Taking questions on the Creation.

[LifeToTheFullest!]

When did the talking serpent make its entrance?

 

[AV1611VET]

When did the talking serpent make its entrance?

Not during the Creation Week --- that's for sure ---

 

[The Lady Kate]

Cabal, I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but you need to realize that this is absolutely necessary.

If not, then you have people getting the wrong idea that God created 'Satan' --- His own adversary.

And add to it the fact that most people (to my surprise) deny that 'Satan' used to be known as 'Lucifer', and that just serves to reinforce the idea.

I get the impression that many people don't even realize that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same angel.

So God did create Satan... many thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Sophophile]

Did you answer [the questions of when and where supernova 1987A exploded] yet?

Probably not to anyone's satisfaction that I know of.

I really don't wish to reopen the discussion --- especially in this thread.

I know you don't want to reopen the discussion, because it blows a rather large hole in your 6000 year old universe concept, based only on direct observation - not theory, not conjecture, but visual observation.

We both know that no amount of tinkering with the speed of light, moving stars or stretching of the heavens etc. is going to explain, within a young-universe model, the fact that a superrnova was observed in 1987 exploding 168,000 light years away from earth.

[I spent a large amount of time in another thread with Jester going over it in great detail.

The point is, God handled the stars, Himself, even placing them in Second Heaven in pictographic notation (i.e. the plan of salvation is in the stars).

Other than that, I'm at a loss to explain anything out there.

Unfortunately, as I explained above, the large amount of time you spent discussing this with Jester did not result in any reconciliation of our visual observations of supernovae with the young universe concept.

And thanks for your frank acknowledgement that you are "at a loss" to explain this. This leads to my crucial point: As an advocate of a 6000 year-old universe, you should be upfront about all the implications of your viewpoint. This includes the fact that your viewpoint necessarily requires that there be, throughout the universe, perfect illusions of events that never happened, or did not happen when and where we directly observe them to happen. In other words, the young-universe concept requires that we totally ignore directly observed evidence from the real world, sweep it under the rug, and pretend it doesn't exist.

You may not like to see it expressed this way, and I regret that, because I appreciate that you have "put yourself on the line" in opening this thread (and endured some pretty insulting posts on the way).

If you would acknowledge the fact that a young-universe requires dismissing observational evidence, we might then have an interesting discussion about epistemology ...

With kind regards
S.

 

[JustMeSee]

So, what happened to Lilith, Adam's first wife?

 

[AV1611VET]

I know you don't want to reopen the discussion, because it blows a rather large hole in your 6000 year old universe concept, based only on direct observation - not theory, not conjecture, but visual observation.

Here's the 411 on stars and angels --- it's very simple:

• Stars are angels' homes.

Thus an exploding star would be a star that used to be inhabited by an angel who left that star to co-habit with us humans in Genesis 6.

Or, as the Bible puts it:

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation...

God destroyed their homes [possibly] as a testimony to the other angels what transpired, and what God will do should they decide to try it again.

When God destroyed the star that became SN1987A, that star was far enough away at the time, that we would detect it in 1987.

Since the Flood occurred in BC 2348, that means that some time prior to BC 2348, an angel left a star and came to earth.

If God destroyed his home --- say --- BC 2300, we can calculate that the star was 4,287 light years from earth at the time it was destroyed.

And if science's calculations are correct, and SN 1987 is indeed 168,000 light years away now --- then that means that from BC 2300 - AD 1987, it was moved a whopping 163,713 light years out.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Here's the 411 on stars and angels --- it's very simple:

• Stars are angels' homes.

Thus an exploding star would be a star that used to be inhabited by an angel who left that star to co-habit with us humans in Genesis 6.

Say What?... do you have a chapter and verse to support this?

Or, as the Bible puts it:God destroyed their homes [possibly] as a testimony to the other angels what transpired, and what God will do should they decide to try it again.

Again, I'd love to see some Scriptural support for this.

When God destroyed the star that became SN1987A, that star was far enough away at the time, that we would detect it in 1987.

Since the Flood occurred in BC 2348, that means that some time prior to BC 2348, an angel left a star and came to earth.

Do you want to go into how many civilizations were alive and kicking in 2348 BC whose existence disproves your Flood date?

If God destroyed his home --- say --- BC 2300, we can calculate that the star was 4,287 light years from earth at the time it was destroyed.

And if it was destroyed last Tuesday?

And if science's calculations are correct, and SN 1987 is indeed 168,000 light years away now --- then that means that from BC 2300 - AD 1987, it was moved a whopping 163,713 light years out.

Any other stars God's seen fit to rearrange?

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

 

[Sophophile]

I know you don't want to reopen the discussion [on supernova 1987A], because it blows a rather large hole in your 6000 year old universe concept, based only on direct observation - not theory, not conjecture, but visual observation.

Here's the 411 on stars and angels --- it's very simple:

• Stars are angels' homes.

Thus an exploding star would be a star that used to be inhabited by an angel who left that star to co-habit with us humans in Genesis 6.

Or, as the Bible puts it:God destroyed their homes [possibly] as a testimony to the other angels what transpired, and what God will do should they decide to try it again.

Thanks for responding AV1611VET

I am happy to grant to you, for the sake of discussion, all you say above about the nature of stars*, because it does not touch upon the question of when supernova 1987A exploded or how far away it was at the time.




However, what you say below simply underscores my argument that its not possible to tinker with variables like moving stars, changing light speed or stretching space, and reconcile a 6,000 year old universe with the direct, visual observations we have made of supernova 1987A.

• Therefore, the young-universe creation concept necessarily contradicts some direct observations of reality.
• Therefore, the young-universe creation concept necessarily entails that some direct observations of the real world are false or illusory -- in other words, you claim we cannot learn the truth about reality by direct examination of that reality itself.
• I really wish you would acknowledge this obvious point.

When God destroyed the star that became SN1987A, that star was far enough away at the time, that we would detect it in 1987.

Since the Flood occurred in BC 2348, that means that some time prior to BC 2348, an angel left a star and came to earth.

If God destroyed his home --- say --- BC 2300, we can calculate that the star was 4,287 light years from earth at the time it was destroyed.

And if science's calculations are correct, and SN 1987 is indeed 168,000 light years away now --- then that means that from BC 2300 - AD 1987, it was moved a whopping 163,713 light years out.

There are two significant errors with this explanation of how observations of supernova 1987A can fit into a 6,000 year timeframe:

1. When the star was destroyed, say 2,300 BC, the light from the explosion started travelling away from the star at that moment, carrying the image of the explosion with it. This initial burst of light arrived at the earth in 1987. Our measurements of the distance to supernova 1987A are based on the images in this initial burst of light. And our measurements show that, at the moment it exploded, supernova 1987A was 168,000 light years away from earth.

So the distance to the explosion was directly observed to be 168,000 light years, and this contradicts your explanation that the explosion occurred at a distance of only 4,287 light years.

2. Ever since it exploded in 1987, astronomers have been very carefully monitoring supernova 1987A. A huge number of measurements have been made by many instruments all over the world. All of the hundreds or perhaps thousands of astronomers who have conducted painstaking study of this supernova have reported that it is not moving noticably relative to the earth.

Your explanation has the supernova exploding, then moving 163,000 light years in 4,287 years, or roughly 40 times the speed of light. Not only have we specifically never observed supernova 1987A moving at all, we have never observed anything move 40 times the speed of light. Therefore, your explanation again contradicts direct observations.


Throughout the Bible and, I daresay, most of human history, the starry heavens are regarded as a majestic wonder of creation, and the study of them a noble art. All I am claiming is, we should take what we can plainly see in the stars seriously, and not try to sweep it under the rug.

Regards
Sophophile

* I am just in the middle of reading C.S. Lewis' The Voyage of the Dawn Treader to my 7 year old daughter, wherein the child heroes meet an Old Man who is in fact a retired star called Ramandu, at the eastern edge of the world of Narnia.

"In our world," said Eustace, "a star is a huge ball of flaming gas."
"Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is but only what it is made of."

So, I see where you are coming from.

 

[marktheblake]

There was a singularity containing all the matter in the universe. There was never nothing.

I like that, never thought of it that way before. The singularity of course is God.

 

[marktheblake]

Av1611vet; explain the light thing to me.

We have the Night and day commence on Day 1 , but seems that the sun (and the moon) were created on day 4

 

[JusSumguy]

Av1611vet; explain the light thing to me.

We have the Night and day commence on Day 1 , but seems that the sun (and the moon) were created on day 4

Awwwwww man, enough with the logic already. It just clouds the issue


-

 

[CoderHead]

I like that, never thought of it that way before. The singularity of course is God.

If you want to call it that, you'll get no argument from me. The word "god" is merely a label placed upon that which we haven't observed and/or don't understand. Formalizing it with a capital "G" makes it fit into your theological view, so I'm glad that works for you.

 

[CoderHead]

Here's the 411 on stars and angels --- it's very simple:

• Stars are angels' homes.

Thus an exploding star would be a star that used to be inhabited by an angel who left that star to co-habit with us humans in Genesis 6.

Whoa!! Really?

I assume you're talking about this verse:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

In reference to this theory:
Nephilim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (sons of fallen angels)

Am I right? If so, then how do you explain the opposing theory:
Nephilim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (sons of nobles)

And which is correct, and by what standard? And your expansion on this - that the stars are angels' homes and they're destroyed when they leave - comes from what scripture?

 

[AV1611VET]

Av1611vet; explain the light thing to me.

We have the Night and day commence on Day 1 , but seems that the sun (and the moon) were created on day 4

The first words spoken by God in Genesis 1 are: 'Let there be light.'

So we have light before we have the sun.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

 

[ReverendDG]

Here's the 411 on stars and angels --- it's very simple:

• Stars are angels' homes.

except there's no verses that support your nonsense.
the bible is perfectly clear where they do come from: heaven
space is not heaven, the book considers sky to below heaven, and stars only exist as points of light.
the bible even has a star falling in revelation, do you really believe a star(which is 500 times bigger than earth) could fall?

 

[AV1611VET]

And your expansion on this - that the stars are angels' homes and they're destroyed when they leave - comes from what scripture?

A good read on this subject is God's Voice in the Stars, by Kenneth C. Fleming:

​

Here are the Scripture references to the stars being angels' homes:

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth:

 

[AV1611VET]

the bible even has a star falling in revelation, do you really believe a star(which is 500 times bigger than earth) could fall?

Lucifer is a fallen angel.

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

 

[CoderHead]

Here are the Scripture references to the stars being angels' homes:

Actually, I believe it's referring to angels as "stars" in much the same way we refer to those we admire as "stars." It's not talking about physical balls of burning gas. This whole thing is making it really weird for me to understand what you believe. You claim there are parts of the Bible that literal and parts that are allegory, do you not? Why then can you not identify metaphors like angels = stars? I'm seriously confused.

Furthermore, that book you're quoting is not the Bible, nor does it claim to be God's inspired word. So why are you putting stock into it when it contains such a ridiculous (even by your fellow Christian's standards) concept?

 

[Cabal]

Why then can you not identify metaphors like angels = stars? I'm seriously confused.

He's a creationist.

Analogy isn't their strong point, bless 'em.

 

[The Lady Kate]

A good read on this subject is God's Voice in the Stars, by Kenneth C. Fleming:

​

I wasn't aware that Kenneth C. Fleming was an author of Scripture.

Here are the Scripture references to the stars being angels' homes:

Those verses make it clear that the stars are the angels... which would raise a rather large "non-literal" flag in the minds of any clinically sane person...