SIMPLE Astronomical Evidence Supports the Bible

The Greeks found that, in order to set up a system of natural science, they first needed a foundational assumption about the nature of matter, which they called an arche first principle. Western physics was founded, centuries later, on the first principle suggested by Aristotle. The Bible, on the other hand, tells us that knowledge, wisdom and understanding are from the Word of God (Proverbs 2:6). The Christian’s foundation of truth should be the Bible, not the arche of the philosophers. What does the Bible actually say about the stars?1. The Bible says In the beginning God created [bara`] the heavens and the earth. The Hebrew verb tense shows that this was a completed action.
2. Later on the fourth creation day, God made the sun, moon and stars. The verb made [`asah] means to fashion and shows incomplete action. The stars were in the firmament [raqiya`] that is related to the word for pounding out something dense like metal. It seems that the stars were fashioned, pounded out, from dense materials created and completed on the first day.
3. Numerous passages in the Old Testament use two words to describe the heavens as continuously spreading out. The Hebrew raqia` means to pound out and natah` to stretch out. It describes this spreading as like a curtain (visible area) and like a tent to dwell in (volume).If the Bible is to be understood grammatically, one would expect to see, in the distant heavens, dense things being pounded out and spread out. The Hubble Deeps show tiny naked galaxies, often equally spaced in a chain as though they were periodically ejected.Closer galaxies are more diffuse, some with spiral arms, and their light is not shifted as much as the dimmer ones.
This blowup of a tiny smudge, galaxy 472 in the Hubble Deep North, shows tiny blue objects arching out as though ejected from the center.The visible evidence seems to fit the text of the Bible. Why, then, do astronomers insist that the galaxies condensed from a great cloud of gas from a big bang? Perhaps it is because we use the first principles of the Greeks when analyzing physical data. The Bible, however, even predicted the arche of the last days as: all things continue [diamenei]. (II Peter 3:3-4) Diamenei means to remain permanently in the same state or condition, to remain the same in its being - (fundamental nature), to remain the same in relation. Things that change as a relation, change together. Our bodies are a complex intertwined relationship and we change as a relation - everything ages together. The light from every atom in the distant universe is shifted as though atoms change as a complex relationship - all the parts affecting each other together.Which way is simpler, to use the Bible as the foundation of truth, and notice that the universe fits what it says, or invent a plethora of undetectable, mathematical things like "empty space stretches the light passing though it" to protect our arche that matter (atoms) cannot change-together - as a relationship?<<This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-20-2005 12:35 AM

Jar - You say: As a young Christian, I learned to interpret biblical-earth history with our shared way of thinking. The assumption I am now using is that the Bible is God’s Word and that the proper way to interpret it is with grammar. Instead of an ad hominem attack, show me where my exegesis is faulty with language. Or show me that my exegesis of II Peter 3:4 is not confirmed by the record of history or that this is not ourarche , that we do not assume the very thing Peter predicted. The early philosophers had an enormous problem because all archaic people had an earth history that emphasized change. Read almost any ancient poem such as Hesiod’s Works and Days or Ovid’s Metamorphosis. The opening lines of Ovid’s book:

quote:

---

My soul is wrought to sing of forms transformed
to bodies new and strange! Immortal Gods
inspire my heart, for ye have changed yourselves
and all things you have changed!

---

The Greek philosophers were revolutionaries trying to find something that did not change when everyone believed that everything changed for the worse. The earliest philosophers did not think that matter did not change, only that one particular substance, such as air or water, had changed into other things. Plato thought matter could genesis phthora - come into being and corrupt.Aristotle reviewed all the ideas of his predecessors and then suggested that we must show them and persuade them that there is something whose nature is changeless - the nature of substance itself. I recommend you scan through Aristotle’s Metaphysics (numerous sites have translations on line).Medieval Christians sided with Plato until the Catholic theologian / philosopher Thomas Aquinas argued in favor of Aristotle’s metaphysics. Aristotlean metaphysics was the pinnacle of a good Christian education four hundred years ago. Most of Aristotle's ideas have failed, but his arche seems to have become the modern dogma.The Bible does not seem to agree with Aristotle’s arche , since it even says that gold is self corrupting right now in the present. ( I Peter 1:7 uses a verb tense for perishing = present, middle voice, participle which is like the ing ending in English).I merely am pointing out that if I accept what the Bible says literally about astronomy, and reject Aristotle’s first principle, that what we see in the distant sky seems to fit what it says. Please note, that without the arche, we no longer need undetectable things such as cosmological expansion, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, or a big bang. These things are merely mathematical and based on the assumption that atoms cannot change as a relationship. They seem to have been invented to protect the modern arche.The Bible clearly states that the whole universe was subject to inutility and even uses together-words in Greek to describe that universal corruption [phthora]. This is the same word Plato used for the corruption of matter itself. How could I exclude atoms from the whole creation if I interpret the Bible with grammar, not science? Edit by PBThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-20-2005 12:39 AM

What we see in at the greatest distance is how they were and what is close is how they are. I accept what we see as valid. Why do scientists populate the universe with more than 90% undetectable things? They are faced with paradoxes that don’t fit their primary assumption, their arche, so they must invent undetectable things to explain away what is visible.For example, galaxies are paradoxical. The stars apparently orbit at about the same speed without regard to distance from the center. In the solar system, the earth orbits at ~30 km/sec. Uranus which is 19 times farther, (19 AU), rotates at 30 / (19), about 7 km/sec, so the earth laps Uranus 84 times for its one orbit. That this relationship does not work in galaxies is visibly evident, especially in spiral galaxies. The arms of a spiral galaxy are connected back to the hub with gas linkages and streams of stars as though they were ejected. http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/.../43/images/a/formats/web.jpgHowever, ejections would demand some sort of fundamental change. Astronomers explain this visible phenomena with invisible density waves for which there is not a shred of visible evidence. Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions More than ten times the Old Testament mentions the continuous spreading of the heavens. The simple visible evidence fits exactly what the grammar of the text says.Thomas Kuhn, the historian of Scientific Revolutions, explained that science is a system that shares a common paradigm and the evidence is seen from that perspective. What is the most basic assumption of science? Peter says the first thing to know (what is first in precedence and rank) is the arche of the last days. He explains their arche as all things diamenei. That little Greek word means they think things remain the same in relation.Perhaps you think, how could matter change as a relationship when we measure constants? Yet constants are always associated with things that change as a relationship, like mechanical or chemical equilibria. The constants are not an indication that things are not changing, but that billions of reactions in one direction are balanced by billions in the other and the whole process can shift as a relationship. The reason the constants do change is because they are defined in terms of the whole shifting relationship. The light from the most distant stars shows that matter has shifted as a relationship. May I suggest that you look up the twice repeated Greek together-words that Paul uses to explain the corruption of all creation. (Romans 8:19 - 22). Things that change as a relationship are interconnected in complex ways, they change-together.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-14-2005 03:29 PM

Thank you for your excellent Hebrew explanation of the words raqa` etc.You apparently believe that nonsensical statements based on invalid solid sky ideas somehow crept into God's word.What I am pointing out is, that if it really is God's word, and it really means what it says, we should expect to see dense things beaten out and spreading out. This is what we see in the most distant parts of the sky, and even occasionally in our galaxy from micro quasar ejections.Halton Arp documents linkages at radio, x-ray and optical way lengths between objects with different redshifts. He was an observational astronomer, published an important catalog of strange galaxies, and spent years of telescope time studying them. He has an extensive number of evidences for quasar ejections and that quasars expand into galaxies.
Halton Arp's official websiteLook under abstracts and read his paper on the "origins of quasars and galaxy clusters. I do not recommend his theories that violate clear statements in the Bible, but his data is extensive. By the way, he has a non paying job at the Max Plank Institute of Physics because after he began to publish evidences that violated the redshift=distance paradigm, he was denied further telescope time and the only way to can get x-ray data was at this institution.By the way, the LMC and SMC (the Magellanic galaxies) are linked to the Milky Way with a
stream of hydrogen gas. I do not believe that the God of the Bible, who says He is the Truth, would ever deceive us by placing a stream of gas to look like ejecta.If the heavens really are spreading out, then the few generations listed in the Bible should have seen it even better than we do. Ovid gave the Roman pagan tradition of how the sky spread out in his Metamorphosis.

quote:

---

Scarce had the Pow'r distinguish'd these, when straight
The stars, no longer overlaid with weight,
Exert their heads, from underneath the mass;
And upward shoot, and kindle as they pass,
And with diffusive light adorn their heav'nly place.
Then, every void of Nature to supply,
With forms of Gods he fills the vacant sky:

---

Perhaps you are thinking, they could not have seen the sky changing a few millennia ago. Yet Ptolemy measure 1022 stars in his catalog, and his errors vary with galactic latitude. What he measured suggests a smaller galaxy a few centuries ago. He was not the only ancient astronomer who also measured a smaller solar system with angles. This is what I would expect if what the Bible says about astronomy is really true.This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-14-2005 02:58 PM

Thank you for your correction. This is the very reason why they invent undetectable dark matter. I understand your frustration. Aristotle said these elementary ideas are the hardest to consider because they are farthest removed from the senses. He also said one cannot prove them, yet they are the basis of all subsequent proofs. Proclus said no science ever tests its first principles, they are treated as self-evident.On constants and change.
PI does not exist as an independent entity. Human minds invented it, and its definition encompasses the whole nature of circles. When a circle changes, PI stays the same, because every aspect shifts together (areas, volumes, chords, arcs, surfaces etc,). When something shifts as a relationship, the constants remain so, not because things aren’t changing, but because they are defined in term of the whole relationship that changes together.Dessert locust can change from solitary night fliers to vicious monsters that fly in plagues. They neither act nor look the same yet they are the same species. Complex factors can cause the nymphs to go through a phase change - their environment affects them - they affect each other - they all change together. That is the sort of thing that happens when things change as a relationship.Perhaps you think I am trying to invent some theory or set myself up as a know it all. I merely decided to stop interpreting the Bible with two systems: hermeneutics for spiritual things and science for physical things. James said God would not give me wisdom if I was double minded. Because Peter wrote that the first thing to know is this arche - first principle - that all things remain the same, whenever I encounter physics data I ask myself, how was this affected by this elementary assumption.The Apostle Paul warns that the elementary ideas, [stociheon], of philosophy take us like military prisoners. (Colossians 2:8) Paul also wrote (Ephesians 4:3) that we (includes himself) as children were held in bondage under the elementary principles [stoicheon]. He went to school in Tarsus which Strabo said had more advanced schools than Alexandria and Athens during Paul’s youth. When an elementary idea grips, you only know how to think with that idea. If the Bible is the absolute truth, which is what Jesus said, then there must be an answer to the struggles between scientific reasoning and the text. What kind of an answer would it be? If God is not a deceiver, then it must involve an elementary assumption. If this arche that Peter identified is really false, then simple evidence, even in the stars, would support the Bible, but complex mathematical attempts to decode earth-history would only lead to fruitless searches. Can God really do what He says? Can He really take the wise of this age with their own reasoning? All he would have to do is do what He did to the whole physical creation.

Aristotle, said that first principles [arche] are the hardest for men to know because they are farthest removed from the senses. He also said they cannot be proved but are the basis of all subsequent proofs. The are the foundation for an entire way of thinking. Proclus said no science ever examines its first principle, they are treated as self-evident.I never had a teacher say to me, lets start at the first principle, the historical basis of scientific reasoning, and lets go back and examine and test it to see if it is valid. Yet Peter states that it is the first (the most important) thing to know and he predicts the first principle, arche, of the last days.What is it? It is the idea that all thing (everything in the physical universe that is made of matter) remains the same [diamenei]: it remains unchanging in its BEING and is unchanging AS A RELATION.Aristotle insisted that all knowledge must begin with the things that do not change. It is upon this foundation that the Christians of Western Europe built our system. The historical first principle of scientific reasoning is exactly what Peter predicted. It is the idea that substance, matter, atoms, do not change as a relationship. The Bible is could not possibly be a book that supports scientific reasoning. We have tried to tailor the Bible to fit science for centuries, and look where it has gotten us. We are faced with formidable issues - like the dichotomy between the apparent age of the universe and the few generations listed in the Bible. All ancient people, including the prophets of the Bible, had an earth history in which everything changed - even the nature of durations. The Bible even states in Hebrew that the earth stretches out (expands) [verb tense continuous action] and everything on or from the earth does also. That is the most unscientific statement anyone could make.Yet there is a simple triumphant answer that glorifies God's wisdom and truth. It involves going back to kindergarten, to examine the first principle that is the historical basis of our great system of reasoning.If we do, we can see that the simple non philosophical evidence, even from astronomy, fits exactly what the Bible says. It certainly does not fit the scientific system, which is why they must postulate that the universe is 99% invisible. Why must they? Because science has no mechanism for relational change - things that change together. They invent all this undetectable stuff to protect the very arche that Peter predicted. Think about it.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-20-2005 01:10 AM

I agree with you. I share that message all the time. I am not trying to convince evolutionists that they are wrong. Their only hope is to accept the foolishness of the cross of Christ. I rather doubt that a single skeptic has ever come to faith through our scientific undertakings. When we use the simplest evidence, such as the amazing intricacies of a spider’s web, we show the evidence of a wise Creator. In my opinion, creation science is designed to makes Christians feel good - that our culture is approved by our Bible.I am trying to do two things.

• I am trying to show Christians why trying to support the Bible with science has been a vain enterprise. The Bible has the simple answer, and the evidence supports the Bible, but the answer is not scientific at all.
  ​
• Jesus promises that He will return to destroy this world system and set up a kingdom of agricultural prosperity. God often uses nobodies, like a shepherd, to take down the giants. Jesus said, I praise thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes. Yes, Father, for thus it was well pleasing in Thy sight. He brings down the mighty with children, which is His way of bringing justice and disgrace on the mighty. When simple faith triumphs over the wise - this causes the simple folk to praise Him forever.

We are armed, according to the Bible, with powerful weapons of war. But our war is not physical. Our war is against the mighty fortresses - the lofty speculations against the knowledge of God. Paul predicts that when our obedience is complete, we will succeed in destroying these speculations. (II Corinthians 10:3 - 6)When we stop using the elementary ideas, [the stoicheon] of the pagan Greek philosophers, that the Bible warns us about (Colossians 2:8), perhaps then we can win this war of ideas.

Why did it take hundreds of years of intense debates to find a first principle on which to found science and even then their was disagreement? The philosophers were arguing with the first principle of all the archaic people everywhere, even the Jews. The archaics believed their ancestors had lived for a thousand years on a warm world where they did not need houses. Everything had deteriorated and was continuing to deteriorate. The pagans were especially vocal about this. At the Babylonian new years feast of akitu they re-enacted the past - the creation, the flood, the great battles among the planets, and longed to experience that great time of their ancestors. (Mircea Eliade has documented this

quote:

---

Ovid’s Metamorphosis book 1
The golden age was first; when Man yet new,
No rule but uncorrupted reason knew:
And, with a native bent, did good pursue.
Unforc'd by punishment, un-aw'd by fear,
His words were simple, and his soul sincere;
Needless was written law, where none opprest:
The law of Man was written in his breast:
No suppliant crowds before the judge appear'd,
No court erected yet, nor cause was heard:
But all was safe, for conscience was their guard.
The mountain-trees in distant prospect please,
E're yet the pine descended to the seas:
E're sails were spread, new oceans to explore:
And happy mortals, unconcern'd for more,
Confin'd their wishes to their native shore.
No walls were yet; nor fence, nor mote, nor mound,
Nor drum was heard, nor trumpet's angry sound:
Nor swords were forg'd; but void of care and crime,
The soft creation slept away their time.
The teeming Earth, yet guiltless of the plough,
And unprovok'd, did fruitful stores allow:
Content with food, which Nature freely bred,
On wildings and on strawberries they fed;
Cornels and bramble-berries gave the rest,
And falling acorns furnish'd out a feast.
The flow'rs unsown, in fields and meadows reign'd:
And Western winds immortal spring maintain'd.

---

It is impossible to found a system of science among people who believe that everything has changed, the weather, the seas, the vegetation, the length of life - all for the worse. What was the discussion all about? CHANGE!! If everything changes, philosophical reasoning could never approach the truth. Everyone around them believed that everything changes in complex ways. The philosophers task was extremely difficult - trying to find something, somewhere, that did not change upon which to anchor a system of natural reason. Of course changing a first principle is the most difficult of all tasks. It seems to either take many generations or the complete destruction of a society that thinks a particular way.Heraclitus said the only thing that does not change is change itself. Parmenides said a goddess had told him that change was an illusion. In order to establish something that did not change on which to found science, he said everything that seems to change, even motion, is an illusion. People who propose such a solution are desperate to find something that does not change. Plato said matter genesis phthora it can come into being and corrupt - passing away, but the parallel universe of Forms, that is not physical, does not change. Aristotle simply said we must assume that something about matter is unchanging. How did Aristotle invent a whole new formal way of thinking - logic? He could not have done it without his assumption because if A = A but the A’s themselves change, logic would fail in the log run. Aristotle’s cosmology and theories have failed, but his assumption that something about matter does not change is the lowest of all foundations in the fortress of scientific reasoning. He is predicting the arche of the mockers of the last days. Greek did not use quotation marks but clearly it is a quote. He is not saying it is true. Peter himself said in Greek that gold is self corrupting right now. (I Peter 1:7)This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-15-2005 06:50 PM

Long quote omitted but found in message 31.I am sorry. I do not usually quote authorities who give their analysis. I try to go back and read the original texts and make up my own mind.This is because the first principle that Peter predicts is generally obscured with a lot of high sounding language. As Proclus said, no science ever examines its first principles, they are treated as self evident.Why is this? It is the fundamental issue, and examining it is dangerous for those decked in the cap and gown of that system. If one of them ever did, he would be defrocked.I think Dr Michio Kaku claims that the visible universe is only 0.03% of what is really there. Why do scientists invent undetectable, even unscientific things? Because they never question the historical first principle that Peter predicted. All this undetectable stuff is unnecessary if we just threw out a little assumption. The light from every atom in the distant universe is shifted. What is more reasonable, to imagine that empty space can stretch light, or to question an assumption? Without the invisible things scientists invent to protect their first principle, we could actually believe what we see. What we see is that primordial atoms change as a relationship, that they change in complex intra connected ways.If we use hermeneutical principles to interpret what the Bible says about the earth and the stars, instead of science, we should find that the Bible is consistent and:

• The simplest evidence supports what the Bible actually says. This is especially evident in the visible evidence from the distant galaxies.
  ​
• The struggle Christians have with things like the apparent age of the universe have a simple solution that agrees with history.

By the way, a first principle can be tested. It cannot be tested from within the system that is built upon it. That is circular and would beg the question. The test must step outside the assumption and look for evidence that is not dependent upon it. There are many such evidences once you stop using Aristotle assumption as the foundation for reasoning.One of these is what the ancient astronomers recorded, and even in some cases what they measured. The discrepancies, in relation to our computerized ephemera, are the very things one would expect if our first principle is really false, which is what Peter is saying.This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-15-2005 08:05 PM

I apologize to Jar and all readers. What I should have said is that I would expect some reason why it is gibberish, since I am presenting an exegesis of the scriptures. My authority is not my reasoning. I found this in the Bible by analyzing it with grammar instead of science.If my exegesis is accurate, it should seem like nonsense to a disciple of that first principle, because a first principle is an unsupported assumption that is the very foundation of an entire system of reasoning. It is fundamental.By the way, I did not read philosophy and then tailor the Bible to fit it. I first found what Peter said by analyzing the text, compared it to other biblical texts, and then examined the history of philosophy as one of several tests of my exegesis.

Percy, I am sorry. As you know, I am a newbie on this board, and am still trying to get the hang of it.
You are asking me to analyze a lot of things I am not qualified to do. There is only one of me, and I have a list of responses that I should answer and haven’t even had time to read yet. It sometime takes hours to carefully lay out my words when arguing about the arche. It is a subject difficult to make clear, because even our language is affected by our arche. For example, if I write Matter changes and run my grammar checker on it - it responds that the word matter does not take an object, although it is supposed to be a verb. You see we use the word matter as though it is unchanging by definition.In response to your question about whether I believe in the flood. I was told by the administrators to focus my posts on a narrow subject - which of course is impossible when dealing with the arche. I do believe in the flood, and I find a great deal of simple evidence to support it . In fact, in the next verse after predicting the arche of the last days, Peter mentions that this idea affects them so that they will reject evidence for the flood. Geology is complex, but many of the scientific arguments against the flood become meaningless once you purge this assumption from your mind. At least that is my experience.Your long post trying to look for all the nuances of possible arches, are doubtless argued over by philosophers. I am just a Sunday school teacher, as has been pointed out, and the focus of my studies is the Bible. I do not claim to understand all the complexities of philosophy, but since you ask, I will give my opinion for what it is worth.

• There are many arches for many issues, for example what is the first principle of database indexing might have some important rule or other. These may all be first principles in some limited sense.
• My dogma is God’s Word, which I believe we should accept literally (in the way the text would have meant when it was written). I interpret Peter’s use of the word arche as best I know about the historical context of when it was written. I find that the arche was an extremely important issue 2000 years ago. Students were not just expected to listen to the teacher, but to actively debate, especially on the issue of first principles, because they had several back then.
• I believe that this is the modern arche, the lowest rung on the first ladder, (physics), because Peter says it is the first or most important thing to know.
• When I look around me, I see lots of evidence that it is the arche. Everyone protects it, no one questions or tests it, but everyone uses it continuously. It is subtly taught to every kindergartner. For example, lets learn how to tell time. The arche is a very important principle in the Western understanding of time.

I claim this is the foundation of all Western scientific reasoning, the most fundamental arche of all other principles. Christians are often referred to as fundamentalists, a derogatory term. But scientists are also fundamentalists. Their foundation rests on the very arche that Peter predicted. Even experiments and mathematics would be affected if the arche Peter predicts is indeed false. They often say faith is blind because it follows a dogma at all costs. The modern arche seems to be a very powerful dogma, since they will invent all these invisible things to protect it. That is real blind faith in my book.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-15-2005 11:32 PM

This is a simple issue in terms of epistemological history. All the people before the Greeks seemed to accept relational change. A relational change is a complexity where everything shifts together. For example they never seemed to have imagined time the way we define it. It was part of the decaying complexity. They could not believe the planets had unchanging orbits, because their history told about older planets being pushed back into Tartarus, the nether gloom, by new planets.I have been studying this issue on my own for several years because I know of no group that actually questions or tests the first principle Peter predicts. It is my experience, that the first mention of this subject is disconcerting to most people. They think you are claiming to be smarter then they, which is the exact opposite of what I am saying. If the first principle is false, no one could causally understand even "under the sun," which is what Solomon said almost 3000 years ago. (Ecclesiastes 8:17)Yet to examine the first principle is a very liberating thing in a negative way. It does not let you claim superior knowledge, but it does let you glimpse the wisdom and justice of God. It also frees ones mind from the shackles of Aristotle's Assumption. It allows one to look at the evidence from a whole new perspective and to test things from a fundamentally different point of view.I have mentioned that astronomical evidence supports what the Bible actually says. The Bible seems to mention a close encounter and also the apparent break up of a planet, which the pagans also wrote of.Here is a somewhat more complex bit of evidence against our first principle.Claudius Ptolemy wrote that he rejected the claims of earlier astronomers to measure the diameter of the luminaries as they rose with a water clock since such methods are not accurate. [I did not find an English translation of the Almagest on the net. I recommend G. J. Toomer’s translation because it has extensive notes. In that book this is on page 252 - 253]. He gives the size and construction details of the diopra, a pin hole instrument with a sliding piece with which to frame the luminary being measured. He measured the moon in minutes and seconds at its perigee and apogee and his measurements are larger than ours. He explains how he measured the diameter of the sun by comparisons during eclipses with the measurements already made of the moon. His measurement of the moon and all the planets are larger than ours. It is interesting that he states that his predecessors claimed even larger angles. What does that have to do with matter changing as a relation? Such changes would necessarily affect all of reality including the orbit of the planets. In 1672 Cassini, Richer and Flamsteed measured the parallax to Mars using two different methods. Flamsteed used a micrometer eye piece and the diurnal parallax when Mars was stopped in relation to the background stars at inferior conjunction. Since Mars was in a close group of bright stars he measured the change in relation to them as the earth rotated. At almost the same time, Cassini and Richer used the occulation of a star to measure the parallax. Richer was off the coast of South America and Cassini in Europe. Their measurements were within one second of each other and their solar system seems to have been 7% smaller than ours. The ancient astronomers consistently measured a smaller solar sytem with angles. (Angles are one instrument that is not affected by the first principle). The solar system seemes to have grown over the centuries. This is the sort of thing one would expect if matter can change as a relationship.This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-16-2005 01:36 AMThis message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-16-2005 01:42 AM

Differential change is what you refer to. That is change that can be compared to something that does not change WITH IT. Mathematical analysis can only deal with differential change in which something is independent and something else is dependent. They both may change, such as a clock and some motion, but the mathematical analysis relies on the concept of independent variables, something that changes in an independent way with which to compare things.Fundamental change has no independent variables. Therefore, it is not amenable to mathematical analysis or even experimental local measurements. Hans Reichenback in his important analysis of Einsteinian space-time ===> The Philosophy of Space and Time called this a universal force. Reichenback said that such change cannot be measured since it would affect all of reality. Both the ruler and the thing being measured would be affected equally. He said we must exclude universal forces by definition. He expected that such changes would be exterior to matter - some sort of force.I am not saying scientists cannot measure. But if the arche that Peter predicted is really false, they could only measure the differential component of change locally. However, we could look back into the past, and see the effects of relational changes because the light from every primordial atom is shifted, and often the dimmest ones are shifted the most.Paul uses two together-words in Romans 8:22 to illustrate this phthora - fundamental change. It is 1 AM. Running out of time. I suggest you look up those two Greek together-words because they tell a lot about how this change works. Matthew 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.John 10:35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

We all have many assumptions, but in this age only one first assumption, one arche. These assumptions powerfully control how we think in many areas. That does not mean there is no truth, but assumptions are critical and can lead to blind alleys. As a Christian, I believe God moved men to write His Word, although their character, language and culture was a part of that communication. I try to interpret what it says with normal grammatical / historical principles, but my fundamental faith that it is what it claims to be - is never set aside.Those who have some other agenda, can also use grammatical / historical principles to explain away what it says in simplicity. This is true even if they have good intentions, such as those who use science to interpret biblical earth-history, but otherwise accept it hermeneutically. Since you state that it is not God’s word, it is natural for you to look for, and find many reasons why it is not the TRUTH. You become the judge of what claims to be the Word of God and chose what you like or don’t like.For example, you can discard the simplicity of what the text says about astronomy, because it does not fit your first principle. You can say they believed the sky was water or a glass dome, whatever. The problem is, if God breathed it, why would He put myths in His Word? He says He honors His Word above all His Name. It seems pretty important to Him. Your explanations may appeal to you, but they do not fit the whole text, which claims to be the truth. Please note that 2000 years ago the Bible predicted the first principle of the last days - the very way you think. Isn’t that evidence that it really is God’s Word.

quote:

---

Jesus, who claimed to be THE TRUTH, said in John 17:17: Thy Word is Truth.

---

If He calls it a firmament, would He be referring to something invisible but hard, a glass ceiling or invisible cosmic ocean, or would He intend for it to be understood simply. I claim there is simple visible, non mathematical evidence that supports the text, but it does not fit our Western culture which was founded upon the elementary ideas of the Greek philosophers.For example, Elihu says, in Job 38:18, that God is continually hammering out [raqua'] into a thin cloud [shachaq] something dense, hot and strong [chazaq] continuously like molten metal [yatsaq]. The continuous spreading out of the heavens is mentioned twelve times in the Old Testament.Elihu, who lived in the age of dinosaurs, according to the text, seems to think something dense like molten bronze is continuously being hammered into a thin cloud. The Hubble Deeps were a hundred-hour exposures to detect the dimmest objects. Amazingly this dim vista from long ago fits Elihu’s description. Tiny dense hot objects ejecting as though by hammer blows on molten bronze. They look like tracer bullets curving through the dark sky. Objects that are not so dim, closer in time and space, are more diffuse and galaxies begin to have arms. Sure seems like real objects, that must have been dense in primordial days, are continuously spreading out. This certainly fits the Hebrew text.Perhaps you are thinking, that is impossible. This man lived after the flood, just a few millennia ago. My standard of truth is the Bible, not science or its arche. What the Bible says about time and astronomy cannot be made to fit our arche, although Christians have tried to make it fit for centuries. A first principle holds the mind like the grip of a vise. To examine and test a first principle is a liberating thing. It allows one to consider the same evidence without the restrictions of Aristotle’s Conjecture.If people really did see dense objects being beaten out and spreading out in the sky, we would expect that the pagans would also have similar traditions. That does not mean the Bible was a Hebrew version of a myth, but that the pagans explained what their ancestors saw with gods. The Jewish book quotes God as saying He alone continually spreads out the heavens.

quote:

---

Ovid - Metamorphosis book 1:
Scarce had the Pow'r distinguish'd these, when straight
The stars, no longer overlaid with weight,
Exert their heads, from underneath the mass;
And upward shoot, and kindle as they pass,
And with diffusive light adorn their heav'nly place.
Then, every void of Nature to supply,
With forms of Gods he fills the vacant sky:

---

An arche is not just a minor techicality. It is testable in the real universe. I will make a prediction. If the James Webb space telescope reaches the L2 Lagrangian point and functions as intended, it will detect overwhelming simple visible evidence that colaborates the Hubble Deeps. The ejections - the hammering out - the spreading out of the visible sky will be palin to see. But even then, astronomers will defend their arche and invent something undetectable to explain away what is visibly evident.

I did not invent this idea. Peter wrote that it is the first, the most important thing, to know about the last days. What is a first principle?

• It is an assumption.
• It is fundamental - the first assumption - the simplest one - the starting point
• Its object is to understand the physical universe
• It is the foundation for an entire system of thought
• You must have one before you can causatively interpret physical evidence
• It is historical - you can trace through history where it came from
• It is the most difficult idea to think about - Aristotle - who invented ours - said this.
• It cannot be proved but is the basis of all subsequent proofs - again Aristotle
• It is protected at all costs - 99% undetectable stuff is evidence of this protection
• Yet its disciples are rarely conscious that it controls their thinking
• In our day it is taught subtly as self evident
• The epistemic structure built upon it can seem powerful and impregnable
• It can defeat other systems - every society that interacted with Western thinking changed
• It is testable but not with the structure built upon it
• It can be negated in the real universe . . . but
• You can’t get there from here. You have to dig down to the foundations of your thinking system to test it.

What is our first principle?Peter predicted the first principle of the last days. Peter quoted the end time mockers when he explains what it will be. He makes it clear it is false. He quotes their first principle as panta houts diameneipanta: all things, the totality of all things
houtos: in this manner
diamenei: to remain permanently in the same state or condition, to remain the same in being or relation.I am sorry - I have to use the word relation because that is the meaning of the word Peter used. Peter is a prophet and his prediction has come true. All westerners use this as the most elementary of all assumptions when they interpret the physical universe.

It is that everything remains the same in being or relation. Matter cannot change in complex ways as a relation.

All people before the Greeks seemed to accept that matter and time changed together - as a relationship. Perhaps this is why this word was in their vocabulary - but not in ours. Einstein, was not a revolutionary in terms of the first principle. His system does not question this assumption. Relational change can accommodate what relativity cannot. It can accommodate what we really see in the universe - which is that matter changes as a relationship.However in such a universe we can never invent a science that can decode earth-history with mathematics - even if it is a Christian one.Biblical examples of such change would require going back to the Greek of another text. Running out of time now. Maybe tomorrow.