Author Topic: The “Big Bang” Theory  (Read 1853 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8275
  • Manna: 300
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #105 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 08:32:54 »
Now you are gonna get the Titus 3:10-11 deal from Buff.  Maybe you also suffer from "Mad Church Disease!"   rofl


But I wear my mask, I just don't understand.  ???

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #105 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 08:32:54 »

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5116
  • Manna: 49
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #106 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 09:46:51 »
Quote
As I have said many times before, if you want to take the message of Genesis, chapters 1-3, to be a literal description of the events of creation, you certainly have every right to do that.  But you do not have the right to so distort, manipulate and misrepresent all the scientific information, data and evidence which God has made available to us and then to ridicule those of us who have chosen not to do so; especially when there is a perfectly good explanation of how both the six 24-hour days and 14 billion years can both be simultaneously true.

To the contrary, we all have the God given right to do as we please with the testimony of scientists, and the word of God. As is obvious from this thread. Which source of information is of a higher rank and authority than the other, God's word or the observations of fallen humanity including those who deny God
concerning His creation? Is the testimony of our Lord and Savior, His prophets, and apostles the truth of God, or the observations of fallen humanity in what they term "science"? We know what the word itself says and proclaims.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

God is not a liar. He did not lack the ability to explain to humanity deep time scenarios of progressive evolution which He employed to bring about what is. Nor was or is humanity to mentally deficient to comprehend such simple concepts. Such a notion is beyond silly.

God did not tell humanity that He created the world in six day because they couldn't handle the truth, as many "Christian scientists" of today proclaim. This as though they are now the ones who can handle the truth, and therefore obviously the new proponents and originators of the truth humanity simply couldn't handle until they revealed it. Nor did God force a day of worship upon His chosen in this world, backing up a made up story given to them because they just couldn't handle the truth like "scientists" today can. Even punishing them several times for not observing this fake sabbath representing something that never happened as God described it through His chosen prophets. No, this is not the case.

The case is just as God's word has recorded it, and the "scientists" are just some of those being and practicing exactly what God's word determined for them in these times as prophesied in that word.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


What do evolutionists claim but that all things have continued as they are for countless millions of years, slowly changing into what now is over billions of years. What do they deny but the creation of the world
by the word of God, and that the things which are seen, were not made of things which do appear. To the contrary, they declare that one thing came from another from another and on and on. That humanity itself is the result of one creeping thing unto another unto four footed beasts unto another unto humanity. What are they willingly ignorant of but that the previous world created by the word of God was destroyed by water as evidenced in mass graveyards the world over. Denying all such testimony from the word of God given to humanity by inspiration of God, profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect. Discarding all of this for their own determinations regarding what they can observe and then deduce from what is. Are they not the proud, heady, high minded, boasters, described in the above scriptures who thinking themselves wise became fools believing in the visions of their own vain imaginations over the sure word of God?

How do these "Christian scientists" think they can determine the truth according to the evidence, when according to scripture which they claim to believe, humanity is not even privy to gobs of evidence necessary to deduce truth. According to the word of God there are dimensions right around, underneath, and on top of us filled with living beings we cannot even see, comprehend, or detect. What else do these dimensions contain or consist of that we are completely oblivious to, which most obviously would and does greatly impede our ability to observe and deduce "scientific" truth or theory by? We no doubt cannot even begin to imagine the extent of disadvantage due to lack of information, "scientists" of this box of reality we exist within, are subject to because of the same. They constantly make revisions to their theories based upon increased information even now within this box, just imagine what changes would have to be made concerning dimensions of existence we no absolutely nothing about all around us.

Of course, these "Christian scientists" may just deny these biblical truths as well. Choosing to limit their understanding to the present visible world, which God's word has descried as a passing vapor or puff of smoke. So be it.


Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5116
  • Manna: 49
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #107 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 10:00:22 »
Why are our personal posts constantly being trashed with adds, which we cannot even delete now. Aren't all the adds all over every page in between posts enough? Why should the train of thought posters take time to write and convey, be constantly interrupted with stupid adds no cares about? There are plenty of adds between posts.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #107 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 10:00:22 »

Online Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12765
  • Manna: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #108 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 11:01:02 »
Why are our personal posts constantly being trashed with adds, which we cannot even delete now. Aren't all the adds all over every page in between posts enough? Why should the train of thought posters take time to write and convey, be constantly interrupted with stupid adds no cares about? There are plenty of adds between posts.
That's not happening for anyone else.  You have some kind of adware/malware on your computer.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #108 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 11:01:02 »

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3138
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #109 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 14:30:28 »
RB:

    Your #99 reply to Alan is as good and actual as I or anyone else could arrange! Bless you, brother. And the remarks from 3 Resurrections, which you quoted, were excellent as well.

    Rest assured that 6 days from now, or perhaps I should say, billions of years from now in case my #6 is only figurative, I will declare the same!


"Carry On,"

Buff

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #109 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 14:30:28 »



Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3138
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #110 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 14:51:23 »
Alan:

    "Sorry to rehash this again but the literal 6 days thing is just a very weak interpretation of the creation account. Moreover, if you tried to convince ANYONE with a credible background in science that the world was made in 6 days, just 6000 years ago it would be YOU that would be donning a straight jacket."

    Well, Alan, let's turn the tables around. "Moreover, if you tried to convince anyone with a credible background in biblical enlightenment that the world is billions of years old, it would be you who would be donning a straight jacket.

    I have had 34 years experience in psychiatric institutions as a psychiatric aide, and I think you would be a stimulating candidate, whether admitted for 6 days or billions of years. Your psychiatrist, however, would need to determine the in-depth meaning of "6 days."

Buff
« Last Edit: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 22:07:57 by Reformer »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #110 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 14:51:23 »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10633
  • Manna: 305
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #111 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 15:04:38 »
God is not a liar. He did not lack the ability to explain to humanity deep time scenarios of progressive evolution which He employed to bring about what is. Nor was or is humanity to mentally deficient to comprehend such simple concepts. Such a notion is beyond silly.
Ecc 1:5  Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again. I would seem that you have no choice but to understand that the sun revolves around the earth as is perfectly well described here in Ecclesiastes.  Clearly, God is not a liar. He did not lack the ability to explain to humanity the workings of the solar system which He Himself established (Gen 1:14-19).  Nor was or is humanity to mentally deficient to comprehend such simple concepts. Such a notion is beyond silly.  Therefore if you believe that the earth revolving on its axis is the cause of day and night then you clearly reject God's own testimony.

I could cite the testimony found in Joshua chapter 10 to further add to the truth of the earth centric nature of the solar system, for we know that it was the sun that God caused to stand still, not the earth.  But the additional evidence shouldn't be required for one such as you who definitely knows God's thinking in all His revelations to man.

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5116
  • Manna: 49
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #112 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 17:24:02 »
That's not happening for anyone else.  You have some kind of adware/malware on your computer.

So the adds I see in others posts are just on my computer as well? I guess I'll have to get some kind of aware/malware deleter.

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5116
  • Manna: 49
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #113 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 17:34:53 »
Ecc 1:5  Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again. I would seem that you have no choice but to understand that the sun revolves around the earth as is perfectly well described here in Ecclesiastes.  Clearly, God is not a liar. He did not lack the ability to explain to humanity the workings of the solar system which He Himself established (Gen 1:14-19).  Nor was or is humanity to mentally deficient to comprehend such simple concepts. Such a notion is beyond silly.  Therefore if you believe that the earth revolving on its axis is the cause of day and night then you clearly reject God's own testimony.

I could cite the testimony found in Joshua chapter 10 to further add to the truth of the earth centric nature of the solar system, for we know that it was the sun that God caused to stand still, not the earth.  But the additional evidence shouldn't be required for one such as you who definitely knows God's thinking in all His revelations to man.

We have addressed your silly use of this verse before more than once. People still use those terms today regularly, few if any of whom believe the sun revolves around the earth. Nor would it mean that humanity was not capable of understanding deep time evolutionary scenarios, even if that is what people believed back then. Your point is moot. I know you think you are much more intelligent than those people back then, I just don't agree with that sentiment. More knowledgable concerning certain things perhaps, but not more intelligent.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #113 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 17:34:53 »

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8275
  • Manna: 300
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #114 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 18:39:17 »
Well, Alan, let's turn the tables around. "Moreover, if you tried to convince anyone with a credible background in biblical enlightenment that the world is billions of years old, it would be you who would be donning a straight jacket.
Not so, I know many people that have been involved in Church for a long time that full well agree with science's decree on the age of the Universe.

   
Quote
I have had 34 years experience in psychiatric institutions as a psychiatric aide,
and I think you would be a stimulating candidate,


I doubt you're very good at it, but if you can "make" people understand your methods you may have felt accomplished.  rofl

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Manna: 653
  • Definitely 7. Approaching 8
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #115 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 20:00:33 »

 Our own solar system is less than 5 billion years old.

Then why did it take so long for LittleFoot to appear? OrArdi?

Little Foot is not the oldest hominin skeleton ever found - that honour goes to Ardi, a hominin that lived in Ethiopia 4.4 million years ago. But Little Foot is significantly more complete than Ardi, and may be more informative.

https://www.sciencealert.com/little-foot-australopithecus-hominid-oldest-most-complete-south-africa#:~:text=It%20belongs%20to%20the%20genus,ever%20found%20in%20South%20Africa.

Though these old fossils seem to prove your less then 5 billion years of our age.
They are not close to resembling anything human like.

Researchers at UCLA and the University of Wisconsin–Madison have confirmed that microscopic fossils discovered in a nearly 3.5 billion-year-old piece of rock in Western Australia are the oldest fossils ever found and indeed the earliest direct evidence of life on Earth.

The study describes 11 microbial specimens from five separate taxa, linking their morphologies to chemical signatures that are characteristic of life. Some represent now-extinct bacteria and microbes from a domain of life called Archaea, while others are similar to microbial species still found today. The findings also suggest how each may have survived on an oxygen-free planet.

https://news.wisc.edu/oldest-fossils-found-show-life-began-before-3-5-billion-years-ago/#:~:text=Researchers%20at%20UCLA%20and%20the,evidence%20of%20life%20on%20Earth.

All that time....And God waited until 6,000 or 7,000 years ago to form Adam from the ground... who is all of our ancestor... if we each could trace back far enough.


Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3138
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #116 on: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 20:54:51 »
Alan:

    "Not so, I know many people that have been involved in Church for a long time that full well agree with science's decree on the age of the Universe."

    Your usage of "Church" has nothing to do with our dialogue on this subject. If, however, you would like to hear more from me about "Mad Church Disease" within the next "six days," I have a bushel of notes left.

    But if you decipher my "six days" as 6 billion years, I'll send the Patty Wagon over to pick you up and drop you off at the nearest Funny Farm. You will be home there, because it was constructed primarily for scoffers and skeptics to last 6 billion years.

Buff  rofl
« Last Edit: Sat Aug 01, 2020 - 21:04:00 by Reformer »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10633
  • Manna: 305
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #117 on: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 03:02:38 »
We have addressed your silly use of this verse before more than once. People still use those terms today regularly, few if any of whom believe the sun revolves around the earth.
But those who understand that the sun does not revolve around the earth know that because of the testimony of scientists, not because of the testimony of the Scriptures.
Quote from: Amo[size=10pt
Nor would it mean that humanity was not capable of understanding deep time evolutionary scenarios, even if that is what people believed back then. [/size]
If humanity back then were capable of understanding deep time evolutionary scenarios of the universe, then they certainly would be capable of understanding that day and night had nothing whatsoever to do with the motion of the sun.  But in fact it wasn't until the 1500s that such knowledge became readily acceptable within all of Christendom.
Quote from: Amo
Your point is moot.
No my point is not moot.  It is spot on.  It is just that in the case of the relative motions of the solar system you have decided that the testimony of the scientists is of a higher rank than that of the Scriptures.  In this case you fall prey to the very thing for which you castigate me with repulsive abuse.  You of course won't admit it but it is clearly true.
Quote from: Amo
I know you think you are much more intelligent than those people back then, I just don't agree with that sentiment. More knowledgable concerning certain things perhaps, but not more intelligent.
You know nothing of the sort.  I have never made such a claim.  I have never thought it to be so. There is nothing in Scripture that would even suggest such a thing.  And you should be ashamed to even make that assertion.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10633
  • Manna: 305
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #118 on: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 03:11:39 »
Then why did it take so long for LittleFoot to appear? OrArdi?
.....
.....
And God waited until 6,000 or 7,000 years ago to form Adam from the ground... who is all of our ancestor... if we each could trace back far enough.
What is a few billion years in this physical universe to our God who literally exists outside of time?

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10633
  • Manna: 305
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #119 on: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 03:20:36 »
But if you decipher my "six days" as 6 billion years, I'll send the Patty Wagon over to pick you up and drop you off at the nearest Funny Farm. You will be home there, because it was constructed primarily for scoffers and skeptics to last 6 billion years.
Buff, there are places in the Milky Way galaxy where fewer than six days have passed since the creation of man.  For every photon in the universe, there is no passage of time; time literally stands still.  But I doubt that carries any meaningful significance with you.

Online RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7717
  • Manna: 382
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #120 on: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 05:25:49 »
Yes, this indeed does need correcting. Buff very clearly said that if God told him that he created the world in 14 billion years he would escort him (God) to the nearest funny farm.
I did miss those words, sorry that I did. Nevertheless, Alan, I will add these words based on Paul's confession:
Quote from: Paul
Galatians 1:8~"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Brother, the written word of God is God's testimony to us of TRUTH, even if an angel from heaven came down with the tongue ever so eloquent and said one word that is NOT RECORDED, or said one-word CONTRARY to what IS recorded I would refuse to hear him (I pray that I would)~for the word of God ONCE GIVEN is forever settled in heaven and cannot be spoken against.
Quote from: king David
Psalm 119:89~"For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven."
Quote from: 4WD Reply #103 on: Yesterday at 06:45:40
So then when you read that "God made..." and "God created...." and "God said, 'Let there be...' ", you consider all those to mean the same thing.  That doesn't seem to me to be very discerning of you.
Brother, I see very little difference between the three phrases~if you would like to break it down in the way you see them different then I would consider your position, but I see no reason to interpret them to have three different meaning~if you make something out of nothing then you have created something~yes God made Adam from dirt, yet from dirt he CREATED a living being with a soul and spirit~you or some else can play with dirt until the cows come home and would never be able to create a LIVING BEING~and if you can, then I would fall down and worship you~but I have no fear of ever doing such thing, I will ONLY worship Him who CAN make stones to cry out and worship him.
Quote from: 4WD Reply #103 on: Yesterday at 06:45:40
It does seem to me that if God meant to say that He created the light, He would have said He created the light and not some strange wording like "Let there be light".  I am curious, when He "created light" on day one (Gen 1:3) , where did that light come from?  What was the difference between that light and the light which appeared on day four (Gen 1:14-19)? Was it just a bunch of photons running all around on day one?
On day one (which I understand Genesis 1 as the due process in which God chose to create~NO hidden time gap in between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 as many believe and labor to teach.) on day one when he created the heaven and the earth, and AS YOU CORRECTLY SAID:
Quote
Was it just a bunch of photons running all around on day one?
Not sure if they were just running all around but were there~and what are photons ? are they not some form of light?  You are much wiser than I am when it comes to physics~I am truly clueless, to be honest.

I have given myself to studying the scriptures not science for true science is found in the scriptures, and if the scriptures and science disagree at any point, then science immediately  takes on the term:  "science falsely so called".
Quote from: Paul
1st Timothy 6:20~"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"
« Last Edit: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 05:29:22 by RB »

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8275
  • Manna: 300
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #121 on: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 06:20:13 »

    But if you decipher my "six days" as 6 billion years, I'll send the Patty Wagon over to pick you up and drop you off at the nearest Funny Farm. You will be home there, because it was constructed primarily for scoffers and skeptics to last 6 billion years.



Those are not your 6 days, it is a vs from the Bible that has no clear meaning or understanding on the time involved, so hold off your patty wagon and maybe try to get a grip on the BS you are spewing.

« Last Edit: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 06:35:10 by Alan »

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8275
  • Manna: 300
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #122 on: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 06:27:00 »
I did miss those words, sorry that I did.


Thanks Red

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10633
  • Manna: 305
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #123 on: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 06:55:54 »
I have given myself to studying the scriptures not science for true science is found in the scriptures, and if the scriptures and science disagree at any point, then science immediately  takes on the term:  "science falsely so called".
Most science is not found in the scriptures at all.  There is nothing about molecules, electrons, protons or any of the subparticles; nothing about electromagnetism, nothing about chemistry, nothing about the science of biology; or anything else.  Now I would agree that the scriptures and any aspect of science indicated do not disagree.  However one's interpretation of the scriptures as it relates to science may very will disagree.  That of course was what led to Giordano Bruno being burned at the stake and Galileo Galilei being sentenced to formal imprisonment which was commuted to house arrest for the rest of his life.

While Amo can object to the Scriptures referencing an earth-centric solar system, it is obvious that a strictly literal interpretation of several passage of Scripture does indeed point to that.  He and the rest of us choose not to subject those passages to a strictly literal interpretation and that based upon what we know from science and not from anything we read in Scripture.  I make a similar choice concerning much of the Genesis account of creation.

As to the three phrases, "God made..." and "God created...." and "God said, 'Let there be...' ", it is very sloppy exegesis not to understand the distinctions and interpret appropriately.  When the word "created" is used in conjunction with God, it means He created ex nihilo, i.e., created from nothing.  When it says that God "made" this or that, it means that an existing something was used in the process.  When it says, "let there be" this or that, there is no indication that God personally formed the object or the substance either from something or from nothing.  It is more of a "God permitted there to be" this or that.

I could give you an explanation from science what physically occurred at God's instruction of "Let there be light", but it probably would serve no real purpose.

And as to photons, they are more than light as you and I typically perceive light.  In fact of the total range of energy of photons, light as we see it comprises a very, very narrow range. Photons comprise the total range of the electromagnetic spectrum with the very low frequencies of radio waves at one end and the very high frequencies of gamma rays at the other end.
« Last Edit: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 06:58:49 by 4WD »

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Manna: 653
  • Definitely 7. Approaching 8
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #124 on: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 10:12:29 »
out of nothing then you have created something~yes God made Adam from dirt, yet from dirt he CREATED a living being with a soul and spirit~you or some else can play with dirt until the cows come home and would never be able to create a LIVING BEING~and if you can, then I would fall down and worship you~

. On day one (which I understand Genesis 1 as the due process in which God chose to create~NO hidden time gap in between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 as many believe and labor to teach.) on day one when he created the heaven and the earth,

I have given myself to studying the scriptures not science for true science is found in the scriptures, and if the scriptures and science disagree at any point, then science immediately  takes on the term:  "science falsely so called".

Red: FROM KJV Genesis

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Hebrew Interlinear  as others say heavens, plural . I will not post the link as I doubt you would read it)

No matter. There was a beginning.

We DO NOT know when that beginning was.

We DO NOT know why there was a beginning. For what purpose. (common sense tells us that if the earth was created for man
and man came to life on the earth, then what possible need would God have created all the galaxies and solar systems that is impossible, and will remain impossible for us to ever see?


2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

We DO NOT know when  the spirit moving upon the face of the waters?

We DO NOT know why the spirit was moving upon the face of the waters.

We do know there was darkness and the earth itself had no form as yet.

We DO not know definitively if the earth was part of all the heavenly creations of God from the beginning , or if it was an add on.

We can surmise it was from the beginning with all else simply because the Spirit  of God moved upon the face of the waters
as if seeking somewhere to set things in motion.

But again... WE cannot pin point a time of that.


3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

God created light before any creation of at least our solar system.

Why? Did He have a specific plan or was He just starting a new hobby?

We still DO NOT know when light was created WE ONLY KNOW THAT


5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

YES... Moses ( or the author)  called it day one.

But we DO NOT know how long it was from day one until day two. Was it merely 24 hours or was it 1000 years and a 1000 years is to God as a day.

Moving right along


6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

I am always amazed that there is all this water..... but I digress.

We still DO NOT know when in creation the heaven came to be. 

Are there heavens in other galaxies and solar systems that we will never see, for surely if God parted the waters to create the
heaven(s) here... would that not also be where we can never be?

And this is day 2.  A mere 48 hours from the Spirit hovering over the waters or could it be 2000 years God's time?


9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

So now God gets very creative. He made the dry land (Earth) . Grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so and then this the evening and the morning were the third day.

Now we still DO NOT know when vegetation was actually created. 72 hours from the Spirit hovering above the waters or
3000 years Gods time.

It is at this point I will interject that I have been suggesting Gods time simply because that has been suggested in 2 Peter 3:8.

It well could have been much more... and I suspect it was at this point.. but I cannot accept the billions and billions of years
for earth.

I suspect all else could have been done billions and billions of years before earth came into God's thoughts and that the Spirit was hovering over the waters scouting out a good position for it. ( Subject for another time)


14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Does it surprise you , in reading this again... that God gave 2 entire days into the importance of LIGHT?

Day 1 and day 4

And the expressed detail in the explanation of the day 4 lighting creations... that came after growing things were growing in day 3.

I see this as a definite plan now starting to be fulfilled.

We are told
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

This is not needed for vegetation. Not to this degree.

And this day 4 could well have been and extremely long period of time after things were growing.

48 hours, 4000 years , or even 4 million years.

For all we know earths original creation with vegetation could well have been for God's personal herb garden.

It is from this point forward that life came into being.

We DO NOT know how long from day 3 that day 4 happened.

We DO NOT know how long after day four was completed that life came about.

From this point on I have my own theories. They will remain with me , for a time and a season.

Now...having said all of this I do believe that Adam was formed from the dust of the ground and God breathed life into him
and we all are alive today because of him and that was around 6,000 or 7,000 give or take years ago... but the other stuff...
YOU can not prove.

Here iss a biggie to consider.... What if Moses ( or whoever wrote it) got it wrong.

What if the word day he wrote down wrong.

What if instead of "the evening and the morning were DAY one... etc"

it said

the evening and the morning were step one....?????????????????????????????????????????????

Hebrew Interlinear says
And said God, and divided [it was] good that the light - God  and saw day the light God And called the darkness and between the light between morning and there was evening and there was night and the darkness He called - the first day

Strongs Hebrew

י֥וֹם אֶחָֽד׃פ

And there was evening and there was morning a fifth day.












Online RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7717
  • Manna: 382
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #125 on: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 13:42:45 »
Rella, I think that I have finally diagnosed your illness..."doublethink syndrome" which is to know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it.

Examples of doublethink syndrome: Even to understand the word~doublethink~involved the use of doublethink.”Four examples of doublethink that are often used: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and 2 + 2 = 5.

Do I need to take your post and prove my point~or, should I call Bluff and see if he has more room in the van? I love you, but man oh man, you need help. 
« Last Edit: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 13:45:06 by RB »

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Manna: 653
  • Definitely 7. Approaching 8
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #126 on: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 14:01:34 »
Rella, I think that I have finally diagnosed your illness..."doublethink syndrome" which is to know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it.

Examples of doublethink syndrome: Even to understand the word~doublethink~involved the use of doublethink.”Four examples of doublethink that are often used: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and 2 + 2 = 5.

Do I need to take your post and prove my point~or, should I call Bluff and see if he has more room in the van? I love you, but man oh man, you need help.

Red,

You are far too set in your ways,and possible age to understand.

I know over the years when ever things that you cannot comprehend or make fit into your tidy YE package of creation you dismiss it as being not real.

For example.

You told me I have a mutant gene of mud.

Yes, you did. last year sometime when there was a discussion and I mentioned my
DNA results came back  ( I actually did from 3 different companies) and the one mentioned I had more Neanderthal variants then 92% of the other people who had submitted for testing.

You said there were no neanderthal and when I asked why that showed up in me you said "dirt".  I can find it for you...might take a while but will look if you want to see what you said.

For you, when you cannot fit something into your package, it simply was never.
There are a lot of things that have been found by explorers and archaeologists over the years that simply cannot have been around Adam and later.

I am not going to argue these points with you, but just because you cannot see it or understand it does not make it not so

Online Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12765
  • Manna: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #127 on: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 15:08:06 »
We DO NOT know why the spirit was moving upon the face of the waters.
This one we should know from grammatical context.  "Moving" is kind of an underwhelming translation (not wrong, just underwhelming).  The Hebrew means the spirit is "stirring up" the waters.  It carries the idea that it is generating wind/waves, the way a bird might by flapping its wings in its roost.  This is meant to give the idea of HOW God is dividing waters from waters, which we see later in the same chapter.

We DO not know definitively if the earth was part of all the heavenly creations of God from the beginning, or if it was an add on.
The text gives the answer to this question, but it may be difficult to see without looking at comparative literature.

The common cosmology for ancient Mesopotamia sets forth two separate acts of creation.  The first is the creation of material from nothing.  The second is the formation of that material into the shape per-determined by God's plan.

So, as the text states, first there was creation and it was "without form" and later it was formed into discreet layers.

But again... WE cannot pin point a time of that.
Indeed.  The chapter is structured in such a way as to begin with a feeling of chaos and timelessness, and to grow more and more orderly as the creation is "formed."

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

God created light before any creation of at least our solar system.
The idea of a solar system is foreign to this text and shouldn't be injected here.  The correct historical context to bring in here would be a Hebrew cosmology.  That looks like a stack with layers... there are typically multiple layers of heavenS, and below those a layer of earth, and below that 2 layers of water (oceans and abyss), and below those is sheol.

I am always amazed that there is all this water..... but I digress.
"Water" is a convenient translation for a Hebrew word that includes any matter that is "without form."  This includes all liquids and gases, not just water.

I suspect all else could have been done billions and billions of years before earth came into God's thoughts and that the Spirit was hovering over the waters scouting out a good position for it. ( Subject for another time)
As I said above, the "hovering" is itself a creative act.  It is, however, not an act of creative fiat - what I mean is, it isn't instantaneous in the way the spoken acts appear to be in English.  (They don't appear that way in Hebrew, but now I digress...)

Here is a biggie to consider.... What if Moses ( or whoever wrote it) got it wrong.

What if the word day he wrote down wrong.

What if instead of "the evening and the morning were DAY one... etc"

it said

the evening and the morning were step one....?????????????????????????????????????????????
It's unlikely the author got the "wrong word," because Hebrew doesn't work that way.  Hebrew may be phonetic, but it's still closely related to runic language, and each word stands for a PICTURE, and all the possible meanings that can be drawn from that picture. 

In English translations you only get one potential meaning per word (whichever one the translator thought was best/closest).  Even if the translator got the absolute best translation, he stillmissed out on part of the meaning, because in Hebrew, more than one of the meanings is correct, and the words in the sentence may be combined in different ways and both/all meanings are correct.

Jarrod

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3138
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #128 on: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 15:14:57 »
Alan:

    "Those are not your 6 days, it is a vs from the Bible that has no clear meaning or understanding on the time involved, so hold off your patty wagon and maybe try to get a grip on the BS you are spewing.

    Here, here, easy does it. Careful with the "BS." Those are my true initials. And because you are now dealing in profanity in a roundabout way, the Patty Wagon will be knocking on your six-billion year old door any moment. No, your waving a white flag won't help.

Buff

Online Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12765
  • Manna: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #129 on: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 15:15:21 »
As to the three phrases, "God made..." and "God created...." and "God said, 'Let there be...' ", it is very sloppy exegesis not to understand the distinctions and interpret appropriately.  When the word "created" is used in conjunction with God, it means He created ex nihilo, i.e., created from nothing.  When it says that God "made" this or that, it means that an existing something was used in the process.  When it says, "let there be" this or that, there is no indication that God personally formed the object or the substance either from something or from nothing.  It is more of a "God permitted there to be" this or that.
::clappingoverhead::

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Manna: 653
  • Definitely 7. Approaching 8
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #130 on: Sun Aug 02, 2020 - 18:46:31 »
I willtry to clarify myselfmore through out the following.

Quote
Quote from: Rella on Today at 10:12:29
We DO NOT know why the spirit was moving upon the face of the waters.

This one we should know from grammatical context.  "Moving" is kind of an underwhelming translation (not wrong, just underwhelming).  The Hebrew means the spirit is "stirring up" the waters.  It carries the idea that it is generating wind/waves, the way a bird might by flapping its wings in its roost.  This is meant to give the idea of HOW God is dividing waters from waters, which we see later in the same chapter.

Thank you. That makes a certain sense. But to one just casually reading it still brings a question to mind.But perhaps that is just me.

Quote
Quote from: Rella on Today at 10:12:29
We DO not know definitively if the earth was part of all the heavenly creations of God from the beginning, or if it was an add on.

The text gives the answer to this question, but it may be difficult to see without looking at comparative literature.

The common cosmology for ancient Mesopotamia sets forth two separate acts of creation.  The first is the creation of material from nothing.  The second is the formation of that material into the shape per-determined by God's plan.

Understood.

So, as the text states, first there was creation and it was "without form" and later it was formed into discreet layers.

Okay.and if discussing simply earth,fine. But I was making reference to all of everything in space as far as we can see and beyond where we will never go.
We truly have no way of knowing if where we cannot see and go came into being at the same time as our immediate neighborhood in space. Our 9 planet solar system.
I say not at the same time for the universe is always expanding.

For that matter, we can not truly know if Earth was made with the other 8 planets or was an add on.

I know I am being silly...but the sun and our moon came after earth ws and then the stars were added.

But obviously the sun was not needed,nor our moon, until there was a purpose for earth.




Indeed.  The chapter is structured in such a way as to begin with a feeling of chaos and timelessness, and to grow more and more orderly as the creation is "formed."

In 144  continual hours. ::pondering::

Quote
Quote from: Rella on Today at 10:12:29
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

God created light before any creation of at least our solar system.
The idea of a solar system is foreign to this text and shouldn't be injected here.  The correct historical context to bring in here would be a Hebrew cosmology.  That looks like a stack with layers... there are typically multiple layers of heavenS, and below those a layer of earth, and below that 2 layers of water (oceans and abyss), and below those is sheol.

Thank you for you clear explanation.


Quote
Quote from: Rella on Today at 10:12:29
I am always amazed that there is all this water..... but I digress.

"Water" is a convenient translation for a Hebrew word that includes any matter that is "without form."  This includes all liquids and gases, not just water.
Quote
Quote from: Rella on Today at 10:12:29
I suspect all else could have been done billions and billions of years before earth came into God's thoughts and that the Spirit was hovering over the waters scouting out a good position for it. ( Subject for another time)

As I said above, the "hovering" is itself a creative act.  It is, however, not an act of creative fiat - what I mean is, it isn't instantaneous in the way the spoken acts appear to be in English.  (They don't appear that way in Hebrew, but now I digress...)

I agree that the Spirit hovering was in a way a creative act for He was setting in motion the beginning of creation.

But still could have been a very longtime between day 1 and day 2.


Quote
Quote from: Rella on Today at 10:12:29
Here is a biggie to consider.... What if Moses ( or whoever wrote it) got it wrong.

What if the word day he wrote down wrong.

What if instead of "the evening and the morning were DAY one... etc"

it said

the evening and the morning were step one....?????????????????????????????????????????????

It's unlikely the author got the "wrong word," because Hebrew doesn't work that way.  Hebrew may be phonetic, but it's still closely related to runic language, and each word stands for a PICTURE, and all the possible meanings that can be drawn from that picture.

Okay. Assuming you are correct this still does not definitively say that was day one, was day two, was day three and so forth was 144 consecutive hours. It could have been day one...followed by a length if time, day two followed by a length of time etc.

But it is possible that Moses either got the inspiration wrong, was going by stories handed down word of mouth, or worded things to make sense.


In English translations you only get one potential meaning per word (whichever one the translator thought was best/closest).  Even if the translator got the absolute best translation, he stillmissed out on part of the meaning, because in Hebrew, more than one of the meanings is correct, and the words in the sentence may be combined in different ways and both/all meanings are correct.

Which is exactly why we have ended up with so many translations of the Bible.

If there are more then one meaning to day in Hebrew, the translators could have gotten it wrong.




Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Manna: 653
  • Definitely 7. Approaching 8
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #131 on: Mon Aug 03, 2020 - 08:17:31 »
Jarrod,

In continuing.....

I spent a lot of time last evening and this morning, not an entire day, in thought as to best express what I see as a problem with Moses use of the word day.

You said

Quote
It's unlikely the author got the "wrong word," because Hebrew doesn't work that way.  Hebrew may be phonetic, but it's still closely related to runic language, and each word stands for a PICTURE, and all the possible meanings that can be drawn from that picture.


In English translations you only get one potential meaning per word (whichever one the translator thought was best/closest).  Even if the translator got the absolute best translation, he stillmissed out on part of the meaning, because in Hebrew, more than one of the meanings is correct, and the words in the sentence may be combined in different ways and both/all meanings are correct.


If I were to say to you

He went out to run

Talib decided to go and run

or

The track team was seen running

I left the bath tub running

You would see same word far different meanings between the two examples.

How would the fact that  in Hebrew, more than one of the meanings is correct relate here if we were reading a sentence with run or running in Hebrew.

So Moses could well have written the word day because to him the word day may have meant period of time.

Let's look further for an explanation to this word day.

example:

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Right here is a conflict. Light is day but evening and morning were day 1.  ( evening and morning, without an afternoon made up one day)

8.... And the evening and the morning were the second day. ( While Hebrew Interlinear still says a second day this merely says the second day) This is without logical explanation that it is part of a continuous 144 hours.... ( or a week)

I still read this simply as explanation for a given space of time.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.  You get the idea.... evening and morning made up a day of creation or what ever term you want to place, but it was not a literal 24 hour day for it never said  from sundown to sundown as in the command of Sabbath rest.

So, in my quest to come up with why I believe that this use of the word day.... if that was a correct translation and assuming Moses wrote it as intended I just now... 8-3-2020 9:16 AM Eastern time .... ran into this article when looking for meanings of the simple word day....

From http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis.html

The Hebrew word yom1 has three literal meanings - a 12-hour period of time (sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour period of time from sunset to sunset (the Hebrew day), and an indefinite period of time.

The proper interpretation - from Genesis

Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding CreationA simple way to determine if the days are 12 hours, 24 hours or an indefinite period of time is to examine each of the days and see what the Bible says about the time it took for those days to happen. We will examine each day and see if Genesis indicates which interpretation is correct. In this page, we will consider the text of Genesis only and not rely upon any scientific information, about which we can not be absolutely sure of its accuracy.

Quite an interesting read......[/size]

I will leave you with just a hypothetical....

What if God said to Moses as He was inspiring him.... I want you to record things from the beginning.  I want you to record the 6 periods of time that it took Me and what I did in each.

And Moses listened, took notes, and proceeded to write. And recorded the order of things, but rather then saying  during the first time God did such and such and created, he simply wrote evening and morning were the first day... meaning time spent or time span. Since it was an incomplete 24 hour day....?

Nothing in this hypothetical changes the creation story. It simply makes it more real... to me
« Last Edit: Mon Aug 03, 2020 - 08:35:52 by Rella »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10633
  • Manna: 305
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #132 on: Mon Aug 03, 2020 - 08:35:43 »
So, in my quest to come up with why I believe that this use of the word day.... if that was a correct translation and assuming Moses wrote it as intended I just now... 8-3-2020 9:16 AM Eastern time .... ran into this article when looking for meanings of the simple word day....

From http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis.html

The Hebrew word yom1 has three literal meanings - a 12-hour period of time (sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour period of time from sunset to sunset (the Hebrew day), and an indefinite period of time.

For what it is worth, none of those three really fit its usage in Gen 2:4  These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, where, based upon the verses that follow, it refers to the full "six days" of creation.

Also Genesis 2:2 references the seventh day in which it says that He, God, rested from all His work which He had done.  There the work spoken of there was the work of creation.  Of course that fits the third meaning from godandscience.com, i.e., and indefinite period of time, provided the first six creation days also fit into the third meaning.

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Manna: 653
  • Definitely 7. Approaching 8
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #133 on: Mon Aug 03, 2020 - 12:58:26 »
For what it is worth, none of those three really fit its usage in Gen 2:4  These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, where, based upon the verses that follow, it refers to the full "six days" of creation.

Also Genesis 2:2 references the seventh day in which it says that He, God, rested from all His work which He had done.  There the work spoken of there was the work of creation.  Of course that fits the third meaning from godandscience.com, i.e., and indefinite period of time, provided the first six creation days also fit into the third meaning.

We, first, are talking about Gen 1: 1-3 for the most part. As we move into Gen 2 we get a continuation.

Still ...4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.....

Generations as in plural certainly says a long time.

Online Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12765
  • Manna: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #134 on: Yesterday at 14:08:00 »
Let's look further for an explanation to this word day.

example:

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Right here is a conflict. Light is day but evening and morning were day 1.  ( evening and morning, without an afternoon made up one day)

8.... And the evening and the morning were the second day. ( While Hebrew Interlinear still says a second day this merely says the second day) This is without logical explanation that it is part of a continuous 144 hours.... ( or a week)

I still read this simply as explanation for a given space of time.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.  You get the idea.... evening and morning made up a day of creation or what ever term you want to place, but it was not a literal 24 hour day for it never said  from sundown to sundown as in the command of Sabbath rest.
The Hebrew doesn't read that way at all.  It doesn't lay out a formula such as evening + morning = a day.  The tone here is one of storytelling, and everything is phrased in a way where each thing IS-HAPPENING-ONE-AFTER-ANOTHER.  It says there is an evening, and then (subsequent to the evening) there is a morning.  The next thing it says is "third day" and it reads more like a heading than part of the sentence.

Young's Literal Translation captures the meaning correctly:

And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed is in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that it is good; and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day third.

The wording of that turns out kind of ugly in English, but maybe you can see how each verb takes on a duration in the storytelling.  The earth is sprouting! the seed is being sewn! the tree is making fruit! God is looking at it and judging it good... there is an evening, there is a morning...  all of this is meant to create a feeling of time passing.  There is a lot happening!

The KJV may read like a historical account... God did X, Y, and Z... but the Hebrew is much more vibrant.  Things are popping up all over.


I will leave you with just a hypothetical....

What if God said to Moses as He was inspiring him.... I want you to record things from the beginning.  I want you to record the 6 periods of time that it took Me and what I did in each.

And Moses listened, took notes, and proceeded to write. And recorded the order of things, but rather then saying  during the first time God did such and such and created, he simply wrote evening and morning were the first day... meaning time spent or time span. Since it was an incomplete 24 hour day....?

Nothing in this hypothetical changes the creation story. It simply makes it more real... to me
Seems unlikely to me.  It just isn't written to be a "record from the beginning."  The way it is written is meant to cause the reader/hearer to experience the creation with wonder.  It's about "what will pop up next?" and most-of-all, it's about experiencing the elapse of time during the creation as a series of epochs.

I bet your sunday school teacher didn't tell you that!  ::noworries::

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Manna: 653
  • Definitely 7. Approaching 8
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #135 on: Yesterday at 15:03:09 »
The Hebrew doesn't read that way at all.  It doesn't lay out a formula such as evening + morning = a day.  The tone here is one of storytelling, and everything is phrased in a way where each thing IS-HAPPENING-ONE-AFTER-ANOTHER.  It says there is an evening, and then (subsequent to the evening) there is a morning.  The next thing it says is "third day" and it reads more like a heading than part of the sentence.

Young's Literal Translation captures the meaning correctly:

And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed is in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that it is good; and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day third.

Spin it as a story or spin it as a chronological list of event does not discount that
what you call a formula is any different then and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day third.

The wording of that turns out kind of ugly in English, but maybe you can see how each verb takes on a duration in the storytelling.  The earth is sprouting! the seed is being sewn! the tree is making fruit! God is looking at it and judging it good... there is an evening, there is a morning... all of this is meant to create a feeling of time passing. There is a lot happening!

Great... a feeling of time passing.....  I agree... but I likely call it more time passing then you do.

As to the evening and morning  day thing all you have posted agrees with each other.

As to the English making it ugly.... Wellllllllll........ They have a much brusker way with words then almost any other language.... I wont comment on King Jimmys men and what I think they did....
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 19:02:54 by Wycliffes_Shillelagh »

Online Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12765
  • Manna: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #136 on: Yesterday at 19:18:34 »
I wont comment on King Jimmys men and what I think they did....
They honestly deserve a lot more credit than blame. 

At the time the translation was originally done, English had neither standardized spelling nor grammar.  The King James Bible became the standard for both, and was used as THE textbook of the English language for more than 2 centuries.  Without it, English as we know it does not exist.

Not to say that it's perfect.  They definitely made some errors.  They insisted on a 100% word-for-word translation method... but such a methodology only works about 70% of the time.  So they lost a lot of meaning in their translation.  They translated the historical-present into past tense, which is just flat wrong.  They were (purportedly) pressured to use some ecclesiastical jargon (e.g. "church") where common words would have had more meaning, and they sometimes transliterate where they could have translated (e.g. "baptism").  They did not uphold uniformity of translation between the OT and NT, which was easily doable, and would have made the two testaments more more coherent as a single book.

But on the whole, it's very solid.

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Manna: 653
  • Definitely 7. Approaching 8
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #137 on: Yesterday at 20:56:06 »
They honestly deserve a lot more credit than blame. 

At the time the translation was originally done, English had neither standardized spelling nor grammar.  The King James Bible became the standard for both, and was used as THE textbook of the English language for more than 2 centuries.  Without it, English as we know it does not exist.

Not to say that it's perfect.  They definitely made some errors.  They insisted on a 100% word-for-word translation method... but such a methodology only works about 70% of the time.  So they lost a lot of meaning in their translation.  They translated the historical-present into past tense, which is just flat wrong.  They were (purportedly) pressured to use some ecclesiastical jargon (e.g. "church") where common words would have had more meaning, and they sometimes transliterate where they could have translated (e.g. "baptism").  They did not uphold uniformity of translation between the OT and NT, which was easily doable, and would have made the two testaments more more coherent as a single book.

But on the whole, it's very solid.

KJV of 1611 is not as old as Tyndales 1534. Tyndale opted to use the word Easter.

In 1557 Geneva Bible, Easter was changed to Passover.

So why did King Jimmy's men agree with Tyndale? I wonder if they agreed or simply used that translation.

So why the word “Easter”? The word for the Passover had been used until reformist William Tyndale translated the New Testament from Greek into English. Tyndale did not care to use a foreign word, so he used the word “Easter,” since English people associated this word with the Passover season.

https://baptistbulletin.org/the-baptist-bulletin-magazine/why-the-word-easter/

Tyndale states

4 And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternios of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people.

And

KJV states

4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

Did Jimmy's men merely modernize the old language of Tyndale?Or did they actually work at a translation?

It is well known that King Jimmy despised the Geneva translation and perhaps that is the reason his men opted for Easter,like Tyndale?

1599 Geneva says(Cannot find a 1557 or 1560)

4 [a]And when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to be kept, intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people.




Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3138
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #138 on: Yesterday at 23:11:24 »

Jarrod to Rella on the KJV:

    “Not to say that it’s perfect. They definitely made some errors.  They insisted on a 100% word-for-word translation method... but such a methodology only works about 70% of the time.  So they lost a lot of meaning in their translation.  They translated the historical-present into past tense, which is just flat wrong.  They were (purportedly) pressured to use some ecclesiastical jargon (e.g. ‘church’) where common words would have had more meaning, and they sometimes transliterate where they could have translated (e.g. ‘baptism’).  They did not uphold uniformity of translation between the OT and NT, which was easily doable, and would have made the two testaments more more coherent as a single book.”
_____

    Very good, Jarrod. My sentiments exactly. There are many terms in the KJV that do not represent or coincide with the Greek documents.

Buff

   

Offline Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Manna: 653
  • Definitely 7. Approaching 8
Re: The “Big Bang” Theory
« Reply #139 on: Today at 08:08:54 »


    Very good, Jarrod. My sentiments exactly. There are many terms in the KJV that do not represent or coincide with the Greek documents.

Buff

 

 ::eek::  Whatever.