I am talking about physical things like stars, not the first principle of God. More background on the nature of first principles.
Proclus, who died 485 AD, perhaps the last of the Greek thinkers, discusses first principles in Proclus Commentary on the First Book of Euclid’s Elements translated by Morrow. Any science uses proofs that are based on its first principle that is treated as self evident. The first principle is without a foundation - it is an assumption. The consequent laws and theories use the first principle for their foundation. When you fail to separate the basic assumption from the epistemic structure build upon it - you may end up inventing a non existent universe that is 99% undetectable. Keeping the first principle in mind, and analyzing how this principle affects the subsequent reasoning, is the key to clear thinking about the physical universe. Peter said it is the first thing to know.

• It is not what I say that is important. My arguments are from a literal exegesis of the Bible.
  ​
• The interpretation of primordial facts, unless a reliable eye witness recorded them, are strongly influenced by our first principle.
  ​
• The Western concept of time does not fit the statements in the Bible. Yet what the Bible says about the few generations that lived during those long eons would require that reality be a decaying relationship. (That is a complex subject that requires careful exegesis of the many biblical texts on time and is beyond the scope of this limited discussion).
  ​
• Science was invented long before my days and I am not capable of rewriting history. What Peter says about the first principle is now the only way most people know how to think. Perhaps that is why a simple statement that matter ages and changes - as a relationship - is so incomprehensible today but was part of the language 2000 years ago.
  ​
• Most scientists are not aware of their first principle. Yet the Bible predicts it and identifies it as the first, the most important, thing to know about the last days. Isn’t this evidence that it is Divinely inspired?

Let us go back to biblical faith. Is there evidence to support the Bible? Is biblical faith based on false hopes?Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)The word substance in Greek is hupostasis: a foundation, that which has actual existence, assurance. True faith does not need an untested assumption for its foundation. On the sure foundation of faith, we can be certain of the evidence we do not see with our eyes.One of the most consistent attacks on biblical faith uses astronomy.Consider this: The Bible clearly and repeatedly states the heavens are spreading out and even describes this continuous action. The most distant vistas in the sky show lines of equally space tiny naked galaxies. Some of them show linkages as though they were ejected. Closer galaxies have arms and are diffuse and spread out.
Notice that by believing the Bible, I can also believe what I see. 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.Yet the visible evidence doesn’t even require a definition of time.
It doesn’t even require a precise meaning of the word matter or atoms.
It does not even need an understanding of gravity.
It is plain to see. Think about it. Does the simplest astronomical evidence support what the Bible says?That is why keeping the first principle in mind when examining facts can be most helpful.Edited for clarity and appearence by PBThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-18-2005 09:39 AMThis message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-18-2005 08:28 PM

i'm gonna go with you a second here. i'm glad someone FINALLY has the guts to say "look, the bible and science disagree. i'm gonna take the bible." instead of trying to fit the two together and compromising both.but i'm still calling your bluff. do you believe in the glass dome in the sky that the bible talks about, but is clearly contradicted by science? that's not what peter is talking about. from my earlier post:

quote:

---

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.

---

peter is addressing his letter to his beloved (church) saying that the first thing WE should know is that in the last days, people will mock the believers asking for signs of the second coming. you're completely misreading the verse.

The Bible makes it clear that the universe is governed by laws and the same laws apply in the heavens and on earth. God speaks to Job in Job 38:33, "Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, Or fix their rule over the earth?" God seems to challenge Job to a riddle. Can you figure out my laws? I will tell you up front that the same laws govern the heavens and the earth.e.g. Imagine you live in a country with fixed income tax laws. 10% of what you make, no exceptions, goes to the government. Fixed laws - no exceptions - universally applied - what could be simpler.But wait! The government has an inflationary monetary policy. 20% inflation every year. The fixed laws continue to apply, but the underlying reality, the economy, is continuously corrupting. If you observed this economy from a distance (through time) you would see evidence of order (laws of some kind) and continuous decay.When we look at the light from primordial galaxies, we see evidence for order - we also have atoms like their's. We also see that the light is shifted. The whole economy has shifted, inflated, corrupted.Can God do both? Can he make fixed laws and also decree that the underlying reality decay? He tells us just that in His Word. In Romans 8:19 - 22 he explains that this corruption affects everything in creation and he twice uses Greek words for an orderly submission - like soldiers who obey their generals in an orderly manner.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-18-2005 09:12 AM

... Arach, where do you see the word "dome"? What translation are you using? Lets try and break down this whole "waters" idea a bit, shall we?
Gen 1:6-13

​

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

​

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. Ptolemy, I want your comments as well. As for me, I personally interpret this to mean that there are spiritual waters and there are natural waters. Jesus talks of spiritual water. The Bible mentions that the world was made by water. What do you think about this?

Actually, almost all of the translations except the newer highly redacted versions that have tried to revise what is said to get around some of the impossibilities use the term firmament. It's only the newer ones like the NIV that change the wording to try to work around the obvious problems.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

I am just a Sunday school teacher who is trying to use the same grammatical rules to interpret what the Bible says about physical things as I do in the spiritual realm. When I stopped tailoring the Bible to fit my culture, all the struggles I had with astronomical evidence and the vast ages / versus the few generations had a simple answer that the Bible even identifies and labels as the first thing to know. There is not a shred of grammatical evidence from the Bible for your glass domes. Do glass domes continually spread out in area (like a curtain) and continually increase in volume (like a tent to dwell in)?

quote:

---

Isaiah 40:22 He who is sitting on the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants [are] as grasshoppers, He who is stretching out as a thin thing the heavens, And spreadeth them as a tent to dwell in. (Young’s Literal Translation)

---

Thin thing means something fine like a thin cloth or veil. A tent increases volume by astronomical ratios when it is spread out to dwell in. The Hebrew verbs show continuous action. This is what the three Hubble Deep long exposures clearly show - dense compact objects that neither move nor look like anything around here, arching across the sky. Closer galaxies are diffuse, have arms, have spread out, and their orbits usually seem less violent. Seems like the simplest visible evidence supports literally what the Bible repeatedly states.

• Peter identifies the people of the future, the last days: He calls them mockers and quotes them mocking the coming of Jesus.
• The context is earth-history the creation, flood and the eventual melting of our physical earth in the final conflagration.
  
• In the very next verse, he even predicts the influence of their first principle on their reasoning. It allows them to deliberately ignore the evidence for the flood and that the stars are ekpali - of very long ago.

As Peter states, the first principle is the most critical, the first thing to know. It is because modern people never discuss theirs, the one Peter predicted, that they end up confusing the assumption with the structure built upon it. This causes them to invent a fictitious universe, whose very evidence depends on mathematical symbols, not simple visible reality. Can God make foolish (Greek: an active punctiliar action that is certain to happen) the wisdom of this (kosmos) orderly system)?This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-18-2005 08:32 PM

Please:

What is the First Principle???

You've been asked time and time again for this one piece of information.Frankly, I don't think you have a clue what you are saying or trying to say but are simply blathering, spewing out an endless stream of nonsense.So once again:

In 25 words or less;

"What is the First Principle???"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

if you look up in the thread, i've posted a few mentions that describe heaven as a "tent" and one that describes the earth as a "circle." a circular tent would be roughly dome shaped.although, i suppose it could have been another shape. however, a dome seemed the natural view. various ones. well, this is a spiritual thing. these are the primordial waters of creation. they embody chaos. this is why in the other thread, i said it's kind of silly to look for a natural explanation of where the flood water comes from. the bible does not describe the water as being from our universe.i think it may metaphorically represent the void, or whatever is outside of our universe. but literally, it doesn't match up at all.

well, no offenses, but you're not doing so well here. your blatantly misreading that peter verse. the grammar's not even that confusing. actually, the funny bit is that i used that same verse above. here's the jps.

quote:

---

Isaiah 40:22: It is He who is enthroned the above the vault of the earth,
So that it's inhabitants seem as grasshoppers;
Who spread out the skies like gauze,
stretched them out like a tent to dwell in.

---

yes. they're talking about the sky. between the vault (dome) and the earth. clouds. gauze. see the metaphor now? these are not "the skies" these are "the heavens" it's the wrong thing you're talking about. it does not say the heavens are being stretched out. it says the CLOUDS are. as in the clouds in our atmosphere.do you dwell under galaxies like a tent? no. no. no no no. it says "the first thing YOU should know." the people it's addressed to. the first thing WE should know is that people will mock us saying "where is the sign of his coming? everything looks the same to me buddy!" take an astronomy course then. a good portion, though not a majority, of our study of the natural universe relies on light - visible reality.

Since my exegesis claims to refute the modern first principle from the Bible, how could I claim that science confirms the Bible? I distinguish carefully between simple and scientific evidence by always trying to separate what is real evidence from what is merely mathematical or based on the first principle.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. The Bible, in Isaiah, twice says the earth expands (Hebrew continuous action) for which there is straight forward evidence in the continents and ocean floors. 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.

quote:

---

Isaiah 40:26 "Lift up your eyes on high and see who has created these stars, the One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power not one of them is missing."

---

The word lead forth [yatsa’] means to go forth - like the raven that left the ark and went elsewhere. Spiral galaxies are visible evidence that the stars went out from the center. The arms are connected back to the nucleus with gas and star streams. Of course, astronomers must save the phenomena, as the Greeks called it, and find a mathematical way to explain the evidence without abandoning the assumption. The result is more invisible things! The text of Genesis contradicts big bang cosmology.

• God completed the creation of the heavens and the earth on the first cycle of light and darkness.
• What He made had no form or shape until He created light. There is abundant simple evidence that matter, atoms, are a relationship with light. God even refers to the mysterious paths of light in its house that has a border and is also the place where darkness dwells. (Job 38:19 - 21) That is the simplest description I ever read of an atom.
• What He created on the first day was formed into the stars on the fourth cycle of light and darkness.

The Bible does not need philosophical reasoning to confirm it. The simplest kinds of evidences substantiates it, once you begin questioning the first principle. To mix a first principle with its consequences thoroughly jumbles the mind, as Proclus stated.This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-18-2005 08:34 PM

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

quote:

---

If you observed this economy from a distance (through time) you would see evidence of order (laws of some kind) and continuous decay.

---

So the gravitational constant changes with time. If this is the case, then shouldn't different galactic clusters at approximately the same distance require the same correction to their gravitational constants to account for their motions? Is this observed?

not if you have a good enough telescope.ever seen the famous hubble picture of the "empty" patch of space?