SIMPLE Astronomical Evidence Supports the Bible

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.

1)I am Phatboy--NOT Percy.
2) Lets limit this forum to Biblical issues and leave science out of it for awhile. I think that I may agree with much of your Biblical theory, but I cannot make heads nor tails of your scientific speculations.
3) Note which forum we are in: The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy
Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the very much errant words of men? Lets get the Faith of Peter explained and discussed before taking on Aristotle, Ptolemy, and the humanist philosophers of the species.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-16-2005 10:54 PM

I am so new to this forum - that I did not even notice the subject I requested was placed under Bible Accuracy. Thanks for pointing that out.One of the reasons many people believe the Bible is not true is because it is said to violate scientific facts. Millions of people are convinced by these arguments and those who defend the Bible as the Truth from God, have had a serious problem especially with things like astronomical evidence.I AM NOT presenting a scientific theory. I am trying to show that the Bible is consistent with itself and what it says is consistent with the simplest evidence from astronomy. However, even Christians use our first principle, which we took from the pagans, which the Bible contradicts, and this causes all sorts of problems.The Bible, however, is self consistent and what it says fits the simplest evidence. However, we want it to have scientific backing, and that is where we get into trouble. Science uses its first principle to examine astronomical evidence and the result is a universe made of non existent things.

• God is a righteous judge
• The Bible says the skills and reasoning of the wise is what He uses to take them. They trip themselves up with the system they invented based on this assumption. That is poetic justice.
• He predicts the triumph of simple faith in Jesus over the wisdom of the world.
• He is not a deceiver - He even warns us and even identifies this idea that is the source of error. He deliberately made things so those who will not come to Him in simple faith - will deceive themselves. When Christians disobey His commandment to rather be foolish than try to be wise in this age, we also deceive ourselves.

There is a simple answer - not a solution - and the Biblical answer involves the first principle - the little assumption that is so hard to break free from.

books in the bible do reference other books in bible. quite frequently, in fact.they also reference books that are not in the bible, curiously. except paul. he claims the "scripture" to be "given by inspiration" whatever that actually means. this subject is of course very debatable. what does paul mean by scripture? is he talking of his own work? the torah? the gospels? what? and what of inspiration? does he mean god-dictated, or is it a little more loose? allow me to borrow jar's image from another thread: proving the bible wrong is not exactly a difficult - or new concept. it contradicts itself very plainly in many instances. not everything can be right, by simple logic. we're also talking about a giant glass dome in the sky. not even considered in the slightest. i doubt anybody thought of it that way at all. the planets were just stars that moved a little differently.

I actually found something written that sounded a bit like what Ptolemy has said to us yet was even MORE incomprehensible and wordy than what Ptolemy has been trying to say. The treatise, God as first Principle, appeared at This link. I am not retired, thus I have less time than many of you here at EvC. I did also look up Aristotles Logic in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here. Specifically, I was intrigued with this phrase: As many of you here at Evc know, I have often advanced my theory, based on my Faith and Belief, that there are two spirits (or imaginations) in life. This makes perfect sense to those who have a Belief that the Bible is inerrent or that it is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Keep in mind, however, that this is not a scientific proof---it is a belief. The two imaginations are: I am not going to try and prove my theory scientifically. Suffice it to say that I think that I see where Ptolemy is coming from, although I am not sure! Ptolemy is basically saying that all educated theories and advancements in Western understanding were based upon the original premises and, as such, the entire collective imagination of science is based on a faulty premise.I do not quite agree. Facts are facts, and respect is respect. I do NOT see any evidence that tells me that the Earth is 6000 years old, for example. I DO NOT respect the people at AiG (Answers In Genesis) except that I respect their religious belief.I do believe that God started the whole process of creation. It is easier for me to believe in an eternally existing Creator rather than eternally changing and rearranging matter in and of itself.That being said, I have NEVER felt the need to "prove" God to anyone.Atheists tell me that I cannot, in fact, prove God...therefore He does not exist.In this, I stick to MY belief and MY first principal, which is God exists.Jar has pointed out, (rather wisely for an Orangutan) that the Bible is NOT God. The Bible is merely a book that was written by humans.I will agree that it was written by humans, but the point of contention between us is as to the origin of the wisdom that inspired these early writers.Gnosticism was rejected by the early church, as was some of the early writings, because the flow and the feel (spirit) of those writings was inconsistant with the canoniacal writings approved by the early Church Fathers.Ptolemy? You did not explain to us with any degree of clarity what you mean't by using Aristotle. Is what I said in this post relatively true? Is not what you are suggesting that
the spirit of Peter is in fact the spirit of God? That Peter is teaching us the wisdom of Christ?
The wisdom not of this world? That Greeks look for but cannot find? (Like Aristotle)If so, I now challenge you as a Bible teacher...seeing as how we are in Faith and Belief here.I want to emphasize one point with you again, if I may. It is not good cricket to attempt to redefine science to a group of evolutionists, teachers, thinkers, and logicians such as we have here at EvC. They simply do not believe that the Bible was in any way inspired.Therefore, let us all keep this topic confined to Faith and Belief and NOT to any sort of scientific validity.To Percy and all of the evolutionists and empiricists, I respect your knowledge and your facts.
For now, I will limit my esteemed Bible teacher, Mr. Ptolemy, to the Faith and Belief side of the board. He has to get the faith and belief people to agree with him before he tries to convince or educate any of the science crew!This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-17-2005 04:11 AM

The question that is being asked, in my opinion, is the question of where the origin of the logic and inspiration of the early writers came from? To me, there are only two sources.
1) The wisdom came from God. Impartation.2) The wisdom came about through human interpretation and imagination.To a scientist who accepts nothing without proof, source #2 is the ONLY option for anything ever discussed or written.To a believer who has proof, at least to their own internal satisfaction, both sources appear logical and very real.I will agree with you, Doc, that there is much deception and illogical beliefs in this world.Finally, the reason that believers and non believers never agree (among others) is that believers refuse to start with the discipline of empiricism and psychology to prove their position.Empiricists, on the other hand, refuse to start with the belief that God exists as a basis to explain anything.That is why we go round and round!

Some time ago, someone here (was it Bryan?) started a thread with the assertion that "There is no such thing as 'The Bible.'" The point being that The Bible is not "a book" but a collection of books (anthology). It is not internally consistent or coherent, and clearly not designed by God to be "His Word."That is why I say: The Bible does not know that the Bible exists. Because people treat the Bible as if it is an entity, has intelligence, and contains God. How convenient is that? In fact, a lot of holy scripture has been removed from 'the Bible' and another lot has been added to 'The Bible,' until Jesus and the Apostles would not recognize what we call 'The Bible' today. Paul's claim is not all it's cracked up to be; and its a whole lot more. See my brief article on the subject: InspirationThank you for the gif. I am sure to have fun with it. Depends on how far back you go, of course. By the time Genesis was committed to writing (circa 500BC), the heliocentric concept was being kicked around at the frontiers of 'science,' especially by the Greeks. In light of that, Genesis appears to be a reactionary response to the emergence of that 'godless theory.' As you know, heliocentric theory did not re-emerge and become widely accepted until the sixteenth century, approximately 2000 years after it was first published.You see the difficulty of advancing science in a world dominated by religious conservatives.db

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

You characterization of a first principle is not generalized but is simply a characterization of your own first principle.Your first principle remains undefined. You've merely repeated yourself again. Things remaining unchanged in being or as a relation means nothing to anyone but you.Why don't you try this? Describe one of the theories of western science that has been influenced by your first principle and describe how the theory would be different if the first principle had not been followed.--Percy

Thank you for your observations.I believe there is 'magic' in the universe. Understanding the 'magic' empirically has not lessened the thrill I feel when I am touched by 'the magic.'Lightning and thunder, which the biblical poet calls the 'arrows' and the 'voice' of God, are no less intimidating for my knowledge of their mindless, inanimate reality. But I have learned that praying for protection from lightning is not an effective deterrent to the current.The socially inappropriate urgings of my sexual instinct are no less vexing now than when I believed them to be the work of a mischevous demon. But in this case, praying about it actually helps. (distracts the mind you know, works better as one gets older )My point is: Whether you call it God, and imagine a kindly old superman, or call it Ja, and imagine a clever warrior: the 'magic' remains the same. The 'magic' is there for everyone: Jew, Christian, Muslim, Bhuddist, Agnostic, and Atheist. It is natural, universal, unfailing, and eternal. It is bigger than any one person. It shows no prejudice for race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation.If that is what you wish to call god then I would be at ease with it.If, on the other hand, you want me to believe that there is this guy' who is actually God, or who is sent by God, or who stands in the place of God, then I would want to send you back in time, to when men were granted absolute power, and ruled by divine right, and stood in the place of God. For that was a world in which such ideas were valid and that is the world from which such ideas are drawn.Ever heard of "President Jesus?" I don't think so.It's King Jesus to you, boy.On your knees, or on the stake.
Fire will purify your soul.db

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Good point! The absolutists were so convinced that they were right yet they themselves took it upon themselves to act as God ..(ye shall be as gods...) instead of humbly considering others greater than themselves. Currently, America is as close to being theocratic as it will (hopefully) ever get. The same principle is at work.
It is odd (indeed ironic)how one side "knows" the truth and the lawgiver personally
(or claims to) and then abuses that knowledge and power, whereas the other side allows for Rennaissance and Enlightenment and nameless magic and joyous communion of humanity without a King..(whom they rarely name) and yet advance the freedoms and ethics of the time.

quite. agreed.however, certain books in the bible DO recognize that such collections do exist, if incomplete. for instance, i just demonstrated in another thread that joshua seems to recognize the existance of the torah, or at least exodus and numbers. and probably leviticus. it refers to a book of the law (torah) and makes reference to verses from exodus and numbers.the other joshua, jesus later refers to two collections: "the law" (torah) and "the prophets" (nevi'im). these are collections of 5 and 19 books respectively. he also mentions psalms, which is a collection of 5 books (that everyone counts as one).now whether or not these collections contained all the books they currently do isn't the issue. the fact is that he's referring to collections of books. the contemporary jewish library of holy texts: a bible. so yes, people in the bible are aware of the existance, in some form, of the bible.for a collection of books spanning 3000 years or so, all the time being collected as they go, it's be suprising for books NOT to reference other books or the collection. i do agree with that. but i tend to phrase it, like jar, as "the bible is not god." no, they certainly wouldn;t recognize the gospels, would they? nor the letters of paul, probably. or any of the nt, for that matter. jesus appears to have recognized a little over 2/3 of the modern tanakh. but i don't know if those collections were closed at that point. so they might have been incomplete. i know. it just gets thrown around here a lot. so i thought i'd bring it up before anyone else did. i do think it might be good evidence that SOMEONE who wrote for "the bible" thought at least some of it was the word of god.i don't think the authors of chronicles thought they were writing the words of god though. the verse doesn't really make any sense, when read like christians tend to read it. thank jar, i stole it from one of his posts. hmm good points.

please download it and link to one of your sites. Bandwidth, you know, is not like Stupidity. It does have limits. But back towards the subject:I would go a step further. The Bible is not an anthology, but rather an anthology of anthologies. It is not just a collection of tales, but rather a collection of collections. In addition, it often does not show either the Author or Origin and the stories are not always laid out as seperate chapters but instead often incorporated into other chapters without designation, attribution or even segmentation.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Second Peter 3:1-4

​

This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

---

he seems to be saying that is the fundamental assumption on which science is based: that things behave in predicatble ways, according to natural laws. this is a fundamental assumption of science, yes.however, it's not what peter's talking about. he's talking about the return of the messiah, and the coming of the new kingdom. tradition and religion, not natural law.ptolemy is basically, incorrectly, using this verse to say that all of science is bunk because it's relying on a faulty assumption that nature behaves in predicatable ways. and that our faith in the bible should be stronger than evidence in the natural world.as such, i think this thread should be moved to faith and belief.

i only linked to it once. won't do it again. quite. like i commented, psalms is actually five books. we still have the division there, mind you. but there is overlap.all the evidence is that the collection process combined multiple sources into complete documents, well before those documents were regarded as a single source themselves. genesis contains at least 3 authors. chronicles and kings/samuel share a good portion of their text, and refer each other and similar books. isaiah and jeremiah borrow from kings, or the source kings borrowed from. etc.

As far as I can gather, he's essentially stating that physical laws aren't universal. We can't prove that they are, though Occam's Razor and the homogeneousness of the observed universe suggest that they are.But certainly, if we were to assume that there is no universal gravitational constant, then there's no support for dark matter theories.