> Off Topic Discussions
This looks SO awesome! I want to see it!
Kat:
--- Quote from: Loc on March 01, 2015, 03:02:20 AM ---I think one reason is that it's a symbol. It takes a long time to form a planet, or build a mountain, or move a continent, just like it takes a long time to perfect a human into His image. It doesn't happen instantly.
--- End quote ---
I think this is a very good point. It seems that God does not do things the easy way, well by our standards anyway, but everything is being done by a rather complicated process, with no end to the intricacy of it all. I think this just shows God's incredible brilliance to do things this way. Everything in creation is an ongoing process, so that we can marvel at the glorious unfolding of it all.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
mercy, peace and love
Kat
lilitalienboi16:
--- Quote from: indianabob on March 01, 2015, 01:05:22 AM ---Friend Alex,
Thanks for the information;
So then if a "yom" is defined as a period of time with a beginning and an end; why does it have to be millions of years? Why not one year?
Why do we have to limit God with statements such as "it couldn't have transpired that quickly" (not quoting anyone)
Do we imagine that God "had to" place the inner core of the earth in space, whether in orbit or not, and then form outer core, the "mantle" the upper mantle and later add the volcanic crust layer and subsequently add the water to a once boiling layer after allowing it to cool for millions of years or solar orbits?
Why not place the whole material planet in space and then energize it to heat it?
If God can make a star by willing it to be so, why not create the earth in a similar manner?
That is not scientifically possible? Why?
If God did it that way it would be deceptive of God since the evidence we can examine does not support that theory? Why does God have to perform His miracles in a manner that we understand and approve of?
Do we really believe that God had to build the Moon out of accumulating space debris from other exploded planets or stars? Or did God place the moon just where it was needed to be a second light for the earth and to create tides to keep the earth's surface flexing during every rotation.
Just seems to me that our natural inclination is to limit our God beyond what is necessary.
Kindly offered, I-Bob
--- End quote ---
Hello Bob,
I think Loc and Kat already covered what I could but I will put things into my own words.
You ask: "So then if a "yom" is defined as a period of time with a beginning and an end; why does it have to be millions of years? Why not one year?
Why do we have to limit God with statements such as "it couldn't have transpired that quickly" (not quoting anyone)"
I certainly don't disagree with you that a yom could refer to one year or any other amount of time but the point I was making is that you cannot define a yom as a specific amount of time, such as a year or a literal twenty for hour day (As oatmeal was attempting to do), because it CAN represent ALL these differing lengths that you mentioned. Ray gave many examples in his study of just such varying duration's. Hence, the word itself never means just one specific length in time but rather an undefined period of time. Therefor the creation is not intended to be understood as having happened in seven 24 hour days but rather through undefined lengths in periods of time which are then each termed a day. In fact, I think it is more limiting to say that a yom absolutely means one specific duration in time rather than an undefined value. The duration's depending on the context. I absolutely believe this is how God intended the word to be understood.
You say: "Why not place the whole material planet in space and then energize it to heat it?
If God can make a star by willing it to be so, why not create the earth in a similar manner?
That is not scientifically possible? Why?"
Well Bob, I don't think science is wrong on what it understands about the natural world. It's certainly not understanding The Creator behind it all but that is by the wisdom and planning of God more than it is a complete lack of understanding of the natural world. We wouldn't have computers, cars, phones, sky scrappers, space stations, rockets, internet, etc... if science had no clue what it was talking about. This same science has measured and quantified the age of the universe and our planets. They've also devised the most probable explanation for how the planets, including ours, came into existence given all the data they can observe and measure. God certainly could have placed the earth in space as you say and then made the sun but its just not how God did it. Its' not that we are limiting Him or that it's impossible for Him to do so but He has a pattern and process for doing things and this is how he decided to do it. Very much like how it takes time for us to be conformed into His image, a process, it then makes very much sense to see that He created the universe and our planet through a process too. Very much like one of the fruits of the spirit is long suffering yet suffering long takes time. Its a process that unfolds. How much time do you think God suffered? We don't know but I have a feeling it's orders and magnitudes greater than how long we think we suffer when we go without something we really want.
You say: "If God did it that way it would be deceptive of God since the evidence we can examine does not support that theory? Why does God have to perform His miracles in a manner that we understand and approve of?"
My response to this is similar to what I stated above. God doesn't have to perform His miracles in a way that is convenient for us but that doesn't mean that He didn't. That doesn't mean that He is purposely trying to trick us. For those that have the spirit dwelling within, having their senses exercised to discern good and evil, we are not deceived. Our Father loves us and is revealing all things to us. In His time though.
You say: "Do we really believe that God had to build the Moon out of accumulating space debris from other exploded planets or stars? Or did God place the moon just where it was needed to be a second light for the earth and to create tides to keep the earth's surface flexing during every rotation."
I don't believe God HAD to build the moon that way but I believe that He did.
God bless,
Alex
Oatmeal:
John and Alex, thank you for your urgent replies to my previous post. John posted within 30 minutes of my post, with his final edit following shortly after, and Alex's reply with final edit was completed within 80 minutes. How much time was given in reading, and more importantly in understanding, my post, which was written over a great period of time, and with much editing, care, thought, and deliberation?
--- Quote from: John from Kentucky on February 06, 2015, 12:36:25 AM ---I perceive your mind is made up and have already formed conclusions.
--- End quote ---
In your use of the word "perceive", John, are you saying that God has revealed my mind to you, and that if I argue with you then I am arguing with God? While that may be a quick way to win an argument, and only from your point of view, perhaps by such a statement you are telling us that it is you who has made up his mind. Have you taken the time to read and to understand my previous posts, or are you quickly shooting off replies with no intention of taking the time? If I am incorrect, and you are correct, how can you be of any help to me if you cannot bother to take the time to understand, and acknowledge that you have understood, my point of view, before shooting off a reply?
--- Quote from: John from Kentucky on February 06, 2015, 12:36:25 AM ---However, I will show you from the Scriptures that the Hebrew word for day (yom) means a period of time and not necessarily a 24 hour period of time.
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. Gen 2:4
The word "day" in this Scripture is the Hebrew word "yom". It refers to the previous six days (also yom) of creation. Thus one day can include six days thereby proving that "yom" does not exclusively mean a time period of 24 hours. Yom can mean an undefined period of time, even millions or billions of years.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: lilitalienboi16 on February 27, 2015, 07:48:11 PM ---Those seven day's [yom] are referred to as a single day [yom] in Genesis 2:4.
…How are you going to tell me now that yom means a literal 24 hour period instead of an undefined amount of time?…
….If seven day's can be one day, same word, that SINGULAR YOM you mentioned, then DAY clearly does not mean a literal 24 hour period but rather an undefined amount of time that begins and ends.
--- End quote ---
In my posts I have never said that a yom/day is a 24-hour period. Please do not refute what I have not said.
I am quite happy to stick with Genesis 1:5 and John 11:9 in regard to the definition of a day. Are you saying that there are two different definitions of a 'day' in Genesis 1:5? Are you despising the words of Jesus (in John 11:9) in bringing forth your day-age hypothesis? If you are not despising the words of Jesus, how are you not doing so? And in regard to Exodus 20:8-11, is there two definitions/meanings of the word yom/day in that passage of Scripture, as is required by the day-age hypothesis?
In Ray's videos there is a lot of time spent, and time on more than one occasion, validly explaining that 'yom' is not a 24-hour period (Why is that emphasised so often?), and then there seems to be a bait and switch tactic used where instead of concluding that a day is a 12-hour period, which would be in line with what Jesus said in John 11:9, and in line with Genesis 1:5, and in line with the could-not-be-24-hours explanations of Exodus 20:8-11, and I think in line with the clearly and unambiguously stated one only single evening and one only single morning for each day of Creation, one of which is included in Genesis 1:5, there is a leap in the other direction which concludes that 'yom' can mean eons and ages.
In my previous post I explained in detail, going through a number of Scriptures one by one, Scriptures referred to by Ray, how I could not see how Ray could come to the conclusion that those particular Scriptures were in support of his Genesis day-age hypothesis. You have not refuted any of the explanation and logic I gave as to why those Scriptures do not support the idea that a day can be longer than 12 hours, and that they thus in no way whatsoever support the day-age hypothesis. Of course a number of days can be a longer period of time, but not (I argued) one single day on its own.
Until the time you Scripturally and logically refute the explanations I gave, it can only be taken that you are fully in agreement with that explanation and logic and that you are fully in agreement that those Scriptures do not support the day-age hypothesis, and that those Scriptures do not support the idea that a yom/day singular without any further qualifying expression can be longer than 12 hours. If you disagree, then go through those Scriptures one by one validly refuting my explanation and logic. If you neglect or refuse to do so, then in that matter you lose your case.
You have both attempted to take refuge in Genesis 2:4, stating authoritatively that Genesis 2:4 is referring back to the previous six days of creation/seven days, with Alex using the word: "clearly" and John using the word "proving".
How is it clear?
Is it not possible that this verse is referring back to Genesis 1:1, which says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth? How many days were involved in Genesis 1:1?
Genesis 2:4 has a similar construction to Genesis 5:1-2, which (also) refers back to one single day. Both Scriptures mention a descent/generations/history that follows.
By what authority do you say that Genesis 2:4 is referring back to the six days of Creation? Is it by your own authority, did God tell you, did you read it somewhere, did you decide to believe someone who said so to you, does it fit in with what you think science says, or do you have a logical argument to present?
If you are able to argue logically, from the Scriptures, that Genesis 2:4 is referring back to the 6 days of Creation, and not just to Genesis 1:1, then please present that argument. You are otherwise using the "I say so" argument or perhaps it is the "God told me" argument. Please remember that the "I say so" argument does not prove anything (except to you), and if God told you, that fact is unable to be verified by others.
If you are going to say that Genesis 2:4 could not be referring back to Genesis 1:1 because 'day' was not defined until Genesis 1:5, please keep in mind that neither had 'heavens' and 'earth' been defined when those words were used in Genesis 1:1.
Alex, in your definition of 'day' you have not used Scripture (except Genesis 2:4, which use I have disputed), explaining how and where Scripture defines the meaning to 'day' that you say 'day' has. Are there no other Scriptures that you can use? Are you limited to one Scripture only? You have appealed to Strong's. There are enough Scriptures that use the word 'day' to prove your case, if your case does exist. If you can't prove your case from the Scriptures, then I guess you have no option but to appeal to Strong's.
It is also time that you used Scripture in your defence instead of what you think is science.
If Genesis 2:4 is referring back to the six days of Creation, then its context is denoting that the word 'day' in that verse only is not referring to a literal day. Can that non-literalness of the word 'day' be transferred to another passage of Scripture (although I admit that the other passage of Scripture is close by, and I admit it because my mind is not made up) where non-literalness is not evident in that other passage itself? And if Genesis 2:4 is referring back to the six days of Creation, how can you then expand that six days to billions of years without any other Scriptural authorisation whatsoever? Why not make it six half-seconds, or six trillion trillion years, or a banana flavoured icecream?
From where do you get billions of years?
It is from something from OUTSIDE OF SCRIPTURE that you get your billions of years.
I do not know if observational, experimental and reason based science backs up billions of years or not (how can I personally inspect an ice core).
I have raised certain questions, and I raised them with honesty and integrity, that in my mind bring into serious doubt the idea that Genesis itself backs up the billions of year's scenario.
Oatmeal
Oatmeal:
--- Quote from: John from Kentucky on February 06, 2015, 12:36:25 AM ---As for the Kabbalah, it is a lie. Not Scripture. Madonna believes in it. Enough said.
--- End quote ---
I am well aware that the Kabbalah is suspect, and I said as much in my (first) post. Ray said that Kabbalistic teaching teaches that the universe started the size of a mustard seed, in line with the Big Bang theory. It doesn’t seem to me at this stage that God stretching out the heavens has enough parallels with the Big Bang theory to make the two compatible. I have read that there are other parallels between Kabbalistic teaching and mainstream science. I cannot be more definitive on that. It is the leaning of Ray towards the Kabbalah that probably causes me the most distress.
I have a concern about Ray’s assertion that scientists are honest.
Following is a quote from George F. R. Ellis (cosmologist and mathematician)
People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that. - W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55. This quote can be viewed on the Internet.
As can be seen from the above quote, it is an unscientific actuality that cosmological scientists are using a philosophical bias and basis in choosing their models of the universe. What has real observational, experimental, and reason based science got to do with philosophy, especially, as such is the case, the philosophy comes before and is foundational to the science? What philosophy are they subscribing to? Why are they subscribing to that philosophy? What happened to the search for the truth, no matter where the search may lead?
If their philosophy is incorrect, can and will their science be correct? Please consider if that question is important enough to answer, and if you think that it is, please answer it for yourself.
Here is another example:
Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!
- A Brief History of Time - From the Big Bang to Black Holes, Stephen W. Hawking, 1988, page 42 (I borrowed the book from my local library. It can now be viewed/downloaded via the Internet and I now have two copies (different versions) on my hard drive.)
In the above quote Stephen Hawking confesses that, observationally speaking, it appears to him that the earth is in the centre of the universe. He rejects what his eyes see and his otherwise reasoning thinking concludes on the grounds of MODESTY, which of course as we all know has far more scientific validity than observation, experiment and reason. He says also that the universe must look the same wherever in the universe you go because it must be that way. If you and I were standing on a hill and viewed concentric circles of trees around us, and I said that the view would be exactly the same as from the hill if we went among the trees, you would conclude that I was crazy. However when "scientists" come up with such inanities/imaginations it is supposed that they are talking sense.
Here is another series of quotes, taken from The Observational Approach to Cosmology by Edwin Hubble (from whom the Hubble space telescope is named after), from a PDF version downloaded from the Internet.
From page 40: Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.
From page 40: But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs.
From page 46: Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position… [Next paragraph] There seems to be no other escape…
Honesty? Where is the honesty?
Do you think there is any possibility you are putting your faith into a philosophy, John, which has coatings of science and an appearance of science, and which is in agreement with the Kabbalah? On the one hand you say you reject the Kabbalah because it is not Scripture, but is there any possibility that on the other hand you are accepting its teachings blindly and wholeheartedly, and that you have swallowed the pill because of its coating?
Oatmeal
Oatmeal:
Why has such a strenuous effort been made to fit Genesis 1 with mainstream philosophical based science? (I am not claiming that there are no aspects and branches of mainstream science that are based on experiment, observation and reason, but that a philosophy is foundational in and governs that science).
For example, in agreeing with mainstream science, in the second 2008 Conference video, at about 9:40, Ray mentions background radiation noise and says that it is the echo left over from the Big Bang, and he also confirms that Kabbalistic teaching is in agreement with [mainstream] science, or looking at it the other way, that [mainstream] science is in agreement with Kabbalistic teachings.
In 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered that the entire universe was saturated with a radiation which has become known as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The CMB provides strong evidence AGAINST, not for, the Big Bang Theory. The unique pattern of the microwave radiation, throughout the entire universe, points back to the Earth, as if the Earth is in the centre of the universe. THIS is in accord with the Genesis 1 account (but not with the mustard seed beginning Kabbalistic/mainstream-science big bang scenario). Genesis 1 tells us (if we are willing to read the words) that the Earth was created before the stars were made. I include some links:
https://medium.com/we-are-in-a-special-place/planck-satellite-confirms-wmap-findings-universe-is-not-copernican-26f88f17a732
A NewScientist article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327245.900-13-more-things-axis-of-evil.htm#.VOk5YCxdLTQ Note the reference to the 'Axis of Evil'.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf
Not only is the CMB aligned to the earth, and/or to the solar system, but so are the spin axes of galaxies (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3793.pdf), and galaxies lie mainly on concentric spheres around the Earth (http://astro.uchicago.edu/cosmus/projects/sloanmovie/part5left_8kbs.mpeg), with the quasar distribution in the universe following the same pattern (http://laserstars.org/pdf/1976Ap&SS..43....3V.pdf - read the page numbered 8 to the end of (3)). In both the matter of galaxies and quasars there is a void in the centre where the Earth is positioned.
Will mainstream science acknowledge and go along with these facts, which facts run contrary to its philosophy, or will its philosophy remain paramount and such facts be ignored and/or "explained" away?
Is it possible that cosmology is not as complicated and un-understandable as mainstream cosmology makes it out to be? Could it be possible that it is mainstream cosmology's foundational philosophy, its foundational premise, which is causing the difficulties?
Why do members of this forum (should such be the case) suppose that scientists, and cosmological scientists, are too honest, too intelligent, too educated, too rational, too respected, and too published, to say in their hearts there is no God and to fully act on that philosophy? Does a typical university education prevent such a state of being, or is it more likely to contribute to it? Where does the idea come from that intelligence + education + "science" = rationality + honesty + fear of God?
Does "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" not apply at all to any professional mainstream group titled with the word "science" in this present day and age? Do fools (as per definition of fool in Psalm 14:1 and in Romans 1:22) no longer exist in our science halls of academia? Have our advanced education systems made them all an extinct species? It seems that the general opinion is that it is so. Perhaps it is time that we removed Romans 1:22 and Psalm 14:1 from our Scriptures, as we are so educationally advanced there are no fools left. Perhaps the modern advance in science (real observational, experimental and reason based science, which of course does exist, as long as it does not go against its foundational premise, and which has resulted in "computers, cars, phones, skyscrapers, space stations, rockets, and the internet" (quoting from Alex)) has gone to our heads.
It is obvious that I do not agree with some of the science that Ray presented in the Conference, that it is in fact science. Some of the science I am not familiar enough with to comment (old-age earth sciences).
I hope however that I have it very obvious that SCIENTISTS ARE BIASED, and very STRONGLY biased, and FOOLISHLY biased.
And what sort of person would put their faith in a fool?
Here is another example of mainstream pseudo science:
Where did the idea of multiverses (that there are a multiple and an infinite number of universes in existence) come from? Was it from evidence? The idea did not come from scientific observation, and it did not come not from scientific experiment, and it did not come from reasonable reason based analysis of scientific evidence. Because it is now generally accepted that our universe is finely tuned, there must be, according to “science”, an infinite number of universes in existence because as there is no Creator (foundational premise), there must be an infinite number of universes, all of which happened by chance random processes, and we happen to be in a chance random universe suitable for existence of life and there are an infinite number of chance random universes that are not suitable for the existence life.
Is there any valid science involved in this argument? There is no valid science involved whatsoever. It’s an entirely philosophical argument. Putting it another way, it’s a fairy tale.
Evolution is also a fairy tale (I am not talking about the very limited process of natural selection), rooted in the same philosophical premise.
So, Alex, from this point on use Scripture in your defence instead of what you think is science.
Now PUTTING ASIDE ALL SCIENCE AND ALL PSEUDO SCIENCE, and looking at Genesis 1 and the Scriptures ALONE, does Genesis 1 itself back up the billions of years scenario? In my original post I raised certain questions, and I raised them with honesty and integrity, that in my mind bring into serious doubt the idea that Genesis backs up the billions of year's scenario. As this is a teaching that is found on Bible-Truths, I think that it is fair that my questions be fully and adequately addressed, and answered if possible and with complete openness and with full integrity.
I also looked at other Scriptures that Ray claims support the 'a day can be an eon' hypothesis, and I explained using those Scriptures why I think that claim is not based on factuality. If I got it wrong, then it should be no problem for someone to explain the error. If I got it right, then no refutation will be forthcoming.
Please do not use the excuse that Ray would have been able to answer my questions if he was still present. If the forum with logic, clarity and honesty does not understand the Genesis day-eon hypothesis enough to answer my questions then perhaps the forum should be honest enough to admit that it does not have sufficient basis on which to pass on the hypothesis as fact.
Oatmeal
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version