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

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

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.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

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

Hi, Victor! Tell me about your belief...do you believe that the Bible was transcribed by men yet was a divine impartation of wisdom from God?Having been before the Greek Philosophers, do you advocate that the wisdom presented in original scripture was mean't to be seen in that context and that humanity has redefined the definition of the origin of wisdom through the age of the enlightenment?I have always been cautious in mixing Biblical theology with science or cosmology/astronomy.
I am a bit uncertain...in other words, the verdict is not in...regarding history and archeology.I have no qualms about using Biblical theology to define and or correct psychology and sociology, however. Well..all I know is that when we look through a telescope, we are looking backward in time. For all we know, everything that we see may no longer exist.The universe is a fact to be dealt with, however. Are you suggesting that what we see through the lens is not actually what is there or, more to the point, how things actually are?Speaking as one christian to another, I encourage you to remember that you are dealing with individuals here at EvC.
We are engaging in dialogue, through the wonder of computers...a communicative realm that was unknown twenty years ago.As such, this is a wonderous forum of human interaction. As I respond to you, or to Jar, or to any of the other folks here in the forum,
I ask myself what it is that I am trying to do. Am I trying to prove a point? Am I trying to build a relationship? Am I trying to entertain myself?Keep these things in mind when engaging us in dialogue. Many of us have by now seen your website Biblical Creation Defeats Science | A Literal Interpretation and at this site we can read much of what you believe.You have an active mind! I think of your dialogue as more than gibberish yet I encourage YOU to keep in mind the beliefs and backgrounds of the people to whom you are communicating with.Obviously, not all of us think alike! Jar sees many aspects of Christianity differently than I do. We have discussed some of them over the past couple of years. We have an online relationship, however, and neither of us is actively seeking to change the mind of the other. Dialogue can be enlightenment. Dialogue can be teaching.My admonition to you is to take this EvC communication thing slowly.
Get to know us. Watch the opinions which we post to each other in other posts. Contribute a few responses of your own here and there.
You will find a forum of online friends here. What you will not find are converts to your exclusive theory and way of thinking.Lets take it slow so that we can get to know you...through debate of your topic here.Don't expect us all to agree with you. I will ask everyone to extend courtesy to Ptolemy as well! Respect earned is respect given.------------------------------------------------------------
Enough of the lecture! Getting back to your topic, what is this obsession that you seem to have with that word, arche?This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-14-2005 02:06 AM

...and the keywords are 'as though'.In other words we have someones idea of what such a thing would look like despite the fact they really have no clue as to what such an ejection would appear.Tell me, what smooth-particle hydrodynamic simulations of these proto galaxies have you previously performed that produce objects with these properties? I'd appreciate the references to your simulations.As evidence this makes hearsay seem like a signed confession.This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 04-14-2005 05:51 AM

we're gonna have a thread crossover. let's talk about the biblical description of the heavens, and then the classical qabalistic interpretation. רקיע is the hebrew word rendered as "firmament" in the kjv. you are correct in that this word comes from רקע, which means "to beat, or stamp out" or "to spread out."this is supposed to connotate images of working hot metal or molten glass. in other words, it's a solid object. firm, even.

quote:

---

Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out [raqia] the sky, [which is] strong, [and] as a molten looking glass?

---

in the text, this is a solid object. a vault or dome of the sky.

quote:

---

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

​

Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

---

this vault separates water from water. so everything outside of it, (above the sky) is water. and everything below the ground is also water. if you squint your eyes at one or the other, sure. but the text itself does not literally fit reality. there is no glass dome in the sky. and there is no water just outside our atmosphere. yet that is what the bible explicitly says.now, the qabalists ran into some problems with this even in the middle ages. they knew there was more going on than the bible said. how did the sun and moon move independently in the glass dome? how did the stars and planets move independently? how did it account for the world being round?their interpretation was of multiple, layer glass spheres that surrounded the earth. planes of existance, sort of. the first two contained the sun and the moon. then they gave one to each known planet, and one to the stars. this should sort of ironic, because it's close to ptolemy's model, although i forget if they bothered with epicycles or not.each of these spheres was assigned an angel, an agent of god to keep them moving along. the planets moved strictly by will of god, since they had no concept of gravity or orbits.sound crackpot to you? seem anything like what we know the universe to be like?This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-14-2005 11:16 AM

jar: 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.You say "as a Christian" as if that means anything to me. All that tells me is that you're way of thinking is very limited to someone elses opinions that you've decided to adopt just because they are written and because of this, it has been passed along and people have jumped on the band wagon. Now you feel safe to say "I'm a Christian and there are other people that are also Christians and have also read the same opinions I read too and they fit their lifestyle, so I must be right." I know because I used to be that way. I know you'll do what works best for you, but I let go of all of that and now I realize that all everything that anyone thinks is just based on opinions. Some are just more popular than others and I respect every viewpoint and opinion I recieve as a new possibility and line of thinking that I may have overlooked. I don't believe that any human really knows what's going on. What's better? Windows or Macintosh? They both run great, but they're completely different. Opinions.I always found it interesting to think... If the human race stared all over, what order would we do everything in next time? Would we find things that we didn't find before? There are things that have never been discovered still, what if those were found first. The variables in our existence have such great magnitude that I don't believe I could ever conform to one line of thinking, only enjoy reading, discussing, and thinking about the possiblities that are out there.

1. use the little-red-reply-button at the bottom of posts, to respond to them. it sends a message to person that you've replied, and makes it easier to follow threads of discussion.
==EDIT== ==Peek==2. Jar is probably one of the most respected members of this community. His way of thinking is not limited to someone else's opinions. He has a very good and educated grasp on everything from biology to theology. He understands the bible better than nearly anyone else on this board. Jar is not just a Christian, he's a THINKING christian. Some of us have a better idea than others.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-20-2005 12:43 AM

SVr5 is better.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi Ptolemy,Carefully defining your terms would make it easier for people to understand your point. For example, you say: You earlier suggested that people scan through Aristotle's metaphysics, but there aren't many people who will do that, plus you're expected to make your arguments here, not hand out reading assignments.Poking about on the web I found Aristotle's First Principle of Logic, that holds that soemthing cannot be simultaneously both true and false, also called the principle of non-contradiction, but that doesn't seem the right first principle for this context.I found this definition of Aristotle's First Principle at Science and Worldviews: This would mean that someone who rejects Aristotle's First Principle is actually rejecting all of western science, especially fields like physics and chemistry, so that couldn't possibly be right.What I think you really mean by Aristotle's First Principle is what you at one point earlier in your post stated as Aristotle's belief "that there is something whose nature is changeless." This is from Book IV of Aristotle's Metaphysics, which most commentators believe is very difficult to interpret. You're the only person I could find on the web who refers to this as Aristotle's First Principle.Whether or not a rejection of changelessness is consistent with the Bible, it is certainly consistent with modern science. But you go on to say: The items you mention, cosmological expansion, dark matter, dark energy, black holes and the big bang, are all postulated because of evidence and are not "merely mathematical". Evidence for all these things varies. For example, the evidence for cosmological expansion, the big bang and black holes is extremely strong, while evidence for dark matter is indirect, and that for dark energy is probably the closest to being what you called "merely mathematical", though it is necessary under current theory to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. Inutility? Together-words? Excluding atoms from all creation? Could you express this in terms other people can understand?I did some hard work figuring out your meaning and didn't get much of anywhere. If the one significant constant in discussions with you becomes that people can't understand what you're trying to say then what's the point of being here? Could I request that you take to heart this criticism that extends back to your initial topic proposal and make a much greater effort to render your contributions intelligible to the average person?--PercyThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-20-2005 12:47 AM

hi, percy! welcome to the evolution vs. creation debate!

Thanks for the advice! I was wondering how to do that I don't mean to bash anyone when I come here I swear. I just love adding new twists. Even though you have told me of his respect and your opinion of him, my opinion will not change about me or anyone else here. I don't know you and you don't know and that's how I like it. I just love adding new twists to the whole scenario.If I am too bold then let me know and I will no longer post here because I will let you know right now that the # of posts someone has and the amount of respect they earned doesn't mean anything to me at all. My opinions and feelings will be the same regardless and I will express my feelings and thoughts in this manner. This may not be the best place for me, I was just really excited when I found this site.I wanted someplace to really critique the Bible and all the weird things I've been taught growing up as a child. I have a really weird religious background myself. I'm trying to get myself out of it and now that I've let go of my old teachings my brain is going places it's never gone and I needed to constrict my thoughts somehow. I'm glad to see so many other people that think as deeply as me. I admire you all.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-20-2005 12:49 AM

between edit and peek.The one at the lower left is for general replies not for responses to a given post.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion