Science, Falsely So-called

[Jeshurun]

¹⁸ For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, ¹⁹ because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. ²⁰ For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; ²¹ because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. ²² Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish ²³ and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things. –Romans 1:18-23.

In Paul's day, things were not much different from the ungodly climate of today. As God-fearing humans, we can clearly see Jehovah's attributes in all his creation. We can only marvel at the complexity of all his work, knowing in our hearts that nothing came about by accident. However, in his eternal wisdom, Jehovah gave us a comparatively simple, yet profound detailed account of creation in his inspired Holy Word. Paul mentioned "his eternal power and Godship", and his "invisible qualities". As we know, these are love, justice, wisdom, and power.

Notice that the first on this list is love. Clearly, all creation was done out of love for its' beneficiaries, we human beings who have been created in the "image of God" himself. Jehovah is the "God of Love".

Now Satan, his enemy, was jealous of God, and his Sovereignty over all these creative works. For the past 6,000 years, Satan has used every ounce of his energy to cloud, obscure, outright lie about these works and the creator behind them, has he not?

Paul has established that the very basis of our faith is evident in all of Jehovah's creative works, through of course, Jesus, the "Master Worker" who was actually the craftsman of all these works, under the direction of his Father, Jehovah God. That being said, what subject, or field of knowledge, might the actual details of creation and how it all works come under?

Science.

Is that agreeable? "Science" attempts to explain all these things, and how they work. When did creation start? How did it progress? How did we get here? Aren't these questions we have all asked ourselves?

Through his Written Word, the Bible, Jehovah gave us all the answers we need. They are right there in front of us, as we have come to discover, that everything, all the knowledge we need, is right there before us. We've seen so much of it come to light, regarding modern Israel, the prophecies, the coming judgment upon the true "House of God", and I could go on and on about information that has been recently revealed to us that has been right under our noses all along. Jehovah, in his infinite wisdom, inspired the Bible to be written this way, like an unfolding drama, so many layers thick in progressively revealed information about Jehovah's purpose, how we got here, where we are going, and why.

Considering all this, as we have seen so many of Satan's incredible deceptions become exposed, should we not pay closer attention to the "science" establishment, and what it has produced to attempt to put an infinite gap, a chasm, between us and our Creator?

What was Paul really talking about in Romans chapter 1, when he said, "against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way"? A little research into some of the teachings and doctrines going on at the time, in the secular, or even "science" establishment, reveals some incredibly interesting things, which we will get into a little later on. Those secular teachings were what prompted Paul to say this:</span>

(KJV)<span style="color:#000080"> O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called. --1 Timothy 6:20

The Greek word here is gnosis. Strong&#39;s says: "knowing (the act), that is, (by implication) knowledge, science.

This calls for an investigation into what has been printed in our textbooks and taught as "scientific fact". How does "scientific fact" (based mostly on theories) measure up to the profound truths given to us in Jehovah&#39;s written word? And what is the agenda, the motivation, the purpose behind many of these "theories"? Where did they really originate? The answers may be shocking, and may provide a much clearer picture of the influence of Babylon.

This will be the subject of this thread, in which I hope to cover a variety of topics within the subjects of "creation" and "science", and my intent is to show that the Bible is the inspired and infallible, word for word, testimony of the Creator of all things, and that Jehovah says what he means and means what he says, and the truths that will come out, exposing the mass "scientific" deception of Satan and his incredible pack of lies that "prove" that the Bible is a fairy tale, based on ancient "Myths". This is an issue, that of the Bible&#39;s accuracy and credibilty, that has long been debated, and will be at the forefront of world controversy very soon!

Agape

Lou

[DoubtingThomas]

In an effort to find scientific support for and proof of the Darwinian theory of evolution, many scientiest, archaelogist, palenotologist,etc. have gone to great lengths at "planting" false evidence. It is like they are grasping at straws. And many of them have been caught and exposed as creating these hoaxes by their fellow scientest. It has been very embarrassing to the honest scientest, when their fellows have tried putting fake bones in a suppossed dig they were working on, or putting DNA from a turkey in to a dig of lizzard fossils. Lee Strobel is the author of "The Case for A Creator" which describes science efforts which have been futile to date at attempting to prove Darwins theory including many of these hoaxes which when I went to school were taught as fact. Textbooks now have to be re-written. "The Case for A Creator" is a great read that I can highly recommend. It is written in simple laymans terms, but detailed enough for educated experts in this field also.

[juffowup]

Many people believe in the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, and a Creator. What about them? The only problem I have in human evolution is that it wrecks Romans 5:12, otherwise I think it explains a great many things. So, either man is a special creation apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, or we don&#39;t fully understand the situation that happened at the garden of eden. Either way, Jehovah&#39;s word is true, but evolution might also be correct.

You might find that you don&#39;t have a problem with science, which is just a system for obtaining reliable knowledge about the physical world, but instead a problem with scientists with huge egos and axes to grind. On the other hand, some atheist scientist simply look at the madness that most organized religion has caused and the lack of physical evidence of a higher being and make what seems to them to be a quite natural conclusion; that there is no god. You can reason with the latter, the former are going to have to be dealt with by Jehovah.

[Jeshurun]

Many people believe in the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, and a Creator. What about them?[/b]

Thanks for your response, Juffowup. This is exactly the question that I would like to discuss on this thread.

What the Bible teaches, which we have jumped through hoops all of our lives to avoid seeing, because it does indeed conflict with what we "know" to be "scientifically established fact that cannot be questioned", is that evolution is impossible. Millions and billions of years of time having elapsed since the "Big Bang" is a Biblical, and as it turns out, scientific impossibility. It is the only basis for Panspermia, which has replaced "Darwinism" as the new "origins" theory.

Panspermia is the theory that microscopic life transported itself from one galaxy to another aboard comets, despite enduring absolute zero temperatures of -497 degrees F. for billions of years, and that "seeds" have been transplanted throughout the universe. Big Bang Cosmology is the only thing that makes this possible.

Just think, some one-celled organism can survive a comet impact on some lucky planet that just happens to be the right distance from it&#39;s particular "sun", with an atmosphere and life sustaining nutrients to boot, and after just a few billion years, it becomes the London Symphony Orchestra performing "Die Fledermaus". There is no word to describe the absurdity of this, whether God is it&#39;s guiding hand or not.

And yet, it serves a great purpose to the elite. Decades of media and Hollywood brainwashing will have paid off, when we turn on the news one day and see hundreds of UFO&#39;s (holograms) hovering over US cities. This comes right out of the mouth of a rather dubious New World Order crony:

<div align="center">----Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

The whole question revolves around the issue of time. The more time that can be added to the age of the universe, the better it is for the evolutionist.

Let&#39;s take a look at Genesis 1:1:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

We can read this two ways. Either (a) God created the universe and then destroyed it again, only to start over, or ( B) this is simply an introduction to the book of Genesis, and should be considered a foreword, and we pick up the story from there.

If we choose option (a), we got a lot of splainin&#39; to do.

If we choose option ( B) , then, quite simply,

The sun, moon and stars were NOT there until day 4, and the earth was formed first.

I know that in itself will start a controversy, so I&#39;ll stop here for tonight and get ready for the onslaught....

Agape
Lou


</span></span>

[DoubtingThomas]

More and more prominant scientest have come forward dubunking Charles Darwin theory. One said that in about 20-30 years we will look back at what was taught as the scientific fact of Darwinian Evolution as being nothing more than just a philosophy that science had no place getting involved in. Darwinism will soon be removed from science text books that teach evolution in the school systems. Darwinism teaches macro-evolution. It is not an established scientific fact. It is an unproven theory that many so-called scientest have been caught trying to prove by falsefying the records. Please see my previous post on this. On the other hand, micro-evolution is a scientific fact. We have seen it happen in some species since the flood of Noah&#39;s day. Jehovah does allow for micro-evolution within the genetic makeup of his creatures.

On the other hand, The Big Bang Theory is now accepted as irrefutable by nearly all scientest. The universe most certainly had a beginning. Time and space and material had a start from a source of energy. This is what the Big Bang teaches, and it is in total harmony with what the Bible teaches as to the beginning of the universe. There is no disagreement between science and God&#39;s Word on this theory. The Theory of relativity expands on the Big Bang Theory. The name "Big Bang" was given to this theory by those scientest in the 1940&#39;s who did not accept it, because they wanted it to appear that the universe had a chaotic un-organized beginning. that is not what this theory teaches. Unfortunately the name has stuck.

There is a huge difference between true science and false. Much false science has been used to support Darwinism, but most of these have been exposed in the last couple of years, especially the National Geographic Magazine sketches, the fossil record, and that famous experiment where amino acids (the building block of life) was supposedly created in a test tube and that famous illustration in text books showing man evolving ina timeline from a monkey.

Excellent topic for Christians to consider, as so many put blind faith in so-called science, accepting it without truly investigating it. Contempt prior to investigation is foolishness.

DT

[Berean]

Of course it&#39;s easy to turn science into some sort of scapegoat, but certain scientists have made it possible that we are communicating with each other here, even that the Bible could be translated into our language and printed so we can read it. As juffowup said, the problem is those scientists with egos that are bigger than the universe, and unfortunately there are quite a lot of those.

On the subject of evolution, it&#39;s a bit like betting on the wrong horse. It&#39;s pretty clear that evolution does take place (certain genes are carried over to later generations, while others slowly disappear from the gene pool - examples of this are redheads becoming extinct, resistence of bacteria to certain antibiotics...), but that doesn&#39;t explain at all how life came to be. For that, you need to go back in time, right to the Big Bang, which did happen all right, like DT explained. How Jehovah created life exactly is of course unclear to us, but it&#39;s certainly clear and logical that, at least to a degree, evolution has taken place since then. Just look at the argument the Society uses for reduced lifespan after the original sin: man became further removed from being perfect, and so his lifespan became shorter. If that&#39;s not evolution, I don&#39;t know what is.

I&#39;m sorry if I come across as overly zealous in my defence of science, but I find that sometimes it just isn&#39;t clear to people (I&#39;m not referring to anyone here) what they are attacking.

[Jeshurun]

Hello Berean and DT.

Yes, there is scriptural backing for a form of "evolution", but not the way science explains it. The experiments conducted on the fruit fly, which has an extremely fast gestation period, gave no evidence that genetic mutations can cause a species to change toward another species. In fact, genetic mutations caused the lines to become sterile and die out. Yes, animals can adapt to environments, this is proven.

We read in Genesis 1:24: And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth (!!!) living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so. 25 And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind.

The very next verse says:

26 And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.

Clearly a separate "creation".

We move forward to Genesis 2:18 And Jehovah God went on to say: “It is not good for the man to continue by himself. I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of him.” 19 Now Jehovah God was forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call it, each living soul, that was its name.

Still creating! The footnote in the NWT says that this denotes "continued progressive action", as it was still the 6th creative day.

Yes you&#39;re right DT, this is an excellent topic for Christians and considering what&#39;s going on now in the scientific community, as you stated, it&#39;s time to set matters straight.

Agape
Lou

[Berean]

Yes, that&#39;s true, evolution becomes an issue when people start saying that new species develop from others. I&#39;m sorry if it seemed I misunderstood you.

[Orchid]

On the other hand, some atheist scientist simply look at the madness that most organized religion has caused and the lack of physical evidence of a higher being and make what seems to them to be a quite natural conclusion; that there is no god.[/b]

What you said is exactly my husband. (Long sigh) And like most men, he&#39;s really stubborn. How will Jehovah deal with him? I wish I knew now and not later. Frankly it makes me feel like junk. Junk!

[Cricket]

Science in itself, is not bad. I find it fascinating and enjoy learning more just about anything. I work in a laboratory and enjoy the scientific processes (hate the politics).

Science is only as good as the methods/techniques used to gather data, interpret the data or how they came to the correct or logical conclusion. The whole scientific process can be heavily influenced by the sponser of the grant money (government, corporate companies, universities or organizations). Anyone can manipulate the data to fit a desired "theory" or assumption and care must be taken when reading about anything. On the other hand, a good ethical scientist can make a positive difference in many lives.

As a scientist I can really appreciate Acts 17:11 where Paul and Silas found the Jews there "received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so". Those Jews wanted to be absolutely sure of the truth of what they were being told and confirmed it by their own independent study.

We, too should also read carefully information presented to us regardless of the subject.

[Jeshurun]

Napoleon Bonaparte, of all people, was quoted as saying:

"Man will believe anything in order to not believe what is in the Bible." (Emphasis mine, although I would venture to guess that it was also his.)

^{2 Timothy 3:14} You, however, continue in the things that you learned and were persuaded to believe, knowing from what persons you learned them ¹⁵ and that from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through the faith in connection with Christ Jesus. ¹⁶ All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

4 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is destined to judge the living and the dead, and by his manifestation and his kingdom, ² preach the word, be at it urgently in favorable season, in troublesome season, reprove, reprimand, exhort, with all long-suffering and [art of] teaching. ³ For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; ⁴ and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories. ⁵ You, though, keep your senses in all things, suffer evil, do [the] work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry.

An unspecified "period of time" would see these false stories being taught. A very important thing to remember is that we should also investigate just what was believed by the Apostles in that period of time. Since what they believed was from the Hebrew Scriptures, that, of course, will be the focal point of most of these not only scientific, but Christian discussions regarding creation and origins.

What I&#39;m finding is that a lot of what has become "scientific fact" is based on a "scientific assumption" that the great flood of the Bible never happened. This, in spite of that very same flood story finding it&#39;s way into the accepted widespread belief of nearly every ancient civilization. The cataclysmic effect of those floodwaters, never before understood because of the very denial of their occurrence, was much greater than we ever could have imagined. And what we will find is that the Bible has accurately described, word for word, just how the universe is structured and how it got to be that way, and best of all, every single word of it fits legitimate science, uncorrupted by occult mathematics. What I also intend to show is that all of this false science originates from that ancient book of real myths, the Antichrist, Anti-God, anti-Gentile, anti-moral, anti-everything-that-is-beneficial-for-mankind Manuscript of Malevolence, the Babylonian Talmud Book of Kabbala mysticism, practiced in secret by the Pharisees.

What I intend to do in this thread it to consult Jehovah&#39;s Word, to "set things straight", a turning aside from "false stories", yes, those propagated by "science falsely so-called". Before I go on, I would like to say that the information out there on the internet is vast and huge. Internet search engines combined with searchable software such as the Watchtower CD-rom and e-sword have made research easier than ever before. Suddenly things pop up that were so obscure and hidden before. We can put in a keyword and come up it&#39;s every occurrence in the Bible, instantaneously.

That being said, I urge you all to do this. Never accept any man-made interpretation as fact, find out for yourselves. That includes me. I search for the truth not only for myself, but for you brothers and sisters as well. The direction that I intend to go in this thread is highly controversial. The ideas at first may seem absurd. I can fully understand this. I&#39;m not a teacher, only a fellow truth-lover. Sometimes I may not exhibit the best skills in trying to prove a point. I ask you to forgive me for those occasions. I will try my best to present a mountain of information in the most clear and concise way I can, and I will make statements that would require vast amounts of bandwidth to substantiate. In respect of Robert&#39;s wishes not to turn this board into a links clearinghouse, I will not post many links, but I will often suggest using search engines on keywords.


Agape


Lou

[juffowup]

Let&#39;s start with the beginning, as you suggest. I&#39;m going to list what I know are facts. I&#39;m not interested in debating any of the conspiracy stuff. You may believe that this is the reason some things like a cosmic migration explanation of the origin of life (itself a very fringe theory), but to me, it doesn&#39;t matter. The facts are what we need to agree on.

The universe is several billions of years old, and so is the earth. I know this because there are stars that are millions and billions of light years away, and yet I can see them. Thus, light has had an opportunity to travel all that way, which lets me know that at least that much time has elapsed. There are other reasons I know these to be true, but this is good for starters.

Nothing I have said contradicts Genesis 1:1, unless one forces a contradiction by saying either this means A or it means B. This is in itself is a logical fallacy. It could be A or B or C or D or on up to how ever many ways you can come up with to interpret Gen 1:1, and we must use our brains to decide which of them is more likely. I judge that is is most likely that Gen 1:1 is taken in the context of explaining God&#39;s role as creator of the Earth and mankind, and is told form the POV of a observer on earth. Taken this way, "In the beginning" is consistant with my statement of fact.

How do you square the distance of the stars and other celestial objects, the speed of light and the fact that we can see them, with an existance of the universe limited to a few thousand years? Before we pull in the flood and evolution and formation of new species and who knows what else, I would like to resolve this issue.

[Jinnvisible]

The angel says `go make your own dirt`.

[Jeshurun]

Yes Jinn, that&#39;s an amazing scripture and it really does tell us that it would oppose the Bible and try to discredit it. The idea is, if you can make a joke of Genesis, written by a bunch of Hebrews who believed in crazy myths, the you can say that Jesus was a myth too. This is what I see going on out there. The online debate has pitted creationists vs. evolutionists, and Creationists are winning the debate hands down.

The new discoveries going on in science are amazing, and at some point this information is going to be impossible to conceal.

Juff, I really don&#39;t want to focus on conspiracies either, that&#39;s not the point of this. It&#39;s merely a side note to the main theme, and that is the words that Jehovah gave us so that we could understand. But in order to really understand, we have to remove preconceived notions. Personally, I would taking nothing that&#39;s ever been concocted by man very seriously. Did you know that Albert Einstein said:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Before I go on with this, what I think I should do is to make a suggestion for anyone who wants to follow the thread. Here are some things to google that you might find very interesting:

Hydroplate Theory

Water Canopy Theory

Firmament

Albert Einstein fantasize



Juff, you brought up the speed of light, for example. I have an article, it&#39;s a long read but very well worth it. You might be amazed at what&#39;s going on in the science establishment right now.

http://www.ldolphin.org/cdk-helen.html

Agape
Lou

[juffowup]

But in order to really understand, we have to remove preconceived notions. Personally, I would taking nothing that&#39;s ever been concocted by man very seriously.[/b]

Hopefully that will include man made interpretations of the scriptures. I have many preconceived notions that I will not remove unless the error of them are pointed out to me.

I have had two major stumbling blocks to my faith, and they happened almost simultaneously. 1) I found out Jerusalem wasn&#39;t destroyed in 607 BCE, and 2) I found out that the "Life... How Did It Get Here?" book, a book I so loved as a child and teenager because I loved nature and science, was filled with half truths and lies. The more I learned about them, the more they seemed deliberate. Finding out I was lied to about these things caused me to question the very existance of God. Now, it has been a long, hard road back to faith for me. So you can understand where I&#39;m coming from, in that I&#39;d rather people know up front true science&#39;s position on creation (as opposed to some scientists conclusions they draw from this science, as alluded to by Jinnvisible) so their faith is on a rockmass, as it were.


Did you know that Albert Einstein said:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."[/b]

Yes, but he didn&#39;t mean what you are thinking he meant. I take it you think that because he said this, he made up his theories about relativity. I take it that he meant you have to use imagination to combine previous knowledge into new insights. Said again, intelligence is more important than knowledge.


Hydroplate Theory

Water Canopy Theory

Firmament[/b]

These don&#39;t have anything to do with the speed of light.


Albert Einstein fantasize[/b]

I don&#39;t think these say what you think they will say. For example: http://www.worldwidelearn.com/great-thinke...rt-einstein.htm (http://www.worldwidelearn.com/great-thinkers/albert-einstein.htm)

This is entirely consistant with my hypothesis regarding Einstein. He was a genious who thought "outside of the box" and was thus able to gain new insight into how the universe behaved.


Juff, you brought up the speed of light, for example. I have an article, it&#39;s a long read but very well worth it. You might be amazed at what&#39;s going on in the science establishment right now.

http://www.ldolphin.org/cdk-helen.html[/b]

I read this article. I found assertions that the speed of light has been slowing, but nothing to back it up. No evidence. I would need to see evidence. It is not enough for me for someone to tell me "Lots of people think the speed of light is getting slower. I then wiki&#39;d the gentlemen in question and found links to their treatsies on the matter. Have you read them? I also found that the majority of scientists AND the majority of creationists vigorously dispute these findings, which raises my eyebrow more than a little bit. A final note: the speed of light is a constant not only because we can measure it with a high degree of accuracy, but also because it is part of a host if equations, for example the transmutation of mater to energy and back again. You split an atom, and you get Mc2 worth of energy. The atom&#39;s mass is a known quantity, so whatever left is the speed of light squared. If the speed of light has been getting slower, and was thousands of times faster In The Beginning, that has vast implications for things such as how large and hot our sun was back then. Again, E=mc2, so take however fast you think light was back then, then apply that multiplier to the sun&#39;s energy output. Then account for the increase in size the sun would have, and how much faster it would burn through its fuel at that rate. To me, the inescapable conclusion is that 1) the earth would have been engulfed by our raging supergiant star, and 2) the sun would be dying by now, since it would have gone through its supply of hydrogen at an accelerated rate.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jinnvisible)</div>
Obviously if Jehovah wanted to create a star with a `pre-history` or a mature star without an infancy yet with all of its affectations he could do it as easy as I can make a paper airplane.[/b]

Of course Jehovah could do such a thing, but the question is, why would our loving god chose to do so? Why would he fool us by creating a universe that isn&#39;t as it appears? He gave us eyes, ears, nose, tongue, fingers, and most importantly a brain. Why would he create for us a universe that made us draw the wrong conclusions just by looking at it?


Its like that story where a scientist wants to prove that he is great like God so he boasts to an angel that he can make a man. The angels agrees to watch as the scientist begins to collect the dirt. The the Angel looks down at the scientist and says `hey, what do you think you are doing ?

The scientist says `what do you mean?`

The angel says `go make your own dirt`.[/b]

I quite like that story. And let me assure you that my appreciation for Jehovah as a Grand Creator has never been higher. Having a vast universe created and grown from a single massive infusion of power doesn&#39;t make creation less impressive, to me, it makes it more so. I could have build my kids from a box kit, or pressed a button and out they came fully formed, but I find it more miraculous that they grew from the fusion of two tiny cells.

There is NO scientific evidence that disproves God&#39;s existance. And the way I understand science, there never will be, because we will never be able to peer back behind what happened at the big bang, because that was where all time and matter was created, and thus there is nothing beyond that to see. To me, that is fantastically clever of Jehovah. Belief in him truly does rely on beholding unseen realities. You&#39;re never going to look through Hubble and see YHWH autographed in the heavens. The universe IS his autograph.

Anyway, I would like to continue our discussion, but I&#39;d like to go slow and keep it focused on simple things until progress is made. And

[James]

Great &#39;cosmic nothingness&#39; found...

Click here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6962185.stm)

Who was it that said &#39;the more we learn, the less we know&#39;...

James

by the by, has anyone tried the new version of google earth with google universe added?
Very cool....

[Jeshurun]

Very interesting article, James. Maybe that huge hole represents something in the scriptures.

And yes, you are so right. The more I learn, the less it seems I know about everything.

Juffowup, we really can get a clear picture of the universe. As you said, "keeping it simple", let&#39;s take a look at what astronomers are seeing.

What they&#39;re finding is that some of the most distant galaxies are tightly wound, indicating, according to big bang cosmology, that they&#39;re "younger". They are also recording patterns of heat that are not consistent with an expanding universe. In other words, what they are finding is that all the evidence is indicating that the universe is finite, and orderly!

Here&#39;s a word to google, since I jumped ahead of myself in the last post, sorry for that!

REDSHIFT

A much more accurate description of what we&#39;re seeing in space is this:

Ps. 104:2b Stretching out the heavens like a tent cloth,

Is. 40:22b the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell,

Is. 44:24b I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth

In this last verse, the Hebrew word for "doing", asah, means "to do or make". The Hebrew for "stretching" is natah, to "stretch or spread out, to bend away".

This is describing how Jehovah first "makes" something, and then "stretches" it out, or "unfolds", "bends away" so as to be similar to stretching out an already made "tent cloth". Does this make sense?

Now, one might argue that these verses would imply that Jehovah is still in the process of this "stretching out" of the heavens, but that would also imply that Jehovah is still "laying out the earth". That wouldn&#39;t make sense, would it? As we know that God rested after Creation, this cannot be the case. We can&#39;t simply say that God put things in motion for creation to keep going, can we?

And then we would have to deal with this:

Is 45:11 I—my own hands have stretched out the heavens, and all the army of them I have commanded."

As I intend to show throughout this thread, Jehovah always says what he means and means what he says. Only by listening to his voice can we understand, but it&#39;s impossible to do, unless we erase what we have learned in textbooks, which come from universities that are completely within the control of Satan&#39;s minions, just as is the governments, and the media.

Til later!

Agape
Lou

[Jeshurun]

If we believe that men landed on the moon (I don&#39;t, but that&#39;s beside the point), then we have a very interesting dilemma for NASA, and the evolution theory.

According to NASA:

Apollo 10 was able to monitor with greater precision what they had monitored on previous flights: the gravitational field of the moon and the rate at which dust particles are landing on the moon&#39;s surface.

The moon is being bombarded constantly with cosmic dust particles, and when the Apollo astronauts were able to determine precisely the gravitational pull of the moon, then the rate at which dust collects on its surface could be calculated.

So, if the approximate age of the moon is known and the amount of dust covering its surface in a given time is also known, the approximate depth of the dust today on its surface can be determined mathematically, it&#39;s a simple matter of multiplication.

According to almost all evolutionary concepts, the earth and the moon are 4.5 BILLION years old, and using this age to calculate the depth of dust on the moon, the NASA scientists were faced with a problem: even using the most conservative calculations, the very least amount of loosely consolidated dust on the surface of the moon would be 54 feet deep.

That meant when Neil Armstrong stepped onto the surface of the moon, he would step into a loosely consolidated sea of cosmic dust, at the very minimum 54 feet deep, and possibly much deeper, according to NASA figures.

This was a great concern to NASA scientists and engineers. That&#39;s why they outfitted the lunar lander with huge pods as we recall seeing in photographs of the lunar mission. That&#39;s also the reason the lunar rover had gigantic balloon tires. It could even have been driven across a large body of water, and since they expected a tremendous amount of dust, they designed it so that it wouldn&#39;t sink into anything.


Neil Armstong was trained to go down the ladder outside the lunar lander backwards and slowly, one step at a time, and when he came to the bottom rung, to be sure not to jump off into all that dust because he might have a lot of trouble swimming out of it.

Stan Stepanek, NASA engineer, was responsible for keeping communication with Armstrong while he was walking on the moon. He relates that as Neil got to the last rung of the ladder, he paused, and then spoke those famous words heard all around the world: "One small step for a man," then he paused again, and then stepping off the bottom rung and onto the moon he said: "one giant leap for mankind."

That&#39;s when the commentators went wild, breaking in to say: "That&#39;s the first statement on the moon!" and went on with their commentary. But they had cut off Neil Armstrong&#39;s next two words, which are probably more famous in faithful scientific circles than are his first eleven.

According to Stepanek, after Neil said "One small step for a man, [pause while stepping down] one giant leap for mankind" and while the commentators were going wild, Neil said: "IT&#39;S SOLID". It took only these two words to totally destroy the concept of evolution, if you look at it scientifically, academically and faithfully, because those two words showed that only a few thousand years of time have passed, at the rate cosmic dust is coming in, producing on the surface of the moon an average of under one-half of an inch of dust overall.

This means that scientific evidence is piling up that the earth and the universe, as we know it, is young after all. A majority of scholars studying Biblical chronologies have determined the age of the earth to be a little over 6000 years old! The actual amount on dust measured on the surface of the moon equals very close to 6000 years of accumulation of dust, at the rate measured by the Apollo missions!

Exodus 20:11a:

"For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them."

[Jeshurun]

Dr. Walt Brown, one of America&#39;s top scientists, has posted this on one of his websites, which comes up first upon Googling "Hydroplate Theory".

I&#39;ve always had lots of questions about the alleged "water canopy" that surrounded the earth before the flood. Did the sun never shine? How could anyone see the stars? How could that much water be held up above the earth? Surely it had to be, because no one had ever seen a rainbow, right?

The Watchtower sticks with it&#39;s "water canopy" explanation of "the waters above the expanse", in spite of the idea having been, for the most part, completely debunked over the last couple of decades. I was in shock when I discovered this at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_canopy

Here&#39;s what Dr. Brown had to say on his website, creationscience.com:


Did a Water Canopy Surround Earth and Contribute to the Flood?
Isaac Vail (1840–1912) first proposed the canopy theory in 1874.¹ (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ39.html#wp1147626) He believed a canopy formed millions of years ago as the earth evolved from a molten state. Vail supported his case primarily by ancient mythology, which in his opinion included Genesis 1:6–8a that states:



Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate waters from waters." And God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. And God called the expanse heaven.



Notice that these verses do not explicitly say a canopy surrounded the earth.

Vail&#39;s canopy was a vapor cylinder surrounding the earth but open at the poles. Since then, many people have recognized problems with Vail&#39;s canopy and proposed variations. These usually involved a thin, spherical shell of water—as either a liquid, gas (a vapor), or solid (ice particles or an ice shell). As we will see, each variation has serious biblical and scientific problems. In fact, canopy theories "do not hold water." Consequently, canopy theories have delayed our understanding of Genesis 1:6–8a, the structure of the preflood earth, the flood, and earth&#39;s geological features. But first, what are the standard arguments for a canopy?


Arguments for a Canopy—and Brief Responses
The Source of the Flood Water. "Today, earth&#39;s atmosphere holds, on average, only one inch worth of liquid water. Therefore, the Genesis flood raises two common questions: Where did so much flood water come from, and where did it go? A canopy partially answers the first question."

Response: No canopy theory claims to provide all the water for a global flood. Nor does any canopy theory explain where the water went after the flood. Somehow transporting this water back into outer space or suddenly forming deep ocean basins after the flood is hard to imagine or explain. However, the phrase "the fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11) implies that the flood water came from subterranean sources.



Many have rejected the Genesis flood account because they could not imagine where the flood water, which covered all mountains, went. Canopy theories have contributed to this rejection of the flood account.



Drop in Longevity. "Radiation from outer space may cause people to age. If so, a preflood canopy might have shielded people from this aging process. Perhaps this is why life spans before the flood were about 900 years."



Response: If radiation from space reduced life spans, we would expect an immediate drop in longevities after the flood. Life spans did drop, but for 12 generations after the flood, human longevity remained much higher than today. Even Noah lived 349 years after the flood. Some argue that perhaps radiation damage accumulated genetically over many generations. Few, if any, canopy proponents have proposed specifically what type of harmful radiation it was, how it reduced longevity so much without causing massive deformities and genetic diseases, why longevity leveled off at about 70 years rather than continuing to deteriorate, or how to test the proposed mechanism.



Most proposals for this drop in longevity are testable, but seldom tested. One test, which might have shown that cosmic or solar radiation reduce longevity, failed. Mice were raised in deep caves, shielded from both types of radiation. Neither those mice nor their offspring lived longer than other mice. Furthermore, if radiation from outer space accelerated aging, then living at a lower elevation, where one is protected by a thicker blanket of atmosphere, should increase longevity. No such effect is known.



Joseph Dillow&#39;s book, The Waters Above, is probably the most complete, accurate, and up-to-date defense of any canopy theory. After explaining other problems with the "longevity claim," Dillow concludes, "So it appears that canopy theorists have been in error when they appealed to the shielding effect of the canopy as a direct explanation for antediluvian longevity." Dillow also states, "We readily admit that Genesis does not teach the existence of a pre-Flood vapor canopy."



A Uniformly Warm Climate. "A canopy may have given the earth a uniformly warm climate. This might explain why fossils of temperate animals and plants (such as dinosaurs and large trees) are found in Antarctica and on islands inside the Arctic Circle."



Response: After the flood, mountains were suddenly pushed up. This shifted the poles and brought temperate regions to today&#39;s polar regions. Also, during the global flood, some plants and animals may have floated to today&#39;s polar latitudes where they were later fossilized.



Even if a canopy produced a warm polar climate, it would not satisfy another requirement for lush vegetation— sunlight in the winter. Polar nights are six-months long, and when the Sun does shine, it is always low in the sky. How could large trees and dinosaurs (requiring long food chains) survive, let alone thrive, during the long polar night?



Despite much speculation, no one knows what temperatures would exist under a canopy. Today, even experts disagree on the extent to which carbon dioxide currently warms the earth. Think how much more difficult it is to determine the warming, thousands of years ago, under a canopy of unknown thickness, reflectivity, content, and height above the earth.

Venus. "We see canopies on other planets, such as Venus."

Response: Some planets have atmospheres, but none has a canopy. An atmosphere has contact with its planet, but a canopy is a distinct shell above the planet&#39;s atmosphere. Venus is shrouded by a thick, opaque atmosphere, consisting primarily of carbon dioxide (96.5%), nitrogen (3.5%), and traces of other gases. Venus does not have a layer of water, or any other relatively heavy substance, above its atmosphere.



Genesis 7:11–12. "Genesis 1:6–8a seems to speak of a water canopy that contributed to the flood. After all, Genesis 7:11–12 states that &#39;... the floodgates of the sky were opened. And the rain fell ...&#39; A lot of rain fell from somewhere."

Response: If this were true, similar biblical interpretations should predate Vail&#39;s in 1874. Where are they? Quite often it is hard to see alternatives once we have learned "the accepted explanation."



Actually, Genesis 7:11–12 says that "all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. And the rain fell ..." Later, Genesis 8:2 states "the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained." These events were perhaps in cause-and-effect order. That is, the fountains of the great deep caused extreme, torrential rain. Once the fountains stopped, this violent rain ended. Then milder, more normal, rain fell. In other words, "the rain from the sky was restrained."

The transliteration of the Hebrew word usually used for normal rain is matar. Violent rain is geshem"the fountains of the great deep." (used only in Genesis 7:11 and 8:2). It is sometimes accompanied by high winds and huge hailstones that can destroy mortared walls (Ezekiel 13:11–13). The hydroplate theory explains this sequence in more detailed, physical terms. We have failed to appreciate the explosiveness, magnitude, and power of “the fountains of the great deep.”




Scientific Arguments Opposing a Canopy
The Pressure Problem. A canopy holding only 40 feet of liquid water, or its equivalent weight of vapor (steam) or ice, would double the earth&#39;s atmospheric pressure—making oxygen and nitrogen toxic to many animals, including humans. This is why most vapor canopy theories limit the thickness of water in their canopy to less than 40 feet.



For a vapor canopy holding this amount of water, the high pressure at its base would require that its temperature exceed a scorching 220°F. Otherwise, the vapor would condense into a liquid. A vapor canopy, whose base had that temperature, would radiate large amounts of heat to the earth&#39;s solid surface. People, plants, and animals would absorb so much heat from all directions above that life might not survive. Those who believe a canopy would produce a globally mild climate have overlooked this detail.



Maintaining a canopy&#39;s 220°F temperature at night, or worse yet, at the poles during the coolest season, adds a further difficulty. Yes, there were seasons before the flood. [See Genesis 1:14.]



The Heat Problem. All canopy theories have another major heat problem. The larger the canopy, the greater the heat problem.



A Vapor Canopy. Each gram of water vapor (steam) that condenses to a liquid releases about 539 calories of heat. If 6.22 x 10²¹ grams of water fell from a vapor canopy, enough to form a layer of water only 40 feet thick around the world, the temperature of the water and atmosphere would, as a first approximation, rise 810°F., where 5.1 x 10²¹ grams is the mass of the atmosphere, and 0.242 and 1.0 are the calories needed to raise one gram of air and one gram of liquid water (respectively) 1°C. Unbearable temperatures remain even after we expand this analysis to include every scientifically conceivable way to remove this heat. Also, 40 feet of rain would not produce a global flood.



A Liquid or Ice Canopy. For liquid or ice particles to remain in space above the earth&#39;s atmosphere, they must be in orbit. For anything to orbit the earth, its velocity must exceed 17,000 miles per hour (760,000 cm/sec). (As stated earlier, a layer of water only 40 feet thick contains 6.22 x 10²¹ grams of water.) Just as a spacecraft generates great heat as it reenters the atmosphere, orbiting liquid or ice particles release vast amounts of heat as they fall from orbit. That heat energy equals the kinetic energy of the particles in orbit, which ishttp://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/...res/canopy2.jpg (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/canopy2.jpg)

where 2.39 x 10^-8 converts the units to calories. This heat would raise the atmosphere&#39;s temperature

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/...res/canopy3.jpg (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/canopy3.jpg)

Even if a canopy began with the coldest ice possible (absolute zero) or if some heat were transferred elsewhere, insufferable heat would remain.

A similar problem exists if this ice were part of a spinning shell surrounding the earth. A rapidly-spinning shell, providing enough centrifugal force to balance the gravitational force as much as possible, would still have too much kinetic energy. Once the shell collapsed, that energy would become scalding heat, enough to "roast" all life on earth.

The Light Problem. A canopy having only 40 feet of water—in any form—would reflect, refract, absorb, or scatter most light trying to pass through it.

Starlight. People living under a 40-foot-thick canopy could see stars only if they were directly overhead, so their light would have the shortest path through a canopy. Before the flood, people presumably could see stars, because stars were created for a purpose: "for signs, and for seasons, for days and years " (Genesis 1:14). Stars would achieve their purpose only if enough stars could be seen to identify seasonal variations. Therefore, one needs to see large star patterns, such as constellations—not just a few stars directly overhead. By looking through a "keyhole" into the night sky, it is questionable whether one could have seen, recalled, and distinguished seasonally shifting star patterns through the filter of a 40-foot-thick canopy, even on a moonless night.

Sunlight. A canopy would also reflect and absorb considerable sunlight. How then could many tropical plants, which require much sunlight today, have survived for centuries under a preflood canopy?

The Nucleation Problem. To form raindrops, microscopic particles, called "condensation nuclei," must be present to initiate condensation. However, falling rain sweeps away these nuclei and cleans the atmosphere. This reduces further condensation. Rain from a vapor canopy would actually "choke off" rain production.

Some claim volcanic eruptions, beginning suddenly at the time of the flood, continuously ejected condensation nuclei into the upper atmosphere. Never explained is why volcanic eruptions suddenly began globally, then quickly and continuously distributed nuclei throughout the atmosphere for up to 40 days. Volcanic eruptions, rather than contributing to the flood, require special conditions that seem to be a consequence of the flood.

The nucleation and heat problems limit the rain formed by condensation to that of a local flood. It seems more likely that "geshem rain" was produced by the powerful jetting of the "fountains of the great deep" which caused torrential rain for "40 days and 40 nights."

The Greenhouse Problem. While sunlight can pass through glass into a greenhouse, heat in a greenhouse has more difficulty radiating back out through the glass. This greenhouse effect traps heat inside the greenhouse, raising its temperature. All canopy theories have a greenhouse problem.

Also, as temperatures under a canopy rose, more water would evaporate from the earth&#39;s surface, especially its oceans. More water vapor in the air means a greater greenhouse effect, a warmer atmosphere, and even more evaporation. This cycle would feed on itself, producing what is called "a runaway greenhouse effect." For example, Venus&#39; atmosphere has experienced a runaway greenhouse effect. Venus is about 700°F hotter than one would expect based on its distance from the Sun. The greenhouse effect increases Earth&#39;s temperature by about 60°F.

During the last thirty years, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has been the best-known advocate of a vapor canopy. In 1998, ICR wrote that a strong greenhouse effect would exist under a vapor canopy, raising "surface temperatures as high as 400°F." However, if many variables were chosen in the most favorable manner for a vapor canopy, "the water content of a canopy could be as much as [no more than] three feet of liquid water without the surface temperature reaching temperatures which would destroy life on the earth."¹⁴ (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ39.html#wp1147699) So if many variables are favorably selected, the greenhouse effect, alone, limits a canopy to a thickness of only 3 feet.

The Support Problem. What supported the canopy?

A Vapor or Liquid Canopy. A vapor canopy would rapidly mix with the atmosphere, just as steam above a kitchen stove quickly mixes with air. Once the vapor contacted the earth&#39;s surface, it would condense. A liquid canopy would quickly evaporate and then diffuse through the atmosphere. Neither type of canopy could have survived for the many centuries before the flood.

An Ice Canopy. A pure ice canopy would vaporize into the vacuum of space, just as dry ice vaporizes at atmospheric temperature and pressure. Furthermore, ice is structurally weak. An ice shell could not withstand tidal stresses or meteoritic, cometary, or asteroidal impacts. A spinning ice shell could not withstand the powerful centrifugal forces at its equator and the crushing gravitational forces along its spin axis.

The Ultraviolet Problem. Ozone in the earth&#39;s upper atmosphere blocks the Sun&#39;s destructive ultraviolet light, but a canopy surrounding the atmosphere would be exposed to ultraviolet light. Therefore, water in the canopy would dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen, effectively destroying that canopy.

Final Thoughts. Could there have been a canopy? Perhaps, in one of two ways. First, one could minimize most of these scientific problems by assuming that the canopy was thin, maybe inches thick. The thinner the canopy, the less severe most problems become. (Notice, the support and ultraviolet problems remain.) But what function would the canopy perform, and what hard, scientific evidence—not speculation—is there for claiming that a thin canopy could perform that function? Certainly, a thin canopy would not contribute to a global flood—the reason most people accepted the canopy in the first place.

Second, one could also dismiss each of these scientific problems by saying that God performed a miracle. That may be true. Certainly, He can; He has; and He sometimes does. However, miracles should not be proposed to "prop up" a scientific theory. (Some evolutionists mistakenly believe this is how creation science works.) As one sees more and more "miracles" required by canopy theories, their plausibility decreases, and the need for an alternate explanation increases.

[Jinnvisible]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jinnvisible)
Obviously if Jehovah wanted to create a star with a `pre-history` or a mature star without an infancy yet with all of its affectations he could do it as easy as I can make a paper airplane.[/b]

Of course Jehovah could do such a thing, but the question is, why would our loving god chose to do so? Why would he fool us by creating a universe that isn&#39;t as it appears? He gave us eyes, ears, nose, tongue, fingers, and most importantly a brain. Why would he create for us a universe that made us draw the wrong conclusions just by looking at it?

[/b][/quote]

<div align="left">[/b]Ecclesiastes 3:11 Everything he has made pretty in its time. Even time indefinite he has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the true God has made from the start to the finish</div>

[Jeshurun]

Let&#39;s start with the beginning, as you suggest. I&#39;m going to list what I know are facts. I&#39;m not interested in debating any of the conspiracy stuff. You may believe that this is the reason some things like a cosmic migration explanation of the origin of life (itself a very fringe theory), but to me, it doesn&#39;t matter. The facts are what we need to agree on.[/b]

I have an idea, Juff. Since we need to agree on "facts", as you put it, then we can say that anything that comes out of Jehovah&#39;s written Word is a fact, right? Because really, as we&#39;ve learned in so many areas, can we trust anything else? If "every man is a liar", then is a man&#39;s word ever a fact, especially if it contradicts what&#39;s in the Bible?

I apologize if I seem to be rushing ahead with the flood and evolution. The reason for this is that the "facts" have been changing. You asked for "proof" that the speed of light is slowing down. If 22 consecutive experiments over a period of many years all showed light to be slowing down, and no one disputes this, is this not "proof" enough that it is indeed slowing down? If not for the concerted efforts of the science establishment&#39;s hierarchy to conceal these findings, it would indeed be a "fact". Why is it that all of the data that has ever shown the universe to be young, supporting the Creation account, has been swept under the proverbial rug, while any and all "evidence" supporting a no-god, accidental "evolution" happening over billions of years has become established as "fact" in the science world, when the only "proof" of the "theories" that support those "facts" are based on mathemagical occult formulas that no one but it&#39;s author seems to understand or even be able to verify?

Asked if there were really only three people who understood the math that Einstein invented to change the bases of physics, astronomer Arthur Eddington replied: "I&#39;m trying to think who the third person is."

You had also conveyed the thought that Jehovah would never try to trick us about the size and nature of the universe, and I totally agree. Maybe we&#39;ve been tricked by somebody else. The truth is that his Word describes exactly what we see in the sky, and this is what I intend to show in this thread.

For instance, if there was no water canopy, it would mean that the ancient Hebrews were right. There must be "waters" up above the heavens. Is this possible? After all, what separates our universe from whatever else is outside of it? Can the universe go on forever? Is it finite or infinite?

Gen. 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion.

Why is it that almost all astronomers have admitted that there is a "wall" out there, beyond which no telescope can see?

Here are some scriptures to think about, and let&#39;s see if we can come up with a logical answer for these:

Ps. 148:4 Praise him, YOU heavens of the heavens, and YOU waters that are above the heavens.

Ps. 29:3 The voice of Jehovah is over the waters; The glorious God himself has thundered. Jehovah is over many waters.

19 Through the sea your way was, and your path was through many waters; And your very footprints have not come to be known.

Ps. 104:3 The One building his upper chambers with beams in the very waters, making the clouds his chariot.

[juffowup]

What they&#39;re finding is that some of the most distant galaxies are tightly wound, indicating, according to big bang cosmology, that they&#39;re "younger".[/b]

How so?


They are also recording patterns of heat that are not consistent with an expanding universe.[/b]

What patterns?


REDSHIFT[/b]

Redshift if one of the principle evidences for the big bang theory. *puzzled*


Ps. 104:2b Stretching out the heavens like a tent cloth,

Is. 40:22b the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell,

[/b]

This seems consistant with several of the proposed big-bang-based universe creation models.


As we know that God rested after Creation, this cannot be the case. We can&#39;t simply say that God put things in motion for creation to keep going, can we?[/b]

Is it literally true that Jehovah rested after the creation? He seems to have been pretty active in the bible record and modern times.


As I intend to show throughout this thread, Jehovah always says what he means and means what he says.[/b]

Of course. But then not everybody understands him correctly.

[juffowup]

If we believe that men landed on the moon (I don&#39;t, but that&#39;s beside the point), then we have a very interesting dilemma for NASA, and the evolution theory.

According to NASA:[/b]

What is your source for this?


That meant when Neil Armstrong stepped onto the surface of the moon, he would step into a loosely consolidated sea of cosmic dust, at the very minimum 54 feet deep, and possibly much deeper, according to NASA figures.

This was a great concern to NASA scientists and engineers. That&#39;s why they outfitted the lunar lander with huge pods as we recall seeing in photographs of the lunar mission. That&#39;s also the reason the lunar rover had gigantic balloon tires. It could even have been driven across a large body of water, and since they expected a tremendous amount of dust, they designed it so that it wouldn&#39;t sink into anything.[/b]

This isn&#39;t true. Lunar probes had been landed on the moon way before they put men on the moon. The lander&#39;s feet weren&#39;t that big, and the rover didn&#39;t have huge baloon tires. They were made of steel, aluminum, and titanium, they weren&#39;t inflated. I have a hi-res picture of the lunar rover on my desktop.


Neil Armstong was trained to go down the ladder outside the lunar lander backwards and slowly, one step at a time, and when he came to the bottom rung, to be sure not to jump off into all that dust because he might have a lot of trouble swimming out of it.[/b]

How do you invision a man sinking into a layer of dust would work? And anyway, this is a distraction from the lightspeed issue, which still is not resolved.

[juffowup]

In regard to your question as to why Jehovah might do this i can only direct you back to that particular scripture in Ecclesiasties. I can understand if that doesn`t seem satisfying enough to that particular point. It is, I admitt somewhat obscure. I certainly don`t want to purposely frustrate logic by adding weightless intriguing obscurities. [/b]

Well, first, thank&#39;s for the compliments. Before discussing something like this, I like to start with something small and basic, because after all, if one cannot see eye to eye on something small and basic there is little use getting hot and bothered and spend tons of time debating larger and more complex things.

I would like to clarify my statement. I think that since man is finite, and Jehovah is infinite, it is therefore impossible for us to know fully Jehovah&#39;s thoughts and works, even if we dedicated 100% of the rest of our everlasting lives to it.

But that is different then saying Jehovah fools us. For example, we can see that millions of years ago, certain stars exploded and went Nova. If the universe is really under 10,000 years old, that means that even never happened. It&#39;s not just that starlight was created "in transit", it&#39;s that there are historical fabrications in the universe&#39;s record that we would be observing from Earth, many even with the naked eye. That is what I have trouble believing of my Father.

[juffowup]

I have an idea, Juff. Since we need to agree on "facts", as you put it, then we can say that anything that comes out of Jehovah&#39;s written Word is a fact, right? Because really, as we&#39;ve learned in so many areas, can we trust anything else? If "every man is a liar", then is a man&#39;s word ever a fact, especially if it contradicts what&#39;s in the Bible?[/b]

Of course everything in Jehovah&#39;s written Word is a fact. Not everything that has ever come out of it is a fact though. Many have twisted the scriptures to support slavery and racism. Many have twisted the scritpures to support the concept of the earth being the center of the universe. Some have used the bible to support the concept of a flat earth. We all recognize these as folly now. Jehovah has always had his facts straight, but men have often times gotten it very wrong.


If 22 consecutive experiments over a period of many years all showed light to be slowing down, and no one disputes this, is this not "proof" enough that it is indeed slowing down?[/b]

Well, that&#39;s the problem, isn&#39;t it. There is lots and lots of dispute over this, as my previous post mentions.


If not for the concerted efforts of the science establishment&#39;s hierarchy to conceal these findings, it would indeed be a "fact".[/b]

I don&#39;t believe in a global scientific conspiracy. And if one such did exist, they are doing a really lousy job of covering this stuff up, since you found it and it readily turns up on the internet.


Why is it that all of the data that has ever shown the universe to be young, supporting the Creation account, has been swept under the proverbial rug, while any and all "evidence" supporting a no-god, accidental "evolution" happening over billions of years has become established as "fact" in the science world, when the only "proof" of the "theories" that support those "facts" are based on mathemagical occult formulas that no one but it&#39;s author seems to understand or even be able to verify?[/b]

First, there is no "no-god", "accidental" theory of the big bang. The no-god stuff is the personal thinking of admittedly the majority of scientists, yet most will candidly admit this.


Asked if there were really only three people who understood the math that Einstein invented to change the bases of physics, astronomer Arthur Eddington replied: "I&#39;m trying to think who the third person is."[/b]

The man was joking, and using hyperbole to give respect to Einstein. Everyone who gradutes with a basic physics degree can understand the math. I understand the math, in laymen&#39;s terms, and I am far from a genius. Have you really made an earnest effort to understand the theories regarding relativity?


You had also conveyed the thought that Jehovah would never try to trick us about the size and nature of the universe, and I totally agree. Maybe we&#39;ve been tricked by somebody else. The truth is that his Word describes exactly what we see in the sky, and this is what I intend to show in this thread.[/b]

I&#39;d just like a simple explanation of the star light problem that doesn&#39;t resort to Jehovah falsifying material evidence. If there is none, than we have already reached a bridge to far for me. I don&#39;t see why we should move on to the flood that I don&#39;t even have a problem with when we&#39;re still have this other fundamental problem.


Why is it that almost all astronomers have admitted that there is a "wall" out there, beyond which no telescope can see?[/b]

Do you mean the edge of the universe, or the edge of what we can see? I get the idea that you are asserting that the universe being literally infinite is a cornerstone of some evolutionary cosmology. Maybe you could elaborate?

I would be happy to move on to other areas of discussion when we reach a conclusion on this one. So long as you believe the universe was created in 7 days and I believe it is 15+ billion years old, we have a very big gap to bridge.

The world wide conspiracy among scientists is another one that is tough for me to swallow. It&#39;s not going to be very productive if every point of evidence I present you will claim is make believe and fantasy.

[Jinnvisible]

I would like to clarify my statement. I think that since man is finite, and Jehovah is infinite, it is therefore impossible for us to know fully Jehovah&#39;s thoughts and works, even if we dedicated 100% of the rest of our everlasting lives to it.[/b]


Amen.

It could be a loud disscussion. Of course there are also those who misuse scientific information in an attempt to support proof of God using reduculous scientific formulations. I`d point you to it but i wouldn`t be doing you a favour. People misuse science, like they misuse the bible. Science is like a great big false god of our age, yet it is part of God`s wonderous creation also.

[Jeshurun]

Well, that&#39;s the problem, isn&#39;t it. There is lots and lots of dispute over this, as my previous post mentions.[/b]

Would you care to provide some information as to who exactly is disputing that 22 consecutive experiments showed light to be slowing down?

No decay in light speed has been shown since 1960. Not co-incidentally, this was when scientists began using an atomic clock for the calculations. Now it&#39;s been discovered that atomic clocks are slowing down at the same rate. The significance of this is tremendous.

If anyone would like to do a little research as to where some of our modern "math" came from, you might find this interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras

Here&#39;s an excerpt:

Pythagoras started a secret society called the Pythagorean brotherhood devoted to the study of mathematics. This had a great effect on future esoteric traditions, such as Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry, both of which were occult groups dedicated to the study of mathematics and both of which claimed to have evolved out of the Pythagorean brotherhood. The mystical and occult qualities of Pythagorean mathematics are discussed in a chapter of Manly P. Hall&#39;s The Secret Teachings of All Ages entitled "Pythagorean Mathematics".

Pythagorean theory was tremendously influential on later numerology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology), which was extremely popular throughout the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East) in the ancient world. The 8th-century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th-century) Islamic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic) alchemist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy) Jabir ibn Hayyan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabir_ibn_Hayyan) grounded his work in an elaborate numerology greatly influenced by Pythagorean theory.


I&#39;d hate to see anyone miss the boat on what&#39;s being dicovered to refute Big Bang Cosmology, while we still have the internet.

Psalms 19 The heavens are declaring the glory of God;
And of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.

2 One day after another day causes speech to bubble forth,
And one night after another night shows forth knowledge.

3 There is no speech, and there are no words;
No voice on their part is being heard.

4 Into all the earth their measuring line has gone out.

[Berean]

I can see that this discussion is pretty futile. What I do know that the Bible contains many scientific facts, and science in itself can be a very valuable tool for Christians trying to come closer to God.

One example: Galileo Galilei. He&#39;s most famous for refuting the official Church doctrine of the Earth being in the center of the universe, of course. In that respect, he defended the Creator.

And regarding mathematics, I refer you to a quote by said astronomer: "Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe." There is an incredible sense of order in the universe, and the ancient Greeks did their fair share of uncovering that order, secret societies or not.

And in closing, to show that God wouldn&#39;t want us to be ignorant, even when it regards science, another Galileo quote: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

[Jeshurun]

One example: Galileo Galilei. He&#39;s most famous for refuting the official Church doctrine of the Earth being in the center of the universe, of course. In that respect, he defended the Creator.

And regarding mathematics, I refer you to a quote by said astronomer: "Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe." There is an incredible sense of order in the universe, and the ancient Greeks did their fair share of uncovering that order, secret societies or not.[/b]

How, exactly, does turning the focal point of Jehovah&#39;s creation, the earth, into an insignificant speck in some insignificant galaxy, in some far-flung corner of the universe, hurtling aimlessly through space at 500,000 mph, come under the heading of "defending the Creator"???

On the contrary, Big Bang cosmology makes the universe a hostile, dangerous, haphazard, DISorderly array of flying objects!

4 He is counting the number of the stars;
All of them he calls by [their] names.

My response to Mr. Galileo&#39;s quote is:

14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light.

[DoubtingThomas]

<div class='quotemain'>One example: Galileo Galilei. He&#39;s most famous for refuting the official Church doctrine of the Earth being in the center of the universe, of course. In that respect, he defended the Creator.

And regarding mathematics, I refer you to a quote by said astronomer: "Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe." There is an incredible sense of order in the universe, and the ancient Greeks did their fair share of uncovering that order, secret societies or not.[/b]

How, exactly, does turning the focal point of Jehovah&#39;s creation, the earth, into an insignificant speck in some insignificant galaxy, in some far-flung corner of the universe, hurtling aimlessly through space at 500,000 mph, come under the heading of "defending the Creator"???

On the contrary, Big Bang cosmology makes the universe a hostile, dangerous, haphazard, DISorderly array of flying objects!

4 He is counting the number of the stars;
All of them he calls by [their] names.

My response to Mr. Galileo&#39;s quote is:

14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light.
[/b][/quote]


Jesh, it may be that I am misunderstanding you here, but I believe that you may not have an accurate understanding of "The Big Bang" Theory. Knowledge and understanding of the formation of the universe has grown by leaps and bounds in the past few years. In fact, it is because of this theory (now proven and accepted by nearly every scientist), that many well known former atheistic scientist have begun turning to a belief in a creator. The Big Bang theory in no way undermines God&#39;s Word. In fact, it is in complete harmony. It teaches an orderly and expanding universe, not something chaotic, hostile or dangerous as you describe above. The name &#39;Big bang" was derisively given it by it&#39;s atheistic opponants in the 1940&#39;s. Perhaps it is the name of the theory that makes you think what you do? Everything that we now understand about The Big Bang is exactly how the Bible explains the beginning of the universe. That it happened at a specific moment (when time began), that it started with a supreme source of energy or power (God), that all matter came in to existance from this source of energy (e=mc2) and that this matter is orderly (expanding). If I have misunderstood what you wrote above, my apologies. But I wanted to clarify this (Big Bang) for the other readers here. It is way to much to attempt to explain in a short post here on this forum, but the understanding of it came about from visual observation of the galaxies and after scientist began to understand both the General & Special Theories of Relativity, and where matter came from (energy) and that time has not always existed but had a beginning (Black Holes & Time Warps). Of course the Bible is not a book of science, but this is just as the account in Genesis simply describes it for us.

[Jeshurun]

Jesh, it may be that I am misunderstanding you here, but I believe that you may not have an accurate understanding of "The Big Bang" Theory. Knowledge and understanding of the formation of the universe has grown by leaps and bounds in the past few years. In fact, it is because of this theory (now proven and accepted by nearly every scientist), that many well known former atheistic scientist have begun turning to a belief in a creator. The Big Bang theory in no way undermines God&#39;s Word. In fact, it is in complete harmony. It teaches an orderly and expanding universe, not something chaotic, hostile or dangerous as you describe above. The name &#39;Big bang" was derisively given it by it&#39;s atheistic opponants in the 1940&#39;s. Perhaps it is the name of the theory that makes you think what you do? Everything that we now understand about The Big Bang is exactly how the Bible explains the beginning of the universe. That it happened at a specific moment (when time began), that it started with a supreme source of energy or power (God), that all matter came in to existance from this source of energy (e=mc2) and that this matter is orderly (expanding). If I have misunderstood what you wrote above, my apologies. But I wanted to clarify this (Big Bang) for the other readers here. It is way to much to attempt to explain in a short post here on this forum, but the understanding of it came about from visual observation of the galaxies and after scientist began to understand both the General & Special Theories of Relativity, and where matter came from (energy) and that time has not always existed but had a beginning (Black Holes & Time Warps). Of course the Bible is not a book of science, but this is just as the account in Genesis simply describes it for us.[/b]

DT, first I would like to say that I really appreciate your kind and moderate use of words to convey how you feel.

I&#39;ve been on a mission for a few months now, ever since one of our beloved board members mentioned the keyword "Kabbala".

What I&#39;m finding is that the ancient Hebrews believed in a universe much different from the one we envision. The greatest issue of all involved here is the passing of billions of years since creation began. I&#39;m simply amazed by all the evidence being uncovered that would suggest that our earth is in the center of the universe. I&#39;ve mentioned redshift, which no one seems to have looked into. There&#39;s the matter of certain quasars out there, giant radio transmitters, which have been found to be proportionately spread out and having an effect on the earth. This ties in beautifully with the scriptures.

The Theory of Relativity came along at a time that we&#39;re all familiar with, that period during and immediately after World War I when Satan was quite active. This was to counteract the findings of the Michelson-Morley experiments, which were showing that the earth was not moving. Darwinism was in deep trouble. Supposedly, space was a vacuum through which light traveled. Now however, scientists are finding that space is made of 99.9 percent plasma, which can conduct electrical currents. This has led to a theory that the universe is an electrical circuit, and stars are actually giant transformers. Many problems are being found with the idea that the sun and stars are thermonuclear reactors. Supernovas are a whole other story altogether.

For whatever it&#39;s worth, even if I&#39;m labeled a "nut", so be it. I have studied this for months, and I&#39;m taking the Bible for what it says, going with what the ancient Hebrews believed, that the universe is surrounded by an outer shell of water crystals, with Jehovah&#39;s throne above it, that the universe is much smaller, based on measurements taken from a still earth, versus a triangle base 185 million miles wide. That the sun and stars were "set" into motion around the earth on the fourth creative day, inside the expanse between the waters and the waters.

The first heliocentric model came from Pythagoras in the 6th century BC. It was passed on down to Aristarchus and Nachmanides, through warlocks like Brahe, DeSitter, and Copernicus. If you ask me, this all has to do with their sun worship. I believe that Apostle Paul was referring to these false scientists in his letter to Timothy, science falsely so-called.

Many astronomers and scientists have become geocentrists, and it sure makes sense to me. Kinda explains how the earth is God&#39;s footstool, versus a tiny speck that even an angel would need a map to find.

I&#39;ll leave with these scriptures, maybe you can help me out with an answer, and please let&#39;s not just assume that it&#39;s all "relative", because that was Zionist Einstein&#39;s fabricated fairy tale that would have us believe this nonsense, which, we find out, actually came along long before him.

Joshua 10:12 It was then that Joshua proceeded to speak to Jehovah on the day of Jehovah&#39;s abandoning the Am´or·ites to the sons of Israel, and he went on to say before the eyes of Israel:

"Sun, be motionless over Gib´e·on,
And, moon, over the low plain of Ai´ja·lon."

13 Accordingly the sun kept motionless, and the moon did stand still, until the nation could take vengeance on its enemies. Is it not written in the book of Ja´shar? And the sun kept standing still in the middle of the heavens and did not hasten to set for about a whole day. 14 And no day has proved to be like that one, either before it or after it, in that Jehovah listened to the voice of a man, for Jehovah himself was fighting for Israel.

(since we know the moon is moving, why not command the earth and moon to stand still?)

Judges 5:20 From heaven did the stars fight,
From their orbits they fought against Sis´e·ra.

Psalms 19 The heavens are declaring the glory of God;
And of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.

2 One day after another day causes speech to bubble forth,
And one night after another night shows forth knowledge.

3 There is no speech, and there are no words;
No voice on their part is being heard.

4 Into all the earth their measuring line has gone out,
And to the extremity of the productive land their utterances.
In them he has set a tent for the sun,
5 And it is like a bridegroom when coming out of his nuptial chamber;
It exults as a mighty man does to run in a path.

6 From one extremity of the heavens is its going forth,
And its [finished] circuit is to their [other] extremities;
And there is nothing concealed from its heat.

Job 22:14 Clouds are a concealment place for him so that he does not see, and on the vault of heaven he walks about.

Job 38: 31 Can you tie fast the bonds of the Ki´mah constellation, or can you loosen the very cords of the Ke´sil constellation?

32 Can you bring forth the Maz´za·roth constellation in its appointed time? And as for the Ash constellation alongside its sons, can you conduct them? 33 Have you come to know the statutes of the heavens?

Job 37: 18 With him can you beat out the skies, Hard like a molten mirror?



(The Hebrew "raqia", the expanse or firmament, denotes a "hammering out", which would suggest that the outer wall of the universe is causing reflections, which would explains why astronomers are seeing "distant" galaxies that are strikingly similar to "closer" ones. There are scriptures that support this:


Gen 22: 17 I shall surely bless you and I shall surely multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens and like the grains of sand that are on the seashore.

Gen 26: 4 &#39;And I will multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens and I will give to your seed all these lands.

Gen 32: 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel your servants, to whom you swore by yourself, in that you said to them, &#39;I shall multiply YOUR seed like the stars of the heavens.

Deut 1: 10 Jehovah YOUR God has multiplied YOU, and here YOU are today like the stars of the heavens for multitude.

Ez 1: 22 And over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of an expanse like the sparkle of awesome ice, stretched out over their heads up above. 23 And under the expanse their wings were straight, one to the other. Each one had two wings covering on this side and each one had two covering on that side their bodies. 24 And I got to hear the sound of their wings, a sound like that of vast waters, like the sound of the Almighty One, when they went, the sound of a tumult, like the sound of an encampment. When they stood still, they would let their wings down.

25 And there came to be a voice above the expanse that was over their head. (When they stood still, they would let their wings down.) 26 And above the expanse that was over their head there was something in appearance like sapphire stone, the likeness of a throne. And upon the likeness of the throne there was a likeness of someone in appearance like an earthling man upon it, up above.

Psalms 93:1

(ASV) Jehovah reigneth; He is clothed with majesty; Jehovah is clothed with strength; he hath girded himself therewith: The world also is established, that it cannot be moved.

(BBE) The Lord is King; he is clothed with glory; the Lord is clothed with strength; power is the cord of his robe; the world is fixed, so that it may not be moved.

(Bishops) God raigneth, he is clothed with a glorious maiestie, God is clothed with strength: he hath girded hym selfe, he hath made the worlde so sure that it can not be moued.

(CEV) Our LORD, you are King! Majesty and power are your royal robes. You put the world in place, and it will never be moved.

(Darby) Jehovah reigneth, he hath clothed himself with majesty: Jehovah hath clothed himself, he hath girded himself with strength; yea, the world is established, it shall not be moved.

(DRB) The Lord hath reigned, he is clothed with beauty: the Lord is clothed with strength, and hath girded himself. For he hath established the world which shall not be moved.

(ESV) The LORD reigns; he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed; he has put on strength as his belt. Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

(Geneva) The Lord reigneth, and is clothed with maiestie: the Lorde is clothed, and girded with power: the world also shall be established, that it cannot be mooued.

(GNB) The LORD is king. He is clothed with majesty and strength. The earth is set firmly in place and cannot be moved.

(GW) The LORD rules as king! He is clothed with majesty. The LORD has clothed himself; he has armed himself with power. The world was set in place; it cannot be moved.

(JPS) The LORD reigneth; He is clothed in majesty; the LORD is clothed, He hath girded Himself with strength; yea, the world is established, that it cannot be moved.

(KJV) The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

(RV) The LORD reigneth; he is apparelled with majesty; the LORD is apparelled, he hath girded himself with strength: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.


(Webster) The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, with which he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved.

(YLT) Jehovah hath reigned, Excellency He hath put on, Jehovah put on strength, He girded Himself, Also--established is the world, unmoved.


Not to mention, over a hundred scriptures that say that the sun rises and sets.

Is this wordplay on Jehovah&#39;s part, or just telling it like it is?

[DoubtingThomas]

Kabballah is a philosophy. It could even be considered a religion. False religion. Part of Babylon The Great. God&#39;s Word is all we need. And true science supports The Bible. We don&#39;t need anything like Kabballah to help us grow in our relationship with God. If we did, then it would be in God&#39;s Word.

No ... I do not think you are insane Jesh. In fact, in the past year or so that I have been reading your post on this and other forums, I can tell that you are an intelligent and articulate person. I view you as my spiritual Brother. So that is why I want to caution you with getting involved with Kaballah and other philosphy&#39;s of this world. They can side track you from serving the true God. You don&#39;t need more than the Bible. There is way too much stuff out there on the net. be careful my Brother!

BTW - Do you really believe that there is no scientific support for Big Bang and Relativity? Do you really believe NASA faked the lunar landing&#39;s? What is in that drink of yours man?

DT

[Molly]

Hi Jesurun-

Well, finally an explanation of what you are actually trying to say!

When you wrote "Redshift," I checked it out, but there was no explanation from you as to what that had to do with your subject. You have given us bits and pieces of information and then no explanation as to how to put the information together. You mentioned the moon landing and less than an inch of dust, which would suggest that the moon is not as old as imagined, then throw in that you don&#39;t believe they landed on the moon, which would void the value of Armstrong&#39;s comments.

What you are saying is truly interesting, considering that we all have to decide whether we believe man, or Jehovah&#39;s Word. Just how literal should we get about the things written in the Bible. And, what we have to compare the Bible to is only man&#39;s word for things. How valuable is that? I am far too ignorant to have the capacity to check out what all your sited scriptures suggest. We can&#39;t just check out whether space is plasma or a vacuum, can we? Instead, most of us are forced to take man&#39;s word for it, or reject it. And, if there are a variety of opinions among the scientists, then who&#39;s opinion do you choose?

Some things, like the sun rising and setting, could be argued that it is from the perspective of man&#39;s viewpoint. (How extraordinary if the Pope was right after all!) Or, do we just have faith, and take the viewpoint that the Bible is completely accurate, and reject all views that are in opposition.

If nothing else, it sets up an interesting state of quandary. I guess that, if nothing else, is the dilemma for the day.

Molly

[Jeshurun]

Kabballah is a philosophy. It could even be considered a religion. False religion. Part of Babylon The Great. God&#39;s Word is all we need. And true science supports The Bible. We don&#39;t need anything like Kabballah to help us grow in our relationship with God. If we did, then it would be in God&#39;s Word.

No ... I do not think you are insane Jesh. In fact, in the past year or so that I have been reading your post on this and other forums, I can tell that you are an intelligent and articulate person. I view you as my spiritual Brother. So that is why I want to caution you with getting involved with Kaballah and other philosphy&#39;s of this world. They can side track you from serving the true God. You don&#39;t need more than the Bible. There is way too much stuff out there on the net. be careful my Brother!

BTW - Do you really believe that there is no scientific support for Big Bang and Relativity? Do you really believe NASA faked the lunar landing&#39;s? What is in that drink of yours man?

DT[/b]

Hi DT

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. Kabbala came along with the Babylonian Talmud, written by the Jewish elites during the exile in Babylon. Before that, the Hebrews believed the Bible&#39;s description of the universe literally, according to Harper&#39;s Bible Dictionary. It&#39;s also clear from wall inscriptions and hyroglyphics that Ptolemy&#39;s Egyptians believed in a geocentric universe. Now if that&#39;s the case, then what did the Apostles believe?

Funny that you mentioned that Kabbala is a religion and part of Babylon the Great. All of our modern scientific "knowledge" about the size and structure of the universe first appeared in the Talmudic book of Zohar and directly contradicts the Bible. What this shows is that evolution and Big Bang cosmology is a religious agenda, not a scientific one. Everything in the Talmud is anti-God and anti-Bible, in fact everything in it is specifically designed to teach the exact opposite of God&#39;s word. Their religion is Humanism, which the serpent invented in the Garden of Eden. Anything, anything at all can get credit for creation, except for YHWH the God of Israel. Am I making sense?

What we don&#39;t realize at first is how many other theories are dependent upon a heliocentric model. The entire pile of "scientific knowledge" collapses without it. So the way I see it, if the truth comes out, showing the Bible to be accurate, it could go a long way in taking down Babylon the Great!

And once again, thank you for your kind words. You are a brother to me too, and I&#39;ll gladly share a foxhole with you when the onslaught comes!

Agape
Lou

[Jeshurun]

Hi Jesurun-

Well, finally an explanation of what you are actually trying to say!

When you wrote "Redshift," I checked it out, but there was no explanation from you as to what that had to do with your subject. You have given us bits and pieces of information and then no explanation as to how to put the information together. You mentioned the moon landing and less than an inch of dust, which would suggest that the moon is not as old as imagined, then throw in that you don&#39;t believe they landed on the moon, which would void the value of Armstrong&#39;s comments.

What you are saying is truly interesting, considering that we all have to decide whether we believe man, or Jehovah&#39;s Word. Just how literal should we get about the things written in the Bible. And, what we have to compare the Bible to is only man&#39;s word for things. How valuable is that? I am far too ignorant to have the capacity to check out what all your sited scriptures suggest. We can&#39;t just check out whether space is plasma or a vacuum, can we? Instead, most of us are forced to take man&#39;s word for it, or reject it. And, if there are a variety of opinions among the scientists, then who&#39;s opinion do you choose?

Some things, like the sun rising and setting, could be argued that it is from the perspective of man&#39;s viewpoint. (How extraordinary if the Pope was right after all!) Or, do we just have faith, and take the viewpoint that the Bible is completely accurate, and reject all views that are in opposition.

If nothing else, it sets up an interesting state of quandary. I guess that, if nothing else, is the dilemma for the day.

Molly[/b]

Hi Molly.

I have struggled with this for a while now, how to convey these things. Coming right out and saying that the earth isn&#39;t moving gets you a one-way ticket to the looney bin. I tried to lead into the bombshell, and I apologize if it may have caused confusion.

Redshift is a little difficult to understand, but if you Google "redshift finite universe", the top website you get is called "spaceandmotion.com", and it shows how redshift is presumed to be a doppler effect, showing that galaxies are moving away from us, and explains how this cannot be the case. I&#39;m still trying to get a firm grasp on it myself!

Agape
Lou

[Jinnvisible]

(GW) The LORD rules as king! He is clothed with majesty. The LORD has clothed himself; he has armed himself with power. The world was set in place; it cannot be moved.

Not to mention, over a hundred scriptures that say that the sun rises and sets.

Is this wordplay on Jehovah&#39;s part, or just telling it like it is?[/b]

I don&#39;t doubt that secret construct masonic orders have overseen the propagation of various schools of `high knowledge` throughout the empires, that is how elitism works in accord to the bible supported assertion that `information is power`.

People who ernestly take on the establishment, face a task of such enormity that sometimes it seems they resort to picking up and throwing anything to bring down the white elephant. As a result reason and care go by the wayside, as the value of dissmissing a falicy becomes greater than the value of inherant truth.

[James]

Hi all.

Just in case you&#39;ve spent too much time on the computer, this is a reminder that the History channel will broadcast &#39;The Universe, Beyond The Big Bang Theory&#39; tuesday, 8pm eastern time.

James

[DoubtingThomas]

Thanks for sharing that James.

Here is a link to The History Channel&#39;s desription of the program:

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=det...pisodeId=242353 (http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=242353)

In part, it say&#39;s this:

The universe began with a massive expansion, billions and billions of years ago, and it continues to expand with every passing second. The idea that the universe, and man&#39;s very existence, began with a "Big Bang" is no longer a topic of debate among most scientists--it is essentially taken as fact. How has man come to this conclusion, and how has our knowledge evolved so that we can recreate the very first seconds of our universe and all that has developed since? Interviews with the world&#39;s leading physicists and historians are woven together with animated recreations and first-person accounts to explain concepts such as the formation of galaxies, the creation of elements and the formation of Earth itself.

In the past, the History Channel has been notorius for promoting atheistic and ungodly views of Biblical matters, so I will be curious to see how they handle a subject on science and technology such as this (Big Bang), which most scholars and scientest say supports the Bible&#39;s view of creation.

DT

[Jeshurun]

Thanks James and DT, I&#39;ll make sure to tune in.

Jinn, your point about the "sands of the sea" really does fit into the overall theme very nicely. It&#39;s kind of like Jehovah is saying, "too many for you to count or even comprehend", but it will get that way by multiplying. I should expand on what I was saying in my last post, that the Hebrew word "raqia" describes an expanse of water made up of giant "plates", assembled together with a "hammering", sort of like a Mosaic of "awesome ice" as Ezekiel says. This would cause back and forth reflections of heavenly bodies like when you&#39;re in the little mirror cubicle at the carnival. That, coupled with this:

The distance to stars and galaxies is measured by a formula that uses a triangle. To calculate the base, they have to measure first from the earth&#39;s position at a given time, and then take another measurement six months later, when the earth is at the exact opposite side of the sun. The base of the triangle then becomes 185 million miles wide.

If, on the other hand, the earth isn&#39;t moving, then the base of the triangle should be roughly 8,000 miles, the diameter of the earth. That would mean that the calculations for distance would be overexaggerated by a factor of 23,250. Suddenly, 15.75 billion years becomes:

677,250 years.

Now if we take into account the theory that light was traveling perhaps trillions of times faster at the point of creation, that would also reduce the supposed age of the universe dramatically.

Then, if we theorize that the Bible&#39;s description of an outer watery shell made of gigantic ice plates acting as immense mirrors, like an inverted disco ball, the size of the universe can easily be reduced to a figure as low as one half of one light day (!!!) in diameter. Now it becomes very fathomable for Jehovah to have set all these things in motion around the earth and get it done in a 24-hour period. This would fit in very nicely with the Bible&#39;s description of a first, second, and third heaven. What a cozy "little" universe! Doesn&#39;t Jehovah seem a lot more intimate? The idea that we&#39;re standing still as the focal point in the universe, like little organisms under a microscope. It might make someone think a little differently about the importance of this planet in the overall scheme of things. Our home, the crown jewel of Jehovah&#39;s Creation, right where it belongs, dead-center.

If we&#39;re rotating at 1,040 mph (at the equator), revolving around the sun at 67,000 mph, and the entire Milky Way, in addition to this amusement park ride that we&#39;re on, is traveling through space at an additional 500,000 mph., why can&#39;t we feel anything?

Why don&#39;t rockets, after leaving the earth&#39;s gravity, get left in the cosmic dust by all this motion? If there&#39;s some kind of "force" in this alleged space vacuum that holds all matter in the solar system together, why don&#39;t asteroids and other space debris get caught up it?

What formula, or force, does anyone know of, that causes the earth&#39;s atmosphere to rotate perfectly with it, even though every inch of it would have to move at different speeds, depending on it&#39;s line of latitude?

Why is that all calculations for eclipses, the space program, navigation, satellite movements, anything that demands precision and accuracy, are based on a non-moving Earth?

Here&#39;s a webpage that blew me away when I saw it:

http://www.geocentricperspective.com/page9.htm

Agape to all
Lou

[James]

Thanks for the info DT,

I saw some references to the big bang on another History channel show and the guy was trying to explain the expansion with some round balls (galaxies) strung on a rubber tube (picture a pearl necklace). So when he pulled each end of the tube the galaxies moved apart from each other, hence &#39;expanding universe&#39;, but at the same time saying there is no center point that everything is expanding from!

Additionally his demonstration showed every galaxy (or nebula, etc..) moving apart, so is the big bang not done and is still going on?
Just as when a firecracker explodes, it disperses in all directions in a linear motion, but almost immediately the energy dissipates and all fragments from the firecracker comes to rest.
I know there are other forces that actually reverse it, such as black holes, gravity etc..
Also dark matter? who knows.

Just some random thoughts.., guess I&#39;ll wait to see what gobbilty gook (did I spell that right, E&E? )they throw at us. (or their word for it -Theory)

James

[DoubtingThomas]

Yes, the universe is still expanding. That is the explanation for black holes (where gravity is so great that time does not even exist). But worm holes (inside black holes) can theoretically according to physicist allow time travel (Jehovah or His messenger angels or Son) to travel literally back and forth through time. That explains a lot of how God foresees things and had them recorded in the Bible to me.

Also, the earth is very new in time. Most of the expanding and continuing to evolve universe (like our sun and most of the heavens) were created long before earth. That fits in nicely with the Genesis account of the order of creation too.

As for your other questions, I am just not sure. All I know is that I am so awe struck and amazed at our universe, that I enjoy to continue to study the most recent developments in science, and they seem to coincide nicely with what the Bible says. I do know that it has been established as fact that the universe is still expanding from the beginning of time (a central point) and that the earth is located somewhere in that expansion. At what time and where Jehovah decided to put the earth is beyond me. It is almost certain that the Genesis creative account did not have literally 24 hour days to me though. Won&#39;t it be great when we have all eternity to study these marvelous creations of our wonderful God and finally get the right answers at that time without having to speculate!

DT

[DoubtingThomas]

I found this Netscape web site news article on our expanding universe interesting too. It was posted by Netscape editors earlier today. I think it helps to explain how Jehovah set everything in motion when he started creation, and that the universe is continuing to "grow" if i can use that word.

http://access.nscpcdn.com/cp/fte/galacticcrash/i/galacticcrash135.jpg


Probing deep into outer space, NASA&#39;s Spitzer Space Telescope captured photos of a rare sight for human beings: four galaxies slamming into each other and in the process kicking up billions of stars. It&#39;s one of the largest cosmic smash-ups ever observed.

The photo to the right shows this monster galactic pileup as four galaxies crash into each other. The four yellow blobs in the middle of the photo are the four large galaxies that have begun to tangle and ultimately merge into a single gargantuan galaxy.

The clashing galaxies will eventually merge into a single, behemoth galaxy that is up to 10 times as massive as our own Milky Way. This rare sighting provides an unprecedented look at how the most massive galaxies in the universe form. "Most of the galaxy mergers we already knew about are like compact cars crashing together," said Kenneth Rines of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. "What we have here is like four sand trucks smashing together, flinging sand everywhere."

Collisions, or mergers, between galaxies are common in the universe. Gravity causes some galaxies that are close together to tangle and ultimately unite over a period of millions of years. Though stars in merging galaxies are tossed around like sand, they have a lot of space between them and survive the ride. Our Milky Way galaxy will collide with the Andromeda galaxy in five billion years.

The new quadruple merger was discovered serendipitously during a Spitzer survey of a distant cluster of galaxies, called CL0958+4702, located nearly five billion light-years away. The infrared telescope first spotted an unusually large fan-shaped plume of light coming out of a gathering of four blob-shaped, or elliptical, galaxies.

Three of the galaxies are about the size of the Milky Way, while the fourth is three times as big. Further analysis of the plume revealed it is made up of billions of older stars flung out and abandoned in an ongoing clash. About half of the stars in the plume will later fall back into the galaxies. "When this merger is complete, this will be one of the biggest galaxies in the universe," said Rines.

--From the Editors at Netscape

[DoubtingThomas]

Wow, that is an interesting site Lou: http://www.geocentricperspective.com/page9.htm

Now I see where you have gotten some of your ideas for this thread you started, like the idea of man never landing on the moon.

It will take me some time to read and absorb these articles, but as you well know, anyone can write almost anything and make it seem almost believeable to almost anyone and post it on the internet for the whole world to see.

My problem is that God only gave me 24 hours in a day to do all the things I want, but I would really like to have about 34 for the extra time to read things like this!

DT

[Jeshurun]

It will take me some time to read and absorb these articles, but as you well know, anyone can write almost anything and make it seem almost believeable to almost anyone and post it on the internet for the whole world to see.[/b]

You&#39;re absolutely right, DT. Everything should be tested to see if it&#39;s feasible. A little "geocentric universe" Googling will get you to many interesting websites. I refrain from posting links to them, because I have yet to find one that has everything right, according to accurate understanding of the bible. I wouldn&#39;t want to direct someone to a site that beautifully disproves something in one area, and then leads someone to believe that this old earth is going to be destroyed and be replaced by a new and bigger improved one. Or that the Millennium is not a literal thousand years. As we know, not many out there know how to interpret the Bible by using it completely and following it&#39;s overall theme. Too many, although having good intentions, take certain scriptures literally when they clearly should not be. That&#39;s the wonderful advantage that we have, we can put a theory up against the Bible&#39;s facts and descriptions and see if it meshes.

What&#39;s becoming very clear to me is that the entire debate pits the Bible against the Talmud. The Copernican Revolution turned the science establishment on it&#39;s ear, and eventually forced churches to go against the Bible account. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a coincidence that it occurred during the same time as the Reformation and false prophets like Nostradamus were running around. That does not exclude our beloved Watchtower. As a result, we&#39;ve attempted to somehow make "science" fit in with the creation account, and it leads us to twist and contort the Bible to make it all fit.

As we move along to the flood and it&#39;s devastating effects, what we might find is that if true science takes the flood into account, which mainstream science categorically denies, those findings in themselves collapse the heliocentric model into oblivion.

Agape
Lou

[DoubtingThomas]

Jesh I am not sure why your fixation with a geocentric universe is so important. The Bible does not teach thta the earth is the center of the universe, and the solar system rotates around it. In fact, observations from space prove otherwise. It is an established fact of science that the earth is not the center of the universe. The idea of a geocentric universe is just a fairy tale and myth used by a very few radical religionist (not scientist) who think the Catholic Church (and a few other religion including Zionist) is still correct in this ancient teaching. So they set up web sites to promote their beliefs. We can now see our planets location in the universe, and it is not at the center. Personally, I don&#39;t care where Jehovah decided to place us in His universe. I am curious why you might feel this issue of a geocentric universe is so important. Geocentric universes or not, it does not change what the Bible teaches or what we believe here as Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses.

DT

[Jeshurun]

Jesh I am not sure why your fixation with a geocentric universe is so important to you. The Bible certainly does not teach it. It is an established fact of science that the earth is not the center of the universe. The idea of a geocentric universe is just a fairy tale and myth used by a very few radical religionist (not scientist) who think the Catholic Church (and a few other religion including Zionist) is still correct in this ancient teaching. We can now see our planets location in the universe, and it is not at the center. Now as far as me, I don&#39;t care where Jehovah decided to place us in His universe. Why is it so important to you for it to be discussed here on this board? You must have a reason or motive, and I am just curious. Geocentric universes or not, it does not change what the Bible teaches or what we believe here as Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses.

DT[/b]


I stated earlier that I would encourage research on these subjects so as not to expand this db&#39;s bandwidth unnecessarily. Here is just a small example of what I find going on out there:

More Anomalous Redshifts

Halton Arp, of the Mount Wilson and Las Campanas Observatories, has discovered three more pairs of galaxies that seem to threaten that cornerstone of astronomy, the redshift distance scale. The new pairs are all in the Southern Hemisphere and, like others on Arp&#39;s list, seem to be interacting physically. For example, the filaments of one pair member seem to reach out and connect with the companion. Surely, these dynamically connected galaxies should be equidistant from earth. Such distances are measured by the object&#39;s redshift, which is supposedly proportional to its recessional velocity. Thus, each member of a pair should have the same redshift. This does not occur with these three pairs. In one pair, the recessional velocity appears to be 4,600 km/sec for one galaxy and 37,300 km/sec for the other. Arp&#39;s conclusion is that at least some of the redshift must be intrinsic; that is, not due to recessional velocity alone. If this is true, the basic cosmological distance scale is suspect.

(Anonymous; "X-ray Quasars Fit Theories ...But Some Galaxies Refuse to Play Ball," New Scientist, 88:22, 1980.)

Scientific Anomalies and other Provocative Phenomena

An Annotated Outline of 6,000 Entries

It should not surprise anyone that this Outline contains about 6,000 entries, all of which remain unexplained to my satisfaction, or which, at the very least, I find curious and engaging. My main objectives with this volume are these:

The compilation of a list of scientific phenomena worthy of further attention and research
The presentation of a "first look" a the entire spectrum of what I have found anomalous, provocative, and exciting in science The provision, via a menu-type index, of a guide to my many already published Catalogs and Handbooks of anomalies and curiosities.
Major Paradigms Targeted

Anomalies exist only when they challenge paradigms and hypotheses. It is unavoidable, therefore, that some paradigms, widely considered to be fact, will be contradicted by many of the phenomena listed in this Outline. For example, the following paradigms that presently dominate scientific thinking are here considered to be at risk:

The expanding universe
The Big Bang origin of the universe
Neo-Darwinism (specifically, evolution via random mutation and natural selection)
That genomes are the complete blueprint for lifeforms
Plate tectonics/continental drift
Special and General Relativity

(William R. Corliss, science-frontiers.com)
.

[DoubtingThomas]

I understand your concerns on how paradigms mught keep an otherwise open-minded person from looking at other possible explanations for things. But I believe you are close to going off the deep end here on this thread. Stating things like NASA faked the lunar landings, is like ... well you understand what I am saying. The scriptures you have used through out this thread in no way can be said to prove the heliocentric model. Neither should I or anyone else attempt to use scripture to prove the Copernicus model. The reason for this is because the Bible is not a book of science. Let me use the example stated by another poster on this thread. The Bible says the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. From our view on planet earth this is a true statement. But in fact, it is the earth that rotates on it&#39;s axis that only makes the sun appear to rise and set. So the Bible is not necessarily disagreeing with science when it makes that statement. It was written from the point of men on planet earth. But to state the things you have been in this thread about the earth being the actual center of the universe, and not rotating, when hundreds of astronauts have literally seen the opposite of what you state, is pure lunacy. Your scriptures used in this thread in NO WAY prove otherwise. If you think they do, then I believe you should take another look at them as being written from man&#39;s viewpoint, and not necessarily disagreeing with what is otherwise known and accepted by almost everyone else who is in a position to know otherwise. Like those who have been in space and made actual observations of the earth&#39;s rotation, or the thousands of men necessary to make all the lunar landings. How can you imagine so many, for such a long period, could have kept quiet about such a conspiracy. Don&#39;t you think at least one of them would have come forward at some point in the past 40 years by now?

DT

[juffowup]

I started to reply to stuff, but then I read the thread to the end, and canceled. Jess, you can believe whatever you want to believe, and I don&#39;t think your eternal salvation is at risk, brother. I had to sit this out for a week because real life kept me busy, so I dropped out on the ebb and flow of the discussion.

This is a total impasse, because Jess, you want nothing less than to overturn 1000 years of scientific knowledge about creation. Science that has been verified by being put to use in practical applications. I don&#39;t even know where to begin a defense of such a thing. I don&#39;t think you are a nut, but you are basing your knowledge on the slick writings of a few people who are dishonest, ignorant, genuine nuts, or more likely a combination of all three.

And, coming back to the core issue, the fact that you believe in a world wide conspiracy about seemingly everything makes you immune to persuasive evidence otherwise. You reject 99% of the available evidence for the 1% dissenting opinion, because you believe the mainstream has been co-opted and are in on the scam. This is not a tenable position from which I feel comfortable discussing something. Sometimes the 1 man standing against the 99 is tilting at windmills.

So, I will wish you well on your quest for truth, and cease to interfere in your thread. I almost lost my faith when I found out the strawman human interpreted account of creation was a lie, so I am a bit sensitive to the issue. Besides, we&#39;ve been down this road vis-a-vis the 9/11, so we both know how this will go.

The important thing to me, is to establish that you can believe in falsely so called science, along with current models of cosmology, geology, and biology, and still have faith in our Grand Creator Jehovah. I believe that embracing this scientific knowledge is the best course, that it is the course Jehovah would see us take, and that doing so protects your faith from many a crafty attack by the wicked one. As evidence, I submit to the court myself.

[Jinnvisible]

As evidence, I submit to the court myself.[/b]

Let the court record show that in the case of `Science, falsely so-called` Juffowup has sumbmitted himself into evidence. As exhibit `A`.

[Sketch]

This is how i see the evolution/creation debate....

Does the Bible say HOW Jehovah created the earth and life on it?

NO

Does the Theory of Evolution deny that a "force" (God) started evolution?

NO (as far as I know the theory of evolution).

So, while most of us here understand that Jehovah created us, NONE of us know HOW he did it. so I tend to shy away from this argument because it is completely possible that Jehovah USED evolution to create things. In any case, I guess I just don&#39;t care enough to stand toe-to-toe with anyone and debate something that can not be proven one way or the other.

[Molly]

Jeshurun-

I get what you are saying and the importance of it. Actually, I think it may prove to be more important in the future, especially if they try to "prove" there is life on some other planet.

Is the Bible true or are the proponents of evolution? I see how it really is a question of either faith in Jehovah or in men.

Further it expands on 1 John 5:19, which says: "We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one." Do we know that we originate with God, or not?

Molly

[James]

This is how i see the evolution/creation debate....

Does the Bible say HOW Jehovah created the earth and life on it?

NO

Does the Theory of Evolution deny that a "force" (God) started evolution?

NO (as far as I know the theory of evolution).

So, while most of us here understand that Jehovah created us, NONE of us know HOW he did it. so I tend to shy away from this argument because it is completely possible that Jehovah USED evolution to create things. In any case, I guess I just don&#39;t care enough to stand toe-to-toe with anyone and debate something that can not be proven one way or the other.[/b]

In the beginning wasn&#39;t every living creature formed from the dust by Jehovah and Jesus and everything living today descended from them through procreation?

James

[SlaveForJah]

<div class='quotemain'>This is how i see the evolution/creation debate....

Does the Bible say HOW Jehovah created the earth and life on it?

NO

Does the Theory of Evolution deny that a "force" (God) started evolution?

NO (as far as I know the theory of evolution).

So, while most of us here understand that Jehovah created us, NONE of us know HOW he did it. so I tend to shy away from this argument because it is completely possible that Jehovah USED evolution to create things. In any case, I guess I just don&#39;t care enough to stand toe-to-toe with anyone and debate something that can not be proven one way or the other.[/b]

In the beginning wasn&#39;t every living creature formed from the dust by Jehovah and Jesus and everything living today descended from them through procreation?

James
[/b][/quote]

Bravo James,

Indeed that is how the Genesis account describes the bringing forth of the various souls. "19 Now Jehovah God was forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call it, each living soul, that was its name." - Genesis 2:19

Now, as Sketch pointed out, we do not know the "scientific" particulars of HOW Jehovah produced living souls "from the ground". But, we do know that it was "from the ground" and that it was "every wild beast" and "every flying creature". This precludes the possibility of men descending from apes. Or are we willing to say that the Scriptures do not mean what they say? Jehovah is not one to say things He doesnt mean. Similarly, there were no cameras in the "operating room" at the time, so we are not privvy to the exact "scientific" process that Jehovah employed to bring forth Eve, from "one of his ribs"...but does that allow us the leeway to suggest that Eve "evolved" from an earlier form of human, namely Adam? I dont believe the inspired record makes room for such an analysis.

In a related way, the science of today tries tirelessly to undermine our faith in our Creator and in his saving power. How many times have we all seen specials on the History Channel or Discovery that attempt to explain away the countless miracles that Jehovah has performed in behalf of His people? Satan uses such programming to slyly appeal to our sense of historical accuracy of the Biblical account. Thus, instead of directly attacking the stated position of Scripture as to WHETHER OR NOT something occured, they attack the CAUSE of such occurence. Instead of Jehovah guiding his fledgling nation safely across a dry sea bed and drowning the pursuing Egyptian armies, it becomes, "perhaps the RED SEA should be the REED SEA and thus shallow enough for a strong breeze to produce an effect similar to that described in Exodus". Instead of Jehovah causing the walls to tumble in Jericho, it becomes "Jericho lies along a major fault network and would have suffered several devestating earthquakes over the course of its lengthy history". Jonah is considered a "fish tale" of the highest order by such historical and even biblical "experts". Sodom and Gomorrah are no longer relegated to destruction for their wickedness by Jehovah&#39;s mighty hand, but rather were mere "victims of a sudden epidemic" or "susceptible to famine". Personally, I&#39;d like to see them explain away the sun standing still for 3 days. Not surprisingly, I have yet to see one of these specials tackle that one. These programs even go so far as to attempt to explain away the basis of our Christian faith, that is the resurrection of our Lord. Many have claimed this to be a hoax, some sort of catalepsy, or even some form of mass delusion; anything other than attributing this most wonderful and important of miracles to its author, our Father, Almighty God Jehovah.

This can be a powerul tool for Satan to diminish our faith in Jehovah. If he can pander to our temporal sense of the "here and now" and make things "understandable", if he can show us that the mighty acts of our Father have "feasible explanations" then we lose the need to believe that Jehovah did these things on HIS OWN. Which is exactly what Jehovah did with the Creation. This is the same God that said "Let light come to be" and light CAME TO BE. Light didn&#39;t require instructions, nor did it ask questions as to HOW it was to become, it simply BECAME, according to Jehovah&#39;s willing it to be so. Let us not forget, Jehovah&#39;s very name carries the meaning of "He causes to become".

That being said, while I am not prepared to agree with Jesh on his geocentric universal model, I do see the danger in accepting every new teaching from the scientific community. And while evolution is now in vogue even with our brothers and sisters and even through the pages of the Watchtower and AWAKE!, I think it would behoove us all to re-evaluate our level of faith in Jehovah and in his power...to create, to destroy, to provide and to save. Those in the camp of "science, falsely so-called", for the most part, are not God-fearing men and women, and want to destroy our faith in Jehovah God. So, whether the "6 days" of the Creation account were 24 hour periods or 7000 year periods, the point that gets lost in this debate is that Jehovah God, being "vigorous in power" brought this creation to its completion...no one else. Perhaps the why&#39;s and wherefore&#39;s will never be known to us. Perhaps according to Jehovah&#39;s own timetable we will be allowed a glimpse of the creative process and what was entailed therein. But to take the word of the "nobles" of today&#39;s science, "to whom no salvation belongs" over the explicitly stated, inspired Word of God, by means of whom "all things...existed and were created" belies a lack of faith that has far-reaching application.


Agape

SlaveForJah

[Jeshurun]

Jehovah is not one to say things He doesnt mean.......So, whether the "6 days" of the Creation account were 24 hour periods or 7000 year periods, the point that gets lost in this debate is that Jehovah God, being "vigorous in power" brought this creation to its completion...no one else.[/b]

Your entire post was very well said, SlaveForJah, and I couldn&#39;t agree more. The two points I have quoted are the gist of my argument as well. If Jehovah says "bring forth" he means "bring forth", etc. There are grammatical rules that the Bible always follows, and then when that grammar goes against what science has established as "fact", then we have a problem called "cognitive dissonance", and we find ways to stretch these scientific "facts" into God&#39;s word. As far as I know, it doesn&#39;t work that way.

I never expected anyone to "agree" with my observations, but I did indeed want to throw the alternative out there, to get everyone to think. After all, Nick Rockefeller bragged that one day we would all wake up and find out we&#39;ve been lied to about EVERYTHING since kindergarten.

BTW, DT, how do they get around the fact that it&#39;s 250 degrees on the moon? Just curious. I haven&#39;t been able to find an answer. Heat like that sure wouldn&#39;t put me in the mood for golf.

Agape
Lou

[James]

Very well articulated SlaveForJah! Thank you for praising Jehovah.

I owe you a warm welcome to this christian gathering (congregation?)
Welcome brother. :)

James

[Molly]

After all, Nick Rockefeller bragged that one day we would all wake up and find out we&#39;ve been lied to about EVERYTHING since kindergarten.
Agape
Lou[/b]

Jeshurun-

That seems to be coming clearer and clearer every day. I want to thank you for bringing this to our attention. It may sound like a little thing, but it is another piece of evidence that we are being manipulated continually by anti-Christian elements, elements that are in complete opposition to Jehovah and his Son.

The news broadcasts are absolute fluff and nonsense and people in general have absolutely no idea what is really going on in the world. They have no idea what is ahead of us. Sometimes it makes me sick to my stomach, and other times I think, okay, let&#39;s just get it over with. In either case, I&#39;m just plain sick and tired of this system.

Molly

[Jeshurun]

The news broadcasts are absolute fluff and nonsense and people in general have absolutely no idea what is really going on in the world. They have no idea what is ahead of us. Sometimes it makes me sick to my stomach, and other times I think, okay, let&#39;s just get it over with. In either case, I&#39;m just plain sick and tired of this system.[/b]

Wasn&#39;t it unbelievably absurd and sublime to watch the Osama video yesterday? I mean, can it get any more stupid? Does anyone still believe this comic book carnival? And what&#39;s with Osama&#39;s beard? Maybe they can get him to make a "Just For Men" Grecian formula commercial.

What do you guys think is next on the agenda, that he&#39;s hiding in Iran?

[SlaveForJah]

Very well articulated SlaveForJah! Thank you for praising Jehovah.

I owe you a warm welcome to this christian gathering (congregation?)
Welcome brother. :)

James[/b]


Thank you for the welcome, James. I appreciate the kind fellowship that is enjoyed here. I believe that such fellowship can be enjoyed because it is ENCOURAGED by all present. Even in the course of hot-button topics and deep debate, as exhibited by this very thread, all the brothers and sisters here promote love and fine works. This by all means qualifies for Jesus&#39; presence, as he said he would be when "two or more" would gather in his name. He truly IS with his disciples to the conclusion of the system of things.

I thank you, James, and all here, for bearing fine witness to the world of the God we worship, Almighty Jehovah. I am proud to call you Brother.

Agape

SlaveForJah

[Jeshurun]

Just a few more scriptures that I left out of the last group, and then I promise I will drop this subject and move on to some very interesting things concerning the flood. I was wondering, if the earth was rotating, wouldn&#39;t this be important enough for Jehovah to use different wording to communicate these thoughts?

 ^{Isaiah 38:8} Here I am making the shadow of the steps that had gone down on the steps [of the stairs] of A´haz by the sun retrace backward ten steps."&#39;" And the sun gradually went back ten steps on the steps [of the stairs] that it had gone down.

(Note: We know that Jehovah can do anything, but how, exactly, could the earth have suddenly reversed direction here? Is it feasible? Or does it make a lot more sense if it were the sun that reversed in the sky? Wouldn&#39;t that be easier?)

^{Psalms 104:19} He has made the moon for appointed times;
The sun itself knows well where it sets.

Amos 8:⁹ "&#39;And it must occur in that day,&#39; is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, &#39;that I will make the sun go down at high noon, and I will cause darkness for the land on a bright day.

(Again, what is Jehovah saying here?)

Now let&#39;s take a good look at this one:

Habakkuk 3:¹¹ Sun—moon—stood still, in the lofty abode thereof.

Are our eyes deceiving us? How can we make sense of this? I know the Bible is not a science book, but it&#39;s not a book written by men either! If the earth were rotating, why wouldn&#39;t Jehovah just say so? Isn&#39;t that pretty important? How do both sun and moon stand still at the same time?

Malachi 1:¹¹ "For from the sun&#39;s rising even to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place sacrificial smoke will be made, a presentation will be made to my name, even a clean gift; because my name will be great among the nations," Jehovah of armies has said.

Now here&#39;s one that has the same preposition in the same sentence, referring to two different things, the sun, and rain:

Matthew 5:⁴⁴ However, I say to YOU: Continue to love YOUR enemies and to pray for those persecuting YOU; ⁴⁵ that YOU may prove yourselves sons of YOUR Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous.

One more point regarding Joshua 10:12. Most versions are similar to the King James, which says this:

Sun,⁸¹²¹ stand thou still¹⁸²⁶ upon Gibeon;¹³⁹¹ and thou, Moon,³³⁹⁴ in the valley⁶⁰¹⁰ of Ajalon.³⁵⁷

Note that the word "thou" means "YOU", so the sun was being given a direct command, not the earth.

SlaveForJah made a very interesting comment, that whether the creation days were 24 hours, 1000 years, or even 7,000 years, there still isn&#39;t room for billions of years.

1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

What exactly does this mean? How can we possibly assume that everything was already created here? Does it say that anything was IN heaven, or was an expanse just formed? How do we rationalize this?

Appropriately, Psalm 33:6 says: "By the word of Jehovah the heavens themselves were made, and by the spirit of his mouth all their army."

Aha! So, the heavens, and "all their army", can be two different things! With the "heavens" being created first, and then, during the fourth day, "all their army".

² Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God&#39;s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.

Please notice that there is no mention here of any motion of the earth, it is simply "void" and "formless", and as of yet had no sun to revolve around.

³ And God proceeded to say: "Let light come to be." Then there came to be light. ⁴ After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. ⁵ And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.

⁶ And God went on to say: "Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters." ⁷ Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. ⁸ And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day.

Some interesting things to note here. God makes an expanse, and calls it "Heaven", yet God has not as yet seen fit to call it "good". Why is that? Possibly, because it was as yet an unfinished work?

Also, I would like to recall the words of Jesus regarding the Hebrew language. At Matthew 5:18, he said:

¹⁸ for truly I say to YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place.

As we know, the Hebrew language was written without vowels, and vowel "points" were used to convey the actual meaning of a word. The word "heaven" in Hebrew is Shemayim, from the root word "esh" meaning "fire", and "mayim" meaning "water". So with different vowel points, the word usually taken to mean "heaven" could literally mean "fire and water". It&#39;s possible that the word has been mistranslated in this context, simply because this is how the Hebrew copyists understood it, and that God actually called it "fire and water" at this time, which would be a fitting description for a "heaven" not yet formed into an array of distinct heavenly bodies.

⁹ And God went on to say: "Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear." And it came to be so. ¹⁰ And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas. Further, God saw that good. ¹¹ And God went on to say: "Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth." And it came to be so. ¹² And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind. Then God saw that good. ¹³ And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a third day.

So at this point, we have the creation of the sun, moon and stars:

¹⁴ And God went on to say: "Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. ¹⁵ And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth." And it came to be so. ¹⁶ And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. ¹⁷ Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth, ¹⁸ and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that [it was] good. ¹⁹ And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fourth day.

Note for verse 17: The Hebrew word that the NWT translates as "put" is [i]"nathan", which would suggest [i]motion, with the following meanings: to "set", "give", "add", "appoint", "ascribe", "assign", "bestow", "bring", "cast", "cause", "charge", "come", "commit", "consider", "count", "deliver", "distribute", "deliver [up]", "frame", …."send out", "send forth", "thrust", "shew".

And as promised, that&#39;s the end of the rant! On to the flood!

Agape
Lou

[James]

I was wondering, if the earth was rotating, wouldn&#39;t this be important enough for Jehovah to use different wording to communicate these thoughts?
[/b]

Brother Jeshurun,
Are you contending that the earth is fixed(not rotating) and the sun, moon and stars that we see come and go in the sky are travelling through space?


(Note: We know that Jehovah can do anything, but how, exactly, could the earth have suddenly reversed direction here? Is it feasible? Or does it make a lot more sense if it were the sun that reversed in the sky? Wouldn&#39;t that be easier?)[/b]

No. To Jehovah all things are easy. They are all mere specks of dust.
Now to us humans, which is easier? The mass of the sun is 1.9891 ×10³⁰ kg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram)^{[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#_note-nssdc)}
Heck, we&#39;re worried about trying to stop an asteroid that might only measure a mile across.

What about the satellites in orbit, do they not have to keep firing their engines just to stay in place? (geostationary)


Love ya brother, but it seems we differ on opinions on this one.

James</span>

[Jeshurun]

Brother Jeshurun,
Are you contending that the earth is fixed(not rotating) and the sun, moon and stars that we see come and go in the sky are travelling through space?

Now to us humans, which is easier? The mass of the sun is 1.9891 ×10³⁰ kg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram)^{[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#_note-nssdc)}
Heck, we&#39;re worried about trying to stop an asteroid that might only measure a mile across.

What about the satellites in orbit, do they not have to keep firing their engines just to stay in place? (geostationary)

Love ya brother, but it seems we differ on opinions on this one.
</span>[/b]

Thanks James, the feeling is mutual. Am I contending that the earth is fixed? Yes I am.

Here&#39;s something I&#39;d love your opinion on:

Put yourself in the Apostle Paul&#39;s sandals for a minute. He studied the Hebrew Scriptures and we see what he&#39;s read from it. He had no clue of the supposed heliocentric model of Copernicus, did he? There&#39;s no disputing that the earth was considered to be geocentric up until the Copernican Revolution in the 16th century. So what would he have thought after Jesus said:

Matthew 5:⁴⁴ However, I say to YOU: Continue to love YOUR enemies and to pray for those persecuting YOU; ⁴⁵ that YOU may prove yourselves sons of YOUR Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous.

Is it possible that when he admonished Timothy about "science, falsely so-called", he knew about the heliocentric, sun-worship oriented universe that was being preached in the Kabbala book of the Pharisees?

Or the teachings of Pythagoras and Nachmanides and Aristarchus, which were Talmud-based teachings at the time?

The thought of a non-moving earth raises lots and lots of questions, that&#39;s very true. This is what I&#39;ve been studying. As far as your questions, I will research them to give you what you may find to be reasonable explanations. I ask a lot of questions myself, as most of us here do. I&#39;m satisfied with the answers I&#39;m finding. I never would have believed this six months ago, but now I think it&#39;s a very strong possibility. As I&#39;ve said, yes, it sounds nuts.

So many just simply can&#39;t get a grasp on the extent of this infiltration of Satan into the educational system. These people are using very powerful Enochian Magick to pull it off. What bigger deception for Satan to pull off than a heliocentric universe, upon which everything else in built, including Evolution?

Just my opinion!

Agape
Lou



Agape

Lou

[SlaveForJah]

SlaveForJah made a very interesting comment, that whether the creation days were 24 hours, 1000 years, or even 7,000 years, there still isn&#39;t room for billions of years.[/b]


Hello Jeshurun,

What you stated above is incorrect. I did not comment as to "room for billions of years".

I believe this is my comment to which you were referring:
"So, whether the "6 days" of the Creation account were 24 hour periods or 7000 year periods, the point that gets lost in this debate is that Jehovah God, being "vigorous in power" brought this creation to its completion...no one else. Perhaps the why&#39;s and wherefore&#39;s will never be known to us. Perhaps according to Jehovah&#39;s own timetable we will be allowed a glimpse of the creative process and what was entailed therein."

I was attempting to make clear that the "6 days" are representative of periods of time, the length of which the scriptures are silent on. They very well could have been 24 hours, 1000 years, 7000 years, or even billions of years. I believe the point is that we as believers in the inspiration of Scripture should not be attempting to interject our own personal views into the inspired record. I do not know how long these days were. In point of fact, it would serve my faith very little if I DID know. Jehovah has provided us with enough, both in the Bible and in the creation itself, to come to know Him and to have deep, abiding faith in Him through a close, personal realtionship with Him. I simply know that all that we see was brought into existence by Jehovah God. If you choose to believe that the heavens and the earth were constructed in 144 hours, that is your choice. Likewise, if you feel that the creation took 5 billion years to complete, that is also your choice. As for me, I feel it is best to leave off interpreting the scriptures to fit my personal views on the matter, either way. When asked "How did we get here?" my answer is this: "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ...After that God saw everything he had made and, look! [it was] very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day. ...Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion."

SlaveForJah

[DoubtingThomas]

Accurate Biblical Descriptions of Scientific Principles
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html

The Bible is often described as a book that includes many ideas that are scientifically inaccurate. The truth is that what many Christians (and non-Christians) have misinterpreted the Bible in such a way as to make it seem to be at odds with the reality of our world. For example, the Roman Catholic Church promoted geocentrism (the idea that the earth is the center of the universe) for many years. This concept is not found in the Bible, but stems from the idea that since humans are the center of God&#39;s attention, that the place where they live must be the center of God&#39;s universe. This is neither a logical nor biblical inference. In fact, the Bible states that the heavens "fix their rule over the earth,"^{1 (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n01)} demonstrating that the heavens control the earth and not the other way around. The early proponents (Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei) of heliocentrism (the earth revolving around the Sun) were all Christians (see related page - People of Faith - Famous Scientists (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html)). In fact, Isaac Newton, in his famous scientific work, Principia, stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Of course, the Bible was not written as a work of science nor was its purpose to describe the workings of the physical world. It was written to explain spiritual principles - the nature of mankind, the nature of God, and how people can have a personal relationship with God (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gospel.html). However, when the Bible describes the physical world, it is accurate. The purpose of this page is to illustrate some of the examples of scientific principles described in the Bible hundreds to thousands of years before they were proved to be true by science.

Scientific PrincipleBiblical ReferenceCosmology/AstronomyTime had a beginning2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, 1 Corinthians 2:7^{2 (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n02)}The universe had a beginning (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html)Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5, etc.^{3 (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n03)}The universe was created from the invisibleHebrews 11:3^{4 (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n04)}The dimensions of the universe were createdRomans 8:38-39^{5 (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n05)}The universe is expandingJob 9:8, Psalms 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:1⁶ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n06)Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe (refutes steady-state theory)Genesis 2:3-4⁷ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n07)The universe is winding down and will "wear out" (second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death"-maximum entropy)Psalms 102:25-27⁸ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n08)Describes the correct order of creationGenesis 1 (see Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html))Number of stars exceeds a billionGenesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22⁹ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n09)Every star is different1 Corinthians 15:41¹⁰ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n10)Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groupsJob 38:31¹¹ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n11)Light is in motionJob 38:19-20¹² (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n12)The earth is controlled by the heavensJob 38:33^{1 (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n01)}Earth is a sphereIsaiah 40:22¹³ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n13) Job 26:10^{14 (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n14)}At any time, there is day and night on the EarthLuke 17:34-35¹⁵ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n15)Earth is suspended in spaceJob 26:7¹⁶ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n16)Earth SciencesEarth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity describedGenesis 1:2-9, Psalms 104:6-9, Proverbs 3:19, Proverbs 8:27-29, Job 38:4-8, 2 Peter 3:5¹⁷Water cycle describedEcclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10, Job 36:27-28<a href="http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n18" target="_blank">¹⁸ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n17)Valleys exist on the bottom of the sea2 Samuel 22:16¹⁹ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n19)Vents exist on the bottom of the seaJob 38:16²⁰ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n20)Ocean currents in the seaPsalms 8:8²¹ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n21)Air has weightJob 28:25²² (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n22)Winds blow in circular pathsEcclesiastes 1:6²³ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n23)BiologyThe chemical nature of human lifeGenesis 2:7, 3:19²⁴ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n24)Life of creatures are in the bloodLeviticus 17:11²⁵ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n25)The nature of infectious diseasesLeviticus 13:46²⁶ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n26)Importance of sanitation to health

Numbers 19, Deuteronomy 23:12-13, Leviticus 7-9²⁷ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n27)

[Jinnvisible]

Although it is fox news, so perhaps the earth doesn`t exist at all.

[Jeshurun]

the Roman Catholic Church promoted geocentrism (the idea that the earth is the center of the universe) for many years. This concept is not found in the Bible, but stems from the idea that since humans are the center of God&#39;s attention, that the place where they live must be the center of God&#39;s universe. This is neither a logical nor biblical inference.[/b]

Pardon me, but:

6 And God went on to say: "Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters." 7 Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. 8 And God began to call the expanse Heaven.

14 And God went on to say: "Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. 15 And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth." And it came to be so. 16 And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth, 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness.


In fact, the Bible states that the heavens "fix their rule over the earth,"^{1 (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n01)} demonstrating that the heavens control the earth and not the other way around.[/b]

True. But the geocentrist model does not state that the earth controls the heavens, but that the earth is held in place by forces from heaven. This is clearly stated in Psalms 19:4:

4 Into all the earth their measuring line has gone out,
And to the extremity of the productive land their utterances.
In them he has set a tent for the sun.


The early proponents (Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei) of heliocentrism (the earth revolving around the Sun) were all Christians (see related page - People of Faith - Famous Scientists (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html)).[/b]

They were "Christians" like the man of lawlessness is a "Christian". All of these people were occultists.


The universe is expanding Job 9:8, Psalms 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:1⁶ (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#n06)[/b]

This is not true, based on Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion.

Not one of the scriptures quoted prove that the universe is expanding. It&#39;s all up to the translator whether of not he chooses to contradict the Genesis account:

Job 9:8
(BBE) By whose hand the heavens were stretched out
(CEV) God alone stretched out the sky
(ESV) who alone stretched out the heavens
(GNB) No one helped God spread out the heavens

Psalms 104:2
(GNB) You have spread out the heavens like a tent

Isaiah 40:22
(BBE) by him the heavens are stretched out like an arch
(CEV) He spread out the heavens like a curtain or an open tent.
(GNB) He stretched out the sky like a curtain, like a tent in which to live.

Isaiah 42:5

The NWT differs from most here, as it refers to the heavens and earth in the same tense:

(NWT) This is what the [true] God, Jehovah, has said, the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One stretching them out; the One laying out the earth and its produce,

As for others:

(ASV) Thus saith God Jehovah, he that created the heavens, and stretched them forth; he that spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

(ESV) Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it:

(JPS) Thus saith God the LORD, He that created the heavens, and stretched them forth, He that spread forth the earth and that which cometh out of it, He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

(KJV) Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Isaiah 44:24

(CEV) Israel, I am your LORD. I am your source of life, and I have rescued you. I created everything from the sky above to the earth below.

(Darby) Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb: I am Jehovah, the maker of all things; who alone stretched out the heavens, who did spread forth the earth by myself;

(ESV) Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

(Geneva) Thus sayeth the Lord thy redeemer and he that formed thee from the wombe, I am the Lord, that made all things, that spred out the heauens alone, and stretched out the earth by my selfe.

(GNB) "I am the LORD, your savior; I am the one who created you. I am the LORD, the Creator of all things. I alone stretched out the heavens; when I made the earth, no one helped me.

(GW) The LORD reclaimed you. He formed you in the womb. This is what the LORD says: I, the LORD, made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself. I spread out the earth all alone.

(GW) The LORD reclaimed you. He formed you in the womb. This is what the LORD says: I, the LORD, made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself. I spread out the earth all alone.

(JPS) Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb: I am the LORD, that maketh all things; that stretched forth the heavens alone; that spread abroad the earth by Myself;

Isaiah 45:12

(ASV) I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens; and all their host have I commanded.

(BBE) I have made the earth, forming man on it: by my hands the heavens have been stretched out, and all the stars put in their ordered places.

(CEV) I created the world and covered it with people; I stretched out the sky and filled it with stars.

(Darby) It is I that have made the earth, and created man upon it; it is I, my hands, that have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

(DRB) I made the earth: and I created man upon it: my hand stretched forth the heavens, and I have commanded all their host.

(ESV) I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.

(GNB) I am the one who made the earth and created human beings to live there. By my power I stretched out the heavens; I control the sun, the moon, and the stars.

(GW) I made the earth and created humans on it. I stretched out the heavens with my own hands. I commanded all the stars to shine.

(JPS) I, even I, have made the earth, and created man upon it; I, even My hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

(KJV) I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

(LITV) I have made the earth, and created man on it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands; and I have set all their host in order.

(MKJV) I have made the earth, and created man on it; I with My hands have stretched out the heavens; and all their host have I commanded.

(RV) I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

(Webster) I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

(YLT) I made earth, and man on it prepared, I--My hands stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.

Isaiah 48:13

(ASV) Yea, my hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spread out the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

(BBE) Yes, by my hand was the earth placed on its base, and by my right hand the heavens were stretched out; at my word they take up their places.

(CEV) With my own hand I created the earth and stretched out the sky. They obey my every command.

(Darby) Yea, my hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spread abroad the heavens: I call unto them, they stand up together.

(DRB) My hand also hath founded the earth, and my right hand hath measured the heavens: I shall call them, and they shall stand together.

(ESV) My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together.

(Geneva) Surely mine hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heaues: when I cal them, they stand vp together.

(GNB) My hands made the earth&#39;s foundations and spread the heavens out. When I summon earth and sky, they come at once and present themselves.

(GW) My hand laid the foundation of the earth. My right hand stretched out the heavens. When I call for them, they both stand.

(JPS) Yea, My hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand hath spread out the heavens; when I call unto them, they stand up together.

(KJV) Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

(LITV) My hand surely founded earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens; I called to them, they stood up together.

(MKJV) My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens. I called; they stood up together.

(RV) Yea, mine hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spread out the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

(Webster) My hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call to them, they stand up together.

(YLT) Also, My hand hath founded earth, And My right hand stretched out the heavens, I am calling unto them, they stand together.

Similar results for Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12 and 51:15, and Zechariah 12:1.

[DoubtingThomas]

The scriptures you cite that the heavenly bodies shine upon the earth do not signify or support your position that the earth is the center of the universe.

And the scripture that the heavens have come to their "completion" does not support the idea that the heavenly bodies are not in motion and rotating.

What you are doing is like trying to take round pegs and fit them in to square holes. They just don&#39;t work to support the idea of the earth not rotating around the sun or being the center of the universe. Your argument and use of these verses is not logical (at least to me). You are misapplying the verses. Your arguement is akin to saying the earth is flat. Or perhaps you believe that too, I don&#39;t know.

Many others here on this thread have used various different illustrations and expert citations to help you see this. I don&#39;t know why you can&#39;t. Like I say, as I see it you are trying to make square pegs fit in to round holes. They just don&#39;t fit (your argument).

And your statement that Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei are "the man of lawlessness" and "occultist" is shocking. For the benefit of others on this board and readers of this thread from the general public, you at least owe it to us to support such a shocking and bold statement. These men were willing to risk life and limb to face up to the Catholic Inquisition for the sake of scientific truth. Who knows, perhaps some of these God fearing men were even of the annointed? Foxes Book of Martyr&#39;s cite many examples of Christians willing to die for truth during the Dark Ages of the Catholic domination of Christianity. Many of these men during the past 2,000 years are no doubt Christ brothers with the heavenly calling. Unless you have first hand knowledge of such a terrible accusation, you are certainly treating these Christian Brothers with disrespect, perhaps even being slanderous. If any of these Christians end up ruling with Christ and the 144,000, I am sure you will want to owe them an apology. Regardless, if you have solid evidence of these three scientist being occultist or of the man of lawlesseness I for one would like to see it. Not that it would dis-credit their scientific discoveries even if it was true. But I just don&#39;t want to dis-credit them by slinging mud with slanderous statements that lack solid evidence or support.

DT

[Jinnvisible]

Now i don`t know who sufferes from autism and who doesn`t it`s alternative name is the `hidden condition` because it can be very difficult to detect in people who only suffer the high end of the autisic spectrum.

One thing is does prove though is that is is possible to have a high sense of order as the result of a flaw. I believe in God`s absolute soverignty. God does use discriptive abstractions though. For instance when he describes himself through Isaiah as growning and panting like a pregnant woman given to birth pains that is an abstract discription. You might not be able be able to explain that to an autistic person though, they might be busy pulling up thier socks, as the world revolves around thier own sense of order.

If you are asserting that it is through absolute literal interpretation that you come to your conclusions then i think you need to use scriptures that are more obviously literal in an absolute sense.

There are seeming limitations on how we can understand the manner that Jehovah created the physuical universe, it can only be described to us by the physical actions that we understand such as streching something. So with the knowledge that there is no outside context for description we accept that some things are explained to us in the best way that we can understand them at not nessecarily to promote scientific enquiry.

The earth is described as a circle in Job, and this is great evidence to show that the earth is known to be a sphere before man could apprehend that knowledge. Yet you could argue in an absolute sense that it actually must be a circle and not a sphere or disk, because the three are specific and diferent.

This seems to be synonymous with the high level of order that you are either aprehending, or misaprehending these scriptures on.

[Jeshurun]

Hello Jinn

I have a 15 year-old son with autism, so I know very well what you are saying. This condition I know is a man-made affliction, caused by deliberate toxification of our air, water, food, and vaccines. My faith in Jehovah to restore health and vitality keeps me level-headed in this matter.

I&#39;ve been trying to bring out the big picture, but I know that I&#39;m going up against the entire establishment. Well, this entire establishment belongs to Satan. His objective since the beginning is to promote his Humanist religion. Anything and everything he can do to discredit the Bible as a book of myths is what he will do.

Now my question is complex, and I&#39;ve been trying to break it down to understandable levels, but no one seems to want to offer rebuttal to what I&#39;ve put up on the thread here.

Genesis 1 says that the earth was here before the rest of the universe, and that the heavens were created from a separation of the waters of the earth. Real science has now concluded that a water canopy was an impossibility. Therefore we need another explanation, and it&#39;s an important one. Since modern "science" says that an outer barrier of the universe made from some of the earth&#39;s water is impossible, we take Genesis 1:1, and apply our own interpretation, and say that it means that the universe was already created, along with the earth. Then it says the earth was void and empty. What happened to it? Why do we read things into it? Jehovah is saying that the sun, moon and stars were not created until the 4th day. Once again, "science" says this is impossible. What I&#39;m doing is discarding the "science", and believing what Jehovah is telling me in very simple words. He&#39;s telling us that the universe was created specifically for the earth, he does not say that the earth came along afterward.

If Satan were going to discredit the Bible, he would start with page 1.

Now if we examine where modern "science" got its ideas, we might be shocked. Copernicus did not dream up the heliocentric model on his own, he got it from the teachings of the Talmudic book of Zohar, from the 6th century BC. Similar teaching can also be found in the mystic Indian book of the 7th century BC, from which Hindu is derived.

Now no one seems to want to answer my question:

What did the Apostles, and man in general, believe in the first century at the time Greek Scriptures were written? When Jesus said "the sun rises upon the righteous and the wicked", did he privately tell everyone how it really worked?

Interestingly, the word "Kabbalah" means "tradition". Sound familiar?

Agape
Lou

[Molly]

Hello Jinn

I have a 15 year-old son with autism, so I know very well what you are saying. This condition I know is a man-made affliction, caused by deliberate toxification of our air, water, food, and vaccines. My faith in Jehovah to restore health and vitality keeps me level-headed in this matter.

I&#39;ve been trying to bring out the big picture, but I know that I&#39;m going up against the entire establishment. Well, this entire establishment belongs to Satan. His objective since the beginning is to promote his Humanist religion. Anything and everything he can do to discredit the Bible as a book of myths is what he will do.

Now my question is complex, and I&#39;ve been trying to break it down to understandable levels, but no one seems to want to offer rebuttal to what I&#39;ve put up on the thread here.

Genesis 1 says that the earth was here before the rest of the universe, and that the heavens were created from a separation of the waters of the earth. Real science has now concluded that a water canopy was an impossibility. Therefore we need another explanation, and it&#39;s an important one. Since modern "science" says that an outer barrier of the universe made from some of the earth&#39;s water is impossible, we take Genesis 1:1, and apply our own interpretation, and say that it means that the universe was already created, along with the earth. Then it says the earth was void and empty. What happened to it? Why do we read things into it? Jehovah is saying that the sun, moon and stars were not created until the 4th day. Once again, "science" says this is impossible. What I&#39;m doing is discarding the "science", and believing what Jehovah is telling me in very simple words. He&#39;s telling us that the universe was created specifically for the earth, he does not say that the earth came along afterward.

If Satan were going to discredit the Bible, he would start with page 1.

Now if we examine where modern "science" got its ideas, we might be shocked. Copernicus did not dream up the heliocentric model on his own, he got it from the teachings of the Talmudic book of Zohar, from the 6th century BC. Similar teaching can also be found in the mystic Indian book of the 7th century BC, from which Hindu is derived.

Now no one seems to want to answer my question:

What did the Apostles, and man in general, believe in the first century at the time Greek Scriptures were written? When Jesus said "the sun rises upon the righteous and the wicked", did he privately tell everyone how it really worked?

Interestingly, the word "Kabbalah" means "tradition". Sound familiar?

Agape
Lou[/b]


Jeshurun-

Since you explained that you are trying to enlighten us on an alternate point of view with regard to the layout of the universe, I have been giving it serious consideration.

I have considered the redshift issue and the reality that Hubble never subscribed to the idea of the expanding universe because of Euclidean geometric problems that exist. The fact that the Hubble telescope is named after him mistakenly suggests that he did support the concept is a curious paradox to me. Or is it deliberate to eliminate opposition?

Dr. Jones&#39; film about the difference in the rotation about the poles really got my attention. In point of fact, either the earth is turning or the universe is revolving about the earth. In either case the earth would have to be at the center, rather than the prevailing concept that any place in the universe could be the center. While it is easier to imagine the earth rotating, it is far more impressive that the universe is revolving about the earth. The flower patterns of the planets viewed from the earth versus some other planet just about jolted me out of my chair. The beauty of the design could not be accidental. And, as it stated, from any other view the design is chaos. Why is that, if not by design.

The only question that I haven&#39;t resolved about this idea is that of the 23 1/2 degree tilt of the sun&#39;s rotation and the seasons. I haven&#39;t worked that out in my head to my satisfaction.

It is totally reasonable to me that the earth could be created in 6 literal days. And, it is just as reasonable to me that the universe revolves around the earth. After all, it is Jehovah&#39;s footstool and not some insignificant speck in the universe. Only Satan would try to make it appear that the earth and all that is on it is that insignificant. As for the scriptures, some tend to support the idea and others could only be regarded as imagery, something to help us grasp Jehovah&#39;s point.

The more I read on the subject, the more I find to support the concept. Thank you Jesh, for giving us all some food for thought. No question about it, this is an idea that requires swimming upstream, or maybe more like bailing out the Titanic with a teaspoon. I wouldn&#39;t count on too many subscribing to this concept, but I have found that it does have some credible data to support it.

Molly

[Berean]

Real science has now concluded that a water canopy was an impossibility.[/b]
Just out of curiosity, what exactly separates "real science" from "false science", and what makes it that one can be trusted and the other can&#39;t?


What did the Apostles, and man in general, believe in the first century at the time Greek Scriptures were written? When Jesus said "the sun rises upon the righteous and the wicked", did he privately tell everyone how it really worked?[/b]
Why do we still use the expression "sunrise"? That doesn&#39;t say anything about how our universe works. It&#39;s simply easier for us to describe things from our point of view. Instead of saying "the sun rises upon...", should Jesus have said "the parts of the Earth where righteous and wicked people live all rotate towards the sun so that its light shines upon them all"? Well, I&#39;m sure the people listening to him would have declared him insane.

Same with other expressions in our language, they don&#39;t have any bearing at all on what those expressions describe. We say that time moves forward, yet it is much more complex than that. When we see a star shooting through the nightly sky, we might say it&#39;s a "falling star", but in reality it&#39;s no star but a comet, and it&#39;s not falling either (well, in a sense, because it&#39;s orbiting in continuous free fall, but at least not towards the Earth).

This is all due to us not being able to see the entire system at once. We are just a tiny part of this huge universe that Jehovah created, but in our everyday life, we don&#39;t think about that, because we don&#39;t really need to. That&#39;s why Jesus didn&#39;t concern himself with astronomy when talking to other people; it would simply be of no use to them.

And as for Copernicus, yes, there have been other scientists before him who figured out that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but I don&#39;t see how that makes him an occultist.

[Jeshurun]

The only question that I haven&#39;t resolved about this idea is that of the 23 1/2 degree tilt of the sun&#39;s rotation and the seasons. I haven&#39;t worked that out in my head to my satisfaction.[/b]

I struggled with that one too. I don&#39;t have my Bible, but the 104th Psalm describes a path, a circuit for the sun that could very well explain how Jehovah programmed an orbital pattern into the sun to heat the earth more uniformly, closer to the poles. When I get into the pre-flood discussion it might become a lot clearer.

Another problem I thought of was the bulge at the earth&#39;s equator, which suggests a centifugal motion. However, the tides cannot be explained by the moon. NASA says that approximately 80 percent of the way toward the moon, the earth&#39;s gravitational influence versus the moon&#39;s reach a point where they cancel each other out, causing a "neutral". How is it then, that the moon has enough force on the earth to lift up oceans several feet, and the continents themselves up to nine inches, twice a day? A great force exerted on the earth by a combination of the sun, moon and quasars might explain it.

Thanks for your support, looks like it&#39;s me and you kid, LOL!

Agape
Lou

[Jeshurun]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly separates "real science" from "false science", and what makes it that one can be trusted and the other can&#39;t?[/b]

Here&#39;s a small sample how Pythagorean math works.

The Yankees beat the Red Sox one day, 14-0.

The next day, they lose to the Red Sox, 1-0.

Pythagorean math says that over the two games, the Yankees outscored the Red Sox 14-1, therefore "should have" won both games.

While this type of math has useful purposes, it did not tell the true story of the two games.

They apply these same rules to their theories, and the bias or slant is always towards the formula that will support billions of years, or evolution. A little here, and a little there, and you end up with 16 billion years. It&#39;s never toward the possibility of a loving Creator. When does NASA ever mention God? It&#39;s all about "cosmic roots", and the idea is always to add time to the equation.

[Sketch]

The Yankees beat the Red Sox one day, 14-0.

The next day, they lose to the Red Sox, 1-0.

Pythagorean math says that over the two games, the Yankees outscored the Red Sox 14-1, therefore "should have" won both games.[/b]

<div align="center">http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/brands/0015/5755/brand.gif
</div>Whoa there... i said WHOA! When I say whoa, i MEAN WWWWWHOA! hold on just a cotton-pickn&#39; minute there Varmint... your illustration is highly... i said HIGHLY OFFENSIVE..... Oh-FFENSIVE... HIGHLY....
<div align="center"> :lol: ..... :D ..... ;) ..... <_< .... :angry: !
</div>You have more serious issues than faith, my friend, if you&#39;re under the impression that the SPankees could ever TRY to compare to the REDSOX... i&#39;m so upset.... i feel sick... how could you SAY such a thing??? you cut me deep Jesh... you cut me REAL deep... (24-October-2004 - Never forget!! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6294431/))

[Jeshurun]

<div class='quotemain'>The Yankees beat the Red Sox one day, 14-0.

The next day, they lose to the Red Sox, 1-0.

Pythagorean math says that over the two games, the Yankees outscored the Red Sox 14-1, therefore "should have" won both games.[/b]

<div align="center">http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/brands/0015/5755/brand.gif
</div>Whoa there... i said WHOA! When I say whoa, i MEAN WWWWWHOA! hold on just a cotton-pickn&#39; minute there Varmint... your illustration is highly... i said HIGHLY OFFENSIVE..... Oh-FFENSIVE... HIGHLY....
<div align="center"> :lol: ..... :D ..... ;) ..... <_< .... :angry: !
</div>You have more serious issues than faith, my friend, if you&#39;re under the impression that the SPankees could ever TRY to compare to the REDSOX... i&#39;m so upset.... i feel sick... how could you SAY such a thing??? you cut me deep Jesh... you cut me REAL deep... (24-October-2004 - Never forget!! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6294431/))
[/b][/quote]

Hah! Hysterical!

Ok, substitute the Mets for the Red Sox. Is that better? I don&#39;t root for the Evil Empire.

Just curious: Faith in what? "Science", or the infallibility of God&#39;s word?

Agape

Jesh

[Berean]

<div align="center">http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/brands/0015/5755/brand.gif
Whoa there... i said WHOA! When I say whoa, i MEAN WWWWWHOA! hold on just a cotton-pickn&#39; minute there Varmint... your illustration is highly... i said HIGHLY OFFENSIVE..... Oh-FFENSIVE... HIGHLY....
<div align="center"> :lol: ..... :D ..... ;) ..... <_< .... :angry: !
</div>You have more serious issues than faith, my friend, if you&#39;re under the impression that the SPankees could ever TRY to compare to the REDSOX... i&#39;m so upset.... i feel sick... how could you SAY such a thing??? you cut me deep Jesh... you cut me REAL deep... (24-October-2004 - Never forget!! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6294431/))[/b][/quote]


Ahahahahahahahahaha!!! You crack me up! :D

[DoubtingThomas]

And I thought that the Giants-Dodgers rivalry here on the West Coast was bitter. It sounds like you Yankees-Red Sox fans really take your rivalry seriously too!

[Sketch]

And I thought that the Giants-Dodgers rivalry here on the West Coast was bitter. It sounds like you Yankees-Red Sox fans really take your rivalry seriously too![/b]

The Yankees are all that is wrong with sports and all that is EVIL with baseball...
<div align="center">...but I&#39;m not bitter...
</div>unlike Yankee fans, I&#39;ve nevet thrown batteries at opposing teams... but hey, if my team was responsible for the biggest collapse in ALL of SPORTS HISTORY, i may feel differently...

/hijacked the thread... sorry... disdain for the Yanx runs deep...

[Jeshurun]

/hijacked the thread... sorry... disdain for the Yanx runs deep...[/b]

Hijacking to baseball is ALWAYS allowed.... :bier:

[Jeshurun]

the 23 1/2 degree tilt of the sun&#39;s rotation and the seasons.[/b]

I think maybe the answer might be right here:

"and seasons</span><span style="color:#000080">"

:191:

[Jeshurun]

Looks like the "dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago", scientific "fact" is in a lot of trouble. 4 or 5 thousand years might be more accurate.

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don&#39;t allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said.

http://ori.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...softtissue.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html)



Also looks like the Polar and Greenland ice caps haven&#39;t been there longer than 3 or 4 thousand years:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

[DoubtingThomas]

<div align="center">Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days</div>
<div align="center">By Rich Deem</div>
Introduction

The age of the earth and the universe is no longer disputed among most scientists. Science tells us the earth is ~4.5 x 10⁹ years old. The universe is ~12-16 x 10⁹ years old. There have been several Christian scientists who have attempted to propose theories and find "scientific" evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. All "evidence" for a recent creation of the earth is flawed in some way.

Hebrew Words

Literal translations of the Hebrew word, yom, like our English word "day," can refer to a 24 hour day, sunrise to sunset (12 hours), or a long, unspecified period of time (as in "the day of the dinosaurs"). The Hebrew word ereb, translated evening also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word boqer, translated morning, also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage (1 (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html#n01)). Our English expression: "The dawning of an age" serves to illustrate this point. This expression in Hebrew could use the word, boqer, for dawning, which, in Genesis 1, is often translated morning.

Do all the instances of "morning" and evening" refer to a literal period of time? Here is an example from Moses:

In the morning it [grass] flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away. (Psalms 90:6)

This verse refers to the life cycle of grass (compared to the short life span of humans). Obviously, the grass does not grow up in one morning and die by the same evening. The period of time refers to its birth (morning) and its death (evening) at least several weeks (if not months) later.

The first thing one notices when looking at Genesis 1 is the unusual construction surrounding the words morning and evening together with day. This combination is very rare, occurring only ten times in the Old Testament, six of which, of course, are in the Genesis creation account. The remaining four verses (NASB) are listed below:

1. "This is the offering which Aaron and his sons are to present to the LORD on the day when he is anointed; the tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening." (Leviticus 6:20)

2. Now on the day that the tabernacle was erected the cloud covered the tabernacle, the tent of the testimony, and in the evening it was like the appearance of fire over the tabernacle, until morning. (Numbers 9:15)

3. "For seven days no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory, and none of the flesh which you sacrifice on the evening of the first day shall remain overnight until morning." (Deuteronomy 16:4)

4. "And the vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future." (Daniel 8:26)

The first three verses obviously refer to 24 hour days, since this is readily apparent from the context. The fourth one refers to many evenings and mornings, which "pertains to many days in the future." This verse actually refers to events that are yet to happen, which is 3000 years of days from when it was originally written. One could easily say that these mornings and evenings represent thousands of years.

However, none of these verses have the form which is seen in the Genesis account. Let&#39;s look at the form of these "evenings and mornings:"

· And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Genesis 1:5)

· And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (Genesis 1:8)

· And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (Genesis 1:13)

· And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. (Genesis 1:19)

· And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. (Genesis 1:23)

· And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)

The actual number of words in Hebrew is much fewer than that of the English translations. The words "and there was" are not in the Hebrew, but added to make the English flow better. The actual translation is "evening and morning &#39;n&#39; day." There is no way to discern from the context that the text is referring to 24 hour days.

How would God have changed the text if He intended it to indicate 24 hour days? If God were to have created in 24 hour days, I would have expected the Genesis text to have begun with a statement to the effect that "God did &#39;x&#39; in the morning" and "God did &#39;y&#39; in the evening," as opposed to the very unusual construction of telling all God did and then ending with both evening and morning side by side at the end of the "day." So, the order indicates the end (evening) of one day is followed by the dawning (morning) of the next day. In addition, one would expect that if God chose to create the world in a few days He would have indicated it was all created in a few days instead of one day (Genesis 2:4) (2 (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html#n02)). This verse indicates to me that the Genesis days are other than 12 or 24 hour periods of time.

Scripture Declares the Days to be Long

Specific biblical examples of evidence for long creation days include:

1. The "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time.

2. Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."

3. The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day."

4. In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God&#39;s seventh day of rest. By any calculation, God&#39;s seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long:

For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)

5. The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalms 90:4).

6. The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).

7. The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, tress and fruit. The text specifically states that the land produced trees that bore fruit with seed in it (3 (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html#n03)). Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees requires several years to grow to produce fruit. However, the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long.

8. The events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours. On this day, God created the mammals and mankind. He also planted a garden, watered it, let it grow, and put man in it, with instruction on its care and maintenance. Then God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. This job, in itself would take many days or weeks. Next, God put Adam to sleep and created Eve. It is very unlikely all of this could take place in 24 hours, since much of it was dependent upon Adam, who did not have the abilities of God.

9. The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalms 105:8 (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html#n04)). Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology.

Early Church Fathers Believed the Creation Days were Long

The belief that creation days are long periods of time is not just a recent interpretation of the scriptures, but was prevalent since the first century. Dr. Ross has published a book entitled Creation and Time, which documents in detail what first century Jewish scholars and the early Christian church fathers said (http://www.reasons.org/resources/books/c_t/c_t2.html) regarding their interpretation of creation chronology (5 (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html#n05)). Jewish scholars include Philo and Josephus, while Christian fathers include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (through writings of Ambrose), Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose. Among this group, nearly all acknowledged the likelihood that the creation days were longer than 24 hours. The evidence presented in Creation and Time is both overwhelming and well documented (all references are given). You can read and/or download translations of the actual text of all of the early church fathers at Wheaton College&#39;s server (http://www.ccel.org/fathers/index.html). The collection consists of nearly forty files, averaging ~2 mb each. Alternatively, these writings can be obtained on CD from Logos Research (http://www.logos.com/).

All of this biblical and historical evidence has led us to conclude that the days of Genesis 1 are not literal 24 hour days, but long periods of time during which God chose to create different species of life.

Appearance of Age

If God had created the universe in an instant, there would be no evidence from nature that He created it. The Bible states God has shown himself to all men through His creation so that men are without excuse in rejecting God (6). In addition, the universe declares God&#39;s glory, which is a sum of God&#39;s innate and unchangeable character (<a href="http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html#n07" target="_blank">7 (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html#n06)). The Bible also states the universe declares God&#39;s righteousness (8 (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html#n08)). God&#39;s righteousness prevents Him from sinning. The scriptures say God cannot lie (9 (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html#n09)).

Therefore, from the Bible, we conclude that God does not lie or deceive, either from His word or from His record of nature. The heavens declare the universe to be at least 10 billion years old. In addition, we have the ability to see galaxies in the universe which are billions of light years away. If one claims the universe is 6,000 years old, he must state that God created the light from these distant galaxies in transit less than 6,000 light years from the earth. There are signs that the light has indeed been in transit for very long periods of time and was not somehow created in space relatively recently. Frequencies of known spectral lines show spreading or broadening which would occur after long travel times through space containing dust and debris. Since this light appears to be very old and to have originated from a point billions of light years away, if the universe is actually 6,000 years old, the heavens must be declaring a lie, an apparently old universe which is actually very young.

Let me give one example. For now let us assume the universe is 6 to 10 thousand years old and God created the light-beams already in place. Say we are watching a star in our telescope which is two million light years away, and we notice that it explodes (yes, supernova explosions have been observed). That means the light reaching us now is carrying the information recording this distant happening. Now trace this part of the light beam backwards in time along the path of the light beam. By the time you get back to the time of creation (6 to 10 thousand years ago) you have reached a point which is less than 1 percent of the distance to the star. This would mean that the "explosion" part of the light-beam began its journey from here - and not from the star! Thus, the information recording this explosion had to be "built-in" to the light beam, so what we see as having happened to that star may never have happened at all. The idea that observation of things further than around 10,000 light-years away is not necessarily linked to physical reality would be unsettling from both a scientific and theological viewpoint. I cannot accept a God who lies by creating deceptions.

Appearance of Age Rebuttals

Many have asked the following question: Since God probably created Adam full grown and mature why couldn&#39;t God have done the same thing with the universe? First, note that God had a choice of creating Adam adult sized, or as a baby. Obviously if Adam was created as a baby, God would have to provide a means of nurturing him. This would require some special agency or being, or God could have made Adam a very special baby who did not require special care. Although God could have done any of these things, we believe God operates according to the principle of simplicity. Thus, He simply created the first man full-sized. However, Adam&#39;s body did not necessarily have signs of age. Size by itself is not an indication of age except perhaps to tell that the person is not a child. If a doctor examines an adult to determine age he might look at skin condition, liver spot progression, hair, teeth, cholesterol level, metabolism, scars, etc. I believe that Adam&#39;s body had none of these signs of age. God created Adam sinless, with no spiritual deterioration, and I believe He also created Adam with a perfect body, with no physical deterioration. Thus I do not believe Adam had an "apparent age."

Other arguments often used to support the appearance of age argument is the wine that Jesus made from water. It was the best wine, implying that it was aged. However, the wine may or may not have had the chemical components of aged wine.

Ultimately, the downfall of the appearance of age argument is that the Bible never supports this idea with regard to the creation. The Bible explains the miracles of God and tells us when things were made as if they were old (like the wine that Jesus made from water). In contrast, there is not one verse in the Bible that suggests that God made the Earth look older than it actually is.

[Jeshurun]

The age of the earth and the universe is no longer disputed among most scientists. Science tells us the earth is ~4.5 x 10⁹ years old. The universe is ~12-16 x 10⁹ years old. There have been several Christian scientists who have attempted to propose theories and find "scientific" evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. All "evidence" for a recent creation of the earth is flawed in some way.[/b]

This is because "most scientists" refuse to consider a global deluge covering the highest mountains, so they can&#39;t possibly understand the cataclysmic effects of it.

I guess you haven&#39;t seen the latest news showing radioactive decay to indicate an approximate 6 to 10,000 year age of the earth. I&#39;ll be posting it.

Jehovah certainly was not limited by man&#39;s perceived scientific paradigms.

Also, no one knows for sure whether the creation days were 24 hours or 1000 years, but it certainly doesn&#39;t matter much. The point is, and this will be expanded upon greatly during a discussion of the flood, is that there is no room for billions, or even millions of years, once the truth about the devastating impact of as much as 20,000 feet of water is considered.

Jesh

[DoubtingThomas]

When you refer to radioactive decay, you are referring to the Carbon 14 dating method, which is highly unreliable, and notoriously innacuurate. This is not the method most scientist use to date the age of the universe or the earth. The catastrophic effects of the flood on the earth&#39;s surface have not effected the age of the earth or how scientist date our planet.

DT

[Jeshurun]

When you refer to radioactive decay, you are referring to the Carbon 14 dating method, which is highly unreliable, and notoriously innacuurate. This is not the method most scientist use to date the age of the universe or the earth. The catastrophic effects of the flood on the earth&#39;s surface have not effected the age of the earth or how scientist date our planet.

DT[/b]

Not exactly, I meant this discovery regarding helium diffusion in microscopic zircons:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/artic...41_1/Helium.htm (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm)

Jesh

[Sketch]

Not exactly, I meant this discovery regarding helium diffusion in microscopic zircons:[/b]

OF COURSE!!! I mean, who doesn&#39;t know about helium diffusion in microscopic zircons? I was learning that stuff in the 3rd GRADE!!! no... wait... that was pine cones... never mind....


I read the article, and the problem i see with it is the same problem i see with every evolution / creation article. and that problem is that the scientists STARTED with their preconceived conclusion. they set out to PROVE CREATION instead of looking at ALL The evidence objectively... Evolutionists do the same thing.

its like having RJ Reynolds sponsor a study on the effects of tobacco on health...

[DoubtingThomas]

That is soooo funny! I haven&#39;t stopped laughing yet. That was my laugh of the day for sure.

DT

[DoubtingThomas]

Jesh, I believe that you are incorrect in your assumption that true science does not support the Biblical account of creation and the flood. Nothing could be further from the truth. Intelligent Design (ID) has been gaining steam the past decade because true science has come to realize ID is likely responsible for our universe. Many well known scientist now state that they believe in ID and many more are coming aboard every day. While it may take several more years for this to be reflected in and come out in our school text books, some experts say this is just a few years away from happenning, and in some states it already has. The accumulation of the past 6,000 years of scientific knowledge has fulfilled the scripture that they will come to know God through His creative works. What you are trying to do is re-invent the wheel. Some of the arguments you are using to prove creation have been used for hundreds of years, and are now disproven. But that does not disprove the Bible. Besdies that, as you stated in a previous post, you are preaching to the choir (most of us here on this forum). We already believe what the Bible says, and that science has proven that the Bible is true. But I believe you are going in circles by bringing up these discraded ideas that the vast majority of scientist believe have been disproven . True science is leading us in the right direction. True science is proving that what the Bible says is true, unless you want to dogmatically say that the creative days are literal 24 hour days (which the Bible does not state or teach in any way). If you stick with that paradigm then your eyes will not be opened to the fact that true science supports the Bible. Sketch&#39;s observation is so on the mark about avoiding sites with an agenda to either support evolution or creation. Stay away from them. They have pre-conceived ideas and agendas. The ancient myth that the earth is the center of the universe is a joke, and will only muddy the waters and confuse those looking for the truth. Stick with true science and you can&#39;t go wrong.

DT

[Jeshurun]

Sketch&#39;s observation is so on the mark about avoiding sites with an agenda to either support evolution or creation. Stay away from them. They have pre-conceived ideas and agendas. The ancient myth that the earth is the center of the universe is a joke, and will only muddy the waters and confuse those looking for the truth. Stick with true science and you can&#39;t go wrong.[/b]

DT, there are many, many sites out there and each one of them is different. The truth cannot be found at one source. As I&#39;ve said, I&#39;ve been scouring the internet for more than 7 months.

It is true that progress is being made. But "ID" doesn&#39;t excite me. All that says is that "something out there" made creation by evolution happen. I just don&#39;t agree that this is anywhere near the story that the Bible is telling.

Also, my main point was to show the great debate that&#39;s going on among scientists, and how the Bible&#39;s accuracy is being examined. It has more to do with that than what we here believe. The way it&#39;s going, I see a showdown coming, and if a scientific discovery, or, a miracle from God someday showed the Bible to be word-for word-accurate, what do you think might happen?

In spite of scriptures that clearly describe an orbiting sun and stars, there is still no answer as to how this fits into a heliocentric model, especially when that model first appeared in a "holy book" that is clearly designed to be the 180-degree antithesis of the Bible. Also, there is still no explanation as to why Jehovah, through Joshua, commanded a non-moving sun to stand still, versus commanded a moving moon to stand still in the same command!

Also, I would like to know what the general thought is about Genesis 1:1. How does this describe a universe already created without the rest of the Genesis account being a contradiction? Is it simply because it fits into "science"?

[Jinnvisible]

should Jesus have said "the parts of the Earth where righteous and wicked people live all rotate towards the sun so that its light shines upon them all"? Well, I&#39;m sure the people listening to him would have declared him insane.[/b]

You are the salt, although not the sodium chloride composite of the earth ?

Whose head, although only an imprinted likeness, and not a biological head, is on this coin ?

[SlaveForJah]

<div class='quotemain'>should Jesus have said "the parts of the Earth where righteous and wicked people live all rotate towards the sun so that its light shines upon them all"? Well, I&#39;m sure the people listening to him would have declared him insane.[/b]

You are the salt, although not the sodium chloride composite of the earth ?

Whose head, although only an imprinted likeness, and not a biological head, is on this coin ?

[/b][/quote]

Indeed Jinn,

I believe there lies a danger in taking EVERYTHING, EVERY WORD of the scriptures as the EXACT, PERFECT, UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD, LITERAL, NON-METAPHORIC, NON-ALLEGORIC word of God. True, "all scripture is inspired". But, as Jinn points out, when Jesus called the disciples the salt of the earth, they did not in some way become "footstep followers" of Lot&#39;s wife, did they? Was there really a portion of Ceaser&#39;s scalp, hair, teeth, etc. on every coin of the realm? Will actual locusts, Anacridium aegyptum, swarm forth from a literal tear in the Earth&#39;s crust, with literal faces of men and tresses of women, wearing breastplates and crowns in the coming Tribulation?

It seems overwhelmingly obvious that we cannot take EVERY WORD strictly alone for the WHOLE of truth concerning a matter. The Bible is pretty clear about the fact that it was Jehovah who created this universe and all the things in it, seen and unseen, through His Master Worker, the Logos. The Genesis account is no different. It gives some details, and leaves others out. But, Jehovah also gave us a brain and part of the thinking process is to see things first from our perspective, and it is in this context that many scriptures were written. The sun does rise and set...from our perspective. To assume that Jehovah had the Bible writers pen everything from only His perspective would be to either elevate ourselves to His perspective or assume that Jehovah&#39;s perspective is Geocentric. Of course, Jehovah&#39;s own Word also tells us that He does not dwell in buildings made by man&#39;s hands, but that the Earth is His Footstool. So, if we were to take everything literally, then at best, we get a view from beneath Jehovah&#39;s feet. The obvious implication is that some things are written in allegory, metaphor, similie, using poetic liscence, and some things were meant to be taken literally. There do exist areas that are a bit harder to decipher, but that in no way detracts from the point that not all things are allegory, nor are all things literal.

SlaveForJah

[Jeshurun]

The following information is based on historical record. My opinions are based on the fundamental knowledge of Satan and his machinations that we all share. Some of this information comes from 20 years of research by Marshall Hall, author of the book “The Earth is Not Moving”. My intent is to present a chronological order of events from the Copernican Revolution onward. It would not have been a “revolution” had the previously common belief not been one of a geocentric model based on what was generally understood from the Bible’s description of the universe.



<div align="center">THE IMPACT OF THE COPERNICAN REVOLUTION</div>
<div align="center"> ON ALL FIELDS OF SCIENCE</div>
The Five Categories of Knowledge are: Physical Sciences; Natural Sciences; Social and Behavioral Sciences; Arts & Humanities; Religion.

Once the Copernican Revolution conquered the physical sciences of Astronomy and Physics, and put down deep roots in Universities and lower schools everywhere, it was only a matter of time until the Biological sciences launched the Darwinian Revolution.

Practically all people everywhere have been taught to believe, and do believe, that the Copernican concept is based on objective science and dispassionate secular reasoning, now long since freed from religious superstitions based on the Bible. Predictably, this embrace of Darwinism emboldened an increasingly secular-minded mankind to reject Biblical Absolutism even further, and replace it’s teaching with more “truths” in the areas of economics and government.

<div align="center">THE COMMUNISM-COPERNICAN-EVOLUTION CONNECTION</div>
Marxism was floundering and unsuccessful, but now it was given new life. Marx openly attempted to dedicate his books to Darwin, declaring exultingly: "You have given me the basis for my system". This is how the "Social Science" disciplines were born, and began to make their contributions to the destruction of Bible credibility.

Friedrich Engles, a less well-known and underrated benefactor of Marx, not only recognized the anti-Biblical nature of Darwinism and Marxism, he, more than Marx or any of the rest of the early Communist revolutionaries, completely understood the crucial importance of protecting the Copernican foundation of the envisioned New World Order from any and all attacks. He worked diligently to fortify the Copernican foundation against any lingering sporadic counter-attack, mainly by the Lutherans. He understood that the continued hardening of the Copernican paradigm into the status of indisputable "fact" was absolutely essential to the success of Marxism. Engles wrote: "…one of the basic theses of dialectic materialism (Communism) is the inseparability of movement from matter….”

Now there would be a progression, after the conquest of the physical sciences, to the biological sciences, to the social sciences, and then to the behavioral sciences:

<div align="center">ENTER SIGMUND FREUD</div>
Freud, a hard-line evolutionist, was now prepared to turn every sexual perversion from the pages of the Soncino Babylonian Talmud into “normal” behavior. He said: "Man is not different from, or better than, the animals." He also declared: "...science is no illusion. But it would be an illusion to suppose that we could get anywhere else what IT cannot give us."

In case younger people today are unaware of the impact of Freud’s evolution-based “knowledge of the mind” (see “psychology” and “witchcraft”), let’s take a look at some reviews of his work:

"Sigmund Freud’s name is as cardinal in the history of human thought as Charles Darwin’s." - Joseph Jastrow, The House That Freud Built, (New York: Greenburg Press, 1932), p.228.

"Few others in the history of the world have had a more profound influence on the way man thinks about himself." - Giovanni Castigan, Sigmund Freud - A Short Biography, (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1965), Jacket.

"The very intellectual air we breathe has been infused with Freud’s categories of thought." -Paul Roazen, Freud: Political And Social Thought, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1968), p. 10.

"No other thinker in modern times has had a comparable effect upon so many branches of knowledge." -Castigan, Freud, Jacket.

More than three centuries of carefully disseminated propaganda and indoctrination had defeated and all but buried the Bible’s account of a centralized, stationary Earth. Radical members of the scientific priesthood had successfully penetrated the outer wall of the Bible’s claim to Truth. They were now prepared to break through its next line of defense with the battering ram of Evolution. This breakthrough was designed to defeat and bury not only the Creation account of man created in the image of God, but the entire Creation scenario of Jehovah’s Word. With Creation defeated, there could be no Garden of Eden. Without a Garden of Eden, no Satan. With no Satan, no Fall of Man. With no Fall of Man, no need for a Savior, or Messiah, Jesus Christ. All that would be left of Christianity would be a collection of rituals and traditions.

That the evolution-based revolutions sparked by Darwin, Marx and Freud in the late 1800’s were completely dependent on the previous success of the Copernican Revolution, is evident in what was happening in the sciences of Physics and Astronomy while Freud was at the university in Paris in the mid-1880’s: The negative results of the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments conducted in Europe and the U.S. in the 1880’s consistently showed no orbital motion of the Earth around the sun.

Hans Reichenbach, in his book “From Copernicus to Einstein” wrote: "This unexpected result kept the scientific world long in perplexity....This result, announced in 1887, dumbfounded scientists...." (emphasis mine).

Clearly, the Copernican heliocentric model was in jeopardy.

It’s a matter of history that at the time, the “science” establishment was thrown into utter chaos by the Interferometer Experiments. World class scientists such as Poincare’, Maxwell, Lorentz, and Fitzgerald were heaving and sweating profusely while trying to hold the establishment’s house of cards together. It was a desperate situation and called for something drastic.

<div align="center">ENTER THE “SAVIOR”, “BIG AL”</div>
According to Kabbala (also known as Communism) physics, there could be no inertia in the Universe. The answer? Relativity! Yes, it’s all “relative”! All around the world, in one capitol after another, there were red carpets and statues and parades honoring the eventual “Man of the Century”, Albert Einstein, a name that would be indelibly stamped “genius”, synonymous with knowledge itself. Yes, unequaled human intelligence, the man who knocked the ceiling off the IQ scale! Yes, suddenly there were “black holes” that were doorways to other dimensions! What a mind! What incredible wisdom! And what was his crowning achievement? Why was Big Al so glorified by the Humanist media and education establishments? For rescuing the Copernican foundation of all of modern man’s “knowledge” from exposure as a massive deception. Yes, Big Al was rewarded well by his sponsors, and he certainly deserved every bit of it. And to what did Big Al give credit for his wisdom?

“Imagination is more important than knowledge”.

Yes, now a potentially lethal enemy to Kabbala physics, the Truth, was seemingly squashed forever.

In summary:

Einstein’s Relativity hypothesis rescued heliocentricity from the findings of over 200 experiments showing that the earth was not moving. These experiments threatened more than three centuries of successful labor to transmute fictionalized Kabbalist mathematics into the basis of modern science.

By threatening the Copernican paradigm, the very foundation of this successful transmutation, these experiments contained the deadly potential to thwart the root underpinnings of Darwinism, Marxism, Freudianism, Einsteinism, and (later) Saganism. These ideologies were essential to victory in the spiritual warfare that intended to make a myth of the Biblical God Jehovah, and especially His Son Jesus, paving the way for a return to Paganism. Atheist philosopher Nietzsche summed up what was really at stake just before the experiments threatened the whole unfolding secular game plan: "God is dead, we have killed him with our science."

From F. Engles on, Communist (atheist) physics would allow nothing to be motionless in the universe, thereby "scientifically" ruling out the stationary and immovable Earth of the Bible.

Einstein’s Relativity is anti-Biblical, but it is not a wholly secular concept. It is an essential part of another "creation account" given in another "holy book", the Kabbala. This "holy book", with its 13th century Rabbinical concept of a "Big Bang-Expanding Universe" is an instrument of another religion which, along with the Talmud, specifically targets the Bible, and especially the Christian Greek Scriptures and the account of Jesus Christ, for destruction. It is not a coincidence that Kabbala also promotes Zionism and Dispensationalism.

Other works that can be directly linked to the Talmud include those of Sagan, Sakharov, and Goldin, and can all be connected to the goal of establishing Panspermia, or extraterrestrial evolution, through NASA’s “Origins Program” using Virtual Reality Technology. Since man’s “knowledge” (what he thinks is true) is ultimately determined by his beliefs about the ORIGIN of all that exists, it follows inexorably that all five categories of knowledge held by an individual or a whole population will be colored and shaped by what is thought to be true about ORIGINS.

When Copernican "science" captured the Physical Science "disciplines", a great change in man’s beliefs about the place of the Earth and of mankind in the universe gradually took over and became "fact". Reduced by the Copernican model to just another speck of flotsam in the universe, man’s image of himself and the Earth as special creations by God for a special purpose was steadily eroded. Since then, mankind has been relentlessly conditioned by "education" and ever increasingly sophisticated media indoctrination to add yet other levels of nihilistic philosophy to his "knowledge" of what theoretical "science" tells him is true. And it all got its liftoff by the two hundred year rise to success of a mathematical model of Copernican heliocentricity! To this very day, this model, astonishingly, has not one piece of incontrovertible evidence that cannot be scientifically countered with the Biblically mandated geocentric model.

In due time, Darwinism reinforced Copernicanism in the battle to destroy Bible credibility. This ostensibly new, but really ancient pagan "scientific" breakthrough of evolutionism, complimented and greatly advanced the Copernican deception about ORIGINS and was designed to remove Jehovah from the Creation account altogether.

Darwin popularized evolutionism with his book in 1859, giving it a supposed mechanism thru natural selection and mutations, both of which have since been demonstrated to be utter nonsense. The actual roots of the evolutionary concept can be traced back to antiquity, as also the roots of the Copernican heliocentric model. The early supporters of the Copernican model, such as Kepler, were evolutionists. Galileo, like Kepler his friend, was a neo-heliocentrist, and was probably an evolutionist. Newton gave Copernican model its biggest boost with his book in 1687, but I’ve seen no evidence that Newton was an Evolutionist. But it was Newton’s “math” and the excesses of his gravitational hypotheses that allowed the Copernican model to become entrenched in the universities in the 18^th century. By 1775 it had produced a large group of hardcore heliocentrists, many of whom were promoting ape-man theories. Among them was Erasmus Darwin, Charles’ grandfather, and the followers of Voltaire in France. This became known as the “Age of the Enlightenment” (2 Cor. 11:14), out of which came Thomas Paine, the famous pamphleteer of the American Revolution, whom George Washington referred to as “that filthy little atheist”.

The Deism of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin was commonplace in Europe as well as the rebellious American colonies. During the French Revolution of the 1790’s the Bible was actually outlawed.

These developments were up to a century before Darwin, but the door was opening ever wider for evolution to take hold due to the damage that was done to the Bible’s credibility by the Copernican Revolution.

By 1830--even before Darwin (with his Degree in Theology, not Biology) went to the Galapagos Islands and began to formulate his mythology, Charles Lyell (with his degree in Law, not Geology) had advanced his idea of a "geologic column" with great ages attached to alleged descending layers of the earth. Though such a column has never been confirmed, and though there are scores of examples of the theoretically old layers being on top of the supposedly more recent ones, and though the Cambrian layer shows a sudden profusion of highly developed life forms with no antecedents, Darwin picked up on Lyell’s fantasy and it is still taught as proof of an ancient earth and macro-evolutionism.

There are volumes of examples like these that could be cited, and I share these only to emphasize what is, ironically, obvious and understood by all evolutionists: That the gradual and eventually complete success of the Copernican Revolution paved the way for the seeding and eventual growth of the Darwinian Revolution. Amazingly, it’s the Christian Creationists and the organizations that they represent who refuse to admit that the Copernican Revolution made Darwinism possible.

After a few generations, Darwin’s disciples had secured control of all levels of education. This is, in reality, indoctrination of Kabbalistic falsehoods, which succeeded in incorporating the evolutionary hypothesis into modern man’s thinking, in spite of the fact that it is scientifically unsustainable and logically impossible. From there, Copernicanism and Darwinism went on to conquer most areas of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, the Arts, and Religion.

No area, then, of modern man’s “knowledge”, has escaped the relentless onslaught described by the Apostle Peter as “profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so-called”.

[DoubtingThomas]

You qoute the Apostle Peter as saying “profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so-called”.

What Bible verse and translation is this? I am not familiar with it.

DT

[Berean]

Heliocentrism and Darwinism are unrelated. The two come from different sciences, namely astronomy and biology, and were conceived several centuries apart. Furthermore, Darwinism has often been abused by dictators to justify the supposed superiority of their peoples, while I don&#39;t see how heliocentrism has been harmful in any way like that.

[Jeshurun]

You qoute the Apostle Peter as saying "profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so-called".

What Bible verse and translation is this? I am not familiar with it.[/b]

Sorry DT, it was Paul. This was from the first post on this thread:

(KJV) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called. --1 Timothy 6:20

The Greek word here is gnosis. Strong&#39;s says: "knowing (the act), that is, (by implication) knowledge, science.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Berean)</div>
Heliocentrism and Darwinism are unrelated. The two come from different sciences, namely astronomy and biology, and were conceived several centuries apart. Furthermore, Darwinism has often been abused by dictators to justify the supposed superiority of their peoples, while I don&#39;t see how heliocentrism has been harmful in any way like that.[/b]

There could not have been the billions of years required for Darwinism until the geocentric model was done away with.

Kabbala physics requires that there be no inertia in the universe. Energy can only be transferred from one form to another, thereby eliminating the need for a Creator.

An indepth study of the sciences will show that the doctrines of one science will affect the other sciences. Just because they aren&#39;t related doesn&#39;t mean that the theories of one science cannot affect the other. In fact the opposite is true. For instance it was demonstrated in the above article how Darwin&#39;s ape-man theories gave Sigmund Freud the basis for his claim that man is no different from the animals. I could probably find thousands more examples if I were to make a career of this.

You might find these quotes interesting:
"Historians readily acknowledge that the Copernican Revolution spawned the bloody French and Bolshevic revolutions... set the stage for the ancient Greek dogma of evolution...led to Marxism and Communism...It is reported that Marx even acknowledged his indebtedness to Copernicus, without whom Marx believed that his ideas would not have gained much acceptance...It is thus a small step to total rejection of the Bible and the precepts of morality and law taught therein." - Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D., "Why Geocentricity?" -- an article that was in press and due to appear in the [i]Baptist Bulletin, circa Sept. 1985. Bouw is leader of the Association of Biblical Astronomy, a group of creationist Christians who teach geocentrism. He is also the author of Geocentricity, a book that argues for a literal understanding of the geocentric passages in Scripture. "Those who assert that &#39;the earth moves and turns&#39;...[are] motivated by &#39;a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;&#39; possessed by the devil, they aimed &#39;to pervert the order of nature.&#39;" - John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72 "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or &#39;man&#39;] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." - Martin Luther, Table Talk "The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the [stars] nor the sun revolves...Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it." - Melanchthon, famous Protestant Reformer and one of Luther and Calvin&#39;s friends -- as cited on the Internet in Wayne Aiken&#39;s incredibly long and amusing collection of quotations, "Freethought Fortune Cookie". "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin." - Cardinal Bellarmine 1615, during the trial of Galileo (cited in Wayne Aiken&#39;s "Freethought Fortune Cookie".) "The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion -- no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God&#39;s hand? (Job 26:7) By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced -- YEA, he hath established it." - John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 93, verse 1, trans., James Anderson (Eerdman&#39;s, 1949), Vol. 4, p. 7 "I will give $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me that the earth moves." - R. G. Elmendorf (1980), member of the Association of Biblical Astronomy, and of the Bible-Science Association (a group of young-earth creationists). Elmendorf also has a new book on "scientific geocentrism," titled, The Foucault Pendulum. Yes, but how can you know for certain the Earth does not move, or, that the earth is only a couple thousand years old? "The only way we can know for certain whether or not geocentricity is true would be to leave the universe, take a look around outside the universe, and then come back in to tell us what is really happening in that larger scope. Since God is infinitely greater than the universe, and so extends beyond the universe, what God says must present the ultimate case...

"God, in His Word, consistently teaches geocentricity."

- Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D., "why Geocentricity?" -- an article that was in press and due to appear in the Baptist Bulletin, circa Sept. 1985. "I would not be a geocentrist if it were not for the Scriptures." - Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D. (1984 Bible Science Conference) "The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology." - Henry Morris, president of the Institute of Creation Research (cited in Wayne Aiken&#39;s "Freethought Fortune Cookie"). "I find every [Christian] sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, it is a matter of faith, and above reason." - [b]John Locke

[Jinnvisible]

*** gm chap. 8 pp. 103-104 Science: Has It Proved the Bible Wrong? ***

<div align="center">What Does the Bible Say?</div>
¹² If the Bible is so accurate in scientific fields, why did the Catholic Church say that Galileo’s teaching that the earth moved around the sun was unscriptural? Because of the way the authorities interpreted certain Bible verses.⁶ Were they correct? Let us read two of the passages they quoted and see.

¹³ One passage says: “The sun rises, the sun sets; then to its place it speeds and there it rises.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5, The Jerusalem Bible) According to the Church’s argument, expressions such as “the sun rises” and “the sun sets” mean that the sun, not the earth, is moving. But even today we say that the sun rises and sets, and most of us know that it is the earth that moves, not the sun. When we use expressions like these, we are merely describing the apparent motion of the sun as it appears to a human observer. The Bible writer was doing exactly the same.

¹⁴ The other passage says: “You fixed the earth on its foundations, unshakeable for ever and ever.” (Psalm 104:5, The Jerusalem Bible) This was interpreted to mean that after its creation the earth could never move. In fact, though, the verse stresses the permanence of the earth, not its immobility. The earth will never be ‘shaken’ out of existence, or destroyed, as other Bible verses confirm. (Psalm 37:29; Ecclesiastes 1:4) This scripture, too, has nothing to do with the relative motion of the earth and the sun. In Galileo’s time, it was the Church, not the Bible, that hindered free scientific discussion.*** it-2 p. 905 Shadow ***

shadows cast by the sun are always changing in size and direction as the earth rotates, Jehovah is unchangeable. As the disciple James wrote: “With him there is not a variation of the turning of the shadow.”—Jas 1:17.

The shadow, or dark image, that an object casts on a surface is not substantial, not the real thing. Yet it can give an idea of the general shape or design of the reality that casts it. In this connection Paul explained that the Law, including its festivals, tabernacle, and sacrifices, had a shadow that represented greater things to come. He wrote: “The reality belongs to the Christ.”—Col 2:16, 17; Heb 8:5; 9:23-28; 10:1.



*** it-1 pp. 666-667 Earth ***

The earth rotates on its axis, bringing about day and night. (Ge 1:4, 5) A solar day or an apparent day is a period of 24 hours, the time taken for an observer at any one point on the earth to be again in the same position relative to the sun. The tropical year, which concerns the return of the seasons, the interval between two consecutive returns of the sun to the vernal equinox, is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds, on the average. This figure is the one used in solar-year calendar reckoning, and its fractional nature has caused much difficulty in accurate calendar making.

The axis of the earth tilts 23° 27´ away from a perpendicular to the earth’s orbit. The gyroscopic effect of rotation holds the earth’s axis in basically the same direction relative to the stars regardless of its location in its orbit around the sun. This tilt of the axis brings about the seasons.

The earth’s atmosphere, composed principally of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, and other gases, extends over 960 km (600 mi) above the earth’s surface. Beyond this is what is termed “outer space.”



*** ct chap. 2 pp. 23-24 How Did Our Universe Get Here?—The Controversy ***

To the above precision, you can add the fact that the earth rotates on its axis once a day, the right speed to produce moderate temperatures. Venus takes 243 days to rotate. Just think if the earth took as long! We could not survive the extreme temperatures resulting from such long days and nights.

Another vital detail is our earth’s path around the sun. Comets have a wide elliptic path. Thankfully, this is not so with the earth. Its orbit is almost circular. Again, this prevents us from experiencing death-dealing extremes of temperature.

Nor should we ignore the location of our solar system. Were it nearer the center of the Milky Way galaxy, the gravitational effect of neighboring stars would distort the orbit of the earth. In contrast, were it situated at the very edge of our galaxy, the night sky would be all but devoid of stars. Starlight is not essential to life, but does it not add great beauty to our night sky? And based on current concepts of the universe, scientists have calculated that at the edges of the Milky Way, there would not have been enough of the needed chemical elements to form a solar system like ours.



*** g92 11/8 p. 32 Mysterious Lights—From Where? ***

<div align="center">Mysterious Lights—From Where?</div>
NORTHERN and southern lights, or auroras, have been a source of wonder for people living near the geomagnetic north and south poles. It is believed now that inside the earth, columns of molten metal rise and fall and are twisted as the earth rotates. This causes electrical currents that generate magnetic fields aligned approximately with the axis of the spinning earth



*** g90 3/8 p. 26 Unusual Telescope Reveals Sun’s Mysteries ***

The sun does not set for up to three months in the Antarctic, and therefore it can be observed continuously day and night by one telescope.


Here are some excepts from WTBTS literature on this subject. One thing the WTBTS has going for it generally is a lack of superstision. I feel that the notion that the earth has to be the physical center of the universe in order to be the center of God`s concern is definatley the thinking of man. It also seems to me to be the same kind of thinking that had the Jew`s in the first century reject Christ. The told Christ `You are not greater than Abraham are you ?`. They seemed to think the Messiah would arrive at a more central point in bible / Israel`s Chronology i.e. that no-one that important could turn up that late in the day, like if the earth was that important it would be in the middle.

Alll the arguements seem tragically desparate. So and so, believed the earth moved and he was evil ect. I know the establishment of science is application and based around war and power. Splitting the atom was a millitary concern. I know that science has been used to trade out truth and i`m ready to consider any alternatives. These renderings of scripture are highly questionible in relation to this subject the sayings of Christ are resticted to literall meanings, no metaphor whatsoever, where does that leave snakes in the jungle ? As the serpent is evil shouldn`t we kill all pythons and anacondas ?

If the scripture suggest that the earth is still and the sun revolves around it. Boa constrictors must be wiped out through moral concern.

I`m not big on snakes, scorpions and spiders or dogma, pedantics superstision either.

[Jeshurun]

[/color]When we use expressions like these, we are merely describing the apparent motion of the sun as it appears to a human observer. The Bible writer was doing exactly the same.[/b]

<span style="color:#000000">Umm, what happened to "All scripture is inspired of God....for setting things straight"?

Did men write the Bible, or God?

The Watchtower quotes two scriptures here. What about the other 150 or so? What&#39;s the Watchtower&#39;s explanation for this:

6 From one extremity of the heavens is its going forth,
And its [finished] circuit is to their [other] extremities;
And there is nothing concealed from its heat.

Or this:

20 From heaven did the stars fight,
From their orbits they fought against Sis´e·ra.

The Watchtower&#39;s explanation, in my opinion, suggests that Jehovah allowed the Bible writers to misrepresent what we all see every day with our own eyes.

Genesis chapter 1 clearly says that the earth was formed before the sun moon and stars, and that those very same heavenly bodies were set inside an expanse formed from the waters of the earth.

What else in the Bible then, can we chalk up to man&#39;s interpretations?

Honestly, everyone, I will drop it here, I promise. I&#39;ve made my point. There&#39;s way too much good stuff about the flood to waste any more time with this. I realize, as Molly said, it&#39;s like trying to bail out of the Titanic with a shot glass. I do believe, though, that one fine and glorious day very soon, we will all know the truth about the basic size and structure of the universe, and the earth&#39;s place in it. I honestly don&#39;t think that God intended to keep it a secret from us. I believe it&#39;s Satan that seeks to conceal the wondrous works and purposes of Jehovah God from us all.

Agape
Lou
</span>

[SlaveForJah]

<span style="color:#000080">20 From heaven did the stars fight,
From their orbits they fought against Sis´e·ra.

The Watchtower&#39;s explanation, in my opinion, suggests that Jehovah allowed the Bible writers to misrepresent what we all see every day with our own eyes. </span>[/b]

Hello again Jesh,

I am puzzled as to why you would quote a scripture in support of a literal reading when it&#39;s completely obvious that the reading is meant to be symbolic.

Unless I am mistaken, it was Jael who killed Sisera, not the literal stars of the sky. Or is it that portion of scripture that was incorrect? We should be careful not to pick and choose which scriptures we will believe, especially when it&#39;s purpose is to draw up support for or against a point we are trying to prove. Or are you suggesting that it was the giant balls of gas that descended to the earth to wield their power against a mortal man? Or, could it be that you are saying that the stars are not even physical, like we think, and are instead actually the "sons of the true God"? Personally, I can find no other way to reconcile the apparent discrepancy than to believe that the "stars" that are spoken of in this passage are NOT speaking of literal physical stars from the sky.

Please explain, as I am at a loss as to your meaning.

Agape,

SlaveForJah

[DoubtingThomas]

None of us here are intentionally trying to frustrate you Jesh. There is a lot of years of years of spiritual maturity here trying very hard to help you see how Jehovah has used different methods of conveying thoughts in His written word. They are not all meant to be taken literal as you seem to believe. You seem to be very intelligent, so I, for one, am having a hard time trying to understand why you don&#39;t get it. It is foolishness to stubbornly insist that it must be entirely taken literally, when so many of your Christian Brothers and Sisters have used so many excellent scriptural references and illustrations throughout this thread to show you otherwise. Aren&#39;t you willing to even acknowledge they might possibly be right and that you might be wrong in your literal interpretation that flies in the face of common sense, reasoning and years of true and accurate scientific observation. None of us here are part of the world wide conspiracy you know.

(Matthew 11:25) ²⁵ At that time Jesus said in response: "I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes. </div>
</span></span></span>
</span></span>
DT</span></span></span>

[Berean]

I just want to react to a few of those quotes you mentioned, Jesh.


"Historians readily acknowledge that the Copernican Revolution spawned the bloody French and Bolshevic revolutions... set the stage for the ancient Greek dogma of evolution...led to Marxism and Communism...It is reported that Marx even acknowledged his indebtedness to Copernicus, without whom Marx believed that his ideas would not have gained much acceptance...[/b]
First of all, I haven&#39;t heard of any historians who honestly believe that the French and Russian revolutions, as well as Marxism, follow from the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Furthermore, I seem to have misplaced the quote where Marx acknowledges his indebtedness to Copernicus.

I&#39;ll just skip over the quotes from the noted Reformists, since, while some of their actions were quite noble (i.e. their struggle against the Catholic Church), they had many ideas that true Christians would frown upon.


"I will give $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me that the earth moves." - R. G. Elmendorf (1980), member of the Association of Biblical Astronomy, and of the Bible-Science Association (a group of young-earth creationists). Elmendorf also has a new book on "scientific geocentrism," titled, [i]The Foucault Pendulum.[/b]
Well, the Foucault pendulum essentially proves that Earth rotates, and that it orbits has been proven by spacecraft that observed this phenomenon. But we ourselves can also observe other planets, such as Venus, and notice that their position changes, so the other planets in our solar system are, in fact, moving. Why would our planet be an exception to that law? I&#39;m sure if you would carefully record the location of every celestial body in the sky that you can see over the course of a year, you could eventually come to the conclusion that the Earth is moving, when you compare our planet&#39;s position to that of other celestial bodies. Thing is, I&#39;m not going to do that just for a thousand big ones.


"The only way we can know for certain whether or not geocentricity is true would be to leave the universe, take a look around outside the universe, and then come back in to tell us what is really happening in that larger scope.[/b]
You&#39;d just have to leave the Earth&#39;s atmosphere and you&#39;d get a pretty good idea of how our solar system works, actually. It&#39;s like clockwork, and such a thing can only be attributed to a Creator.


"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology." - Henry Morris, president of the Institute of Creation Research (cited in Wayne Aiken&#39;s "Freethought Fortune Cookie").[/b]
God has not told us in the Bible that the Earth is several thousand years in age. Mr. Morris is assuming too much - namely, that the creation days were 24 hours, but this is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, so this guy is jumping to conclusions. Not good.

[Jeshurun]

Unless I am mistaken, it was Jael who killed Sisera, not the literal stars of the sky. Or is it that portion of scripture that was incorrect? We should be careful not to pick and choose which scriptures we will believe, especially when it&#39;s purpose is to draw up support for or against a point we are trying to prove.[/b]

Hello SlaveForJah

It&#39;s the use of the words "orbit" and "circuit" that puzzles me. I am by no means suggesting that the entire Bible should be taken literally, I know better than that. Our study of the scriptures shows that the entire book must be used to explain the overall theme.

It&#39;s fine that very few agree with my perception that the overall theme of the Bible is one a geocentric earth. I expected nothing else. Once again, my point is to show that, based on the source of much of modern "science", it is a possibility.

[Jeshurun]

Well, the Foucault pendulum essentially proves that Earth rotates, and that it orbits has been proven by spacecraft that observed this phenomenon. But we ourselves can also observe other planets, such as Venus, and notice that their position changes, so the other planets in our solar system are, in fact, moving. Why would our planet be an exception to that law?[/b]

I found the Foucault Pendulum very interesting myself. In my opinion, it goes further in suggesting that the heavenly bodies have an effect on the earth, rather than it being because the earth rotates. For instance, the Pendulum amazingly ignores all this supposed motion and seems to follow the most distant stars.

As far as the other planets, I feel that the earth could be an exception to the rule, simply because Jehovah can do anything, and this is the place where he created man in his image.

The overall importance of what I feel about geocentrism is that it rules out the possibility of life on other planets, which seems to be a favorite agenda of modern "science", and I think we may soon find out why.

[Jeshurun]

Aren&#39;t you willing to even acknowledge they might possibly be right and that you might be wrong in your literal interpretation that flies in the face of common sense, reasoning and years of true and accurate scientific observation. None of us here are part of the world wide conspiracy you know.
</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>[/b][/quote]

The answer is yes, DT. I&#39;m merely a very low, imperfect human, trying to make sense of things that have always puzzled me. What I share is done out of love, no other reason. If I turn out to be wrong, I hope Jehovah forgives me and considers my enthusiasm to prove his word to be infallibly true.

What gives me confidence more than anything else, is that I have come to learn that just about everything that comes from the Kabbala is anti-Biblical, therefore virtually guaranteed to be a lie.

[Jeshurun]

Have you ever wondered, if Jehovah created the earth for the sole purpose of man’s enjoyment, and then commanded him to “subdue the earth and fulfill it”, why would he expose humankind to destructive and catastrophic forces such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, cyclones, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, intense electrical storms, and meteorites? Does this make any sense? Is it possible that all of these phenomena are the result of the catastrophic flood of Noah’s day?

Is it possible, then, that the changes brought about in the earth’s original structure are in serious need of repair?

It’s truly remarkable, when looking into the theories of geological scientists, how often we see the words “mystery”, “unknown”, “assumption”, “possibly”, and my favorite, “we don’t know”. The twists and contortions, the hoops that scientists will jump through, while refusing to acknowledge a global deluge, is high entertainment.

For instance, scientists know that the earth has experienced a comparatively sudden, and rapid, redistribution of the continents. What I mean by “sudden” and “rapid”, is, let’s say, 15 million years or so. This is a veritable wink of an eye, when compared to the alleged 4.5 billion year age of the earth.

Here’s an example: http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_2.htm

Supposedly, global warming poses a great danger of rising sea levels due to the rapid melting of the Polar Ice Caps, which are allegedly the result of millions and millions of years of accumulation. Well guess what? The Polar Ice Caps, including the immense glaciers covering Greenland, are no more than 4,400 years old, and began forming during an ice age that immediately followed the flood. Evidently, someone had the time, post-flood, to do some quite fascinating and accurate cartography work of the coastline of Antarctica, and also discovered that Greenland is actually three major islands, which has been confirmed through modern technology.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

Modern technology has also confirmed that our continents float above vast subterranean oceans. This could very well explain why Paul said at 2 Peter 3:5:

…there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; ⁶ and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water.

Since a “water canopy” above the earth storing only 40 feet of water would have caused atmospheric pressure that would have heated the earth to a rather uncomfortable 800 degrees F., and would have prevented anyone from ever seeing the sun, moon and stars, where did all this water come from? In addition, if Jehovah meant that the “expanse” (Hebrew, raqia) was instead some type of canopy, would it not have been better to use one of the many Hebrew words to describe such a thing, such as chuppah khoop-paw&#39; (a canopy:--chamber, closet, defense) or shaphruwr shaf-roor&#39;

(splendid, i.e. a tapestry or canopy:--royal pavilion)?

What does Jehovah’s word have to say about where these waters came from?

Genesis 7:11 says:

¹¹ In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

Interestingly, the Watchtower footnote after “floodgates” says that the word can also be translated as “windows”.

In the early 1980’s, Dr. Walt Brown, his credentials can be viewed here:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html

formulated a hypothesis that has seemingly satisfied many of the problems that have confronted geological scientists for centuries. In brief, his Hydroplate Theory,

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/...eOverview2.html (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview2.html)

formulated completely independent from the Bible, agrees amazingly with its description of how the flood began.



<div align="center">THE PRE-FLOOD EARTH </div>
Imagine this: When Jehovah completed the heavens and earth, and pronounced all that he made was indeed “very good”, would it make sense that the earth would be an unstable, possibly hostile environment subject to all the abovementioned violent weather and catastrophic phenomena? Instead, suppose that all of the heavily charged, subterranean waters were “sealed”, that there were no cracks in the earth causing hydrothermal vents, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and so forth. Since everything was perfect and settled, there were no microscopic volcanic particles in the air. These particles are also called “condensation nuclei”. In order for water to evaporate and form into clouds, they would need to have a particle to form on to carry them high into the atmosphere. Without these particles, the water droplets would not rise very high up before falling back to earth. That would explain this:

⁶ But a mist would go up from the earth and it watered the entire surface of the ground.

This would also explain why rainbows had never been seen before.

Proverbs 8:24 says: “When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water.”

The rain described at Genesis 7:11 is not normal rain, it is geshem rain, or violent rain.

The word for violent rain,http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/...ures/geshem.jpg (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/geshem.jpg)(transliterated geshem), was used instead of the word for normal rain. Geshem rain is sometimes accompanied by high winds and huge hailstones that can destroy mortared walls (Ezekiel 13:11–13). Normal rain (matar rain) is formed by condensation, a relatively slow process, because heat must be transferred away from condensing droplets. Rain formed by condensation does not correspond to the dramatic release of power suggested by the “floodgate terminology” and the bursting forth of water in Genesis 7:11.

Dr. Brown goes on to say:

Rupture Phase: A crack propagates around the earth in 2–3 hours, releasing subterranean water. Fountains of muddy water jet high above the earth. Mammoths are frozen in supercold, muddy hail falling from above the atmosphere. The highest velocity water escapes earth and some forms comets. Launched rocks become asteroids and meteoroids.

In reference to the geshem rain ending at Genesis 7:4,12, he says:

Flood Phase: Rising flood waters blanket and suppress the high jetting of the fountains of the great deep. Animals and plants are buried in sediments from the muddy water.

Flood waters rose until the 150th day, when they covered all pre-flood mountains. (Gen 7:19–24) High-pressure water continues to gush up into the flood waters. Liquefaction sorts sediments and dead plants and animals. Salt domes, coal, and oil begin forming.

Continental-Drift Phase: Mid-Atlantic Ridge buckles up; Atlantic floor rises and western Pacific subsides, so the hydroplates accelerate downhill, sliding on a layer of lubricating water.

150th Day: A wind passes over the earth. Waters begin to subside. Ark lands on the mountains of Ararat. (Gen 8:1–4) When the massive hydroplates decelerate, they are crushed, thickened, buckled, and heated in a gigantic compression event. Overthrusting occurs in some places. Continents take on present shape. As major mountains form, air is displaced, causing a great wind. The earth slowly rolls 35°–45°, and the poles shift.

Recovery Phase: Hostile environment: earthquakes, inner earth heated, oceanic trenches and methane hydrates form, flood basalts and volcanoes erupt, water drains, continents shift, vegetation reestablished, and Ice Age begins. Lowered sea level facilitates land migration and allows the formation of tablemounts and submarine canyons. Plateaus form. Large continental canyons form by dam breaching.

The following verses speak of subterranean water. Taken collectively, they appear to provide support for the statements in bold below. Some passages may be metaphors referring to ancient demonstrations of God’s power.

1. Large quantities of subterranean water existed in the ancient past.

Psalm 24:2. ... He has founded it [the earth] upon the seas ...
Psalm 33:7. ... He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses ... (A storehouse is a closed container that preserves something you may use later. God used that water when He brought it forth as a flood. Many storehouses, or interconnected chambers, held the subterranean water.)
Psalm 104:3. He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters ...[Pillars were established.]
Psalm 136:6. ... [He] spread out the earth above the waters ...
II Peter 3:5. ... the earth was formed out of water and by water ...
2. These subterranean waters burst forth bringing on the flood.

Genesis 7:11–12. ... the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgatesof the sky were opened. And rain fell ...
Job 38:8–11. ... the sea ... bursting forth, it went out from the womb; when I made a cloud its garment ...
Psalm 18:15. ... the channels of water appeared, and the foundations of the world were laid bare ...
Proverbs 3:20. ... the deeps were broken up and the skies dripped dew ...
3. A massive hailstorm occurred.

Exodus 9:18, 24. ... I will send a very heavy hail, such as has not been seen in Egypt from the day it was founded until now. ... So there was hail, and fire flashing continually in the midst of the hail, very severe, such as had not been in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation. ⁷ (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ212.html#wp1615328) [b]4. After the 40-day avalanche of rain ended, the waters continued to rise until the 150th day.

Genesis 7:12. And the [geshem] rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.
Genesis 7:18–19, 24. ... the water prevailedand increased greatly ... so all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. ... and the waters prevailed for one hundred and fifty days.
5. Mountains dramatically formed, each in minutes, as the flood waters receded.

Psalm 104:6b–9. ... the waters were standing above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled; at the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which Thou didst establish for them. Thou didst set a boundary that they [the water] may not pass over; that they may not return to cover the earth.
A possible description of some events in earth’s early history may be found in Proverbs 8:22–29.
6. Before the flood, a year may have had 360 days.]

The 150th day of the flood was exactly 5 months after the fountains of the great deep broke loose. [See Genesis 7:11, 7:24, and 8:4.] Five 30-day months would be 150 days; twelve 30-day months would be 360 days.

[DoubtingThomas]

How are you so familiar with Kabalah teachings Jesh? Do you have a book or page number that show Kabalah teachings support a heliocentric or geocentric universe? And if I understand you correctly, anything Kabalah teaches, you will believe to be wrong just because of the fact that they teach it? Is that logical to you?

DT

[SlaveForJah]

<div class='quotemain'>Unless I am mistaken, it was Jael who killed Sisera, not the literal stars of the sky. Or is it that portion of scripture that was incorrect? We should be careful not to pick and choose which scriptures we will believe, especially when it&#39;s purpose is to draw up support for or against a point we are trying to prove.[/b]

Hello SlaveForJah

It&#39;s the use of the words "orbit" and "circuit" that puzzles me. I am by no means suggesting that the entire Bible should be taken literally, I know better than that. Our study of the scriptures shows that the entire book must be used to explain the overall theme.

It&#39;s fine that very few agree with my perception that the overall theme of the Bible is one a geocentric earth. I expected nothing else. Once again, my point is to show that, based on the source of much of modern "science", it is a possibility.
[/b][/quote]

Hello Jeshurun,

Again, I see a lack of uniformly allowing scripture to interpret scripture. On what basis do you take literally the words "orbit" and "circuit", or at least as a sticking point to viewing the entire passage as metaphor? Why not choose the word "stars" as the literal word? It appears from your explanation, that you do not believe that it was the literal, physical stars that came to be Sisera&#39;s undoing. As such, I am puzzled by why, if the stars are not to be taken literally, the "orbit" and "circuit" of said stars would be literal. Would not the "orbit" and "circuit" apply symbolically - to use modern parlance - to the "circles" in which these "stars", or men of power and prestige, moved?

Please understand Jesh, that I am not entirely opposed to your "young earth" theories. Nor am I a supporter of the segment of the populace that believes the universe to be billions of years old. It is moreso that the theories that you are proposing have no foundation in the scriptures. Or, rather, the scriptures you use in support of your theories are, to a one, all referencing symbolisms. Consider the following scripture.

"6 And Jehovah went on to answer Job out of the windstorm and say:

9 Or do you have an arm like that of the [true] God,
And with a voice like his can you make it thunder?

<a name="bk15" class="vsAnchor">15 Here, now, is Be·he´moth that I have made as well as you.
Green grass it eats just as a bull does.

16 Here, now, its power is in its hips,
And its dynamic energy in the tendons of its belly.

17 It bends down its tail like a cedar;
The sinews of its thighs are interwoven.

18 Its bones are tubes of copper;
Its strong bones are like wrought-iron rods.

19 It is the beginning of the ways of God;
Its Maker can bring near his sword." - Job 40:6-19

Now, according to your style of interpretation, thunder is actually the voice of Jehovah; and Jehovah actually created one animal, out of ALL others, and gave it metallic bones; and that THIS virtually unidentifiable creature actually PREDATES not only the Earth, but the Logos. Also, according to your interpretation style, you would have all of us who have tried to reason with you on this thread believe that we are calling the very words of Jehovah to Job lies, and thus attributing to ourselves more knowledge than our Creator. Jehovah indeed is not a liar, but neither are the literal billions of faithful that have come before blasphemers for being able to use our God-given thinking abilities.

I am in agreement with you that there exists no support scripturally for the Big Bang or a 40 billion year old universe. However, neither does there exist any scriptures that speak explicitly to the falsity of these theories. I for one do not believe them, but neither should this be such a bone of contention for our brotherhood here. The biblical record is explicit when it needs to be. This may be what Paul was referring to when he spoke of fruitless searches. Even if you are 100 percent correct in your theories, Jesh, to what purpose are your findings so vehemently defended, apparently in disregard for the scripturally founded views of several brothers and sisters of spiritual maturity? Does it serve to edify, does it draw us closer to Jehovah? Does it afford us a greater portion of Holy Spirit or make us better footstep followers of our Lord?

The problem with science in general is that it is always in flux, at least from the position of those who put stock in its findings. Science provides a working set of ideas and principles for the physical world in which we can and usually do operate rather safely. This in itself is a protection from Jehovah. However, from OUR findings in science, we can at best hope to provide a mere glimpse of the reality of things as Jehovah holds the ultimate knowledge. Our being able to describe something is only that, the ability to describe. Even 100 years ago, doctors didnt wash with soap between patients, as their then-current understanding of medicine did not call for such. With the sicientific "discovery" of germ pathology, a connection was made between contaminated blood and the infection of others. Subsequent to that, procedures in medicine followed suit, and handwashing was made a requirement. Were those who didnt wash their hands prior to the turn of the last century in some way blaspheming God by not so doing, simply because their grasp or infectious disease was not what ours is today? Conversely, are those who today practice such antiseptic medicine to be looked down on for searching deeper into the human body? The reality of the situation is that only Jehovah knows exactly what any given thing really is? And our peering deeper in and further out only avails us of more information and thus better informed decisions.

Of course, as with anything, knowledge can be a burden, as it appears to be for you, Jesh. Your intimate knowledge of the Kabbalah is troubling to me. "For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14b) Jesh, I have never read the Kabbalah, nor do I need to. I have the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God, my Sword. Why do I need a book of false doctrine when I have the only repository for Truth at my disposal? Is my standing before Jehovah at risk if I do not understand the "deep things of Satan"? If so, what about those in portions of the world with no access to a translation of the Kabbalah in their language, or no access to the internet. I am not so foolish as to believe that Jehovah will punish us for not perceiving the worldwide conspiracy against your particular brand of geocentric bible reading. Nor do I believe that Jehovah will punish you for your dilligence. I merely wonder about your motives for doing so.

Agape

SlaveForJah

[Jeshurun]

How are you so familiar with Kabalah teachings Jesh? Do you have a book or page number that show Kabalah teachings support a heliocentric or geocentric universe? And if I understand you correctly, anything Kabalah teaches, you will believe to be wrong just because of the fact that they teach it? Is that logical to you?[/b]

Satan always poses as an angel of light, DT, I know that you know that. Kabbala is the book of Humanism, the religion that Satan invented when he deceived Eve into believing that she would "be like God". It is the basis for Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry. It&#39;s also the basis for Communism, which is exactly what the 8th King, in his initial phase, will be all about. This is our enemy. This is the teaching of the coming New World Order. It&#39;s all part of Babylon the Great. You don&#39;t have to look very far into the Babylonian Talmud to see it for what it is, "the disgusting things of the earth". I&#39;ve done enough research to conclude beyond a doubt that the Talmud is the exact antithesis of the Bible.

Would I not believe anything in it just because it&#39;s there? It&#39;s irrelevant, because I don&#39;t care about whatever "good" enlightenment that Satan has put in there to make it attractive to the unwary. What I do know from internet research is that the idea of the earth being in subjection to the sun first appeared in the book of Zohar, but to be honest I have not yet pinpointed it as the only online sources that offer copies of the Zohar require a paid membership. I rely on multiple researchers who all say the same thing. I have, however, found a website that has 66.7 percent of the Soncino Babylonian Talmud available for download. The complete book contains over 12,000 pages of Satanic garbage. I wouldn&#39;t even consider wasting enough of my time to even put a small dent in it. All I needed to see were a few samples. I posted a few of the sexually perverted passages on the "More Trouble in Spiritual Paradise" thread. Other than that, I&#39;ve decided not to pollute the pages of this DB with any of it, because it&#39;s just so vile and anti-Christ. These very same feelings that I have were reflected by the Apostle Paul, at Ephesians 5:12 "...for the things that take place in secret by them it is shameful even to relate."

Rest assured though, someone among the GB members is very devoted to it, as is obvious by some of the doctrines coming down from the SemiramisTower.

I&#39;m personally convinced, and so are many other truth-lovers, that the secret Kabbala of the Pharisees was exactly what Jesus was referring to when he said in Luke chapter 12:

"Watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2 But there is nothing carefully concealed that will not be revealed, and secret that will not become known. 3 Wherefore what things YOU say in the darkness will be heard in the light, and what YOU whisper in private rooms will be preached from the housetops."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SlaveForJah)</div>
Of course, as with anything, knowledge can be a burden, as it appears to be for you, Jesh. Your intimate knowledge of the Kabbalah is troubling to me. "For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14b)[/b]

I&#39;m glad you quoted that scripture, SlaveForJah, because Paul completes that very same thought as Ephesians 5:11, the one immediately preceding the scripture I just quoted in response to DT:

"and quit sharing with [them] in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness, but, rather, even be reproving [them]."

The Greek word elegcho, here translated at "reprove", actually means, according to Strong&#39;s Concordance, to "convict", "tell a fault", "rebuke".

It would be quite difficult to "tell a fault", or "convict", if one has not conducted an in-depth investigation as to what it is that a suspected wrongdoer is doing.

Therefore, here are a few other translations which may describe the Apostle&#39;s thought more accurately:

(ALT) And stop participating in the unfruitful works of the darkness, but instead, even be exposing [them].

(EMTV) And have no partnership with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

(ESV) Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

(GNB) Have nothing to do with the worthless things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light.

(GW) Have nothing to do with the useless works that darkness produces. Instead, expose them for what they are.

(ISV) and have nothing to do with the unfruitful works of darkness. Instead, expose them for what they are.

(WNT) Have nothing to do with the barren unprofitable deeds of darkness, but, instead of that, set your faces against them;

(YLT) and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of the darkness and rather even convict.

Agape

Lou

[Jinnvisible]

When did Nambo introduce you to this then Jesh ? :peepwall:

[Jeshurun]

When did Nambo introduce you to this then Jesh ? :peepwall:[/b]

Nambo made a suggestion that caused me to look into the Talmud and Kabbala. From there it became clear that Kabbala was the basis of Freemasonry. You can find this in places as obvious as Wikipedia. Since Freemasonry has infiltrated ALL major religions and even some smaller ones located in Downtown Brooklyn, most notably (in the world&#39;s view) the Vatican, it all kinda fits very nicely, doesn&#39;t it? At last we can connect defiled Jerusalem and it&#39;s Kabbala with Christendom and its purple and scarlet garb and flashy jewelry and unimaginable riches.

How unfortunate for them that the stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner.

Jesh

[Jinnvisible]

Since Freemasonry has infiltrated ALL major religions and even some smaller ones located in Downtown Brooklyn, most notably (in the world&#39;s view) the Vatican, it all kinda fits very nicely, doesn&#39;t it?[/b]

Thanks for your straight answer Jesh, cool beans.

You know Jesh someone could tell me that Bingo or Sponge Bob Square pants was the devil`s religion infiltrated from the garden of Eden and I couldn`t argue it because i don`t know squat about Bingo or crabby patties.

I`ll draw swords with you on the comment above.

The thread you started is proposing something which would turn most people`s understanding of the universe on its head. You are holding the bible to a high degree of literal accuracy. So let me test your speech.

You wrote that freemasonary has infiltrated all major religions, you wrote all in capital letters for emphasis. So to prove this, i`ll give you three major religions and you point me to where they have been infiltrated by freemasonry.

1) Islam,

2) Hinduism,

3) Buddism.

[Candace]

You know Jesh someone could tell me that Bingo or Sponge Bob Square pants was the devil`s religion infiltrated from the garden of Eden and I couldn`t argue it because i don`t know squat about Bingo or crabby patties.[/b]

I think you know more about crabby patties than you&#39;re letting on. You&#39;re probably Plankton in disguise. If you have found the secret formula.....send it to me in a pm.....my little girl loves crabby patties. :rofl:

[Jeshurun]

You wrote that freemasonary has infiltrated all major religions, you wrote all in capital letters for emphasis. So to prove this, i`ll give you three major religions and you point me to where they have been infiltrated by freemasonry.

1) Islam,

2) Hinduism,

3) Buddism.[/b]

Hi Jinn

Google makes it easy.

If you search "Freemasonry Islam", Freemasonry Islam", and "Freemasonry Hindu", you&#39;ll have a field day.

You dont think Alice Bailey and Helena Blavatsky and company didn&#39;t have a real plan for a one world religion, did you? They have no less than a dozen Messiahs coming to satisfy everybody.

Freemasonry is everywhere.

Agape
Lou

[DoubtingThomas]

I did what you suggested above Jesh. I googled freemasonry christianity. The article below came from Wikipedia. What you say above about freemasonry infiltrating religion is simply not true according to this article below. Please read it.

Is it possible that you might be a little paranoid or delusional Jesh? I do not say that to be disrespectful, hurtful or demeaning. I am serious. I am not a doctor, but after reading some of your post in this thread, I am just concerned about you. Maybe you should get checked?

Here is the wikipedia article:

Religious oppositionFreemasonry has attracted criticism from theocratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy) states and organised religions for supposed competition with religion, or supposed heterodoxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodoxy) within the Fraternity itself, and has long been the target of conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_conspiracy_theories) theories, which see it as an occult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult) and evil power.




[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freemasonry&action=edit&section=20)] Christian anti-Masonry
Main articles: Christianity and Freemasonry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Freemasonry) and Catholicism and Freemasonry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism_and_Freemasonry)Although members of various faiths cite objections, certain Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian) denominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_denomination) have had high profile negative attitudes to Masonry, banning or discouraging their members from being Freemasons.

The denomination with the longest history of objection to Freemasonry is the Catholic Church. The objections raised by the Catholic Church are based on the allegation that Masonry teaches a naturalistic deistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deistic) religion which is in conflict with Church dogma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma).^{[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons#_note-38)} A number of Papal pronouncements have been issued against Freemasonry. The first was Pope Clement XII&#39;s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_XII) In Eminenti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Eminenti), April 28 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_28), 1738 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1738); the most recent was Pope Leo XIII&#39;s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_XIII) Ab Apostolici (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_Apostolici), October 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_15), 1890 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890). The 1917 Code of Canon Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law_%28Catholic_Church%29) explicitly declared that joining Freemasonry entailed automatic excommunication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication).^{[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons#_note-canon2335)} The 1917 Code of Canon Law also forbade books friendly to Freemasonry.

In 1983, the Church issued a new Code of Canon Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Law). Unlike its predecessor, it did not explicitly name Masonic orders among the secret societies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_societies) it condemns. It states in part: "A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdict)." This omission caused both Catholics and Freemasons to believe that the ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons may have been lifted, especially after the perceived liberalisation of Vatican II.^{[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons#_note-RCLaw)} However, the matter was clarified when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI)), as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith), issued Quaesitum est (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaesitum_est), which states: "...the Church&#39;s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Communion)." Thus, from a Catholic perspective, there is still a ban on Catholics joining Masonic Lodges. For its part, Freemasonry has never objected to Catholics joining their fraternity. Those Grand Lodges in amity with UGLE deny the Church&#39;s claims and state that they explicitly adhere to the principle that "Freemasonry is not a religion, nor a substitute for religion."^{[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons#_note-a_religion.3F)}

In contrast to Catholic allegations of rationalism and naturalism, Protestant objections are more likely to be based on allegations of mysticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism), occultism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occultism), and even devil worship. Masonic scholar Albert Pike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pike) is often quoted (in some cases misquoted) by Protestant anti-masons as an authority for the position of Masonry on these issues. However, Pike, although undoubtedly learned, was not a spokesman for Freemasonry and was controversial among freemasons in general, representing his personal opinion only, and furthermore an opinion grounded in the attitudes and understandings of late 19th century Southern Freemasonry of the USA alone. Indeed his book carries in the preface a form of disclaimer from his own Grand Lodge. No one voice has ever spoken for the whole of Freemasonry.^{[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons#_note-39)}

Since the founding of Freemasonry, many Bishops of the Church of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England) have been Freemasons, such as Archbishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop) Geoffrey Fisher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Fisher).^{[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons#_note-40)} In the past, few members of the Church of England would have seen any incongruity in concurrently adhering to Anglican Christianity and practicing Freemasonry. In recent decades, however, reservations about Freemasonry have increased within Anglicanism, perhaps due to the increasing prominence of the evangelical wing of the church. The current Archbishop of Canterbury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop_of_Canterbury), Dr Rowan Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_Williams), appears to harbour some reservations about Masonic ritual, whilst being anxious to avoid causing offence to Freemasons inside and outside the Church of England. In 2003 he felt it necessary to apologise to British Freemasons after he said that their beliefs were incompatible with Christianity and that he had barred the appointment of Freemasons to senior posts in his diocese when he was Bishop of Monmouth.^{[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons#_note-41)}

Regular Freemasonry has traditionally not responded to these claims, beyond the often repeated statement that those Grand Lodges in amity with UGLE explicitly adhere to the principle that "Freemasonry is not a religion, nor a substitute for religion. There is no separate &#39;Masonic deity&#39;, and there is no separate proper name for a deity in Freemasonry".^{[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons#_note-a_religion.3F)} In recent years, however, this has begun to change. Many Masonic websites and publications now address these criticisms specifically

Further information: The Covenant of Hamas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#The_Covenant_of_Hamas) Many Islamic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic) anti-Masonic arguments are closely tied with Anti-Semitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism) and Anti-Zionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism), though other criticisms are made such as linking Freemasonry to Dajjal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dajjal).^{[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons#_note-SFMNAD)} Some Muslim anti-masons argue that Freemasonry promotes the interests of the Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews) around the world and that one of its aims is to rebuild the Temple of Solomon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Solomon) in Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem) after destroying the Al-Aqsa Mosque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Mosque).^{[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons#_note-42)} In its Covenant, in article 28, the Palestinian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people) Islamist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist) organisation Hamas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas) states that Freemasonry "work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions..."

[Jinnvisible]

Jesh,

i googled for a few minutes. freemasonary is extensive my own feelings are that it pre-dates the flood. i have looked at the history of illuminati a little. i also see how it is key to co-ordinating power structures.

However considering freemasonry and Hinduism for instance. i can see that there is a grand lodge in india and its members are hindu`s yet im not sure how much that constitutes freemasonry infiltrating the Hindu religion to any large degree. maybe the power structure of the country.

However why would it make a difference in Hinduism. Hinduism is full of false gods. The bible states that the beast seeks adherance from every tribe and nation. In India it would be much harder to get 200 million Hindus to follow a masonic religious leader than it would to simply put them under economic compulsion to a NWO which is exactly what the bible states will happen. Also porch masonry is very extensive which is not so central to political power.

Again i agree that information is power and scientific information historically (pre) has cultist aspects. Again attempting to unsurp heliocentricity to gain messianic converts is a sledgehammer and a nut situation.

When you study in this way there is the risk of considering overwhelming anmounts of related information and just using the bible to attemp to fit in with that.

Ultimately freemasonry and the NWO is more to do with elitist power structure than infiltrating the common beliefs of the masses.

[Shibboleth]

It&#39;s quite distrubing to see false doctrines and false religion corrupting this board.

there should be one thing on people&#39;s minds and it isn&#39;t how fast the earth rotates around the sun or how old the universe is or if kabbalah is true or false or freemasonry, but it should be how are you going to get out of this system alive.

Why are these false doctrines even debated here?

Some of you brothers and sisters need a total refocus. you need to make a spiritual u-turn back to the God&#39;s word the bible and stop debating petty things that only continue to bring up more questions. We have the truth at our fingertips people. instead of relying on conspiracys and lies I think you should be focusing on truths from Jehovah. satan really enjoys discussions like this. he likes to see people not read Jehovah&#39;s Word. he wants people to investigate other religions and get tied up in his web.

Stop reading the garbage.

BTW this was post 500 for me lol

[DoubtingThomas]

Amen!

I am going to take your advice Shib. I will be posting no further comments on this thread or topic. I hope others follow your advice too. Thanks for helping me to get re-focused. I truly appreciate the wealth of spirituality and wisdom on this board!

DT

[SlaveForJah]

Of course, as with anything, knowledge can be a burden, as it appears to be for you, Jesh. Your distrubing to see false doctrines and false religion corrupting this board.

there should be one thing on people&#39;s minds and it isn&#39;t how fast the earth rotates around the sun or how old the universe is or if kabbalah is true or false or freemasonry, but it should be how are you going to get out of this system alive.

Why are these false doctrines even debated here?

Some of you brothers and sisters need a total refocus. you need to make a spiritual u-turn back to the God&#39;s word the bible and stop debating petty things that only continue to bring up more questions. We have the truth at our fingertips people. instead of relying on conspiracys and lies I think you should be focusing on truths from Jehovah. satan really enjoys discussions like this. he likes to see people not read Jehovah&#39;s Word. he wants people to investigate other religions and get tied up in his web.

Stop reading the garbage.

BTW this was post 500 for me lol[/b]



Amen!

I am going to take your advice Shib. I will be posting no further comments on this thread or topic. I hope others follow your advice too. Thanks for helping me to get re-focused. I truly appreciate the wealth of spirituality and wisdom on this board!

DT[/b]

I&#39;m glad to see that Jehovah&#39;s light can always shine through. What can science matter when we have Jehovah on our side? 6 days, 40 billion years...what difference does it make? Jehovah put us all here, and didnt give us our brains in order that we may consider every contrary opinion to the "n&#39;th" degree. That&#39;s what got Satan into trouble. In no way was Christ suggesting that we all must study the Kabbalah in order to know the extent of it&#39;s leavening effects, and thereby "watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees." In no way was Paul suggesting that we must gain knowledge of the Babylonian Talmud in order to know "unfruitful works that belong to darkness, but, rather , even be reproving them." I am fully in agreement with Shibbo on this one, and Bravo! for championing the cause of righteousness.

Let us not take for granted our great freeness of speech. Our example here is one of possibly worldwide implication. The topics and responses are freely available for all to read. When visitors here read our exchanges, one thing SHOULD always be clearly visible...our love among ourselves and our giving glory to Jehovah. That&#39;s what this board SHOULD be all about, honoring our Father, and proclaiming the Good News of the Risen Christ. Keep your eyes on the prize!

Agape,

SlaveForJah

[Jinnvisible]

Some communications satelites orbit the earth at the same speed that the earth rotates. Yet they are power by solar panels. So the scientists have to make calculations as to when the sun will be in line with the panels and when the satelite will spin around the back of the earth.

However other telecommunications satelites are not geosynchronised i.e. they dont orbit the earth at the same rate that the planet spins yet they also often have solar panels. so those calculations have a different basis.

Both of those kinds of satelites have to be blasted into space at tremendous speeds in order to throw them into orbits are you suggesting that they actually just stop dead by thier own accord when they get to a certain point so that they apear to be rotating with the earth when both are actually still ? That every rocket scientist who ever lived German, American, French, British, Russian, is a masonic conspiritor ?

The space race between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A was entirely engineered by freemasons and illuminati was it ? With every rocket propulsion scientist who ever lived being a masonic disciple of a NWO ? That the USA and USSR were actually secretly colaborating with each other in order to co-odinate a conspiracy on both the people of the Soviet Union and U.S. citizens ?

Do freemasons place agents all around the world in different telecommunications companies to perpetuate the conspiracy ?

At certain times of the year meteor showers are more prevalent because the earth passes through debris paths on its orbit around the sun how would you explain that if the earth was not in heliocentric orbit ?

Do you believe that the Created universe was given a set of laws of Physics which God bends in order to keep the earth at the center of everything, just so that man can feel more comfortable that he is in the center of God`s concern now having a physical reference for it ? Doesn`t sound like the God of the Bible, the god of the bible tends to prefer having faith without seeing / having physical references.

The Sun is more massive that the earth and the planets that revolve around it, like a 200 pound lead weight on a trampoline with marbles circling around the indentation. This makes a kind of sense to the way an object`s mass relates to gravitity.

[Jinnvisible]

I think you know more about crabby patties than you&#39;re letting on. You&#39;re probably Plankton in disguise. If you have found the secret formula.....send it to me in a pm.....my little girl loves crabby patties. :rofl:[/b]

I don`t know the secret formula but i might drop on the deck and flop like a fish after reading the topic.

[Jeshurun]

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/hattonjasonp/hasohp/GEO.HTML</span></a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[/b]

http://www.fixedearth.com/geosynchronous_sa.htm

[James]

Jeshurun,

Thanks to you, I&#39;ve been broadening my knowledge using the Internet.

I&#39;ve come to the conclusion that the earth is flat! So, of course it can&#39;t rotate!

Now stay with me here... Think about it as you gaze out in any direction- it&#39;s flat as far as your poor eyesight allows (except for the bumps and dips, ie. mountains and valleys)
Also, if you pour out pancake mix on the griddle, does it stay up in a column, or does it lie FLAT.

Also I know it&#39;s true &#39;cause when I googled it, I discovered the Flat Earth Society.

"For centuries, mankind knew all there was to know about the shape of the Earth. It was a flat planet, shaped roughly like a circle, with lots of pointy things hanging down from the underside. On the comparatively smooth topside, Europe sat in the middle of the circle, with the other continents scattered about the fringes, and parts of Africa hanging over the edge. The oceans lapped against the sides of the Earth, and in places ran over, creating currents that would pull over the edge ships that ventured too far out to sea. The space beyond the edge of the world was a dark realm inhabited by all sorts of unholy beasts. Fire and brimstone billowed up from the very depths of hell itself and curled &#39;round the cliffs whose infinite length jutted straight down to the darkest depths . . . . Then, in the year of our Lord fourteen-hundred and ninety-two, it all changed. For decades a small band of self-proclaimed "enlightened" individuals had been spouting their heretical nonsense that the Earth was in fact round. Citing "proof" based on nothing more than assumptions, half-truths and blind guesses, they dazzled the populace with their " . . . undeniable mathematical and scientific evidence . . . that the world is shaped not like a pancake, but an orange!"

Rightly wishing to dispel notions regarding the alleged citrus-like shape of our planet, the Church was able to either silence or execute nearly all the fanatics. But a small handful remained, continuing to spread their blasphemous speeches and to promote their heretical ideals involving the very center of the universe. One of their number, who called himself Grigori Efimovich, would later be known to the rest of the world as Christopher Columbus. Using an elaborate setup involving hundreds of mirrors and a few burlap sacks, he was able to create an illusion so convincing that it was actually believed he had sailed around the entire planet and landed in the West Indies. As we now know, he did not. What Efimovich actually did was sail across the Atlantic Ocean to a previously undiscovered continent, North America, and even then only to a small island off the coast. It took him several years more even to "discover" his blunder and claim it as a " . . . new world". But the damage had already been done, and mankind entered into what we now call its "Dark Ages" . . . .



Enter the Flat Earth Society. For over five hundred years humanity has believed the "round Earth" teachings of Efimovich and his followers. But all hope is not lost. For through all that time, a small but diligent band of individuals have preserved the knowledge of our planet&#39;s true shape. And now, after centuries in the Dark Ages, we believe that mankind as a whole is once again ready to embrace the truth that has forever been the Flat Earth Society. Using whatever means are deemed necessary and relying heavily on a callous disregard for the lives and well-being of our members, we have slowly but steadily been spreading the news.

But why? Why do we say the Earth is flat, when the vast majority says otherwise? Because we know the truth.

:imnotworthy: :ban_dance01: :ban_dance02:

AGAPE, LOU

JAMES

[Jinnvisible]

"Electromagnetic forces are infinitely more powerful than gravity…" (p. 4). As we know, a child can test this statement with a plain magnet or an electromagnet and a coin on the ground. Gravity holds the coin on the ground, but pass the magnet over it at some appropriate height and…."

By this reasoning spagetti is also infinately more powerfull than gravity when you throw it at the wall an it sticks, Jesh.

Could you address the following for me if you get time Jesh. ty.

<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE</div><div class=\'quotemain\'>Do you believe that the Created universe was given a set of laws of Physics which God bends in order to keep the earth at the center of everything, just so that man can feel more comfortable that he is in the center of God`s concern now having a physical reference for it ? Doesn`t sound like the God of the Bible, the god of the bible tends to prefer having faith without seeing / having physical references.[/b][/quote]

Okay, there is a link here also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5DqY_q86xQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5DqY_q86xQ)

[DoubtingThomas]

BTW - Congratulations on post number 500!

You are the Barry Bonds of e-watchman web site! Are you on steriods? I mean, that&#39;s an awful lot of post. Are you some kind of Bible fanatic or something?

Anyway ... I hope to get there someday myself. As long as I keep on Roberts good side and don&#39;t get booted off this board.

Take care everyone.

DT

[Jeshurun]

http://earthdeception.googlepages.com/tombstone.jpg/tombstone-full.jpg (http://about:tombstone.jpg/tombstone-full.jpg)


http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Celes...oles%20Talk.wmv (http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Celestial%20Poles%20Talk.wmv)

[Molly]

http://earthdeception.googlepages.com/tombstone.jpg/tombstone-full.jpg (http://about:tombstone.jpg/tombstone-full.jpg)


http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Celes...oles%20Talk.wmv (http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Celestial%20Poles%20Talk.wmv)[/b]

Jeshurun-

Enjoyed the picture! Problem is, you probably aren&#39;t going to convince too many that the earth is the center of the universe even thought it makes perfect sense. Still, a picture is worth a thousand words, as they say. I don&#39;t mean this picture of the tombstone, but the picture of the orbs of the stars at the poles. Convinced me without a word. Explain it any other way. My problem was the eliptical route of the sun, but additional evidence shows that the path is a spiral down an eliptical path, which is what I had determined had to be the required path, although I had not heard it explained that way. On further examination, that is what it is explained that it is doing, so I am convinced that: a) the earth is the center of the universe; and B) the planets and the sun do go around the earth.

Initially from your data I could not ascertain whether the earth stood still and the planets moved, or the earth turned and the planets were stationary. Now, I am convinced that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun and the planets circut the planet earth.

I don&#39;t care if it sounds bizarre to others. It is an incredible eye openner to me.

Thank you, Lou, for your investigative work. I may be the only one that you have convinced, but I do believe it deserves a Hurrah, so "Hurrah!!!!"

Molly

[Jeshurun]

When I said that Satan had a stranglehold on the science establishment and that this extended to the colleges and universities right on down to elementary school, some thought I was making it up. Well obviously Satan is feeling the pressure of the pillars of his Darwinist world crumbling. I&#39;m wondering why Hollywood is now putting out a feature film exposing this. Something is brewing, and I think it has to do with "New Age Enlightenment".

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=57840 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840)

Jesh

[Jinnvisible]

The following information is based on historical record. My opinions are based on the fundamental knowledge of Satan and his machinations that we all share. Some of this information comes from 20 years of research by Marshall Hall, author of the book "The Earth is Not Moving".[/b]

I noticed that the planet Earth is turning in the e-tv graphic.

Do you feel that this is promoting the wrong ideas ? Are you comfortable in your supportive role of an endeavour that advances the notion that the planet may be in motion ? It would no doubt have been easier to have a graphic of a still globe than a moving one.

What are your thoughts ?

[Jeshurun]

<div class='quotemain'>The following information is based on historical record. My opinions are based on the fundamental knowledge of Satan and his machinations that we all share. Some of this information comes from 20 years of research by Marshall Hall, author of the book "The Earth is Not Moving".[/b]

I noticed that the planet Earth is turning in the e-tv graphic.

Do you feel that this is promoting the wrong ideas ? Are you comfortable in your supportive role of an endeavour that advances the notion that the planet may be in motion ? It would no doubt have been easier to have a graphic of a still globe than a moving one.

What are your thoughts ?
[/b][/quote]

Are you sure you want to resurrect this thread? Because I have lots more ammunition. :185:

I think it&#39;s a very nice view of the earth from the rotating aether (you know, the aether that Newton said existed and Einstein later denied in his Relativity papers so he could save Copernicanism).

Keeping in mind that you can&#39;t have the earth moving without the Big Bang Theory, if you feel like digging deep into some critical research papers one of these days, you might find this interesting:

http://www.geocities.com/theometria/index.html

I also found this 10-minute video quite interesting, (if this guy only believed in God he might have the whole picture) it puts the Pangea fable pretty much to bed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

Agape, Jinn!
Jesh

[Molly]

Hi Jesh-

Thanks for the YouTube video link. That was amazing. The more you post about this, the more obvious it becomes. Aside from being completely indoctrinated by all aspects of society, I can&#39;t imagine why there aren&#39;t more who agree with this geocentricity concept. You&#39;ve got me convinced, and more than that, it makes perfect sense from a religious point of view. Why wouldn&#39;t Jehovah put the earth at the center.

It&#39;s like those people who will grant Jehovah enough power to create the earth, but will not allow him the power to do it in 6 literal days. If he could do it all, then he could do it in 6 days.

And, I see no reason why the solar system can&#39;t rotate around the earth, rather than the earth rotating daily and circling the sun.

I have really enjoyed your posts on this matter.

Molly

[Jinnvisible]

Are you sure you want to resurrect this thread? Because I have lots more ammunition. :185:[/b]

I`m not a Darwin evolutionist. I believe that the scientific community is conspirital on a massive scale and I`m not affraid to look at alternative theories. The problem for me is I find your reasoning so tenuous that when i read some of what you have said I`m less inclined to dig any deeper. I`m not naturally adverse to theories purley on the basis of whether something is commonly accepted or not.

Sure, put some more up here lets have a look at what ammo you`ve got.

[Jinnvisible]

I think it&#39;s a very nice view of the earth from the rotating aether[/b]

You could be wrong though couldn`t you ? It could be a view of the earth rotating couldn`t it ?

In reasonableness what do you think likely ?

http://e-watchman.tv/

[DoubtingThomas]

I think I can answer your question Molly about why more people don&#39;t agree with this geocentricity concept. First of all, it conflicts with eyewitness reports of astronauts - they saw the earth rotating. Secondly, it also conflicts with what millions on earth peronsally saw in the late 1990&#39;s (including myself) when the space craft Galileo beamed video back to earth deep from space on it&#39;s journey to Jupiter which clearly showed the earth rotating, including it&#39;s cloud patterns and storm systems at that time.

[Molly]

I think I can answer your question Molly about why more people don&#39;t agree with this geocentricity concept. First of all, it conflicts with eyewitness reports of astronauts - they saw the earth rotating. Secondly, it also conflicts with what millions on earth peronsally saw in the late 1990&#39;s (including myself) when the space craft Galileo beamed video back to earth deep from space on it&#39;s journey to Jupiter which clearly showed the earth rotating, including it&#39;s cloud patterns and storm systems at that time.[/b]

Sorry DT-

That doesn&#39;t really answer the question. If Galileo was in space and space was orbiting the earth, then the earth would only appear to be rotating, not the other way around.

Molly

[DoubtingThomas]

Sorry DT-

That doesn&#39;t really answer the question. If Galileo was in space and space was orbiting the earth, then the earth would only appear to be rotating, not the other way around.

Molly
[/quote]


That is a good theory Molly, but it hasn&#39;t been proven that space rotates around a stationary planet earth. In fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction.

DT

[Jeshurun]

<div class='quotemain'>I think it&#39;s a very nice view of the earth from the rotating aether[/b]

You could be wrong though couldn`t you ? It could be a view of the earth rotating couldn`t it ?

In reasonableness what do you think likely ?

http://e-watchman.tv/


[/b][/quote]

Jinn, I could certainly be wrong about anything, but Jehovah, the one who made it all, is never wrong. He said that He is "hanging the earth upon nothing", and that it can&#39;t be moved. When I hang something, it usually stays put! One thing is for sure, that something is rotating daily. World-class astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said: "Take your pick between the two models." So, if it&#39;s a toss-up to a secular astronomer, should we not let Jehovah Himself decide which is right?

DT, you say that the evidence points towards the heliocentric model, but you don&#39;t provide any. You also don&#39;t mention the 400-plus experiments in the pre-Relativity 19th century that showed that the aether was moving and the earth wasn&#39;t. Can you offer one iota of irrefutable proof that the earth is moving? Because if you can, you will have done something no human being has ever done, and I will capitulate and acknowledge your grandiose wisdom. :imnotworthy:

I will refrain from putting up mountains of evidence in this one post, so I&#39;ll start with this:

Solar Eclipses.

According to NASA, the moon is a distinct oddity. It actually orbits the earth once every 27.322 days, counter-clockwise (!!!) If this is true, that is really a slllllooooooowwww orbit. Why then, during a solar eclipse, does the moon speed up and get out of the sun&#39;s way in just a few minutes?

Not only that, according to the helio model, we should see a solar eclipse every time there&#39;s a new moon! Check this out:

http://www.reformation.org/targeting-the-moon.html

Agape
Jesh

[DoubtingThomas]

When you use the scripture that God is "hanging the earth upon nothing" to support a geocentric universe theory, you are discounting the overwhelming evidence presented to you in this and other threads that every word in the Bible is not literal, and the Bible was written in language for common men to understand, and not written as a scientific text book. You refuse to acknowledge this fact Jesh, even though it is common knowledge to every human I know, and has been presented to you from several different angles by several different posters on this DB.

You also said that I did not provide any evidence that points towards the heliocentric model. That is a ludicrous statement. I am not a scientest, but that evidence exist in every science text book and encyclopedia available that I know of, not to mention the internet research tools we have. Why should I copy and paste that evience here? You are fully aware of it, you just refuse to accept it. It is available for anyone to investigate. It is the common accepted theory among science. It should be up to you to be providing evidence to the contrary. You also said that I don&#39;t mention the 400-plus experiments in the pre-Relativity 19th century that showed that the aether was moving and the earth wasn&#39;t. That is because aether has mythological origins to fill the otherwise empty parts of the universe, and I do not believe in mythology. I believe in science.

DT

[Jinnvisible]

Jinn, I could certainly be wrong about anything, but Jehovah, the one who made it all, is never wrong. He said that He is "hanging the earth upon nothing", and that it can&#39;t be moved. When I hang something, it usually stays put! One thing is for sure, that something is rotating daily. World-class astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said: "Take your pick between the two models." So, if it&#39;s a toss-up to a secular astronomer, should we not let Jehovah Himself decide which is right?[/b]


<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">http://e-watchman.tv/

[Jeshurun]

Do you guys actually read the links? :dontknow:

No Jinn, it doesn&#39;t make a person evil or promoting a lie. I don&#39;t even think anyone actually "believes" it from their own investigation, they just accept is as fact because that&#39;s how it&#39;s been taught. The whole world has been duped into this massive hoax and I am fully aware that I&#39;m in the microscopic minority. But, being labeled a nutcase, in this world, is actually encouraging and quite often means we might be doing something right. (Watchman has alluded to having those same feelings regarding truth.)

What evidence is there DT, what&#39;s in the textbooks? Those same textbooks say that man evolved from monkeys (who in turn evolved from mud puddles)? :rofl:

C&#39;mon Bro, give me sumthin&#39;! This is the internet age! Knowledge suppression is temporarily lifted!

:Love:
Jesh

[DoubtingThomas]

Yes, I do look at the links you post Jesh. But the last one (like many others you have posted) contains anti-semite literature and articles. I am not a rascist, nor do I associate with or have anything to do with rascist web sites. This is not a scientific research web site. It is a religionist site with anti-semite views you are being duped into supporting.

You asked for scientific articles supporting the fact that the earth actually revolves around the sun, not vice versa. I think this site link below accomplishes that:

http://www.shpltd.co.uk/index.html

DT

[Jinnvisible]

Do you guys actually read the links? :dontknow:[/b]

Jesh you said that Watchman has alluded to having the same feelings ? Its a bit vague. Do you mean that watchmans shares your view on this issue ?

I understand why you may not be comfortable stating that an icon of e-watchman`s is probagating satan`s lie yet you are attepmting to champion truth in the face of established lies and have been enthusiastic about it. Due to the fact that there are real consiquences to the things we say and believe I`m attempting to see whether you are shooting straight on this. Whether you are sincere. As you correctly state you view on this matter is a "micro-scopic minority" view. Hense in your view most people as being unwitting probagators of this lie.

I don`t see anything in the e-watchman tv icon that suggests that the world isn`t turning but the perspective is revolving and unless it was specifically pointed out, becuase of the majority view most people would accept this to be the case. So i cannot believe that E-watchman would allow that to pass if he passionately believed as you do, that would be a little bit uncharacteristic of him as he takes quite a lot of care over these things. I watched e-tv last week I like Roberts films immensely they are of great value. This kind of issue has come up before on the board when Robert was asked to reconsider using a piece of music that one person considered inapropriate due to certain conection with other churches. People feel differently about these things sometimes and the Music was changed.

However you are very actively publishing your views and material regarding the earth being stationary and i`m calling you out about it and asking you for a straight answer in regard to this icon.

Again either you share the same position or your view is that e-tv is probagating satan`s lie. I can`t see that you`ve really addressed what i`ve asked you. I`m going to be patient because you should be able to say what you believe and be free to believe anything that you like.

Can you be straight forward about the consiquences of what you have been saying ? Perhaps it really isn`t all that important eh ?

[Berean]

Let&#39;s get some context into this debate. To those who believe in geocentricity, do you believe that this picture, indicating the Sun&#39;s (and therefore also the Earth&#39;s) location in the Milky Way, is correct?

http://www.lyberty.com/blog/img/you-are-here-2005-galaxy.jpg

If so, why didn&#39;t Jehovah put the Sun in the center of the Milky Way? Also, do you believe that the Milky Way is in the center of the universe? If not, why not? Would it even matter, with billions of these galaxies in the universe?

[Jeshurun]

Can you be straight forward about the consiquences of what you have been saying ? Perhaps it really isn`t all that important eh ?[/b]

It&#39;s important to me, and I hate lies, especially ones that contradict God&#39;s word. We have the internet and free speech everywhere in the world for the first time in human history. I think it needs to be taken advantage of, and that&#39;s what I&#39;m trying to do. I will never apologize for believing the Bible&#39;s straightforward creation account.

:Love:
Jesh

[Jinnvisible]

Jinnvisible - <span style="font-family:Times New Roman"></span>Throw your credibility a lifesaver or take off those hot pants. If the Earth is depicted as spinning on e-watchman is that the same as if the earth is depicted as spinning elsewhere? In worldly Babylonian Talmud infested media? or is it nicer ?</span>