SIMPLE Astronomical Evidence Supports the Bible

I disagree that our purpose in life as Christians is to take on the wise of this age and "prove" or "show up" their worldly wisdom with our nifty Bible scriptures.
I agree with the power and meaning of this scripture. Do you?

Surely, God has mandated that we share the message of Christ to the world. God has NOT mandated that we go out and try and rant and rage against the established methods and wisdom of the educational system. When people see you, they need to see the power and love of Christ in you, not a man armed with a few scriptures who is trying to get them to see where the entire intellectual/educational system is flawed through its source.

jar writes:As a Christian, I can honestly say that it is nothing but pure gibberish. It is filled with unsupported assumptions and pronouncements but nothing else.

Jan Sochon writes: ARCHprinciple, the beginning of something; cause, origin, reason,source, composition, stock, sum, recapitulation, whole; Latinprincipium, initium, imperium, magistratusbeginning, element, component, factor, source, supposition, rise or generation, the beginning of the world, dominion, authority, office, quintessence, principle, attribute)a philosophical term applied in attempts to explain reality in ultimate terms.
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. All the possible meanings of arch may be divided into three (overlapping) major fields of meaning. (1) They refer to the categories of time and space while they designate something’s source, the beginning from which arises a being, a process of generation, or knowledge. This is the extreme starting point which does not follow by necessity from anything else but after which in accordance with the nature of things something else occurs. That which was first before anything else began to exist; also the beginning (and end) of a segment or line, sometimes identified with the cause of what is happening in the present. (2) They indicate a cause-factor-principle that sets something in motion, the so-called efficient cause and ultimate reason of something. As the starting-point and beginning, the arch reaches further than this something else which emerges from it. The arch encompasses the other and at the same time has dominion over it.

Creator/creation relationship?

Thus it constitutes the limit of all comprehensibility and at the same time it is the condition for the possibility of the limit as such. (3) Arch may be connected with meanings of a sociological and political provenance. Arch describes the highest position, the accumulation of power with explicitly formed authority; hence in further meanings it may designate an official office, a period of the exercise of power, also a way of governing, a land, a political state, and so that which is under political power.
... Man has human nature, and the world has its physis. Thus the world can be subjected to investigations consisting of an analysis of its operation and the description of observed changes, growth, or disappearance. The changes occur because there is a foundation, a cosmic order that enables changing reality to endure. There is nothing that would not be physis. People, the god, and the world form a unified, homogenous, and one-level reality; they are parts or aspects of one and the same physis which everywhere sets in motion the same forces and manifests the same living force. Hence physisthe broadest conceptcomprehends arch as well, as this principle is equivalent to a concrete material of a cognitive aspect that is necessary (it should exist) in attempts to justify reality as a whole. In the question presented, Aristotle is an eminent guide. In the Metaphysics, he presents a precise account of all the possible meanings of the term arch, both in the ontological order and in the gnoseological order. He notes that arch may be regarded as a starting point, a principle or beginning, from which motion first begins in things (e.g., the beginning for a length and a road is that to which an opposite terminal point corresponds), and it may also be that from which something best begins (since, e.g., in science, sometimes it it is better to start not from what is first but what can facilitate the acquisition of knowledge) (Met., 1013 a). Aristotle holds that the principle-beginning is the first and immanent component from which the generation of something begins (the foundation of a house, the heart or brain in living things), and this is recognized as the material source of the thing . 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. In this way, by calling upon the formal cause and final cause of being, the list of ultimate principles is completed.
Aristotle’s proposed systematization compels us to ask to what extent do the multi-faceted approach and metaphysical characteristics of this systematization correspond to the actual solutions undertaken by the Greek philosophers who spoke of an arch? In response, we may say that in the period from the seventh to the fourth century BC the conventional view among philosophers was that an immanent principle of reality existed, although they had widely varied conceptions of what this principle was. Anaximenes spoke of air-life as the principle. Diogenes thought that reason was the cause of things. Empedocles spoke of earth together with other elements. Pythagoras spoke of a non-extended number-principle, a sign of formal universality, a unity. Xenophanes of Colophon spoke of earth together with water as the principle by which living things are produced. Anaxagoras spoke of an eternal number of qualitatively different elements. Leuccipus and Democritus spoke of an infinite number of indestructible particles called atoms. Heraclitus spoke of fire-reason-logos. Ion of Chios spoke of the three or trinity. Parmenides, already at a high level of the metaphysical project, spoke of Being (that which is) conceived in terms of identity, that which explains reality although it changes practically nothing in human life. Plato spoke of a really existing order of ideas, and the chief idea was that of the Good.
These descriptions of the world’s deepest foundation were not elements that went beyond the cosmos. Each one was a principle and at the same time the source of a principle that unifies reality. Even Anaximander’s archthe apeiron or unlimited, although possessing the property of infinity and lack of definition, could not be comprehended by reason. It still did not become, as would be the case with Heraclitus, a transcendentally pure concept, because from it all the worlds emerge by necessity, and the process of destruction and generation repeat in cycles from eternity. We are dealing here with a certain kind of multi-functional philosophical principle. As the source and measure of the order of law in the cosmos it had divine value, while as another indefinite nature it did not go beyond the eternal order of the cosmos.

ptolemy writes:
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.

Percy wrote:
I think you're going to have to put this in familiar terms that people will recognize and understand. If this is a foundational principle of science it isn't one I've ever heard of.

ptolemy wrote:
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.

Percy wrote:
I can't know if I agree with you until you can articulate what that principle is in terms I can understand. The way you're currently describing it is not something I've ever heard before. I do a lot of scientific reading, and I don't recall anyone ever insisting upon a scientific first principle, though the one I cited in my Message 12 seems a pretty good one.[

ptolemy wrote:
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.

Percy wrote:
If Peter says this in the Bible, how can you reject it?

Monk wrote: 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?

ptolemy writes: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.

jar writes:As a Christian, I can honestly say that it is nothing but pure gibberish. It is filled with unsupported assumptions and pronouncements but nothing else.

ptolemy writes:
Instead of an ad hominem attack...

truthlover writes:
I can't see there's anything ad hominem about jar's statement. The statement is strong and negative, but it is not a personal attack. It is an assessment of your post based on its content.

ptolemy writes: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,

When something shifts as a relationship,...

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.

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.

The stars were PLACED in the firmament. The firmament is what was pounded out.