God the Son in other worlds and dealing with their sin...?

[nolidad]

I do not believe in a young Earth or literal six days of creation.
Genesis is not a science book, and is not intended to be interpreted literally.

Lame statement people use to disavow God as Creator!

So show me the empirical evidence that Gensis is not scientific fact and also show the empirical evidence that Genesis should not be taken literally.

Tons of people love to toss out that red herring statement you just gave, very very very few are willing to back it up though.

 

[agapelove]

You can believe that God is the creator of the universe while also believing in science.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Lame statement people use to disavow God as Creator!

So show me the empirical evidence that Gensis is not scientific fact and also show the empirical evidence that Genesis should not be taken literally.

Tons of people love to toss out that red herring statement you just gave, very very very few are willing to back it up though.

Genesis by means of the origin and style of writing is not intended to be science, or natural philosophy. It is not like some of the ancient Greek works. It was oral tradition possibly first penned down by Moses or Joshua. Moses was educated and a writer, of course with Hebrew oral traditions. Moses had his own contact with God as well. So Genesis looks to be a redacted work of oral tradition and Moses works. Can one prove it is science in any way?

God is Creator. Hebrews says the Son created the worlds. Isaiah 9:6 that is the Father of eternity.

Why should we take Genesis literally, we do do not do this with parables and prophetic imagery?

Genesis begins with something already there, then the world is in chaos and we do not know how or how old it is. I think the six days of creation describes the re-ordering of the Earth. With one difference to evolution the description of life follows the same pattern of from sea to land... plants and animals.

If we look at the stars, the light from them came to Earth over millions of years. Look at the moon, the craters are sometimes filled in with magma others are empty from a post hot moon period. There are mountains visible on the Earth and moon that are millions of years old.

I believe in Genesis because I believe in Jesus.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Greetings GoldenKingGaze,
I believe you missing a very important fact. The devil and his angels were thrown to earth and forced here. There is not sin on other planets. For all of creation groans inwardly waiting for the revelation of the sons and daughters of God. Earth is a gazingstock the rebellion of sin is on our planet.

The angels of death were expelled from Heaven and it says they were sent to a place of fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Somehow they are not there after a time. And they exist somewhere between third Heaven and the Heavens we observe above. Can they reproduce, do they have bodies and 46 chromosomes?

We don't know if there is sin on other planets, worlds framed by the Son. Where there is free will, there may be sin.

With our redemption others may rise up in grace too. Also others may already be in full holy order from ancient times. With their own dominion.

 

[nolidad]

Genesis by means of the origin and style of writing is not intended to be science, or natural philosophy. It is not like some of the ancient Greek works. It was oral tradition possibly first penned down by Moses or Joshua. Moses was educated and a writer, of course with Hebrew oral traditions. Moses had his own contact with God as well. So Genesis looks to be a redacted work of oral tradition and Moses works. Can one prove it is science in any way?

God is Creator. Hebrews says the Son created the worlds. Isaiah 9:6 that is the Father of eternity.

Why should we take Genesis literally, we do do not do this with parables and prophetic imagery?

Genesis begins with something already there, then the world is in chaos and we do not know how or how old it is. I think the six days of creation describes the re-ordering of the Earth. With one difference to evolution the description of life follows the same pattern of from sea to land... plants and animals.

If we look at the stars, the light from them came to Earth over millions of years. Look at the moon, the craters are sometimes filled in with magma others are empty from a post hot moon period. There are mountains visible on the Earth and moon that are millions of years old.

I believe in Genesis because I believe in Jesus.

No it was penned long before Moses! Moses was not the author but editor of Gensis. Genesis and many early writings were passed down orally and written in a song song manner in Hebrew and Aramaic to make them easier to learn!

Yes , empirical science (IOW science that has passed the test of the scientific method) supports the biblical model fo origins far more than the secular model fo origin of the BB/Darwinian Evol;ution!

Neither really can be called "true science" as they happened beyond the realm of observation and teasting.

Genesis is not parables or prophetic imagery! But parables and prophetic imagery do not speak 180 degrees oppositie of reality.

Well let me pose you teh biggest problem with the big bang! According to the accepted consensus of evolutionary cosmologists, the universe is approx. 13.8 billion years old. That is the big bang occurred 13.8 bya and that we can look out into deep space to a distance now of approx. 13.4 billion light years.

If the big bang was 13.8 bya and all matter either was a subatomic size mass or, the growing new consensus nothing that became something, we should not be able to see anything 13.4 billion light years away, because 13.4 billion light years ago, there was nothing out in deep space for it had only travelled 400 million light years and could not be 13. 4 billion light years out unless you believe light can travel at 35 times the speed of light!

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

No it was penned long before Moses! Moses was not the author but editor of Gensis. Genesis and many early writings were passed down orally and written in a song song manner in Hebrew and Aramaic to make them easier to learn!

Yes , empirical science (IOW science that has passed the test of the scientific method) supports the biblical model fo origins far more than the secular model fo origin of the BB/Darwinian Evol;ution!

Neither really can be called "true science" as they happened beyond the realm of observation and teasting.

Genesis is not parables or prophetic imagery! But parables and prophetic imagery do not speak 180 degrees oppositie of reality.

Well let me pose you teh biggest problem with the big bang! According to the accepted consensus of evolutionary cosmologists, the universe is approx. 13.8 billion years old. That is the big bang occurred 13.8 bya and that we can look out into deep space to a distance now of approx. 13.4 billion light years.

If the big bang was 13.8 bya and all matter either was a subatomic size mass or, the growing new consensus nothing that became something, we should not be able to see anything 13.4 billion light years away, because 13.4 billion light years ago, there was nothing out in deep space for it had only travelled 400 million light years and could not be 13. 4 billion light years out unless you believe light can travel at 35 times the speed of light!

The stars on the far side of the universe are not visible. The visible stars are sometimes pulsars. They are old and some we see now, ceased to exist millions of years ago, but the light is still shining, for it takes time to reach us.

Do you think Jacob inscribed the oral tradition part of Genesis?

 

[nolidad]

The stars on the far side of the universe are not visible. The visible stars are sometimes pulsars. They are old and some we see now, ceased to exist millions of years ago, but the light is still shining, for it takes time to reach us.

Do you think Jacob inscribed the oral tradition part of Genesis?

How do you know? After all, according to the BB theory, all matter was condensed in a hyper sub atomic dense bit until it wooshed into existence. How could the stars we see now that are 13.4 billion light years away from us, travel from the central point of the big bang to the point in the universe 13.4 billion light years away and then shine the light 13.4 billion years ago, 13.4 billion light years away to reach us after 13. 4 billion light years?

13. 4 billion light years ago the furthest material from the alleged big bang wold only be 400,000,000 light years from the central point of the big bang and could not be 13.4 billion light years distant to shine light we are just seeing now, unless you believe that light can travel at 35X the speed of light.


As for Jacob, you cannot inscribe oral tradition. You can only repeat it. But I do not have a problem that Jacob may have written down some and passed down some orally. God is able to refresh the memory of those He chose to write His Inspired Word.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

How do you know? After all, according to the BB theory, all matter was condensed in a hyper sub atomic dense bit until it wooshed into existence. How could the stars we see now that are 13.4 billion light years away from us, travel from the central point of the big bang to the point in the universe 13.4 billion light years away and then shine the light 13.4 billion years ago, 13.4 billion light years away to reach us after 13. 4 billion light years?

13. 4 billion light years ago the furthest material from the alleged big bang wold only be 400,000,000 light years from the central point of the big bang and could not be 13.4 billion light years distant to shine light we are just seeing now, unless you believe that light can travel at 35X the speed of light.


As for Jacob, you cannot inscribe oral tradition. You can only repeat it. But I do not have a problem that Jacob may have written down some and passed down some orally. God is able to refresh the memory of those He chose to write His Inspired Word.

So the oral tradition and Moses' works are redacted. It is not science or natural philosophy. It is not to be taken literally.

And the stars we see are millions of years old, the light is millions of years old and not 6000 years old otherwise they would be very close by. I am not referring to stars from the other side of the big bang.

 

[nolidad]

So the oral tradition and Moses' works are redacted. It is not science or natural philosophy. It is not to be taken literally.

And the stars we see are millions of years old, the light is millions of years old and not 6000 years old otherwise they would be very close by. I am not referring to stars from the other side of the big bang.

Well you make the accusation they are redacted! How do you know? All I know is that God moved the writers to write what He desired to save for mankind to know!

2 Peter 1:20-21 King James Version (KJV)
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

If teh stars are millions of years old, then you deny the opinions of all old age astro physicists! and are holding to your own hypothesis. One cannot argue what one does not have evidence for. The old agers all declare that the stars are billions of years old and that we can see almost to teh very beginning of teh universe! There are so many empirical and logical fallacies in those statemetns by those PHD's.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Well you make the accusation they are redacted! How do you know? All I know is that God moved the writers to write what He desired to save for mankind to know!

2 Peter 1:20-21 King James Version (KJV)
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

If teh stars are millions of years old, then you deny the opinions of all old age astro physicists! and are holding to your own hypothesis. One cannot argue what one does not have evidence for. The old agers all declare that the stars are billions of years old and that we can see almost to teh very beginning of teh universe! There are so many empirical and logical fallacies in those statemetns by those PHD's.

Saying Genesis is redacted is not an accusation but an observation of literary styles.

What are old age astrophysicists?

Star light from Andromeda, how old is it?

 

[nolidad]

Saying Genesis is redacted is not an accusation but an observation of literary styles.

What are old age astrophysicists?

Star light from Andromeda, how old is it?

If I remember correctly Andromedsa is approx. 2.5 million light years from earth.

old age astrophysicists are those who believe in a multi billion year old universe!

Well based on that I agree. Many many authors contributed to the book we call Genesis. Moses did edit as God directed him.

 

[nolidad]

Saying Genesis is redacted is not an accusation but an observation of literary styles.

What are old age astrophysicists?

Star light from Andromeda, how old is it?

Once again let me ask you to seek your answer. According ot eh consensus cosmology,

The universe is 13.8 BYO. that is the Big bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago and supposedly flung energy and mass hurtling omnidirectionally. We supposedly see galaxies in deep space (as opposed to inner space) that shined that light from that point in deep space 13.4 billion light years ago (the star has travelled X x 13.4 billion years from that point since then. X= speed of the galaxy.

So the question is , how could that galxy travel from the big bang (13.8 BYA) point in 400 million years so it could shine the light that took 13.4 billion light years to reach us??? Once again this means that if the consensus is correct of old age astrophysicists- then light had to travel 25X faster than we know it to travel , and while zooming at warp 25 that energy and mass coalesce into clusters that then formed stars and then form galaxies, all in 400 million years whiule travelling at 25X the speed of light.

LIght travels c. 186,320 MPS so then these galaxies in deep space had to travel at 4,658.000 MPS.
See the phyics impossibility of this? That you may get a grasp of this, light from our sun which is approx. 96,000,000 takes approx. 480 seconds to reach earth. But according to the standard evolutionary cosmology light travelled (using our sun and earth for example) from the sun to the earth Instead of 480 seconds, only 21 seconds

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Once again let me ask you to seek your answer. According ot eh consensus cosmology,

The universe is 13.8 BYO. that is the Big bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago and supposedly flung energy and mass hurtling omnidirectionally. We supposedly see galaxies in deep space (as opposed to inner space) that shined that light from that point in deep space 13.4 billion light years ago (the star has travelled X x 13.4 billion years from that point since then. X= speed of the galaxy.

So the question is , how could that galxy travel from the big bang (13.8 BYA) point in 400 million years so it could shine the light that took 13.4 billion light years to reach us??? Once again this means that if the consensus is correct of old age astrophysicists- then light had to travel 25X faster than we know it to travel , and while zooming at warp 25 that energy and mass coalesce into clusters that then formed stars and then form galaxies, all in 400 million years whiule travelling at 25X the speed of light.

LIght travels c. 186,320 MPS so then these galaxies in deep space had to travel at 4,658.000 MPS.
See the phyics impossibility of this? That you may get a grasp of this, light from our sun which is approx. 96,000,000 takes approx. 480 seconds to reach earth. But according to the standard evolutionary cosmology light travelled (using our sun and earth for example) from the sun to the earth Instead of 480 seconds, only 21 seconds

If I referred to 400 million years, that was just an example.

 

[nolidad]

If I referred to 400 million years, that was just an example.

Still doesn't answer the question as to how material from the big bang can form, coalesce into stars, planets and galaxies and in 400 million years travel @ 25X the speed of light to get to a point in the universe where it shone light that took 13.4 billion years to reach us!

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Still doesn't answer the question as to how material from the big bang can form, coalesce into stars, planets and galaxies and in 400 million years travel @ 25X the speed of light to get to a point in the universe where it shone light that took 13.4 billion years to reach us!

We can only see the brighter stars that formed not too long ago, so they existed as stars not black holes or nebulas, within a span of time. Like 400,000,000 million years ago or a billion years or 100,000 years ago, And not to far away. If the star formed last year, 100,000 light years away, we cannot see it. And we can at great distance see galaxies forming that light is so old that the galaxy may no longer exist as a bright entity anymore. How far away? Well not right on the other side of the universe, just well beyond a near galaxy like Andromeda. We can't see the stars or galaxies on the other side of the universe. We are on the edge of the Milky Way, a galaxy on the edge of the universe, a far extreme.

 

[nolidad]

We can only see the brighter stars that formed not too long ago, so they existed as stars not black holes or nebulas, within a span of time. Like 400,000,000 million years ago or a billion years or 100,000 years ago, And not to far away. If the star formed last year, 100,000 light years away, we cannot see it. And we can at great distance see galaxies forming that light is so old that the galaxy may no longer exist as a bright entity anymore. How far away? Well not right on the other side of the universe, just well beyond a near galaxy like Andromeda. We can't see the stars or galaxies on the other side of the universe. We are on the edge of the Milky Way, a galaxy on the edge of the universe, a far extreme.

Tell that to the old age physicists! They are telling us they see galaxies that are 13.4 billion light years distant! HUbble and the other array of "telescopes" have revealed far more of the universe than we thought. They are saying that we can almost see light from the original big bang! Another huge problem. So if you have a problem with the supposed "phd experts" who reject your thoughts, lets hear why!

Remember the galaxies they are looking at were fully formed galaxies supposedly 13.4 billion light years ago! We are seeing the light today and those galaxies have been moving from what we see for 13.4 billion years! Which is another problem!

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Tell that to the old age physicists! They are telling us they see galaxies that are 13.4 billion light years distant! HUbble and the other array of "telescopes" have revealed far more of the universe than we thought. They are saying that we can almost see light from the original big bang! Another huge problem. So if you have a problem with the supposed "phd experts" who reject your thoughts, lets hear why!

Remember the galaxies they are looking at were fully formed galaxies supposedly 13.4 billion light years ago! We are seeing the light today and those galaxies have been moving from what we see for 13.4 billion years! Which is another problem!

Macro physics is not straight forward. Light coming from an object moving away at 95% the speed of light reaches us and is not only travelling at 5% the speed of light... it is red shifted.

 

[nolidad]

Macro physics is not straight forward. Light coming from an object moving away at 95% the speed of light reaches us and is not only travelling at 5% the speed of light... it is red shifted.

Objects may move away, but light always moves towards us! As time passes if the distance between us and the emitting object widens, yes light will red shift.

But gravity, ice fields in space and the force of other galaxies and black hioles all influence the wavelength of light! So we must know the course of the wave of light to know how much external forces changed the wavelength!

Besides we are moving towards and away from objects. Your answer still doesn't answer how could the furthest galaxy we see (13.4 bly distant) could get to that quadrant in space in 400,000,000 light years in order to shine the light we are just now seeing! REmember that galaxy had to be there 13.4 billion years ago in order to shine the light that took 14.3 billion light years to reach us! In other words Scotty- it needed Warp 25!!!

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

I am looking into the theory of relativity.