SIMPLE Astronomical Evidence Supports the Bible

Err.. Huh? I really don’t understand your OP at all except that it seems to focus on the foundational assumption of matter. Maybe if you explained what that is in more detail it would help. Since you contend Aristotle first suggested it, a link to a source would help.

---

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

As I previously stated, it makes life so much easier for us if you would just include a link to a relevant source. Do you agree with the following?

quote:

---

The term arch is most often used in the meaning which Aristotle gave to it, although it comes from common usage, and was associated with mythic and religious view of culture. There, in the order of pre-philosophical thought, they applied the concept of a primeval first substance from which the world arose spontaneously or by divine intervention. The world was not yet called a cosmos, although it was marked by order, harmonious tuning, and was produced from eternal chaos. Heidegger thought that arch was not an archaic conception but came from Aristotle, and later due to doxography it was interpreted ex post (after the fact) as having been part of the beginning of Greek philosophy.

​

The principles-beginnings all have in common that they are beginnings from which every being, its generation, and our knowledge, arises. We discover some principles in things themselves, and other principles are found outside of things. A nature or element is a principle-beginning. The reason and conscious choice are principles. A substance and an end are principles, since the good and beauty are the principle-beginning of knowledge and motion (Met., 1013 a 20). In this way, by calling upon the formal cause and final cause of being, the list of ultimate principles is completed.

​

Christians later accepted the Aristotelian paradigm for how to conceive the meaning of the question of the arch. In accordance with this paradigm and with the Christian conception of being as a whole, this whole was described as encompassing two opposed members: the sphere of the divine, and the sphere of the created, the region of the world in which man occupies an exceptional position.

​

Henceforth Christian philosophical thought would accept that the whole of being includes God, nature, and man. The domains of particular metaphysics are ordered to these three chief areas of being: rational theology, cosmology, and rational psychology. The Greek conception of arch finally found its ultimate coronation.

---

LinkFrom this I understand that believers have an arch or "principal beginings" that is outside the physical universe. The arch of the atheists is not.All one has to do is Google: Aristotle and first principle arche there are numerous articles. You can certainly add your commentary to the sources that support your argument but please provide the link.

---

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

Quoting authorities proves that you are not simply spouting nonsense which is what I thought you were doing before I found corroboration of "arche" on the net.You want to go back to the original texts, Good! Excellent! Do that and add a link.

You're shooting in all directions. In 25 words or less, but do it without using the word "arche". Can you? Is it possible?You should answer that question before you begin. Now go play This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 04-16-2005 04:06 PM

quote:

---

Consider this: The Bible clearly and repeatedly states the heavens are spreading out and even describes this continuous action.

---

Are you saying that the Bible says the universe is expanding and science says the same thing so science confirms the Bible as least in this one instance?

quote:

---

The most distant vistas in the sky show lines of equally space tiny naked galaxies.

---

What is a naked galaxy?

quote:

---

Some of them show linkages as though they were ejected. Closer galaxies have arms and are diffuse and spread out.

---

So is this confirmation, in your opinion, of science agreeing with the Bible?

quote:

---

Notice that by believing the Bible, I can also believe what I see. But not all truth is evident from the visible. If my foundation is true, the evidence can be accepted in simplicity without an invisible big bang whose evidence is based on the first principle that Peter predicted.

---

You don’t believe there was a big bang or you do? I can't tell.IMO the big bang confirms the Bible. Or the Bible confirms the big bang depending on your arche. Let there be light....Bang....and so it was. Then there’s Penzias and Wilson

First principle:That which came prior to and before in anticipation of the next or secondary principle which was not the principle predicted by Peter because the arche foretold by Peter will come to pass that they find such things foolish to the wisdom of the last days which is also why they invent a fictitious universe based on invisible reality. Plus naked galaxies.Shall I go on? Does that make sense to you? (It sort of does to me which I find scary but that’s another topic).Then you begin to understand our problem. But of course, this is the situation predicted by Peter right? Scoffers and mockers would not understand.I’m trying not to scoff and mock but you make it difficult to understand.

quote:

---

Since my exegesis claims to refute the modern first principle from the Bible, how could I claim that science confirms the Bible?

---

Then you are refuting "something", the first principle from the Bible, therefore you are refuting part of the Bible.

quote:

---

The expansion most scientists insist on is invisible and is thought to stretch light passing though empty space!!! They think galaxies and stars condensed out a cloud of hot gas at the same time as this cloud was expanding!!! Yet the space between the galaxies is visibly empty!!! The expansion the Bible mentions can be verified with the eyes, and even expands real objects like planets and stars.

---

Surely you realize there are wavelengths of light beyond the visible spectra, not recognizable to the human eye, yet they exist nonetheless.I asked a simple, straight forward question, "What is a naked galaxy", a term that you used, and this is your reply?

quote:

---

Quasars are known to be tiny, since they can visibly change over a short duration. They are found in chains and their redshift seems to be related to their position in the chain, (called the quantization of redshifts). At the end of some of the longer chains are more diffuse galaxies and clusters of micro galaxies. Arp shows that some of these chains span more than 10 degrees of our sky.

---

So then a "naked galaxy" is a quasar? Again I can't tell from your reply. In fact, it's not a reply, it's not an answer, it's nonsense and you know it. But I don't believe that matters to you. You are just happy to witness the fulfillment of Peter's prediction by proving that wisdom of the last days "will confound them." I suppose you can overlook the fact that it is YOU who are the cause of the confusion.On the other hand, maybe that serves as a source of pride for you. Have you considered how YOU fit into the last days? Do you consider yourself an instrument of God? Will you deliver His wrath?

quote:

---

To mix a first principle with its consequences thoroughly jumbles the mind, as Proclus stated

---

...then stop jumbling

He's going to need a lot more than 300.