Opinion talk:Victorious Biblical Astronomy Part 1

Post comment,
or browse more talk.

Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

The article says:

...we have no consistent answer to the evidence for a very old universe. ... There is a simple answer to the dilemma creationists have struggled with.

But what is the answer? I don't see it. Philip J. Rayment 05:59, 4 April 2006 (GMT)

Solomon gave the answer long ago. He said even though a man should seek laboriously - he cannot discover the work done under the sun (the solar system). (Ecc 8:17) He even tells us why in Ecc 3:11 using the word `owlam for long-time.

The answer is that we must interpret the Bible on the subject of earth-history with hermeneutics - not science. No author of the Bible could have intended a scientific meaning. Western science did not even begin until more than a thousand years after the last words of the Bible were penned. What the Bible says about the vast ages during only 4,000 years of the Old Testament can be confirmed by observing how orbits in spiral galaxies change over the continuum of the universe's existence. All ancient people thought that ancient days and years were long - just like Jacob said in Genesis 47:9.

Our first principle is the basis of our way of thinking about time and matter. For example, science defines time with clocks, even though no clock can compare a past second with a present one. Then it uses those clocks to define distance, so that most of its units of measurement are circular. If matter were changing as a relation, we could not detect it locally. Yet when we compare distant atomic clocks with local ones, the more distant they are, the slower. Every distant orbit spirals out - a violation our laws of physics. (The scientific answer, to protect their first principle, is that the universe is 99% invisible). Nine times the Old Testament says the heavens CONTINUALLY spread out. It even says God continually calls the stars to come out, which is visible in every spiral galaxy. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble UDF were all dwarfs without arms.

God will at some punctual point fulfill I Corinthians 3:18 - 20. He will take the wise in their own wisdom, because visibly we can see that every bit of matter in the universe has continually changed. Why would God do this? So that man by his wisdom cannot find Him. (I Corinthians 1:20 - 21) Only by simple faith in the cross of Christ can we come to know him.--Victormc 07:33, 4 April 2006 (GMT)Victor McAllister

(I indented your reply for clarity.)

The answer is that we must interpret the Bible on the subject of earth-history with hermeneutics - not science.

That's not actually an answer. That's a principle to apply in arriving at an answer.

''If we followed that priniciple we could never interpret the Bible with science. Hermeneutics means interpret it the way it would have been understood in their language and culutre - not our science.Moses could never have intended a scientific interpretation of creation. Such thinking did not even exist then.

Hope I don't offend anyone by jumping in. I have a few questions:

1) Why do you place hermeneutical and scientific reasoning in opposition? can't hermeneutics lead to scientific conclusions and science enhance our hermeneutics?

2) On what basis do you claim that moses could not have intended a scientific interpretation of the account of creation?

3) On what basis do you claim that scientific thinking did not exist in the time of Moses? Have you not seen the scientific and engineering marvels of the pyramids? If scientific thinking did not exist then, then what sort of thinking did? Ungtss 22:22, 4 April 2006 (GMT)

All ancient people thought that ancient days and years were long - just like Jacob said in Genesis 47:9.

Please clarify and/or justify. Did those ancient people think that days were 32 hours long and years 386 days long, or what?

They could not even think of time the way we do as though it were an independent entity. (Solomon says time is in our minds or hearts). They used the biblical system (Genesis 1:14) - the cycles of the heavens. The Western concept of time is denied by Greek and Hebrew words in the Bible because it repeatedly calls the Old Testament era the eons - the long time - the ancient time. Take the case of Jacob - he said days and years shorten from one generation to the next - as ancient people thought. He also drove his suckling lambs on a 300 mile trip in ten days and impossible trip using the asme means today. Alexander could march his armies further than Napolean even though Napolena had four wheeled wagons with work horses and Alexander had ox carts.

What, then, do you do with the account of "days" in the flood story? Did it rain for 40 eons, and the water continue to rise for 150 eons? Ungtss 22:22, 4 April 2006 (GMT)

For example, science defines time with clocks, even though no clock can compare a past second with a present one. Then it uses those clocks to define distance, so that most of its units of measurement are circular.

How does that make it circular?

We define matter with Aristotle's assumption, then we use those definitions to establish most of our units of measurement. That is a double circle. Our experimental system, our mathematics, everything, is dependent upon the same assumption - that matter is immutable. Yet every distant atom clocks a different frequency than local ones.

Yet when we compare distant atomic clocks with local ones, the more distant they are, the slower.

The more distant they are from the centre of gravity, the slower they run.

1) what do you mean, "no clock can compare a past second with a present one?" what is the importance of comparing seconds, and what would the significance of comparing seconds be?

2) why does "our experimental system, our mathematics, everything" depend on the assumption that matter is immutable? In fact, matter is not seen as immutable -- e=MC^2 settled that once and for all.

The "gravitational redshift" is a miniscule shift. Of course the whole concept of gravity fails in th distant universe which is why astronomers claim the universe is made of invisible things - in order to justify what is visible. Yet God says - I am the one who continually calls the stars to come out. Come out of where?

Every distant orbit spirals out - a violation our laws of physics.

How is that a violation of the laws of physics?

When things fall toward the massive parts - that is physics. When the stars AND GAS in every spiral galaxy accelerates - moving away - spiralling around - spreading out - that is a violation of the laws of gravity - but it fits the grammatical words of the Old Testament where God says He is the one who is spreading them out.

you didn't answer his question -- you just restated your claim. why is the spreading out of the galaxies of violation of physics? what law of physics says that things can't spread out? doesn't gas spread in a vacuum?

...visibly we can see that every bit of matter in the universe has continually changed.

In what respect?

Every respect. We should take those two Greek together-words literally in Romans 8:22. It changes together. The extension of primordial matter was much more compressed. Look at the most distant galaxies in the Hubble UDF. The motions of primordial galaxies were unlike local motion. The geometry of atoms - the quanta - the light frequencies - was wildly different. Matter changes as a relation. Those Greek together words are not translated in most English Bibles because it does not make sense to the Western mindset.

how do you know that "the motions of primordial galaxies" were unlike local motion? how do you know what primordial galaxies were like, or if there were even any at all? Ungtss 22:22, 4 April 2006 (GMT)

Only by simple faith in the cross of Christ can we come to know him.

Agreed, but what has that to do with the answer?

I've come to the end and still don't understand the answer. Philip J. Rayment 09:45, 4 April 2006 (GMT)

That is what a first principle does. It makes us think unlike any people who ever lived on earth before us. Colossians 2:8 warns us of the stoicheion - the first principles of the world. He even warns us about trying to be wise IN THIS AGE I Corinthians 3:18. Can He really do what He promises, make foolish the wisdom of this age? All he had to do was make matter continually phthora. We can visibly see that all the matter in the universe continually changes. God alone is wise.My answers are interspersed in italics. Victor McALlister --Victormc 21:44, 4 April 2006 (GMT)

sir, you think differently than anyone i've ever met, and i'd like to explore your thoughts in greater depth. i confess, tho, that i cannot follow any of your lines of thought. your last comment has me totally baffled. Ungtss 22:22, 4 April 2006 (GMT)

Perhaps I should add a second essay. What is a first principle, where we got ours, and why it prevents us from accepting what the Bible says about earth history hermeneutically. Victor McAllister --Victormc 00:12, 5 April 2006 (GMT)

I look forward to it:). I'm also interested in your answers the my questions above, if you have the time or inclination. Ungtss 00:33, 5 April 2006 (GMT)

There's many comments I could make, but Ungtss has responded on many points, so I'll just add a few.

We define matter with Aristotle's assumption, then we use those definitions to establish most of our units of measurement. That is a double circle.

A circle is when you return to the beginning. You started with Aristotle's assumptions, but you didn't return there, let alone return twice. There is no circle, let alone a double one.

Of course the whole concept of gravity fails in th distant universe which is why astronomers claim the universe is made of invisible things - in order to justify what is visible.

It's not the concept of gravity that fails, but the Big Bang cosmology.

When things fall toward the massive parts - that is physics. When the stars AND GAS in every spiral galaxy accelerates - moving away - spiralling around - spreading out - that is a violation of the laws of gravity...

No it's not. Countering gravity is centrifugal force. That is a well-observed and documented phenomenon. You throwing a ball up in the air is not a violation of the law of gravity (which pulls it back down).

[Matter has changed in e]very respect.

Every respect? So matter has changed mass, colour, shape, size, velocity, composition, position, temperature (ouch! the matter comprising my keyboard just went to 98 degrees Celsius! Ah, now it's back to room temperature. But I can't read the keys because the matter in the ink of the letters printed on the keys just became invisible!) and whatever else I can't think of? Or can you narrow it down a bit?

We can visibly see that all the matter in the universe continually changes.

I can't. The comments about my keyboard were made up. The matter comprising my keyboard has not visibly changed at all.

Philip J. Rayment 10:03, 5 April 2006 (GMT)

Certainy it has changed color - that is visible. When comparing similar objects from the past, the more-distant (the long ago variety), the redder they are. In the most-distant ones we can see the colors are in the infrared, a warm light rather than a destructive light. We can see that the shape, size, and motions were different in primordial galaxies. (Nine times the Old Testaments says God is continually spreading out the heavnes - calling out the stars - which is visible).

Mass is a symbolic property of matter. No one has ever found any "mass" without circularly using the other alledged properties of matter, such as time. (Even Einstein admitted that the properties of inertia involved circular reasoning). Yet NO DISTANT CLOCK - atomic or orbital - visibly moves or pulses like local clocks. Every living thing changes as a relation - in complex way - together - in parallel. That is what we see atoms doing when we compare the local variety to primordial ones. Aristotle commanded that all knowledge must be based on things that do not change. He said we must assume that matter has unchanging properties. 2000 years later the result was a changeless science that must mathematically deduce that the universe is 99% invisible because it cannot aceept what is visible (and what the Bible states) that everything in creation is phthora (changing without being destroyed).

We have built a symbolic way of measuring - with mathematics. If everything is changing, as is visibly evident, we could not detect it locally with our symobls. We can see the past visibly. Everything we see shouts out that our symbols are merely the result of our first principle, the one Aristotle invented. The Bible predicts and contradicts this first principle. The Bible is supported by the strongest evidence in the distant heavens - because we can see that every bit of matter continually changes. I am not presenting some theory. I am using the Bible and history to show that the whole structure is based on a false elementary assumption. All attempts to date the long ago radiometrically or astronomically are based on this assumption. But what we see in the heavens supports a biblical chronology. (That is for a later essay). Yet it is hard to think outside the box that Aristotle built for us.

God will do what He promises - make foolish the wisdom of the world so that simple faith in Jesus will triumph for His glory. (I Corinthinas 1) Victor McAllister --Victormc 17:25, 5 April 2006 (GMT)

you make good and interesting points. i'll grant your assertion that all matter is in a constant change at some level -- that movements at the subatomic level through motion around the sun, in the galaxy, and in time mean we never step in exactly the same river twice. But at the same time, while things do constantly change, they also stay the same in important ways. The "Nile" never contains exactly the same water, but it is always the Nile. My atoms may completely replace themselves every 7 years, but i am still Ungtss.

While i agree with you that it's ludicrous to assume that anything stays exactly the same, i also think it's necessary to acknowledge that many things do stay the same. If we don't grant that, then we have no way to interpret, understand, or interact with our universe. What if I failed to believe that gravity would behave the same today as it did yesterday? Would I jump off a tall building believing I could fly?

Secondly, let's differentiate between changed substance and our changed perception. granted the assumption that red shift = motion (an untestable hypothesis), then we perceive more distant galaxies are more red-shifted because of their motion relative to us at different speeds. But that doesn't mean there is anything different about the galaxies themselves -- it's the same with a keyboard -- the color of a keyboard may change because of a change in lighting, but has the keyboard itself actually changed?

Thanks for clarifying ... I'd like to hear more of your reactions ... Ungtss 19:58, 5 April 2006 (GMT)

The analogy you used of the river came from Heraclitus of Ephesus. His solution to change was that everything is continually changing. He said the only thing that does not change is change itself. He believed that this change was the cause of stability, sort of like a bicycle that stays in balance because it is moving.

Colossians 1:17 says Christ, not change, holds all things together (sunistao). The Greek verb is perfect - showing that this one time event was completed in the past. All the matter in the universe (the heavens and the earth) was created (Hebrew verb completed action Genesis 1:1) - on the first day when God created light. Matter is a relationship with light which gave it form and dimension. It continues to hold together even as it continues to degenerate and change.

It is in the distant stars that we see the complete triumph of a literal, biblical world-view. Every atom in the universe is visibly seen to continually change. This is not just a light frequency thing. We can see how the “inertial” properties of matter continue to change in the connected arms of spiral galaxies. Primordial spirals are all tiny dwarfs and they continually spread out in a remarkably harmonious way. The Hebrew verbs (nine times) show that this spreading is a continuous process. Scientists cannot believe what they see because their dogma is that matter does not change. They invent a universe that is 99% invisible - so that they do not have to believe what they see. Can God make such a system foolish? Victor McAllister --Victormc 01:13, 6 April 2006 (GMT)

Thanks for your great thoughts ... a couple more questions. What do you mean "Matter is a relationship with light which gave it form and dimension?" Why do you believe that scientists won't admit that matter changes when they do, in fact, admit it all the time, in the form of "stellar evolution" and nonsense like that? What do you mean, "Can God make such a system foolish?" Ungtss 01:49, 6 April 2006 (GMT)

Peter quoted the end time mockers saying: “apo” (the separation of a part from the whole; the going forth or proceeding of one object from another object) “diamenei” (remains unchanged in being). They write thousands of papers on the first milliseconds of the “big bang”, the faster than light hyper expansion, the expanding hot soup, until matter became opaque to light and atoms formed. From then on, all matter is fixed; all atomic motions became perpetual motions that no longer require an expenditure of “energy.” Even when they measure change, such as relativity; they reference the changes to “equation” time; a fixture that exists only in the realm of symbols.

Clearly matter is associated with light - internal virtual light - that interacts with electrons. God Himself mentioned “houses of light” in Job 38:19 - 21. The house of light has a border, it is the residence of darkness, the paths of light in its house are mysterious, it was formed long ago. That is the best description of an atom I have ever read.

In order for something to be foolish, it must be a falsity that ignores the simplest evidence and substitutes dogma for what is visible. Every single atom in the universe visibly changes, as we can verify at various ranges / eras. They invent a plethora of invisible things, black holes, dark energy, dark matter, vacuums pushing galaxies apart at close to the speed of light (yet the galaxy itself does not move - only the vacuum), and vacuums stretching light. None of these things have ever been observed anywhere. Why? They only know how to think with their first principle, the dogma that matter does not change, when clearly and visibly it does. What would you call that? Victor McAllister --Victormc 07:27, 6 April 2006 (GMT)

Certainy it [my keyboard?] has changed color

No, my keyboard has not visibly changed colour since the day I bought it. Apart from a few obtuse responses like that to my questions, you are not explaining yourself at all. Without satisfactory explanations I, for one, could not recommend this article stays. Philip J. Rayment 10:49, 6 April 2006 (GMT)

Victor, I still can't understand why you argue that scientists believe that matter is immutable. atoms can be smashed and broken into pieces. They've found hundreds of different shards of atoms they like to call quarks. These shards fly for a while, and then disappear. They also document change from one element to another (particularly in stars). More basically, matter substantially changes its characteristics when it is chemically recombined (hydrogen behaving differnetly than water, etc). Nobody is seriously saying that matter doesn't change. Now if what you're trying to argue is that nobody has established where the continual influx of energy driving the charge in electrons + protons, then you have an excellent point -- but that's not what I hear you saying. I hear you saying that scientists believe matter is immutable ... when indeed they think it changes constantly, and they prove that change occurs, all the time. what do you think? Ungtss 12:03, 6 April 2006 (GMT)

I use the word immutable to mean “not susceptible to change or variation in form or quality” not indestructible or chemically sterile. Western science was historically founded on Aristotle’s assumption that matter does not normally change. Peter predicted the arché of the last day mockers on the subject of the age of the stars and geology. All things diamenei - unchanging in being or relation.

When scientists measure atoms, they use Aristotle’s assumption to mathematically compute things that cannot be unambiguously measured - e.g. the “rest mass” of a electron. When two protons are smashed together, the pieces do not add up to the original “mass.” When a high speed particle collides with a fixed object, the collision has a much higher impact than if the alleged “mass” were a fixture. Einstein said this was relativity - all things being equal - matter returns to its normal unchanging state. This is an assumption. We cannot compare clocks in the past with present ones except in the distant skies. A scale would remain in balance even if matter changes because both sides would change. Yet long ago galaxies did not move like local ones. We can see in every spiral galaxy a biblical cosmology - matter (including gas) CONTINUALLY spreading, expanding, “like a curtain” like a tent to dwell in”.

Should we adjust the Bible to fit our scientific way of thinking, or should we accept what it says as it would have been understood in the culture and language when the Bible was written? I am working on Part 2 in which I will examine hermeneutically the biblical basis for accepting what it says about everything in creation changing. We will only triumph over the evolutionists when we start fighting with the Word, instead of science. The distant universe is the very place where a literal biblical cosmology is so clearly visible. [1] I Corinthinans 10:3 - 6 predicts that we will be able to bring down the speculations raised against the knowledge of Him once our obedience is complete. Victor McAllister --Victormc 18:56, 6 April 2006 (GMT)

I use the word immutable to mean “not susceptible to change or variation in form or quality” not indestructible or chemically sterile.

Thanks for the clarification. Let's go further. Who do you know who says that matter is not susceptible to change in form or quality? Water turns into ice and steam, a change for form and quality. A neutron decays into a proton and neutron when removed from the atom, another change in form and quality. Uranium-238 decays into Thorium-234, another change in form and quality. These are all facts that have been proven repeatedly, and which are accepted by every person that's looked into them. I'm not questioning whether or not things change continually -- i agree with you. But I don't see the significance of this, because i either 1) don't understand what you mean by change, or 2) don't know anybody that doesn't believe matter changes. What i'm concerned with here is a "Straw man" -- it appears to me that you're shooting down contemporary science by arguing against an assumption it doesn't hold. Have I made myself clear? Ungtss 19:41, 6 April 2006 (GMT)

I am talking about a first principle, not a theory, phase change or radioactive decay. I am talking about our epistemic history. Our system of thinking was founded upon the assumption that matter does not normally and continually change. This assumption became prominent when mechanical clocks became regular (Hugens, Hooke). Newton discovered they could model motions with calculus in which “time” was the independent variable. Science can only measure and model differential changes in which something changes in relation to something else that does not change with it. In the scientific system, changes are referenced against: the primary independent variable.

What we see in the distant universe is both differential and relational change. All distant clocks - atomic and orbital are slower than local ones. Westerners think of time as a thing, an independent entity, although no experiment and no clock has ever separated any time. We can only say this process is faster than that one. Our first principle causes us to think about matter as having symbolic properties that no experiment has ever separated without reliance on our first principle. A first principle is not a theory. It is the basis for the Western way of thinking.

None of the definitions of physics, not even the mathematics, or the experiments could be used to decode the universe if the historical first principle is false. The reason you have never heard of this assumption, is because science is taught with practice problems without ever going back and examining the historical roots.

Why should we question this first principle? Because Peter predicted it. Because Paul denies it. Because the Bible makes statements that are unscientific. But we have unconsciously adjusted the Bible. “It can’t mean that.” We tailor the Bible to fit our way of thinking, and then can’t understand why we are losing the war of ideas. Millions won’t even consider the gospel because we want the Bible to be scientific. We even apply Western ideas about time to the Bible, whose authors never thought about time our way. They wrote about it in ways that make no sense to us, so we tailor it. Why should we question the first principle? Because the Bible says someday, when our obedience is complete, we will bring down the mighty fortress of ideas raised up against the knowledge of Him. It is in the distant heavens that we can clearly see the simplicity of a literal biblical cosmology. Victor McAllister --Victormc 08:19, 7 April 2006 (GMT)