing that the Bible is utterly
                    useless.

                    I agree.

                    The Bible is utterly useless.

                    > > It goes on and on.

                    > Yup.

                    Indeed!
                  • Katherine Trammell
                    The bible is so wrong about everything including the SUN REVOLVING AROUND THE EARTH, AND THE EARTH BEING FLAT THAT ONE REALLY WONDERS WHY AND HOW THE XIANS
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jun 3 2:01 AM
                      The bible is so wrong about everything including the SUN REVOLVING AROUND THE EARTH, AND THE EARTH BEING FLAT THAT ONE REALLY WONDERS WHY AND HOW THE XIANS BELIEVE ANYTHING IN THE BIBLE! HOW DOES ONE BELIEVE IN LIES AND BS AND HAVE A CLEAR CONSCIOUS? 

                      The bible got it wrong, it was not the RED Sea, it was the Reed Sea...and there were NEVER any Jewish slaves who build the pyramid; no Jews who left Egypt, no Jews who wandered around the Sinai for 40 years....and No parting of the RED SEA, no entire Egyptian Army and a PHAROAH who died when the bogus Red Sea parted....

                      ITS ALL SUCH A FAIRY TALE AND A BUNCH OF BOGUS CRAP THAT ONE WONDERS HOW YOU PEOPLE INSIST ON BELIEVING IN THIS FRAUD AND FORGERY. 



                       
                      "The social theory of ethics substitutes "society" for God-and although it claims that its chief concern is life on earth, it is not the life of man, not the life of an individual, but the life of a disembodied entity, the collective, which, in relation to every individual, consists of  everybody except himself. As far as the individual is concerned, his ethical duty is to be the selfless, voiceless, rightless slave of any need, claim or demand asserted by others (or someone who claims to be a victim). The motto "dog eat dog"-which is not applicable to capitalism nor to dogs-is applicable to the social theory of ethics. The existential monuments to this theory are Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia." - The Virtue of selfishness, by Ayn Rand


                      Objectivism - the philosophy of Ayn Rand. "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." - Ayn Rand


                      ________________________________
                      From: Gerry M. <emerald67@...>
                      To: creationism@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2012 6:36 PM
                      Subject: Re: [creat] Re: The Bible and the Second Law



                      On 6/2/2012 9:44 AM, Randy C wrote:

                      > But the Bible is demonstrably wrong about EVERYTHING it
                      > says about the natural world.

                      You mean that when the Bible speaks of the Jordan river, there actually
                      is no Jordan river?  Ditto for the Dead Sea? Or when a writer considered
                      it a miracle for an iron axe head to float on water, he should have
                      accepted that as natural because he didn't know that iron doesn't float
                      on water?  Every miracle spoken of in the Bible is considered a miracle
                      precisely because they new that it was a violation of how things work in
                      the natural world.

                      > The Bible says that the Earth is flat. It's not.

                      Where does it say that?

                      > The Bible says that the Earth doesn't move. It does.

                      Where does it say that?

                      I guess you have never read any poetry and have no familiarity with
                      figurative language. The fact that an ancient writer uses
                      phenomenological language does not mean that the Bible is in conflict
                      with reality.

                      > It goes on and on.

                      Yup.


                      ------------------------------------

                      Post message: creationism@yahoogroups.com
                      Online: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationismYahoo! Groups Links



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Katherine Trammell
                      Well, of course they have to change their tune about the young earth creationism, because these dumb, lying christians have so much proof heaped on their heads
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jun 3 2:05 AM
                        Well, of course they have to change their tune about the young earth creationism, because these dumb, lying christians have so much proof heaped on their heads that science is a FACT and the bible is just a bunch of bogus forgeries, frauds, and copies of previous religions....that when they finally wake up, they find they have been lied to for 2000 years. I dare any Christian to sit down an study WHERE and WHAT OTHER RELIGIONS....fairy tales, fables, legends, from OTHER RELIGIONS....the bible was copied from. I dare you. And you will find that that the bible is just a copy of other religions that existed long before Judaism. 

                        The bible is so wrong about everything including the SUN REVOLVING AROUND THE EARTH, AND THE EARTH BEING FLAT THAT ONE REALLY WONDERS WHY AND HOW THE XIANS BELIEVE ANYTHING IN THE BIBLE! HOW DOES ONE BELIEVE IN LIES AND BS AND HAVE A CLEAR CONSCIOUS? 

                        The bible got it wrong, it was not the RED Sea, it was the Reed Sea...and there were NEVER any Jewish slaves who build the pyramid; no Jews who left Egypt, no Jews who wandered around the Sinai for 40 years....and No parting of the RED SEA, no entire Egyptian Army and a PHAROAH who died when the bogus Red Sea parted....

                        ITS ALL SUCH A FAIRY TALE AND A BUNCH OF BOGUS CRAP THAT ONE WONDERS HOW YOU PEOPLE INSIST ON BELIEVING IN THIS FRAUD AND FORGERY. 

                         
                        "The social theory of ethics substitutes "society" for God-and although it claims that its chief concern is life on earth, it is not the life of man, not the life of an individual, but the life of a disembodied entity, the collective, which, in relation to every individual, consists of  everybody except himself. As far as the individual is concerned, his ethical duty is to be the selfless, voiceless, rightless slave of any need, claim or demand asserted by others (or someone who claims to be a victim). The motto "dog eat dog"-which is not applicable to capitalism nor to dogs-is applicable to the social theory of ethics. The existential monuments to this theory are Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia." - The Virtue of selfishness, by Ayn Rand


                        Objectivism - the philosophy of Ayn Rand. "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." - Ayn Rand


                        ________________________________
                        From: VictorM <godsriddle@...>
                        To: creationism@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2012 1:00 AM
                        Subject: [creat] Re: The Bible and the Second Law


                         
                        --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > Victor M"
                        > > Graphic for this post is located at:
                        > > http://www.godsriddle.info/2012/06/bible-and-second-law.html
                        > > [snip - same delusional nonsense as always]
                        > > Changing Earth Creationists...
                        >
                        > Randy C:
                        > Why do you use the plural form of "creationist"? There
                        > is only ONE "Changing Earth Creationist". That would be
                        > YOU.
                        >

                        Actually I got an email this morning from a man who was a bible institute president. After having read my CEC essays for a few years, he now claims that he has stopped accepting young earth creationism and is now a changing earth creationist.

                        He now travels around doing seminars on bible doctrine. He tells me that one of the things he does is recommends my writing on changing earth creationists interpretation of the Bible and earth history.

                        > > ...believe that someday, when our obedience is complete,
                        > > we will use the word of God to bring down science
                        > > itself.
                        >
                        > But that is impossible. Science works everywhere. Even
                        > you admit that science works locally.
                        >

                        1. It only works within the domain of its assumption and only locally. The assumption is used to define undetectable things that are used circularly locally for measuring units, methods, laws and mathematical constants.

                        2. However, since none of these work in the distant past, they have had to fill the universe up with myths about invisible things . . . .

                        > That's the only place that it has to work.
                        >
                        > Even if, in some alternate universe, you convinced people
                        > that science didn't work in some distant galaxy, no one
                        > would care.
                        >
                        > Why should they?
                        >

                        Your destiny (glory or fire) hangs in the balance. You reject the biblical creator because you interpret the universe and earth history with the assumption the Bible predicted for the last days.

                        Yet if we simply accept visible cosmic history using light, not mathematics, we can see the creation of the universe as it happened long ago - exactly as described in the Bible.

                        > There would probably be a small clique of scientists
                        > that would be intensely interested.
                        >
                        > But why would 99.999% of the population give a crap?
                        > All they are interested in is having science work
                        > locally. If someone sitting on a park bench can
                        > text to their best friend, that's all they need or
                        > want.
                        >
                        > So the claim that your ideas would "bring down science"
                        > even if [cough, cough] there was a shred of validity
                        > to them is utterly laughable.
                        >

                        My ideas have no importance. The words that are powerful for the destruction of science are God's words - as found in the Bible. It is He who says He will make fools of the wise of this age. He is the one who says He is taking the wise with their own skills. It is He who says man cannot come to Him through their wisdom - only child-like faith in His word.

                        He will get great glory when His Word vanquishes science.

                        Victor




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