User Tag List

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 76

Thread: Things To Know

  1. #16
    Over 500 post club WeberHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    577
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 44 Times in 37 Posts

    Blog Entries
    288
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    19301

    Post Re: Things To Know

    -
    Light

    Gen 1:3 . . Then God said "Let there be light" and there was light.

    The creation of light was a very, very intricate process. First God had to create particulate matter, and along with those particles their specific properties, including mass. Then He had to invent the laws of nature to govern how matter behaves in combination with and/or in the presence of, other kinds of matter in order to generate electromagnetic radiation.

    Light's properties are a bit curious. It exists as waves in a variety of lengths and frequencies, and also as theoretical particles called photons. And though light has no mass; it's influenced by gravity. Light is also quite invisible. For example: you can see the Sun when you look at it, and you can see the Moon when sunlight reflects from its surface. But none of the Sun's light is visible in the void between them and that's because light isn't matter; it's energy.

    The same laws that make it possible for matter to generate electromagnetic radiation also make other conditions possible too; e.g. fire, wind, water, ice, soil, rain, life, centrifugal force, thermodynamics, fusion, dark energy, gravity, atoms, organic molecules, magnetism, color, radiation, refraction, reflection, high energy X-rays and gamma rays, temperature, pressure, force, inertia, sound, friction, and electricity; et al. So the creation of light was a pretty big deal; yet Genesis scarcely gives its origin passing mention.

    Gen 1:1-2 . .The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep

    That statement reveals the planet's condition prior to the creation of light; and no mystery there because sans the natural laws that make light possible, the earth's particulate matter would never have coalesced into something coherent.

    2Cor 4:6 verifies that light wasn't introduced into the cosmos from outside in order to dispel the darkness and brighten things up a bit; but rather, it radiated out of the cosmos from inside-- from itself --indicating that the cosmos was created to be self-illuminating by means of the various interactions of the matter that God made for it; including, but not limited to, the Higgs Boson.

    It's curious to me that most people have no trouble readily conceding that everything else in the first chapter of Genesis is natural, e.g. the cosmos, the earth, water, sky, dry land, the Sun, the Moon, the stars, aqua life, winged life, terra life, flora life, and human life.

    But when it comes to creation's light they choke; finding it impossible within themselves to believe that Genesis just might be consistent in its description of the creative process. I mean, if all those other things are natural, why wouldn't creation's light be natural too? In point of fact, without natural light, planet Earth would become a cold dead world right quick.

    NOTE: 1Tim 6:16 mentions a light that no man has seen, nor can see.

    Back in that day, the only light that people knew much about was visible light. We today know of several kinds of light invisible to the human eye: radio, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray and gamma-ray. However, those are all natural forms of light. The light spoken on in 1Tim 6:16 is a supernatural kind of light for which humans have no means of detection thus far.

    That light is further described by the Greek word aprositos (ap-ros'-ee-tos) which means: inaccessible. In contrast; all natural light is accessible in one way or another.

    /

  2. #17
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Carmarthenshire
    Posts
    7,456
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 712 Times in 630 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    171978
    Quote Originally Posted by WeberHome View Post
    -
    Light

    Gen 1:3 . . Then God said "Let there be light" and there was light.

    The creation of light was a very, very intricate process. First God had to create particulate matter, and along with those particles their specific properties, including mass. Then He had to invent the laws of nature to govern how matter behaves in combination with and/or in the presence of, other kinds of matter in order to generate electromagnetic radiation.

    Light's properties are a bit curious. It exists as waves in a variety of lengths and frequencies, and also as theoretical particles called photons. And though light has no mass; it's influenced by gravity. Light is also quite invisible. For example: you can see the Sun when you look at it, and you can see the Moon when sunlight reflects from its surface. But none of the Sun's light is visible in the void between them and that's because light isn't matter; it's energy.

    The same laws that make it possible for matter to generate electromagnetic radiation also make other conditions possible too; e.g. fire, wind, water, ice, soil, rain, life, centrifugal force, thermodynamics, fusion, dark energy, gravity, atoms, organic molecules, magnetism, color, radiation, refraction, reflection, high energy X-rays and gamma rays, temperature, pressure, force, inertia, sound, friction, and electricity; et al. So the creation of light was a pretty big deal; yet Genesis scarcely gives its origin passing mention.

    Gen 1:1-2 . .The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep

    That statement reveals the planet's condition prior to the creation of light; and no mystery there because sans the natural laws that make light possible, the earth's particulate matter would never have coalesced into something coherent.

    2Cor 4:6 verifies that light wasn't introduced into the cosmos from outside in order to dispel the darkness and brighten things up a bit; but rather, it radiated out of the cosmos from inside-- from itself --indicating that the cosmos was created to be self-illuminating by means of the various interactions of the matter that God made for it; including, but not limited to, the Higgs Boson.

    It's curious to me that most people have no trouble readily conceding that everything else in the first chapter of Genesis is natural, e.g. the cosmos, the earth, water, sky, dry land, the Sun, the Moon, the stars, aqua life, winged life, terra life, flora life, and human life.

    But when it comes to creation's light they choke; finding it impossible within themselves to believe that Genesis just might be consistent in its description of the creative process. I mean, if all those other things are natural, why wouldn't creation's light be natural too? In point of fact, without natural light, planet Earth would become a cold dead world right quick.

    NOTE: 1Tim 6:16 mentions a light that no man has seen, nor can see.

    Back in that day, the only light that people knew much about was visible light. We today know of several kinds of light invisible to the human eye: radio, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray and gamma-ray. However, those are all natural forms of light. The light spoken on in 1Tim 6:16 is a supernatural kind of light for which humans have no means of detection thus far.

    That light is further described by the Greek word aprositos (ap-ros'-ee-tos) which means: inaccessible. In contrast; all natural light is accessible in one way or another.

    /
    What do you think He means when He says, "I form the light". Isaiah 45:7

    PS It was spoken in the first person...of course.
    I know Him, correctly, as Messiah whom you call Christ. Yah Shua whom you call Jesus. Messianists who you call Christians.

    "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm".

    I refuse, point blank, to speak peace to the unregenerate, hypocrites, religious dogma lovers and those that oppose the following statement:
    A regenerate man trusts in the evangelism of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed justness of Messiah alone.
    If you are fully persuaded, by experience, of this delightful, beautiful and life giving doctrine then I love you as a brother.

    Anyone who thinks that salvation is conditioned on anything a man thinks, does or says is atheist. I cannot and will not speak peace to him or her.

    I don't make statements online that I wouldn't repeat in front of my Maker, my grandmother or a judge.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Truster For Your Post:

    Eagles Wings (September 10th, 2017)

  4. #18
    Over 500 post club WeberHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    577
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 44 Times in 37 Posts

    Blog Entries
    288
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    19301

    Post Re: Things To Know

    -
    The Length Of A Creation Day

    Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.

    According to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the sixth day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God create land animals but the sixth.

    Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days of creation were 24-hour calendar days in length; but scientific dating methods have easily proven that dinosaurs preceded human life by several million years. So then, in my estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent epochs of indeterminable length rather than 24-hour calendar days.

    That's not an unreasonable estimation; for example:

    "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)

    The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six days of creation were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.

    Another useful hint as to the length of the days of creation is located in the sixth chapter of Genesis where Noah is instructed to coat the interior and exterior of his ark with a substance the Bible calls "pitch". The Hebrew word is kopher (ko'-fer) which indicates a material called bitumen: a naturally occurring kind of asphalt formed from the remains of ancient, microscopic algae (diatoms) and other once-living things. In order for bitumen to be available in Noah's day, the organisms from whence it was formed had to have existed on the earth several thousands of years before him.

    The discovery of fossilized sea lilies near the summit of Mt Everest proves that the Himalayan land mass has not always been mountainous; but at one time was the floor of an ancient sea bed. This is confirmed by the "yellow band" below Everest's summit consisting of limestone: a type of rock made from calcite sediments containing the skeletal remains of countless trillions of organisms who lived, not on dry land, but in an ocean. The tectonic forces that pushed the Himalayans up from below sea level to their current height work very slowly and require untold eons to accomplish their task.

    So then, why can't Bible thumpers accept a six-epoch explanation? Because they're hung up on the expression "evening and morning"

    The interesting thing is: there were no physical evenings and mornings till the fourth day when the Sun was created and brought on line. So I suggest that the expression "evening and morning" is simply a convenient way to indicate the simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the beginning of another.

    Anyway; this "day" thing has been a chronic problem for just about everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the days of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so we end up stumped when trying to figure out how to cope with the estimated 4.5 billion-year age of the earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.

    It just never seems to occur to us that it might be okay in some cases to go ahead and think outside the box. When we do that-- when we allow ourselves to think outside the box --that's when we begin to really appreciate the contributions science has made towards providing modern men a window into the Earth's amazing past.

    Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies-- two different languages telling the same story. In other words: science and religion compliment each other-- science answers questions that religion doesn't answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot answer; viz: science and religion are not enemies; no, to the contrary, science and religion assist each other in their respective quests to get to the bottom of some of the cosmos' greatest mysteries.

    /

  5. #19
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,945
    Thanks
    3,118
    Thanked 2,864 Times in 1,735 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147670
    Quote Originally Posted by WeberHome View Post
    -

    Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days of creation were 24-hour calendar days in length; but scientific dating methods have easily proven that dinosaurs preceded human life by several million years. So then, in my estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent epochs of indeterminable length rather than 24-hour calendar days
    /
    The believer need not assume the burden here. Scientific theories (not "facts" as you are asserting) are moving targets. To say that science must have the final word is to make an unscientific statement. Science is an open canon, therefore contradiction is to be expected. We expect no contradiction in Scripture because it is a closed canon. What Scripture says it has always said and will always say. Science is an open canon. Science has said things which it no longer says and what it says today may yet be changed.

    The believer must allow the Bible to say what it says. Whatever one thinks about physics, astronomy, or any other science, he has no right to impose his unproven, ever advancing scientific explanations on Scripture and make it say something other than what Scripture says.

    Some may ask, "So what is the epistemic limitation of scientific discovery?"

    We should answer, that first, it is limited to natural phenomena. Secondly, it is bound to observable fact. Thirdly, is only ever descriptive, never explanatory. Fourthly, deals with probability. Fifthly, is always open to re-evaluation. With these limitations we can accept everything natural science teaches. The fact that what science says conflicts with the plain teaching of God's word does not require us to adopt a pseudo-science or to re-evaluate God's word in the light of it. Sarah's womb was dead and Sarah had a child in her old age. The two facts conflict with each other. Both are legitimately maintained in the belief that God calleth those things which be not as though they were (Romans 4:17).

    Some serious hermeneutical hopscotch is needed to deny the literal meaning of days in Exodus 20:11.

    The ordinance of the Sabbath is now doubtful if six days is not literal.

    If the first Adam is allegorical, then the second Adam is, too?

    A literal Adam is required in Romans.

    The Apostle clearly described Adam as the first human sinner--not whatever millions of human-like beings in the presumed evolutionary chain.

    Death came through Adamic sin, an explanation from Scripture that is cast aside in the notion of millions of years of death and destruction prior to Adam assumed by evolution.

    AMR
    Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; September 9th, 2017 at 11:58 PM. Reason: grammar
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    Eagles Wings (September 10th, 2017),glorydaz (September 10th, 2017)

  7. #20
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    39
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1072
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    The believer need not assume the burden here. Scientific theories (not "facts" as you are asserting) are moving targets. To say that science must have the final word is to make an unscientific statement. Science is an open canon, therefore contradiction is to be expected. We expect no contradiction in Scripture because it is a closed canon. What Scripture says it has always said and will always say. Science is an open canon. Science has said things which it no longer says and what it says today may yet be changed.

    The believer must allow the Bible to say what it says. Whatever one thinks about physics, astronomy, or any other science, he has no right to impose his unproven, ever advancing scientific explanations on Scripture and make it say something other than what Scripture says.

    Some may ask, "So what is the epistemic limitation of scientific discovery?"

    We should answer, that first, it is limited to natural phenomena. Secondly, it is bound to observable fact. Thirdly, is only ever descriptive, never explanatory. Fourthly, deals with probability. Fifthly, is always open to re-evaluation. With these limitations we can accept everything natural science teaches. The fact that what science says conflicts with the plain teaching of God's word does not require us to adopt a pseudo-science or to re-evaluate God's word in the light of it. Sarah's womb was dead and Sarah had a child in her old age. The two facts conflict with each other. Both are legitimately maintained in the belief that God calleth those things which be not as though they were (Romans 4:17).

    Some serious hermeneutical hopscotch is needed to deny the literal meaning of days in Exodus 20:11.

    The ordinance of the Sabbath is now doubtful if six days is not literal.

    If the first Adam is allegorical, then the second Adam is, too?

    A literal Adam is required in Romans.

    The Apostle clearly described Adam as the first human sinner--not whatever millions of human-like beings in the presumed evolutionary chain.

    Death came through Adamic sin, an explanation from Scripture that is cast aside in the notion of millions of years of death and destruction prior to Adam assumed by evolution.

    AMR
    Can i be a bother and bump in to quoute Psalms 90:4For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

  8. #21
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Carmarthenshire
    Posts
    7,456
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 712 Times in 630 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    171978
    Quote Originally Posted by the589 View Post
    Can i be a bother and bump in to quoute Psalms 90:4For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
    This is symbolism as far as the numbers are concerned. Forget the numbers and focus on what is being conveyed. That the measurement of time has no significance or rule in eternity.
    I know Him, correctly, as Messiah whom you call Christ. Yah Shua whom you call Jesus. Messianists who you call Christians.

    "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm".

    I refuse, point blank, to speak peace to the unregenerate, hypocrites, religious dogma lovers and those that oppose the following statement:
    A regenerate man trusts in the evangelism of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed justness of Messiah alone.
    If you are fully persuaded, by experience, of this delightful, beautiful and life giving doctrine then I love you as a brother.

    Anyone who thinks that salvation is conditioned on anything a man thinks, does or says is atheist. I cannot and will not speak peace to him or her.

    I don't make statements online that I wouldn't repeat in front of my Maker, my grandmother or a judge.

  9. #22
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    39
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1072
    Quote Originally Posted by Truster View Post
    This is symbolism as far as the numbers are concerned. Forget the numbers and focus on what is being conveyed. That the measurement of time has no significance or rule in eternity.
    That is true, in the perspective of eternity we are like the blink of an eye.

    There's also 2 Peter 3:8

    Wether or not one day is really 1000 years it's probably insignificant for us. But digging deeper take a look at the shemitah in Deuteronomy 15:1 , that's 7 year cycle (or 7 day in sabbath weeks) and a 1 year break, or a sabbath day each 6 days(years). Also the 7 day(7000years?) creation and the resting day. There's the theory that a 1000 year rest for the planet is needed every 6000 years. Which in gregorian is around the year 2400

    I don't know, just sharing. May be interesting for some to look into it

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to the589 For Your Post:

    1Mind1Spirit (September 10th, 2017)

  11. #23
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Carmarthenshire
    Posts
    7,456
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 712 Times in 630 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    171978
    Quote Originally Posted by the589 View Post
    That is true, in the perspective of eternity we are like the blink of an eye.

    There's also 2 Peter 3:8

    Wether or not one day is really 1000 years it's probably insignificant for us. But digging deeper take a look at the shemitah in Deuteronomy 15:1 , that's 7 year cycle (or 7 day in sabbath weeks) and a 1 year break, or a sabbath day each 6 days(years). Also the 7 day(7000years?) creation and the resting day. There's the theory that a 1000 year rest for the planet is needed every 6000 years. Which in gregorian is around the year 2400

    I don't know, just sharing. May be interesting for some to look into it
    Do me a favour and stop pointing out the blatantly obvious. I know the scriptures and am fully aware of what Peter said.

    You have a motive that seems to ignore the truth by throwing unnecessary questions to thwart the truth. You then say, "I don't know, just sharing". If you asked questions in a truthful and sincere spirit it would go well for you, but you are like the scribes and pharisees that asked questions to confuse and trap The Messiah and then the Apostles.
    I know Him, correctly, as Messiah whom you call Christ. Yah Shua whom you call Jesus. Messianists who you call Christians.

    "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm".

    I refuse, point blank, to speak peace to the unregenerate, hypocrites, religious dogma lovers and those that oppose the following statement:
    A regenerate man trusts in the evangelism of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed justness of Messiah alone.
    If you are fully persuaded, by experience, of this delightful, beautiful and life giving doctrine then I love you as a brother.

    Anyone who thinks that salvation is conditioned on anything a man thinks, does or says is atheist. I cannot and will not speak peace to him or her.

    I don't make statements online that I wouldn't repeat in front of my Maker, my grandmother or a judge.

  12. #24
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    39
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1072
    Quote Originally Posted by Truster View Post
    Do me a favour and stop pointing out the blatantly obvious. I know the scriptures and am fully aware of what Peter said.

    You have a motive that seems to ignore the truth by throwing unnecessary questions to thwart the truth. You then say, "I don't know, just sharing". If you asked questions in a truthful and sincere spirit it would go well for you, but you are like the scribes and pharisees that asked questions to confuse and trap The Messiah and then the Apostles.
    I don't get it. I thought this was a theology section but you all seem to love is bickering to eachother. You attack me for no reason really. What really are you bothered with? You don't seem to do much but attack people and i just arrived on this forum

  13. #25
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Carmarthenshire
    Posts
    7,456
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 712 Times in 630 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    171978
    Quote Originally Posted by the589 View Post
    I don't get it. I thought this was a theology section but you all seem to love is bickering to eachother. You attack me for no reason really. What really are you bothered with? You don't seem to do much but attack people and i just arrived on this forum
    I didn't attack you I exposed you to yourself. I might not be "nice" but nice is not an attribute of Elohim. Truth is not only an attribute of the Father it is personified in His Son.

    I have spoken truth to you and you have hated the truth and despised the messenger.
    I know Him, correctly, as Messiah whom you call Christ. Yah Shua whom you call Jesus. Messianists who you call Christians.

    "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm".

    I refuse, point blank, to speak peace to the unregenerate, hypocrites, religious dogma lovers and those that oppose the following statement:
    A regenerate man trusts in the evangelism of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed justness of Messiah alone.
    If you are fully persuaded, by experience, of this delightful, beautiful and life giving doctrine then I love you as a brother.

    Anyone who thinks that salvation is conditioned on anything a man thinks, does or says is atheist. I cannot and will not speak peace to him or her.

    I don't make statements online that I wouldn't repeat in front of my Maker, my grandmother or a judge.

  14. #26
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    39
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1072
    Quote Originally Posted by Truster View Post
    I didn't attack you I exposed you to yourself. I might not be "nice" but nice is not an attribute of Elohim. Truth is not only an attribute of the Father it is personified in His Son.

    I have spoken truth to you and you have hated the truth and despised the messenger.
    I tried sharing, preferably discuss some things in the bible and you're going on about some wierd stuff. I have the impression this is just an ego game to you and you don't take anything seriously? Lets just agree to disagree and avoid eachother next time alright?

  15. #27
    Over 500 post club WeberHome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    577
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 44 Times in 37 Posts

    Blog Entries
    288
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    19301

    Post Re: Things To Know

    -
    To Infinity And Beyond

    Gen 1:16 . . He also made the stars.

    Celestial objects require some special consideration because of their apparent distances and the apparent time it takes for their light to reach the Earth.

    For example: last decade, an analysis of the light that Hubble telescope detected coming from a distant galaxy named A1689-zD1 suggested it's apparent distance at approximately 12.8 billion light years.

    Chronologically; the cosmos' creator began constructing the Earth before He began constructing the stars; which indicates that as a physical structure, the Earth should be older than A1689-zD1. But geologists have pretty good reason to believe the Earth to be only something like 4.5 billion years old; while A1689-zD1 appears to be a minimum 12.8 billion years old.

    So then, it seems reasonable to conclude that A1689-zD1 is Earth's senior by at least 8.3 billion years. But there's a rub. Light's journey through space is complicated by some curious mysteries.

    1 The available data suggests that the universe is expanding in all directions. And not only is it expanding; but the velocity of its expansion isn't steady, nor is it slowing down as might be expected; but rather, contrary to common sense and Newton's standard laws of gravity; the velocity of the cosmos' expansion is accelerating due to a mysterious force which, for convenience sake, has been labeled dark energy.

    Plus, the expansion isn't uniform. Galaxies farthest from our own appear to be moving away faster than those closer in; which means of course that viewed from those farthest galaxies; our own would appear to be moving away faster than those closer in because the expansion is moving us too.

    Ergo: many of the galaxies seen by powerful telescopes are quite a bit more spread out now than when they were born. How much more I don't know; but if the age of the Earth is really and truly 4.5 billion years, then it's my guess the difference is significant.

    2 Light has no detectable mass, yet is effected by gravity; so that light's path through the cosmos is not always the shortest distance between two points; which suggests to me that A1689-zD1 is nearer than its estimated 12.8 billion light years.

    3 Although the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, the void is a bit more complicated due to the fact that it's state isn't steady. There are forces in space influencing not only light's path, but also its velocity. There was a time when scientists sincerely believed that although light could be slowed down, it could not be sped up; now they're not so sure.

    4 Light doesn't decay. In other words: there is no detectable difference in age between the cosmos' first light, and the light emitted by the screen of an iPhone.

    5 The more that scientists study the cosmos, the more things they discover about it that cause them to question what they believed in the past. Today's scientific truth is only valid until another truth comes along to cancel it.

    All the above suggests to me that A1689-zD1's apparent distance has no bearing upon its age; viz: the estimated age of the cosmos is only loosely theoretical rather than actual. In other words: current dating methods are unreliable and subject to revision. It's very possibly true that the Earth really did precede the stars just as the Bible says.

    Now; a consideration that shouldn't be overlooked is that Gen 1:16 refers only to stars visible to the author's naked eye, which would limit the category to those of the Milky Way. In point of fact, as recent as the beginning of the last century, most astronomers sincerely believed that the Milky Way contained the sum total of all the stars in the universe; up until Edwin Hubble showed that the Milky Way is just one of many galaxies-- now estimated to number as many as 200 billion in the observable universe.

    God challenged Abraham to count the stars (Gen 15:5). But of course without optical assistance, Abraham was limited to the stars of the Milky Way; whose apparent diameter is estimated to be a mere 100-150,000 light years.

    The final say of course is the Bible. According to Gen 1:15, stars illuminated the earth on the day that God made them, which was prior to His creation of humanity. In other words: it's not unreasonable to believe that God didn't wait till starlight reached the earth on its own, but punched it straight through in order to begin illuminating the earth immediately.

    But what's the point of putting all those objects out there in space? Well, for one thing, they're not only brain teasers; but they're actually quite pretty. Celestial objects decorate the night sky like the ornamentation people put up during holidays. The night sky would sure be a bore if it was totally black. Decorated with stars; the night sky is like a beautiful tapestry, or a celestial Sistine Chapel.

    "The heavens declare the glory of God, the sky proclaims His handiwork." (Ps 19:2)

    Stars makes better sense that way than to try and find some other meaning for them. I believe the universe is simply a magnificent work of art-- just as intriguing, if not more so, than the works of Picasso, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Monet, Vermeer, and da Vinci --testifying to the genius of an engineer-artist without peer.

    "For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made." (Rom 1:19-20)

    /

  16. #28
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,945
    Thanks
    3,118
    Thanked 2,864 Times in 1,735 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147670
    Quote Originally Posted by WeberHome View Post
    -

    Celestial objects require some special consideration because of their apparent distances and the apparent time it takes for their light to reach the Earth.
    That vast stellar distances seem to contradict the plain reading of Scripture should lead us to question the vast distances versus trying to force the Bible to conform to extra-Biblical theories.

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  17. #29
    Over 3000 post club Epoisses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    54
    Thanked 730 Times in 620 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    82239
    Quote Originally Posted by WeberHome View Post
    3 Although the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, the void is a bit more complicated due to the fact that it's state isn't steady. There are forces in space influencing not only light's path, but also its velocity. There was a time when scientists sincerely believed that although light could be slowed down, it could not be sped up; now they're not so sure.
    The sin of Adam and Eve broke the whole universe not just planet earth. Before sin there was no death or decay which means suns didn't explode or go supernova, there were no planets being blown up by asteroids, the speed of light itself was probably instantaneous. It's hard to imagine what things looked like when they came fresh from the hand of God but it is nothing like what we see today. One of the promises in Revelation is that God will make a new heaven and new earth for the first heaven and the first earth will have passed away.

  18. #30
    Over 4000 post club 1Mind1Spirit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    4,579
    Thanks
    520
    Thanked 926 Times in 743 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    569116
    Quote Originally Posted by Truster View Post
    Do me a favour and stop pointing out the blatantly obvious. I know the scriptures and am fully aware of what Peter said.

    You have a motive that seems to ignore the truth by throwing unnecessary questions to thwart the truth. You then say, "I don't know, just sharing". If you asked questions in a truthful and sincere spirit it would go well for you, but you are like the scribes and pharisees that asked questions to confuse and trap The Messiah and then the Apostles.
    When from 1999 till now was Christ fully formed in you?

    Did you feel like he was tryin' to trap yuh?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us