Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[rrobs]

But do you remember the "context" in which you used the phrase "can be"? You said: "Hebrew texts can be translated". The clear implication is that usually they are not translated the way you wish.

Yes, it would be a clear implication to someone with bias. However, someone with ears to hear might investigate the matter.

You claim to understand context, but you don't seem to understand how it affects the meaning of a story or the words used in that story.

 

[rrobs]

I have. You should practice what you preach. Like it or not you are an ape. You may look different than other apes, but then orangutans look different than other apes. Gorillas look different than other apes. Chimps look different than other apes. Guess what people, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans all have in common? They are all great apes.

Totally a man made classification. We must be lizards also, since we all move.

Have you ever discussed this with an ape? Try it sometime and you should see the difference.

BTW, I don't mind what people call me, ape, ignorant, gullible, etc, etc. You just don't understand that such monikers fade to nothingness when God calls me his son. I mean what could be better than being the son of the one who created the universe? I pray someday you'll understand exactly what I'm saying. I'd love to hear from you someday on how God opened your eyes to the truth. Ya never know what's down the road!

 

[rrobs]

Don't dodge, that is dishonest. Scientists have a valid reason when they ask questions. They can demonstrate it. Why can't you?

The question I asked is why it would be irrelevant to ask where natural laws came from. You dodged the question by accusing me of dodging. We should start a dodge ball team!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Totally a man made classification. We must be lizards also, since we all move.

Have you ever discussed this with an ape? Try it sometime and you should see the difference.

BTW, I don't mind what people call me, ape, ignorant, gullible, etc, etc. You just don't understand that such monikers fade to nothingness when God calls me his son. I mean what could be better than being the son of the one who created the universe? I pray someday you'll understand exactly what I'm saying. I'd love to hear from you someday on how God opened your eyes to the truth. Ya never know what's down the road!

A man made classification that works. And the only reason it works is because of the fact that you do share a common ancestor with other apes. If that was not the case it would fall apart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The question I asked is why it would be irrelevant to ask where natural laws came from. You dodged the question by accusing me of dodging. We should start a dodge ball team!

Nice try. It was the question before that that you dodged.

Let's try to be honest. Lying for Jesus is what apologists do.

 

[rrobs]

Actually those attempts are almost always trying to reinterpret verses taken out of context. But context seems to be a major problem for literalists. They simply cannot understand their own book of myths due to this failing.

There is such a thing a near context and remote context. Remote context considers the overall message of a body of writing, i.e. what is the book about.

I've asked a few people if they knew what the Bible was about, the remote context. Admittedly, on the surface, it sounds like a dumb question. Nonetheless the scriptures are about something quite specific. There is a section in the scriptures that declare that specific something in crystal clear, 6th grade reading level terms. So far nobody has replied. They keep dodging the question. Do you know what the Bible is about and where says that, i.e. chapter/verse?

I may not be a scientist, but at least I know what science is. As I see it here, nobody even knows what the Bible is about and yet they have no problem expounding on how wrong it is. Seems rather anti-scientific method to me, which leads me to question their commitment to real science. They tend to accept that which they like without actually spending the time to carry out a thorough investigation into the matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is such a thing a near context and remote context. Remote context considers the overall message of a body of writing, i.e. what is the book about.

I've asked a few people if they knew what the Bible was about, the remote context. Admittedly, on the surface, it sounds like a dumb question. Nonetheless the scriptures are about something quite specific. There is a section in the scriptures that declare that specific something in crystal clear, 6th grade reading level terms. So far nobody has replied. They keep dodging the question. Do you know what the Bible is about and where says that, i.e. chapter/verse?

I may not be a scientist, but at least I know what science is. As I see it here, nobody even knows what the Bible is about and yet they have no problem expounding on how wrong it is. Seems rather anti-scientific method to me, which leads me to question their commitment to real science. They tend to accept that which they like without actually spending the time to carry out a thorough investigation into the matter.

I don't think that you even know what science is, and anyone can make up bogus excuses for their personal interpretation of the Bible.

Of course what is rather amazing is your own insistence that the Bible is false.

 

[rrobs]

Heh. Cigar.

The narcissism of your thinking that everyone is secretly drawn to your genitalia.

So you're not? Shucks! Oh well, at least my wife likes 'em.

 

[rrobs]

I don't think that you even know what science is, and anyone can make up bogus excuses for their personal interpretation of the Bible.

Of course what is rather amazing is your own insistence that the Bible is false.

So there is nothing I can say to convince you to become a Christian and believe in creationism? I'm beginning to think not.

Oh well, maybe later. Remember, every Christian at one time was not a Christian. I can't begin to count the number of Christians who would never ever become one, including myself. The scriptures make the grass on the other side actually greener, way greener, so I pray someday you'll see that for yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So there is nothing I can say to convince you to become a Christian and believe in creationism? I'm beginning to think not.

Oh well, maybe later. Remember, every Christian at one time was not a Christian. I can't begin to count the number of Christians who would never ever become one, including myself. The scriptures make the grass on the other side actually greener, way greener, so I pray someday you'll see that for yourself.

Why do you conflate believing the creation myths of Genesis with being a Christian? Why would I want to believe in a lying God? Why do you want to believe in a lying God?

No. There is no way that you could convince me to believe in a lying and evil God. Now a Christian that understands the Bible might be able to convince me to become a Christian. I don't think that you have a chance.

 

[ppp]

So you're not? Shucks! Oh well, at least my wife likes 'em.

Where is the book written by some guy 2000 years ago to prove that?

 

[shunyadragon]

So there is nothing I can say to convince you to become a Christian and believe in creationism? I'm beginning to think not.

Oh well, maybe later. Remember, every Christian at one time was not a Christian. I can't begin to count the number of Christians who would never ever become one, including myself. The scriptures make the grass on the other side actually greener, way greener, so I pray someday you'll see that for yourself.

Your being overly optimistic trying to convert anyone without a coherent view of science, and attached to an ancient worldview of Creation. Even if you do change to believe in contemporary science, your efforts are still hopeless.

I believe in Creationism in harmony with science, without the conflicts of ancient world views.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your being overly optimistic trying to convert anyone without a coherent view of science, and attached to an ancient worldview of Creation. Even if you do change to believe in contemporary science, your efforts are still hopeless.

I believe in Creationism in harmony with science, without the conflicts of ancient world views.

As I said, a person that understands the Bible would have a much better chance of converting me. A big part of understanding the Bible is to realize that some books cannot be seriously read literally.

 

[rrobs]

For example, I have never heard anyone besides you say there was an earth before this one. Everyone makes up their own stories to justify the extent of their level of belief in the Bible stories.

It's not at all an uncommon belief.

Gen 1:1-2,

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

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

As written, it says the earth was created waste and empty. However, the word "was" in verse 2, can also mean "became." Just like the word "bank" can mean different things bases on context, so often Hebrew words have more than one meaning. The verses now say that God created everything and that it became without form and void. Which is it? Let's look at the more remote context to see if there is any hint.

The words "without form and void" are the Hebrew words "tohu va bohu."

Isa 45:18,

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.​

The words "not in vain" is the word Hebrew "tohu," the same word in Genesis 1:2. Now some may say that since Genesis says the world was created "tohu" and Isaiah says it was not created"tohu," then the Bible contradicts itself. But other parts of the scriptures say they are perfect. What do we do? Easy, all we need to do is realize that the word "was" in Genesis 1:2 should be read as "became." Remember, the word can mean either one. If we say it "was" without form and void we contradict Isaiah and the scriptures would indeed be worthless. However, if we use common logic, we would translate Genesis 1:2 as, "the earth became without form and void."

Several translation do in fact use the word "became" instead of "was." Here's one from Rotherham's:

Gen 1:1-2,

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now, the earth, had become waste and wild, and, darkness, was on the face of the roaring deep,––but, the Spirit of God, was brooding on the face of the waters.​

Here's some more relevant information from the scriptures.

2 Cor 12:2,

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
​

Third heaven? What is that? (btw, heaven to the Hebrew as well as all Semitic languages, is simply anything above the ground. birds fly in heaven, your head is heaven.)

The first heaven of Genesis 1:1
The second heaven that came about after the first was destroyed (Gen 1:6-7)
The third one yet to come (Revelation 21:1)​

There are several other verses that are pertinent, but these should suffice to show that something happened between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, that caused the earth to become without form and void. How much time between verse 1 and verse 2? How much time do you want? The scriptures don't say, so 4.5 billion years is as good an answer as any.

I trust you won't just say, "that's your interpretation" without telling me specifically where I'm wrong. I will say this, ff you come back to me in 10 minutes with how wrong this is, I'll take it to mean you did no research on your own and will give it the due consideration it deserves. They didn't invent the atom smasher in 10 minutes!

Hopefully this will give you an idea on the research and precision one needs in order to understand what the scriptures say. Like any body of writing, the author meant one thing and one thing only. It is up to the researcher to use logic and reason to get to that one thing. Interpretation is a non-issue. After all, you don't need to interpret, John 3:16,

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
​

It just says what it means and means what it says. The only question becomes one of belief or not. Each one is free to decide.

 

[rrobs]

Your being overly optimistic trying to convert anyone without a coherent view of science, and attached to an ancient worldview of Creation. Even if you do change to believe in contemporary science, your efforts are still hopeless.

Hopeless??? Did you not get the part where I said every Christian was at one time not a Christian? Clearly there is hope for any non-Christian becoming a Christian.

You should have been there to hear my diatribe against God, the Bible, and Christians not even 24 hours before I got born again. You would have loved it!

 

[rrobs]

Where is the book written by some guy 2000 years ago to prove that?

Actually it was written by 35 guys over a period of about 1,500 years. The amazing thing about that is that it is perhaps the most coherent book ever written. Every verse fits perfectly with every other verse regardless of who wrote it and when it was written. Humans on their own could have never penned such perfection. It shares all the elements that any good novel has, plot, characters, dialogue, etc. The only difference is that the scriptures have a denouement (surprise ending) unlike any book ever written.

2Tim 3:16,

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
​

Each and every one of those men throughout all those years were inspired by one, God. That's how it fits together like a hand in a glove, with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision. I didn't always believe that, but once I approached it with the same logic we use in science, I saw it bigger than real life.

 

[ppp]

Actually it was written by 35 guys over a period of about 1,500 years. The amazing thing about that is that it is perhaps the most coherent book ever written. Every verse fits perfectly with every other verse regardless of who wrote it and when it was written. Humans on their own could have never penned such perfection. It shares all the elements that any good novel has, plot, characters, dialogue, etc. The only difference is that the scriptures have a denouement (surprise ending) unlike any book ever written.

2Tim 3:16,

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
​

Each and every one of those men throughout all those years were inspired by one, God. That's how it fits together like a hand in a glove, with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision. I didn't always believe that, but once I approached it with the same logic we use in science, I saw it bigger than real life.

You claimed that your wife likes your genitals in particular. I don't see anything in 2 Tim 3:16 that makes that claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually it was written by 35 guys over a period of about 1,500 years. The amazing thing about that is that it is perhaps the most coherent book ever written. Every verse fits perfectly with every other verse regardless of who wrote it and when it was written. Humans on their own could have never penned such perfection. It shares all the elements that any good novel has, plot, characters, dialogue, etc. The only difference is that the scriptures have a denouement (surprise ending) unlike any book ever written.

2Tim 3:16,

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
​

Each and every one of those men throughout all those years were inspired by one, God. That's how it fits together like a hand in a glove, with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision. I didn't always believe that, but once I approached it with the same logic we use in science, I saw it bigger than real life.

That is not quite accurate. Most of it appears to have been written over a 500 year period. So many people forget that Moses was mythical.

 

[rrobs]

I don't think that you even know what science is, and anyone can make up bogus excuses for their personal interpretation of the Bible.

There is no more of a need for a "personal interpretation" of the Bible than there is for what you just wrote. Your intended message does not require any "personal interpretation" beyond knowing the commonly accepted definition of simple words. I trust my reply is equally clear. We may not agree, but I think it fair to way we know each other's position and it didn't require any agonizing over the meaning of simple words and statements.

All in all, this whole idea of "interpretation" is blown way out of proportion. There is actually a verse that makes all of this quite clear:

2 Pet 1:20,

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
​

 

[rrobs]

You claimed that your wife likes your genitals in particular. I don't see anything in 2 Tim 3:16 that makes that claim.

True, but there is something in Genesis 1:22 about that.