SIMPLE Astronomical Evidence Supports the Bible

It takes me considerable time to organize my answers. I have many other things to do - so I am slow - sorry!Unlike the ancient Greeks who invented first principles, we don’t seem to examine ours. To question our first principle can be very irritating to the one who has never gone back to examine it. I am sorry if I irritate you - it is unavoidable on this subject - yet the experinece can motivate us to at least test the truth of our first principle.I have shown in Greek Peter used the word diamenei that means unchanging in being or relation. Peter predicted that in the last days they will affirm that matter, indeed all physical things, are unchanging in being or relation. Being: the nature or essence of a person or thing that is fundamental to its existence. Relationship: the way two or more people or things are connected. This word is used for the most intimate close connections. Relativity: describes something in which there are no absolute standards. In Einstein’s relativity, he assumed ceratin distinct elements or characteristics which do not have an absolute nature. Comparisons between a system of relativity and a fundamental relationship.

• In a relationship, what affects one element of the relationship, influences the whole thing.
• In a fundamental relationship, one cannot clearly define the elements of the relationship. For example, one cannot precisely define time.
• In a universe characterized by an orderly decaying relationship, only the simplest kinds of evidence are valid for understanding its history.
• Mathematics cannot model, nor can experiments decode a fundamental aging, degenerating relationship.
  ​
• In a system of relativity.
  
• Although there are no absolutes standards, it is possible to define semi independent elements, if one assumes the basic underlying nature of matter is unchanging.
• One can assign mathematical transforms to these elements defining how they relate to each other.
• Although these transforms will function with precision, if the system is really a close relationship, the result will be paradoxes that cannot be cracked. (Such as non locality and quantum duality).
• It is possible to arrive at many levels of mathematical complexity with a system of relativity, but if matter is really a decaying relationship, the mathematics that works here and now will produce nonsensical things when analyzing the long ago or the far away universe.

Does the Bible teach that matter is a decaying relationship?The Bible is not a science book. Yet it does make short statements about the physical universe.In Romans 8:19 - 22 Paul tells us that God subjected the whole creation to frailty, want of vigor. He twice uses the Greek words hupotasso. Hupo under; tasso - to arrange in an orderly manner. Polybius used this word for disciplined troops who were subject under their generals in an orderly way. The whole of creation is subject in an orderly way to God’s command to corrupt. He uses the same word phthora - for corrupt that Plato used for the degeneration of matter itself. Then in the same passage he illustrates this universal corruption with two compound Greek words that start with the word together. Matter decays in an orderly way - and the two illustrations involve togetherness. Things that change together do so as a relationship. Aristotle assumed that the matter is unchanging. Peter directly contradicts this - saying in Greek that gold is self corrupting right now.(I Peter 1:7) There is no way to harmonize these two positions.

• That there is a simple triumphant answer to the struggles between science and the Bible.
• That the answer is not some new idea - it has been in the Bible for thousands of years. But it is natural for us to use our culture as the standard by which we understand things, even our Bibles. Christians should only have one method for interpreting the Bible - its historical grammar - not our scientific system that did not even exist when the Bible was written.
• That you can verify the truth of the Bible in the earth and stars - but . . .
• You must take what the Bible says as fundamentally true. For hundreds of years Christians have unknowingly taken the ideas of the Greeks as fundamental and used them to interpret what the Bible says about earth-history.
• that if the first principle that Peter identifies is false, the simplest visible evidence in the stars and earth fit the words of the Bible.

I am saying that God’s word is the source of true wisdom, knowledge and understanding. But in these posts I am not talking primarily about spiritual truth, although that is by far the most important, but about the physical universe.This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-22-2005 02:37 AMThis message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-22-2005 10:29 AM

There is nothing wrong with observations. The problem is, when trying to causally understand the long ago or far away, how do you identify your assumption that can lead you astray?Thinking about first principles is not done today, but it is indeed the first, the most impoirtant thing to think about. If Peter can predict ours, which has modified Aristotle on the subject of time, then maybe the Bible is the only book that accurately describes our universe and earth-history. These are minor issues in the Bible, but they are ways people test it for truth.My claim is that the simple evidence from astronmy fits what the BIble actaually says in the original language.

Isn't it about time to substantiate your claim?A. The astronomical evidence to which you allude is far from simple. (gathered via the Hubble Space Telescope)B. You apparently fail to comprehend the text whether in the original or in subsequent translation.In fact: You focus on a single word and ignore how it is used in context. That Hebrew (Chaldean) word: raqia refers to a dome shaped object (e.g. a shield) made by hammering out a strip of metal. You believe this refers to distant galaxies? According to the text: The raqia is placed "in the midst of the water" (primeval water of chaos) for the purpose of separating the water into Upper and Lower regions. [Earth subsequently appears in the Lower Water (AKA Sea)]Raqia gets translated into Latin as Firmamentum which is then transliterated to English as "firmament."firmament n. arch of the heavens; sky. {< Latin firmamentum, ultimately < firmus firm} Thorndike Barnhart Whether we look at the Hebrew raqia or the Latin firmamentum we are talking about something durable which holds back the primeval waters of chaos. The ancients assumed that it would take something hard and very strong to support all that water. db

---

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

For godsake man! Where do you come up with this rubbish? It was Aristotle who, in fact, first described how matter changes. Peter's statement that gold is corruptible denies nothing, except perhaps the common but mistaken belief that gold is incorruptible. Yet, you apparently rely on a sophisticated space-based telescope to validate your opinion of the meaning of scripture. In fact, you rely on "our scientific system" to the exclusion of accepting the simple "historical grammar" of the biblical text. Why should I? You apparently don't. I don't know what you mean by "used them to interpret what the Bible says about earth-history." But, I do know about fundamental ideas of the Greeks like: global theory, germ theory, heliocentric theory, and atomic theory. You have a problem with any of that? Why are you putting down on the Greeks? And doing it with a computer no less! Do you complain about farmers while eating dinner? The simplest visible evidence does not come from an orbiting deep-space telescope!
The simplest visible evidence tells us this: And THAT fits the words of the Bible!db

---

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

People believe this more as they get older. Why? Because it's true; for old folks. Think you've got troubles now? Wait till you get old! Get a grip, man! You're comparing suckling lambs to Longhorn steers!! No! It suggests that Alexander and Xenophon weren't moving heavy artillery.
OR, It suggests that Napoleon's troops may have had more energy for fighting.
OR, It suggests that Alexander and Xenophon's men were in better shape at the outset.
OR, that Napoleon's army was was larger, moving through difficult terrain, & suffering from diarrhea (which they were). Inflation. Taxation. Regulation. Price Hikes. Downsizing. Layoffs. Unemployment. Rising interest rates. Poor gas mileage. Hoof and mouth disease. Daylight savings time; and - The heartbreak of psoriasis.Need I say more?db

---

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

There is a vast difference:
A Brief history of the scientific cosmos:

1. A first principle is elementary and fundamental.
   It is elementary because it is a simple assumption about the nature of matter.
   It is fundamental - the foundation for an entire way of reasoning.
2. Our first principle is that the nature or essence of matter is unchanging
3. Upon the foundation of this first principle ==>our ancestors defined unchanging properties of matter - our versions of time, mass, energy.
4. Using these ==> they invented mathematical laws
5. With these laws ==>we calculated constants
6. Since our constants did not change ==> we claimed that out to the edges of the visible universe - changelessness exists.
7. However, in the far away or long ago - our laws did not seems to work in the visible universe - although our calculated constants remained unchanging.
8. So we invented ==>an invisible universe - 99% undetectable to make our mathematical laws fit the universe.

A Biblical Cosmos based on a literal exegesis:

1. Our first principle is that wisdom, knowledge and understanding come from God’s Word.
2. It says ==> everything in creation degenerates (Characterized by orderliness)
3. Consequently ==> we cannot define specific properties to matter or time.
4. Consequently ==> we cannot invent laws of physics (which supports what Solomon said about the impossibility of causal knowledge in the physical world).
5. However ==> we can accept what the Bible and the archaic writers claimed - that the nature of ancient durations was long - and a few generations separated us from these patriarchs. (The Bible repeatedly calls those < 100 Old Testament generations - the long ages - the eons. If the essence of matter is changing - everything in the universe would necessarily have to change - including orbits and rotations.)
6. However - in such a universe - neither an experimental system nor mathematical modeling could analyze fundamental change - since it affects matter itself.
7. Our Book says God is continually stretching out the heavens.
8. Our book says God continually stretches out the earth and even everything from the earth.
9. We can verify what it says - the most distant galaxies are compressed, often found in strings - implying great changes - and seem to be moving out - ejecting. Closer galaxies are more diffuse - have arms etc. Everywhere in the universe we see signs of great changes.
10. We examine our continents and find that they do not fit back together except on a globe ~ 2/3 its present size. The oceans clearly are newer than the land - not covered with thick sediments - etc. This fits statements in the Bible about the flood and where the water went after the flood.
11. We cannot understand causally such a universe - but we notice it fits the very words of the Bible.

Please notice the vast difference in these two cosmologies
In the scientific system the only evidence of changelessness is directly traceable to our first principle. All the evidence for this is circular and symbolic - countless pages of mathematics that never go back and examine the first principle.In the Biblical cosmos - it remains mysterious and unknowable - but what we see confirms what the Bible actually states in simple language with simple visible evidence. Why would God make the universe work like this?

• For his glory - so that He alone can be wise.
• Because His glory is centered in His great plan to redeem those who have simple faith in Jesus.
• So that faith in Jesus - foolishness to the world - will triumph over any conceivable system of causal knowledge.
• Because He loves justice - and it is just that those who will not believe will deceive themselves.
• All of this will cause those simple folk - who just believed His Word - to praise and glorify His Goodness, Wisdom and Justice forever.

Notice that decisions can be made as to which one is valid. The simple evidence - not based on an untested first principle - fits the Bible alone.This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-23-2005 05:13 AM

Do you have a text of the bible in the original language?

I bet that even if he does, he would not understand it.Genesis is a wonderful story. It has puns, political satire, digs at surrounding religions that you have to understand in the political context of the day. It uses all the names of the of the gods in the Ugartic religion as the name of a single diety, in a rather successful effort in the long run to assimulate that religion.What it is NOT is a science text. People who try to read science into it lose all it's subtle meanings that were actually written in there.

Aristotle certainly understood material decay. Any of his comments which appear contrary to that, are made in reference to heavenly things. (emphasis mine)

quote:

---

"... as exempt from decay and generation, the heaven is eternal."

​

"... all men have some conception of the nature of the gods, and all who believe in the existence of gods at all, whether barbarian or Greek, agree in allotting the highest place to the deity, surely because they suppose that immortal is linked with immortal and regard any other supposition as inconceivable. ... The mere evidence of the senses is enough to convince us of this, at least with human certainty. For in the whole range of time past, so far as our inherited records reach, no change appears to have taken place either in the whole scheme of the outermost heaven or in any of its proper parts. The common name, too, which has been handed down from our distant ancestors even to our own day, seems to show that they conceived of it in the fashion which we have been expressing. The same ideas, one must believe, recur in men’s minds not once or twice but again and again. And so, implying that the primary body is something else beyond earth, fire, air, and water, they gave the highest place a name of its own, aither, derived from the fact that it ‘runs always’ for an eternity of time."

​

"For the perfect is naturally prior to the imperfect, and the circle is a perfect thing. "

​

"The body, then, which moves in a circle cannot possibly possess either heaviness or lightness. It is equally reasonable to assume that this body will be ungenerated and indestructible and exempt from increase and alteration, since everything that comes to be comes into being from its contrary and in some substrate, and passes away likewise in a substrate by the action of the contrary into the contrary, as we explained in our opening discussions. Now the motions of contraries are contrary. If then this body can have no contrary, because there can be no contrary motion to the circular, nature seems justly to have exempted from contraries the body which was to be ungenerated and indestructible. For it is in contraries that generation and decay subsist. "

​

"... we may infer with confidence that there is something beyond the bodies that are about us on this earth, different and separate from them; and that the superior glory of its nature is proportionate to its distance from this world of ours."

​

Aristotle, On the Heavens book one.

---

Yes, Aristotle make great contributions to science. Yes, some of his idea remain valid today. And Yes, we have certainly, and do continually, reasses his ideas, and our own.Your assertion: is simply not true. You continue to ignore that "simple language."Simple visible evidence is found in: "The mere evidence of the senses" (Aristotle); i.e. > in the naked eye of the common man; NOT in mysterious photos from an Orbiting Telescope!More from Aristotle regarding the divine and indestructable nature of the heaven.

quote:

---

"THAT the heaven as a whole neither came into being nor admits of destruction, as some assert, but is one and eternal, with no end or beginning of its total duration, containing and embracing in itself the infinity of time, we may convince ourselves not only by the arguments already set forth but also by a consideration of the views of those who differ from us in providing for its generation. If our view is a possible one, and the manner of generation which they assert is impossible, this fact will have great weight in convincing us of the immortality and eternity of the world. Hence it is well to persuade oneself of the truth of the ancient and truly traditional theories, that there is some immortal and divine thing which possesses movement, but movement such as has no limit and is rather itself the limit of all other movement. A limit is a thing which contains; and this motion, being perfect, contains those imperfect motions which have a limit and a goal, having itself no beginning or end, but unceasing through the infinity of time, and of other movements, to some the cause of their beginning, to others offering the goal. The ancients gave to the Gods the heaven or upper place, as being alone immortal; and our present argument testifies that it is indestructible and ungenerated. Further, it is unaffected by any mortal discomfort, and, in addition, effortless; for it needs no constraining necessity to keep it to its path, and prevent it from moving with some other movement more natural to itself. Such a constrained movement would necessarily involve effort the more so, the more eternal it were-and would be inconsistent with perfection. Hence we must not believe the old tale which says that the world needs some Atlas to keep it safe-a tale composed, it would seem, by men who, like later thinkers, conceived of all the upper bodies as earthy and endowed with weight, and therefore supported it in their fabulous way upon animate necessity. We must no more believe that than follow Empedocles when he says that the world, by being whirled round, received a movement quick enough to overpower its own downward tendency, and thus has been kept from destruction all this time. Nor, again, is it conceivable that it should persist eternally by the necessitation of a soul. For a soul could not live in such conditions painlessly or happily, since the movement involves constraint, being imposed on the first body, whose natural motion is different, and imposed continuously. It must therefore be uneasy and devoid of all rational satisfaction; for it could not even, like the soul of mortal animals, take recreation in the bodily relaxation of sleep. An Ixion’s lot must needs possess it, without end or respite. If then, as we said, the view already stated of the first motion is a possible one, it is not only more appropriate so to conceive of its eternity, but also on this hypothesis alone are we able to advance a theory consistent with popular divinations of the divine nature. But of this enough for the present." Aristotle, On the Heavens, book two

---

Got that? And you thought St. Paul was difficult to read?Anyhoo ... beginning with Copernicus and continuing with Kepler, Bruno, Galileo, Newton and Einstein: Aristotle's assumptions have been examined and re-examined, then retained or rejected as necessary. That activity was central to what historians call the Scientific Revolution. It was the efforts of those men, and many others, which enable us to carry on this conversation via this medium. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the history of science, and the history of the holy scripture; and then return to your 'theory' and see if it still makes sense to you. If it does, then you will at least be better prepared to explain it; because, frankly - your 'facts' appear to way off; and this statement from Aristotle seems to sum up your belief in the supernatural.

quote:

---

"... there is something beyond the bodies that are about us on this earth, different and separate from them; and ... the superior glory of its nature is proportionate to its distance from this world of ours."

---

db

---

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

Please understand that I do not wear the cap and gown of a scholar. If I did, I could not write what I do, because I would be undermining my own frocking.I use a number of books, computer texts and on line repositories in the original language. For example I have the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament - free download. I can look up all the classics in Greek - often with English translations - at Perseus Digital Library I use on line material at Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible that shows the tense, voice, moods etc of the verbs because it is faster and more convenient than using a paper book. (My Greek - English Lexicon by Liddell & Scott (Oxford Press) weighs 5 pounds and is difficult to use - although it is a thorough reference). A couple of Greek scholars have examined some of my exegeses that refer to the physical universe. They have told me they are valid translations, probably the right one, and encouraged me to continue my studies on this subject.I am a simple searcher and lover of truth. For many years I examined the various scientific theories from both the creationists and the evolutions. I noticed that both systems had many discrepancies that were not marks of conformity to reality. Creationists can and do point out the symbiosis between bees and flowering plants as powerful evidence for a Creator. It is when they try to make mathematical theories that they always fail.I prayerfully determined to search for the truth in the pages of the Bible and not try to tailor it to fit my scientific way of thinking. I discovered that it said:

• that God could not give me wisdom if I were double minded - used two systems of thought. I discovered that our ancestors had formed just such a system when they used the elementary ideas of the pagan Greeks as the foundation for science, and relegated the Bible to spiritual truth.
• I discovered that the Bible warned me that the elementary ideas of philosophy take one like a military prisoner.
• It commanded me to rather accept foolishness - than to think myself wise in this age
• Once I determined to search for truth using the historical / grammatical approach, I found many things that formerly I had explained away since they did not make sense in our culture.
• I soon discovered that Peter warned of the first principle, and began a historical study of that principle that has occupied me for several years. My exegesis is confirmed by history - this really is our first principle!

The Bible is not a science book. Its theme is the Creator / Savior, not the creation. But when I stopped tailoring it to fit our science, I found that the simplest evidence overwhelmingly supports the Bible.This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-23-2005 12:57 PM

Hi, Ptolemy. First off, I would like to say that I am impressed with how you have formatted your recent posts. Your presentation of the point or belief that you wish to make has improved in this..your first post.I have a question for you. Lets assume that God spoke to you and taught you something profound. Did it ever occur to you that this lesson that God taught you was mean't for YOU and you alone to understand God?He taught you that it is impossible to understand while being "doubleminded". Based on your own definition, few of us at EvC would be able to understand what it is that you are teaching us since we are doubleminded, or, at least, of the "other" mind which you have rejected.Don't you think that you would be more effective, at least in your next post, if you approach the online discussion from the position of a Bible teacher and not a science teacher? Even IF the Bible supports the science that you (or God) defines, it will never click with anyone here, because we don't understand why the Bible is true.I would advise you not to teach astronomy until we have learned theology. It will never make sense to us anyway. The only reason that you understand the evidence that you have found is because the Spirit of God lives in you. Remember that nobody here will ever understand what God has said until they understand who God is.Teach us who God is. Not what God has said to you.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-23-2005 11:34 AM

You are correct in this but you made in your original post a physics claim that with a pocket calculator can be shown as absurd. Namely, the ejection of something like the LMC from the Milky Way bulge. I challenged you earlier to get out your calculator but you never replied.So Creationists fail and you ignore. Isn't it any small wonder that they get little note.Physics is a can do science. You either can do or you cannot and statements you made make me think (nay know) that you are just wishful thinking about galaxy structure so as to ally it with some vague Scriptural reference.This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 04-23-2005 02:27 PM

Speak for yourself sir.I believe I know why the Bible is true. But then, I also know why the Bible is not true. I believe the difference between my view of 'God' and that of the 'believer' is that I get mine from ALL my life experience, NOT just from what I read in that much edited and perennially revised collection of ancient Jewish lore. The fact that I actually read it puts me way ahead of the average Bible thumper. Most merely parrot what they've been told, and while it is true that they can often quote chapter and verse, it is also true that they seldom have the slightest notion of the context from which those one line, or one word, 'proofs' are extracted.I believe the mistake which Ptolemy and others make, and which I myself did make (once-upon-a-time), is to swallow the Christian sales pitch, hook-line-and-sinker:

Offer expires soon.

​

"God in a Box"

​

Get Yours Now!

​

Last chance!

---

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

This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-23-2005 10:10 PM