The Center of this Universe

Nathan45 · Sep 12, 2008

juvenissun said:
OK. Then what is "space"? It seems to be "something" which can be separated by time.

space is just what you think it is, empty space. And as for "why" it expands or is capable of expanding, i don't really know the answer to that question ( does anyone? ).

So, if A and B are separated by 1 light-year distance. Even A and B do not move, the distance between A and B increases with time.

at 1 light year this isn't really noticable, but, yes, that's the general idea. I mean the expansion is really only noticable at intergalactic scales.

Do we call this space expansion as the movement of A or B or both?

depends on who's perspective. from a's perspective, B is moving. From B's perspective, A is moving. From the perspective of an observer between the two, both are moving. There are no preferred reference frames.

If the separation is accelerating as we think it is today, then how could any two galaxy collide?

Gravity. If the galaxies are close enough together, the force of gravity between the two galaxies could bring them together.

Assyrian · Sep 13, 2008

Terral said:
Hi Assyrian:

No thank you. I much prefer my understanding of the origins of this universe. If Nathan wants to believe that the big bang is not really like an explosion, then that is all fine and dandy.
GL,
Terral

I thought that might be the case. Of course you are free to disagree with Nathan all you like and believe what you want about the origin of the universe. But you should take the opportunity to understand the science you disagree with.

Assyrian · Sep 13, 2008

juvenissun said:
OK. Then what is "space"? It seems to be "something" which can be separated by time.

So, if A and B are separated by 1 light-year distance. Even A and B do not move, the distance between A and B increases with time. Do we call this space expansion as the movement of A or B or both? If the separation is accelerating as we think it is today, then how could any two galaxy collide?

Possibly shernren would be able to give you some answers on what space is.

Cooee shernren! Are you out there? We need you!

Like nathan says, gravity is a more powerful factor over shorter distances holding galactic clusters together.

An interesting perspective on the expansion of space comes if we look at the LHC. It is a nice illustration of relativity. No matter how much they accelerate a proton, the speed just gets closer to the speed of light. The 50 year old Proton Synchrotron could give a proton an energy of 25 GeV (giga electron volts) and accelerate it to 99.93% of the speed of light. The Super Proton Synchrotron built in 1976 can kick the protons up to 450 GeV at which time they are going at 99.9998% the speed of light. This is now incorporated into the LHC and gives the protons their kick start before the LHC accelerates them up to 7 TeV or 7,000 GeV. But their speed only gets up to 99.9999991% of the speed of light. The Proton Synchrotron got its protons to within 0.07% of the speeed of light but even with the LHC giving protons a kick 280 times greater you still don't get past the speed of light, just closer to it. No matter what space is, you can't move through space at greater than the speed of light.

But if you look at very distant galaxies, they are actually receeding from us at greater than the speed of light. You can't get that if they are simply moving through space, it is space itself that is expanding.

juvenissun · Sep 13, 2008

Assyrian said:
Possibly shernren would be able to give you some answers on what space is.

Cooee shernren! Are you out there? We need you!

Like nathan says, gravity is a more powerful factor over shorter distances holding galactic clusters together.

An interesting perspective on the expansion of space comes if we look at the LHC. It is a nice illustration of relativity. No matter how much they accelerate a proton, the speed just gets closer to the speed of light. The 50 year old Proton Synchrotron could give a proton an energy of 25 GeV (giga electron volts) and accelerate it to 99.93% of the speed of light. The Super Proton Synchrotron built in 1976 can kick the protons up to 450 GeV at which time they are going at 99.9998% the speed of light. This is now incorporated into the LHC and gives the protons their kick start before the LHC accelerates them up to 7 TeV or 7,000 GeV. But their speed only gets up to 99.9999991% of the speed of light. The Proton Synchrotron got its protons to within 0.07% of the speeed of light but even with the LHC giving protons a kick 280 times greater you still don't get past the speed of light, just closer to it. No matter what space is, you can't move through space at greater than the speed of light.

But if you look at very distant galaxies, they are actually receeding from us at greater than the speed of light. You can't get that if they are simply moving through space, it is space itself that is expanding.

Thanks for the info. Interesting.

Yes, the gravity pull needs to be considered. So, the material in a galaxy cluster may not fly away even the space over the region of the cluster IS expanding. May be this would apply to the superclusters too. The gravity pulls material together at a speed faster then the space expansion. So the speed of space expansion must be slower than the slowest moving speed of a galaxy in a gravity-bounded cluster. Is this correct?

Now we said the expansion of space is accelerating today. Was it accelerating all the time? or, it started to accelerate at a particular time of the cosmic history? Was the expansion slow at the early time (vs. today) of the Big Bang? Is the constantly accelerated expansion the basis for the model of the Big Chill? So it means that the rate of space expansion would gradually catch up with the speed of gravity pull (this must not happen in the early universe). If so, the Big Bang was not an explosion, it was not even a bang.

------

Why didn't Gen 1 say: Let there be space ! There must be something which controls the formation of space. And it has something to do with the LIGHT.

Terral · Sep 13, 2008

Hi Assyrian with Nathan the thinker mentioned:

Assyrian said:
I thought that might be the case. Of course you are free to disagree with Nathan all you like and believe what you want about the origin of the universe. But you should take the opportunity to understand the science you disagree with.

The condescending drivel never ends! I understand Nathans position and rewarded him with Reps for being a good thinker. The fact is that the significance and essence of what I am attempting to add to the deliberation process (Gen 1:1 = Singularity and Gen 1:2+ = Trinity) is flying light years above your heads and I refuse to continue repeating myself again and again and again. The Big Bang Theory Of Creation Is A MYTH (my thread) and Science has become your religion like 'professing' Christians running after their various brands of Denominationalism (mystery of iniquity) from being blinded by the god of this world (2Cor 4:3-4).

But of course, you are free to disagree with me all you like and believe what you want about the origin of the universe. But maybe you should take the opportunity to understand my arguments you disagree with . . . :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Assyrian · Sep 13, 2008

juvenissun said:
Thanks for the info. Interesting.

Yes, the gravity pull needs to be considered. So, the material in a galaxy cluster may not fly away even the space over the region of the cluster IS expanding. May be this would apply to the superclusters too. The gravity pulls material together at a speed faster then the space expansion. So the speed of space expansion must be slower than the slowest moving speed of a galaxy in a gravity-bounded cluster. Is this correct?

Over shorter distances. It is not so much the speed of the galaxies that is the issue, but the fact that they are gravitationally attracted to each other. Of course it is the force of gravity that gives them their speed. This is way out of my depth, but is the size of superclusters limited by the gravitational escape velocity? If the distance is great enough the speed space is expanding exceeds escape velocity and the supercluster becomes unstable? Just a thought.

Now we said the expansion of space is accelerating today. Was it accelerating all the time? or, it started to accelerate at a particular time of the cosmic history? Was the expansion slow at the early time (vs. today) of the Big Bang? Is the constantly accelerated expansion the basis for the model of the Big Chill? So it means that the rate of space expansion would gradually catch up with the speed of gravity pull (this must not happen in the early universe). If so, the Big Bang was not an explosion, it was not even a bang.

Out of my depth again. AFAIK there is the idea of accelerated expansion early on, just after the Big Bang, known as inflation. I think there has been talk about us still accelerating, but I don't know how firm the idea is.

There are two ideas about the end of the universe I think you may be touching on here. One is a thermodynamic, does energy spread out and even out so there is no usable energy differences. The other is what happens the universe spatially, does it fall back on itself or keep expanding. Obviously if expansion is still accelerating then it suggest the universe is going to keep spreading out. But this was a question before accelerated expansion became an issue. Once we knew the universe was expanding, was it expanding faster than escape velocity, or would the mass of the universe be able to pull it all back?

------

Why didn't Gen 1 say: Let there be space ! There must be something which controls the formation of space. And it has something to do with the LIGHT.

Doesn't Genesis 1:1 say In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth?

Assyrian · Sep 13, 2008

Terral said:
Hi Assyrian with Nathan the thinker mentioned:

The condescending drivel never ends!

Don't you find it ironic complaining of people being condescending, and then calling their posts drivel and claiming your ideas fly light years above their heads? Just a thought.

I understand Nathans position and rewarded him with Reps for being a good thinker. The fact is that the significance and essence of what I am attempting to add to the deliberation process (Gen 1:1 = Singularity and Gen 1:2+ = Trinity) is flying light years above your heads and I refuse to continue repeating myself again and again and again. The Big Bang Theory Of Creation Is A MYTH (my thread)

You may think the Big Bang is a myth, but your case would be more convincing if you showed you understood what the Big Bang theory actually said. Why if you think the Big Bang is a myth do you so vehemently defend your misunderstanding of it instead of trying to see if you had misunderstood the theory?

and Science has become your religion like 'professing' Christians running after their various brands of Denominationalism (mystery of iniquity) from being blinded by the god of this world (2Cor 4:3-4).

Unsupported insults are not going to make your case.

But of course, you are free to disagree with me all you like and believe what you want about the origin of the universe. But maybe you should take the opportunity to understand my arguments you disagree with . . . :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

The problem is you haven't made any arguments. You make unsupported claims about singularities in Gen 1:1 and Adam being infinite, and get annoyed when people ask you to back it up. But unless you make some sort of effort to back up your case when you are talking to people, why should you expect them to believe God has revealed the true interpretation of Genesis to you?

Terral · Sep 13, 2008

Hi Assyrian with Nathan mentioned:

Assyrian said:
You may think the Big Bang is a myth, but your case would be more convincing if you showed you understood what the Big Bang theory actually said. Why if you think the Big Bang is a myth do you so vehemently defend your misunderstanding of it instead of trying to see if you had misunderstood the theory?

First of all. Nobody on my side of this debate has said that the Big Bang is a myth. The Big Bang Theory ‘Of Creation’ Is A Myth (my thread), so please get your facts straight. Bump my thread to the top of the Board with your opposing supported arguments if Assyrian has any. :0) Good Luck. God created the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1. The Big Bang came when all of that (‘eth Erets) became formless and void in Genesis 1:2. BTW, Assyrian is my debating ‘adversary’ holding opposing views ‘and’ I am not here to convince you nor Nathan of anything. You guys give yours and I will do the same and everyone can decide if anyone is approved (1Cor. 11:19, 2Tim. 2:15) or if both sides are full of hot air. :0)

Assyrian said:
The problem is you haven't made any arguments. You make unsupported claims about singularities in Gen 1:1 and Adam being infinite, and get annoyed when people ask you to back it up.

All of that has been presented already, but Assyrian defines ‘arguments’ as something else. :0) There are exactly three singularities listed in a precise order in Genesis 1:1 using exactly seven Hebrew terms for God (spirit witness), Heaven (blood witness) and Earth (water witness) as shown in my diagram for John 1:1-3 (here). “My Father who is IN HEAVEN” (Matt. 10:32-33) is “ONE” with the Son and the Holy Spirit right here in “Heaven” (‘eth Shamayim) where “I and the Father are One” (John 10:30) and have been “ONE” since being sacrificed (pierced) and extracted from “The Word.” Of course the casual reader of Genesis 1:1 does not see these things as ‘arguments’ or anything else. But to the ‘mature’ (1Cor. 2:6-8) having read Scripture time and time again, these things represent a distinct road map to ‘the truth’ of the origins of this universe that require a seeding, watering and growth process (1Cor. 3:6-7). Two of those seven Hebrew terms have no translation into English (‘eth #853 used twice) and coincidentally they show up as particles connected to the Heaven and the Earth. How many here want to take a stab at what these Hebrew terms indicate? :0) The word is taken from ‘owth #226 meaning ‘a sign’ to demonstrate the sense of ‘entity.’ The ‘eth Erets of Genesis 1:1 was made void in Genesis 1:2, just like your Bible says, but ‘eth Shamayim was sacrificed only ‘after’ the Earth was broken down into the heavens, heaven and earth, so the “Light” (Gen. 1:3) could ‘then’ be sent into that now ‘triune’ universe. The “Word” began as the “Logos” to THEN become divided/pierced/broken into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit the very same way, but only for those with eyes from God to see what the heck I am even talking about. :0) You are trying to show everyone things learned from men, while I am showing you things given me to see by God using spiritual eyes and combining spiritual concepts with spiritual words (1Cor 2:13).

Assyrian said:
But unless you make some sort of effort to back up your case when you are talking to people, why should you expect them to believe God has revealed the true interpretation of Genesis to you?

First all, any objective reader can compare my supported arguments against yours and see no comparison. :0) Secondly, I am not here to convince you of anything, but have laid out ‘the truth’ about the origins of this universe to the unbiased third-party reader actually interested in doing more than condescending in my direction. Lastly, these things are presented from the perspective of The Judgment (here for brothers and here for most everyone else), because I can assure you all that God understands what I am talking about through His Living Word. :0)

Every particle of matter in this universe will be married back to its heavens super-half for the sole purpose of returning back into ‘one thing’ and that one thing will be ‘eth-Erets of Genesis 1:1 who also incarnates time (Joshua) and time (Abraham) and time (Elijah/David/John the Baptist) again on this earth in the person of your father Adam the 'son of God.' Luke 3:38. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit will also be rejoined back into one thing and that one thing will be ‘eth Shamayim of Genesis 1:1, or ‘The Word’ from where They came in the first place to become the "Son of God." John 1:34.

A diagram showing how that works is here (pic) with Christ upon the altar. The blue Holy Spirit Realm is “His Body” and golden “Father Realm” is “His Spirit” and the red “Kingdom of His Beloved Son” is enlarging as “His Soul,” until everything is subjected to “The Son.” 1Cor. 15:27. In the same exact way, the blue ‘Earth’ (where David is seated) is Adam’s Body and the ‘Heavens’ is Adam’s Spirit and the red Kingdom of Heaven (Adam's Soul) shall enlarge to sum up BOTH. God is putting this universe (Adam) and His Son (Christ) back together again like Humpty Dumpty who had a great fall. :0)

Another diagram showing basically the same thing is here (pic = Figure 2). The difference is that science only sees the little blue “Earth” where David is seated in the center of this universe within the “Tabernacle of David” (Acts 15:16-18 = diagram), while Christ is seated at the right hand of God in the “True Tabernacle” (Heb. 8:1-2) far above all the heavens of this universe. But hey, if you guys want to continue basing your theories on a minuscule little part of God, The Word/Heaven, Adam/Earth (hs, h, e), that you ‘can’ see, then go right ahead and keep up all the empty chatter in my direction. In the end, the only thing that will matter is what God has to say through His Word about whether our works are good or bad (2Cor. 5:10) and about the merits He sees in our deliberations about the origins of the universe that 'do' align with God, The Word and Creation. If God decides to take from my rewards to hand things over to you, then so be it; but methinks the exact opposite is likely to happen. We are both 'gods' (Ps 82:6, Jn 10:34) in God's Infinite Realm (far left) with a LOT to lose indeed, whether you realize that today or not. :0)

That is what makes these discussions all that more interesting. Right? Of course,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Molal · Sep 13, 2008

Keep it civil.

juvenissun · Sep 13, 2008

Assyrian said:
Doesn't Genesis 1:1 say In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth?

This is truly significant. It hits right on the key problem.

OK, I think I got the answer of my OP. It is an ignorant question. Thanks to all.

Terral · Sep 13, 2008

Hi Juvenissun and Assyrian:

juvenissun said:
Assyrian >> Doesn't Genesis 1:1 say In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth?

Juvenissun >> This is truly significant. It hits right on the key problem. OK, I think I got the answer of my OP. It is an ignorant question. Thanks to all.

Not so fast. :0) Doesn’t Genesis 1:1 say “In the beginning 'Gods' created the heaven and the earth.”? No. ‘Elohiym (#430) is in the plural too and The Word is the “image of the Invisible God.” Colossians 1:15. Strong’s Lexicon (BLB link) shows both God and Heaven in the singular, because that is the ‘meaning’ of both terms. Heaven of Genesis 1:1 is the “Highest Heaven” of 1Kings 8:27 (heaven of heavens) and ‘heaven’ of the same verse is ‘heaven’ from Genesis 1:8 (diagram = heaven by "Domain of Darkness" in Fig. 2) that ‘is’ part of this Adamic Universe. Think about how all things in this universe (seen and unseen) can possibly be held together "IN Christ" (Col. 1:17) and perhaps your mind will open up to the reality that He is indeed "Heaven" of Genesis 1:1. :0) Otherwise, cut Colossians 1 out of your Bible and try to forget that all things in the 'heavens and earth' are being summed up "IN Christ" (Eph. 1:9-10). The people inserting ‘heavens’ in Genesis 1:1 think of the ‘heavens’ of this Adamic creation (Christ ascended FAR above all the heavens of this Adamic Realm = Eph. 4:10) and are offering you a ‘transliteration’ of the verse like if they did the same thing and said “. . . Gods created the heaven and the earth.” There is still only ‘one God’ and the ‘one Mediator’ is ‘The Word’ ("Christ Jesus" = F+S+HS under red arrow) who is the ‘Heaven’ of Genesis 1:1 where “My Father who is IN HEAVEN” has been from the very beginning. :0) Anyone wanting to change “Heaven” of Genesis 1:1 to “Heavens” should also do the same thing for “My Father Who is in Heavens.” Matthew 10:32-33.

The heavens and earth of this Adamic Creation came to exist from the dividing of the ‘waters above’ the expanse and the ‘waters below’ the expanse in Genesis 1:6-7 so that ‘heaven’ was then begotten from the overlapping of the two. Heaven in you is your 'soul' that was begotten by the joining of your spirit and body (diagram). Scripture affirms that these ‘heavens’ existed LONG AGO and that the earth was formed out of waters and by water. 2Peter 3:5. Those are the ‘waters above’ the expanse in Genesis 1:6-7, before those massive realms began to overlap from marriage back with the ‘water witness’ lesser half (the earth = Eve/Noah/Moses). The heavens (Adam/Joshua/David/Elijah) are like the male and the earth is like the female, so that both become immortal by becoming one flesh in the realm of ‘heaven.’ :0) You take a man (spirit witness) and place the woman (water witness) back inside his body and the two become one flesh. Then take an angel (spirit witness) and put the man (water witness) back inside and you have the immortal soul (blood witness) that mirrors the image of the hosts from the Genesis 1:1 perfect and mature ‘eth Erets, ‘before’ everything was made formless and void with the Big Bang of Genesis 2.

I believe you asked a very good question that does have a Biblical answer that has already been given for those willing to diligently seek God through His Living Word. My apologies if anyone was offended by our sometimes overheated discussion. :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Assyrian · Sep 13, 2008

Terral said:
Hi Assyrian with Nathan mentioned:

First of all. Nobody on my side of this debate has said that the Big Bang is a myth. The Big Bang Theory Of Creation Is A Myth (my thread), so please get your facts straight.

It is not a problem with getting my facts straight but with the terminology you chose to use.

By "The Big Bang Theory Of Creation " I assume you are referring to the scientific theory about the origin of the universe expanding from a singularity 13.7 billion years ago, commonly referred to as "The Big Bang" or "The Big Bang theory". I referred to this as the Big Bang, and your characterisation of "The Big Bang Theory Of Creation Is A Myth" as your belief that "the Big Bang is a myth". We are both talking about the same scientific theory which you believe is wrong.

The problem is while you reject the scientific theory as a myth, you have also adopted a misunderstanding of the the Big bang, 'the Big Bang explosion' and read it into it to Gen 1:2.

If you are using non-standard version of the terms, where "The Big Bang Theory Of Creation " refers to the scientific theory called the Big Bang, and use the term the Big Bang to refer to your version of an explosion between Gen1:1 and 1:2, don't blame the people you are discussing this with for using the terms the normal way. Or if you think people misunderstand your views, clarify what you are saying rather than claming they don't get their facts straight.

Bump my thread to the top of the Board with your opposing supported arguments if Assyrian has any. :0) Good Luck.

I am trying to discuss you views here in the thread you have brought them up on.

God created the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1. The Big Bang came when all of that (eth Erets) became formless and void in Genesis 1:2. BTW, Assyrian is my debating adversary holding opposing views and I am not here to convince you nor Nathan of anything. You guys give yours and I will do the same and everyone can decide if anyone is approved (1Cor. 11:19, 2Tim. 2:15) or if both sides are full of hot air. :0)

So far there is not much to debate apart from your view of the Big Bang as an explosion. It has mainly been a case of you making claims and me asking you for evidence to back them up. If that is debating it is very preliminary.

All of that has been presented already, but Assyrian defines arguments as something else. :0)

Have I defined arguments?

OK here goes:

There are exactly three singularities listed in a precise order in Genesis 1:1

What do you mean by singularity, given you attempt to read the Big Bang into Gen1:1-2 it suggests you mean a point in space where matter infinitely dense, but that does not make sense. Does Genesis refer to singularities?

using exactly seven Hebrew terms for God (spirit witness), Heaven (blood witness) and Earth (water witness)

There are seven Hebrew words in Gen 1:1, but only one is the word for God, another is the word Earth and another heaven. You also have beginning, created, and two untranslated words indicating the subject of a verb. I am not sure what significance you see in there being seven words in the first verse.

as shown in my diagram for John 1:1-3 (here). My Father who is IN HEAVEN (Matt. 10:32-33) is ONE with the Son and the Holy Spirit right here in Heaven (eth Shamayim) where I and the Father are One (John 10:30) and have been ONE since being sacrificed (pierced) and extracted from The Word.

Or why you think three of the words in Gen 1:1 are connected to three witnesses you think you see in John 1:1-3. Are you thinking of the three witnesses in 1John 5:8, "the Spirit the water and the blood"? But I see no reason to connect this to the description of creation in Gen 1:1.

Of course the casual reader of Genesis 1:1 does not see these things as arguments or anything else. But to the mature (1Cor. 2:6-8) having read Scripture time and time again, these things represent a distinct road map to the truth of the origins of this universe that require a seeding, watering and growth process (1Cor. 3:6-7).

Again simply claiming to be more mature than the rest of us, doesn't help. You need to show why this reading which does not bear any resemblance to the 'casual' plain meaning is in fact the real meaning of the text. But then you also go from this highly allegorical reading of heavenly witnesses, back to a version of the plain reading, God creating the universe, but which was destroyed and went through an explosive Big Bang to form a new heaven and earth.

Two of those seven Hebrew terms have no translation into English (eth #853 used twice) and coincidentally they show up as particles connected to the Heaven and the Earth. How many here want to take a stab at what these Hebrew terms indicate? :0) The word is taken from owth #226 meaning a sign to demonstrate the sense of entity.

eth is a common particle in Hebrew occurring 11060 times in the OT. It indicates the subject of a verb. In English we indicate the subject of a verb by its position in the sentence, so eth is not usually translated in English except occasionally as 'even' or 'namely'.

In Gen 1 eth is used with heaven and earth in v1, light in v 4, God saw that the light was good, the firmament in v 7, 4 times in v 16 for the greater and lesser lights and stars, 3 times in v 21 for the great sea monsters, living creatures, and birds, twice in v 22 for 'them' and waters And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters, 3 times in v 25 for beasts, livestock and creeping things, 3 times in v 27 for man, him and them God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. twice in verse 28 for God blessed themand subdue the earth, twice in v 29 for every seed and every tree, in v 30 every green plant, and once in v 31 God saw everything that he had made.

The eth Erets of Genesis 1:1 was made void in Genesis 1:2, just like your Bible says,

No it does not say that. It says the earth was formless and void, not that it had been perfect before and became void or was made void.

but eth Shamayim was sacrificed only after the Earth was broken down into the heavens, heaven and earth, so the Light (Gen. 1:3) could then be sent into that now triune universe.

No suggestion of the heavens being sacrificed either, or broken down into heavens, heaven and earth, or any special suggestion at a triune universe. Genesis mentions doing a quick count from memory, five different regions of the cosmos.

the heavens,
water above the heavens,
the firmament called the heavens,
waters below the firmament
and dry land.
With five regions you can pick three to declare the universe triune, but it seems a random selection.

The Word began as the Logos to THEN become divided/pierced/broken into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit the very same way, but only for those with eyes from God to see what the heck I am even talking about. :0) You are trying to show everyone things learned from men, while I am showing you things given me to see by God using spiritual eyes and combining spiritual concepts with spiritual words (1Cor 2:13).

Not exactly standard Trinitarian doctrine there, but then you think of Denominations as the Mystery of Iniquity. I am all for people trying to get to grips with these questions themselves, but you need a stronger argument than simply claiming God showed you and if we were spiritual we would accept what you said. The Bereans expected to be able to check what Paul said from scripture.

First all, any objective reader can compare my supported arguments against yours and see no comparison. :0)

I am waiting for supported arguments. You simply claim passages mean things totally unconnected to the text.

Secondly, I am not here to convince you of anything, but have laid out the truth about the origins of this universe to the unbiased third-party reader actually interested in doing more than condescending in my direction. Lastly, these things are presented from the perspective of The Judgment (here for brothers and here for most everyone else), because I can assure you all that God understands what I am talking about through His Living Word. :0)

If you post stuff in a discussion forum, you should expect people to want to discuss and debate what you say.

Every particle of matter in this universe will be married back to its heavens super-half

reference please.

for the sole purpose of returning back into one thing and that one thing will be eth-Erets of Genesis 1:1

Again why should the earth of Gen 1:1 be every particle in the present universe after Gen 1:2.

who

The earth is a person?

also incarnates

The earth reincarnates?

time (Joshua) and time (Abraham) and time (Elijah/David/John the Baptist) again on this earth in the person of your father Adam the 'son of God.' Luke 3:38.

Adam is the earth from Gen 1:1?

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit will also be rejoined back into one thing and that one thing will be eth Shamayim of Genesis 1:1, or The Word from where They came in the first place to become the "Son of God." John 1:34.

God created the heavens eth Shamayim in Gen 1:1, are you saying the heavens in Gen 1:1 are The Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Do you think The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are created? The Father is God. 1Cor 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. How can God create the heavens in Gen 1:1 if the heavens is God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

A diagram showing how that works is here...
[shortened because of character limit]

You have clearly put a lot of work into you diagrams, but what you need to do is back up all the associations you make. What is the Holy Spirit realm, and why do you say it is His Body? etc.

Another diagram showing basically the same thing is here (pic = Figure 2). The difference is that science only sees the little blue Earth where David is seated in the center of this universe within the Tabernacle of David (Acts 15:16-18 = diagram), while Christ is seated at the right hand of God in the True Tabernacle (Heb. 8:1-2) far above all the heavens of this universe. But hey, if you guys want to continue basing your theories on a minuscule little part of God, The Word/Heaven, Adam/Earth (hs, h, e), that you can see, then go right ahead and keep up all the empty chatter in my direction. In the end, the only thing that will matter is what God has to say through His Word about whether our works are good or bad (2Cor. 5:10) and about the merits He sees in our deliberations about the origins of the universe that 'do' align with God, The Word and Creation. If God decides to take from my rewards to hand things over to you, then so be it; but methinks the exact opposite is likely to happen. We are both 'gods' (Ps 82:6, Jn 10:34) in God's Infinite Realm (far left) with a LOT to lose indeed, whether you realize that today or not. :0)

That is what makes these discussions all that more interesting. Right? Of course,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

We don't think the universe God created is part of God, nor is it minuscule, other than compared to God, But it is God's creation and is well worth our while studying. As you are mainly talking with Christians here, you are speaking to people who not only value God's Creation, but also know God. We are redeemed and have access to the throne of God which we boldly approach through faith in his Son who died and rose again for us.

Assyrian · Sep 13, 2008

juvenissun said:
This is truly significant. It hits right on the key problem.

OK, I think I got the answer of my OP. It is an ignorant question. Thanks to all.

Isn't there that terrible cliche, the only silly question is the one you don't ask? We are all learning. I really enjoy having my understanding stretched discussing here. (There is a really bad pun lurking there if I am not careful.)

MsAnne · Sep 13, 2008

juvenissun said:
The Milky Way is the center of the universe. Agree? ...

Huh, and all these years my first husband thought he was.

Terral · Sep 14, 2008

Hi Assyrian:

Assyrian said:
It is not a problem with getting my facts straight but with the terminology you chose to use.

No sir. Assyrian has yet to get his facts straight about my position in this debate.

Assyrian said:
By "The Big Bang Theory ‘Of Creation’ " I assume you are referring to the scientific theory about the origin of the universe expanding from a singularity 13.7 billion years ago, commonly referred to as "The Big Bang" or "The Big Bang theory". I referred to this as the Big Bang, and your characterisation of "The Big Bang Theory ‘Of Creation’ Is A Myth" as your belief that "the Big Bang is a myth". We are both talking about the same scientific theory which you believe is wrong.

The Big Bang is very much a reality, but took place in Genesis 1:2 when the perfect ‘eth Erets was pierced/divided into the heavens, heaven and earth. The “Myth” part of science is that the Big Bang destroyed something and actually created nothing at all. God had to come along and reconstitute the remains of the broken universe into what exists today.

Assyrian said:
The problem is while you reject the scientific theory as a myth, you have also adopted a misunderstanding of the the Big bang, 'the Big Bang explosion' and read it into it to Gen 1:2.

Assyrian is assuming again by saying I reject the scientific theory. :0)

Assyrian said:
If you are using non-standard version of the terms, where "The Big Bang Theory ‘Of Creation’ " refers to the scientific theory called the Big Bang, and use the term the Big Bang to refer to your version of an explosion between Gen1:1 and 1:2, don't blame the people you are discussing this with for using the terms the normal way. . .

Those of you thinking that anything was ‘created’ from the Big Bang taking place 13.7 billion years ago are all mistaken. That would be your problem and not mine. The “Heaven” of Genesis 1:1 also suffered a “Big Bang” in the moment that God sacrificed The Word into the Father and Holy Spirit, so that putting Them back together again the “Son” (blood witness) became the “Only Begotten.” Heaven of Genesis 1:8 is the only begotten of this universe called to exist in the very same way. I am forced to use non-standard terms, because The Big Bang Theory ‘Of Creation’ Is DEFINITELY a MYTH. :0) Whether Assyrian ever wraps his head around that simple concept is a question that remains unanswered.

Assyrian said:
I am trying to discuss you views here in the thread you have brought them up on. So far there is not much to debate apart from your view of the Big Bang as an explosion.

Please forgive, but apparently you do not understand enough about my position to debate for or against my hypothesis, claims, evidence and conclusions. The Big Bang Theory “Of Destruction” is a reality that took place in the time of Genesis 1:2. God created the perfect ‘eth Erets in Genesis 1:1 “IN” the Heaven that was DESTROYED.

Assyrian said:
It has mainly been a case of you making claims and me asking you for evidence to back them up. If that is debating it is very preliminary.

We disagree.

Assyrian said:
Have I defined arguments?

OK here goes: What do you mean by singularity, given you attempt to read the Big Bang into Gen1:1-2 it suggests you mean a point in space where matter infinitely dense, but that does not make sense. Does Genesis refer to singularities?

Assyrian is asking questions. :0) A Biblical Singularity is God’s Host broken down into a Trinity like the Logos becoming the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). The three original Singularities are God, The Heaven/Word and The Earth/Adam of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1-3. Instead of running around assuming, then simply read what I am saying in plain English and displaying in my mystery diagrams like these Singularites being pierced/destroyed to become these Trinities. These diagrams are #3 and #4 from my work “The Mystery Explained” (link from my signature below) in a manuscript that contains 700 pages and 80 diagrams that was written years ago. Your “point in space” lingo was inherited by listening to scientists that think the Big Bang created something. :0) When these people finally wake up and realize the Big Bang marks the destruction of a previously existing ‘eth Erets universe, then they will also realize that all matter in this universe came from that previous 'eth Erets Creation. Then they will cease from trying to pack all the matter in this universe into their one little nonexistent point. Yes. Scripture refers to singularities everywhere beginning with God, The Heaven and The Earth in Genesis 1:1. :0) Those three singularities became God To Come, God Who Is, God Who Was (Rev. 1:8) and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19) and the heavens, heaven and earth (Gen. 1:6-8), or the Trinities derived from the Singularities. When you read about “The Word” in John 1:1-3, then He is the Singularity from whom the Father, Son and Holy Spirit came to exist within the envelope of time and space. Adam (Gen. 2:7) is a singularity containing Adam (spirit), her seed (blood) and Eve (water witness helper).

Assyrian said:
There are seven Hebrew words in Gen 1:1, but only one is the word for God, another is the word Earth and another heaven. You also have beginning, created, and two untranslated words indicating the subject of a verb. I am not sure what significance you see in there being seven words in the first verse.

As explained in my God’s Numerology OP (here),

“Seven is the number of perfection/maturity, because it represents all of these triune witnesses again becoming “one.” That is the result of the central ‘only begotten’ blood witness enlarging to sum up (Eph. 1:9-10) the spirit and water witnesses, so that God can eventually become ‘all in all’ (1Cor. 15:28) again.”

‘Eth (#853) is “contracted from ‘owth (#226) in the demonstrative sense of entity” pointing directly to the Heaven/Word and Earth/Adam, which finds me repeating myself again. :0)

Assyrian said:
Or why you think three of the words in Gen 1:1 are connected to three witnesses you think you see in John 1:1-3?

Our discourse is about what I see that Assyrian definitely does not see. The reason is that we are talking about a ‘mystery’ (musterion) topic describing “that which, being OUTSIDE the range of unassisted natural apprehension, can be made known ONLY by Divine revelation, and is made known in A MANNER and at A TIME appointed BY GOD, and to those ONLY who are illumined by HIS SPIRIT. In the ordinary sense a "mystery" implies KNOWLEDGE WITHHELD; its Scriptural significance is TRUTH REVEALED.” In other words, God has yet to appoint the manner and time for Assyrian to see these things by His Spirit and He must cause the growth. 1Cor. 3:6-7. God (Gen. 1:1) is the same “God” of John 1:1 represented by the three witnesses of Revelation 1:8. The Heaven (Gen. 1:1) is “The Word” of John 1:2 represented by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit of Matthew 28:19. The Earth (Gen. 1:1) is “All things” of John 1:3 called to exist “IN” Christ (Col. 1:15-17) like the yoke inside the white of an egg (like this) where God is the Infinite Shell.

Assyrian said:
Are you thinking of the three witnesses in 1John 5:8, "the Spirit the water and the blood"? But I see no reason to connect this to the description of creation in Gen 1:1.

Of course not, but again that is your problem and not mine. :0) Unbelievers do not see God in Genesis 1:1 nor John 1:1 and they see no reason to believe in God either. The fact that you can ask questions is no guarantee of recognizing or understanding the answer. My Bible is Living and Active (Heb. 4:12) and yours seems very much dead and lifeless and your hypothesis is based upon what Assyrian does not see.

Assyrian said:
Again simply claiming to be more mature than the rest of us, doesn't help.

You give yours and I will do the same and everyone can decide. 1Cor 11:19.

Assyrian said:
You need to show why this reading which does not bear any resemblance to the 'casual' plain meaning is in fact the real meaning of the text. But then you also go from this highly allegorical reading of heavenly witnesses, back to a version of the plain reading, God creating the universe, but which was destroyed and went through an explosive Big Bang to form a new heaven and earth.

God wrote Scripture using His ‘Singularity/Three Witness Bible Code,’ but only some of us can see it. :0) My mission is to present ‘the truth’ without regard to whether God ever causes the growth or not. 1Cor. 3:6-7. Those among you holding to the MYTH that the Big Bang ‘created’ anything might never see it, but that is the way the old cookie crumbles.

Assyrian said:
eth is a common particle in Hebrew occurring 11060 times in the OT. It indicates the subject of a verb. In English we indicate the subject of a verb by its position in the sentence, so eth is not usually translated in English except occasionally as 'even' or 'namely'.

If you say so. :0) Strong’s Lexicon shows 22 uses of ‘eth (#853) from Genesis 1:1 to Zechariah 6:8. Anyone going through these listings will see a common thread of the demonstration of entity. We have connections to the Heaven and Earth (Gen. 1:1) and to the Light (Gen. 1:3) and then Eve (Gen. 4:1) and Cain (Gen. 4:1) and then Methuselah (Gen. 5:22) and so forth with some exceptions ('this place' in Gen. 19:13, 'them ordinances' in Exodus 18:20, etc.).

Assyrian said:
No it does not say that. It says the earth was formless and void, not that it had been perfect before and became void or was made void.

Scripture says that God created . . . not any Big Bang. :0) The ‘eth Erets that God created in Gen 1:1 became formless and void in Genesis 1:2 = Big Bang. (snip nonsense)

Assyrian said:
Adam is the earth from Gen 1:1?

Absolutely. All died IN Adam (1Cor. 15:22) in the moment that the earth became formless and void. Genesis 1:2. That is where the angels and men came to exist for the two realms of the heavens and earth, until they can be restored and inherit ‘heaven’ of Genesis 1:8. The incarnate ‘gods’ (Ps. 82:6, Jn 10:34 = bearded races) only started incarnating in this universe with Adam’s ‘incarnation’ in Genesis 2:7 on this ‘seventh day,’ as all of those were “IN” him as ‘her seed.’ Gen. 3:15. Satan’s evil ‘your seed’ of the same verse entered the righteous branch through the consuming of the fruit of the tree of good and evil with the angelic half going to Adam and the man half going to Eve the mother of ‘all the living’ (Gen. 3:20). All of these ‘gods’ are members of one another in God’s Infinite Realm (far left) like the members of Christ’s Body in Heaven (see Romans 12:4-5). That means all of these gods are incarnate inside each other with the original son of God being the king sitting on a throne in the very center of his infinite self. This also means that all of these ‘gods’ died “IN” Adam in the moment that Satan murdered him to start this Creation show rolling, which is the reason that Scripture can say that “All die IN Adam” in the first place. :0)

Assyrian said:
God created the heavens eth Shamayim in Gen 1:1, are you saying the heavens in Gen 1:1 are The Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Technically the ‘eth Shamayim of Genesis 1:1 is “The Word” of John 1:2 that was pierced to become the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who contains this entire universe (Col. 1:15-17). That is the reason that Jesus Christ refers to “My Father who is IN HEAVEN” (Matt. 10:32-33) and the Holy Spirit is seen descending from “Heaven” (John 1:32) and the Son is the Bread from “Heaven” (John 6:31-33, 41, 50-51, 58). These are not references to the ‘heaven’ of Genesis 1:8 that is in this universe, but Scripture is talking about the “Highest Heaven” (1Kings 8:27) or the “Heaven” of Genesis 1:1.

[Continued]

Terral · Sep 14, 2008

Assyrian said:
Do you think The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are created?

The Word is one with God in His Infinite Realm and the very SAME Principal. God called for The Word to incarnate (Heaven of Gen. 1:1 = The Word of John 1:2) so Adam (‘eth Erets Gen. 1:1 = All Things of John 1:3) could be ‘recreated’ IN Him to mirror Infinite Adam in God’s Infinite Realm. The problem started when Satan murdered Adam in God’s Infinite Realm for which ‘eth Erets (Adam) is merely a 'water witness' mirror image. You are living in a Matrix, Neo . . . Wake up! :0) Adam existed perfect, mature and complete throughout all the perfect ages of Genesis 1:1, until he was subjected to futility (Rom. 8:20-22); so that his ‘destruction’ mirrored Satan murdering him in God’s Infinite Realm (the real spirit witness Singularity Host = son of God). Adam is currently DEAD in God’s Infinite Realm, which represents a gigantic mess with his insides scattered all over the place ‘and’ with all the members of his infinite body dead too. The difference for us is that we are now living within the ‘created’ envelope of time and space and all the events of God’s Infinite Realm are ‘frozen’ from our temporal perspective. That means God can put Humpty Adam back together again ‘and’ judge Satan, and all the evil ‘gods’ who helped him hold down and murder Adam, within the flash of a single moment from the perspective of all the ‘gods’ in His Infinite Realm; even though from 'our' perspective this process will take ages and ages and ages . . .

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mere ‘incarnations’ of the INFINITE WORD sent to form Adam IN Himself, pierce (destroy) Adam to mirror the Infinite Realm conditions ‘and’ put Humpty Adam back together again within this ‘created’ envelope of time and space. The heavens, heaven and earth (Adam’s spirit, soul and body) will eventually become ‘one’ again, as the ‘son of God’ returns into the side of the “Only Begotten Son” (diagram), which is the “Highest Heaven” of 1Kings 8:27 and “Heaven” of Genesis 1:1 and “The Word” of John 1:2 representing the ‘incarnation’ of The Infinite Word sent by God to rectify this whole “Satan murdered Adam” situation. This creation was subjected to futility (Rom. 8:20-22 again), because God subjected His ‘son of God’ to futility in His Infinite Realm by allowing Satan to murder him in the first place. However, iniquity was already found in Satan (Eze 28:15) and he was using his God-given powers to cover things (Eze. 28:14) to deceive the sons of God in His Infinite Realm. The short of the long is that all of Satan’s precious stones (Eze. 28:13) will be handed over to Adam for inclusion in his ephod (diagram), which allows all of the previously ‘hidden doors’ to become visible. Only then will the ‘sons of God’ in His Infinite Realm become immune to any future Satan to come along and try to murder another of God’s sons with his deception and trickery.

Assyrian said:
The Father is God. 1Cor 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. How can God create the heavens in Gen 1:1 if the heavens is God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

You do not yet know the differences between the “Only True God” (Jn 17:3) and “My Father Who is IN HEAVEN” (Matt. 10:32-33) representing the ‘spirit witness’ of The Word. This is what I mean that the substance of my statements is flying LIGHT YEARS above your head, which is actually a gross understatement of the facts. :0) You are worshipping the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as “God!!!,” when those are the three witnesses of “The Word” that God sent into the universe to save sinners. Again, God’s three witnesses are testifying with Him (The Almighty) in Revelation 1:8, as they appear near the top of this diagram chart:

First you have the three witnesses of God’s Essence including Love (spirit), Light (blood) and Life (water). Then you have the three realms of Genesis 1:1 including God’s Infinite Realm (spirit), the Realm of the Word = Heaven (blood) and this Adamic Creation = Earth (water witness). Then you see God’s Three Witnesses in God To Come (spirit), God Who Is (blood) and God Who Was (water), just like your Bible says in Rev. 1:8. These three witnesses are talking in Genesis 1:26-28 about “Us” and “Our Image,” which is by that time a ‘triune’ image (pic = atop Fig 1). Then you have the three witnesses of “The Word” from the Realm of the Word or Heaven of Genesis 1:1 as the Father (spirit), Son (blood) and Holy Spirit (water witness Helper) ‘and’ the three witnesses of this Adamic Creation represented by the Heavens, Heaven and Earth. “YOU” say the spirit witness of “The Word/Heaven” is “God!!!!,” when that is Satan’s counterfeit that replaces “God” with “The Word/Son” in order to trick you into worshipping something IN HEAVEN (Ex. 20:4) as Deity rather than wake up and realize that heaven ‘and’ the Highest Heaven cannot even contain God! 1Kings 8:27. The question remains about how many times I must repeat the same things over and over and over again to come back and find the same questions . . . :0)

Assyrian said:
You have clearly put a lot of work into you diagrams, but what you need to do is back up all the associations you make. What is the Holy Spirit realm, and why do you say it is His Body? etc.

Everything that anyone really interested in ‘knowing’ the truth must do is found in my “The Mystery Explained” document (in my signature) with the eighty diagrams, but expect to go through a growth process that can take months or years. A short version of how my mystery diagrams work is found here. I am like Johnny Appleseed and God must cause the growth. 1Cor. 3:6-7. :0) You might think that I have a demon. Welcome to the party. They said that about John the Baptist too (Matt. 11:18) and ‘all’ were to believe through him. John 1:7.

Assyrian said:
We don't think the universe God created is part of God, nor is it minuscule, other than compared to God, But it is God's creation and is well worth our while studying.

Please forgive, but what Assyrian don’t think has very little to do with anything. Those of you without knowledge of the VAST differences between ‘God’ (upper right*) and ‘My Father who is IN Heaven’ ("Father" above the "Son" in golden yellow*) have yet to even enter the game.

Assyrian said:
As you are mainly talking with Christians here, you are speaking to people who not only value God's Creation, but also know God.

No sir. I am like Morpheus holding out a red and blue pill (pic) and you are like Neo pretending to know what is going on without having a single clue. :0) The majority here will continue running after “MYTHS,” because that blue pill is tasty and the idea of rolling over and back to sleep is overwhelming. However, a ‘few’ will take the time to weigh these things carefully to find the narrow gate and the path to life, so like a patient farmer my job is to wait for the harvest and allow the chips to fall where they may.

Assyrian said:
We are redeemed and have access to the throne of God which we boldly approach through faith in his Son who died and rose again for us.

That is encouraging news indeed. That means you are aware of the differences between the “Two Gospels” (my thread) and "Two Churches" (my thread) of the New Testament and have not added any works to Paul’s “Word of the Cross” gospel message to make the power of the cross null and ‘void’ (1Cor. 1:17). Most everyone blinded by the ‘deluding influence’ (2Thes. 2:11) thinks he is saved and will continue to ‘believe what is false’ all of his days on this earth. The ‘servants of righteousness’ serving their ‘angel of light’ (2Cor. 11:14-15) also think they are saved, but they do not know the differences between God ‘and’ My Father who is IN Heaven any better than you. Therefore, in the end, we all must wait to see the outcome at the Judgment when God Himself points out those having things right and those carrying around something else. Good luck in the Genesis debates,

In Christ Jesus (F+S+HS),

Terral

artybloke · Sep 14, 2008

MsAnne said:
Huh, and all these years my first husband thought he was.

Then he must be the Milky Way Kid:

http://www.oldtimecandy.com/milky-way.htm

Mallon · Sep 14, 2008

Terral said:

Oh, the hypocrisy!

Assyrian · Sep 14, 2008

Terral said:
Hi Assyrian:

Of course not, but again that is your problem and not mine. :0) Unbelievers do not see God in Genesis 1:1 nor John 1:1 and they see no reason to believe in God either. The fact that you can ask questions is no guarantee of recognizing or understanding the answer. My Bible is Living and Active (Heb. 4:12) and yours seems very much dead and lifeless and your hypothesis is based upon what Assyrian does not see.

It may be your problem if your ideas are simply the product of your own imagination. I agree it is probably a problem for one of us. Unbelievers are quite capable of recognising Genesis 1:1 as talking about God, in fact one of the ironies of the CrEvo debate is the way YEC and atheist interpretations of Genesis are so similar. Atheists don't believe in him. But that is no help to your argument as I am a Spirit filled believer and Heb 4:12 is a passage I love.

You give yours and I will do the same and everyone can decide. 1Cor 11:19.

God wrote Scripture using His ‘Singularity/Three Witness Bible Code,’ but only some of us can see it. :0)

Clearly the bible refers to three witnesses to Christ ni 1John 5:8. It does not however say God wrote scripture using His Singularity (or Singularity Code?) whatever that is, or His Three Witness Bible Code. Nor does it tell us we should decode the bible by using this code we are not told about.

My mission is to present ‘the truth’ without regard to whether God ever causes the growth or not. 1Cor. 3:6-7.

Yet Paul also went to the apostles in Jerusalem to see if the revelation he was preaching was right Gal 2:2. He also told the Church in Corinth to use their discernment about prophecies brought to them.

Those among you holding to the MYTH that the Big Bang ‘created’ anything might never see it, but that is the way the old cookie crumbles.

The odd thing is, your revelation is one area where TEs and YECs seem in complete agreement. For once I agreed with YEC Mark Kennedy when he said:

mark kennedy said:
Ok, lets slow this rocket down. You are attaching meaning to texts, seemingly at random and changing the clear meaning.

shernren gave his analysis of your posts as

shernren said:
I hope and pray that you will study Scripture well and hard, and that you will abandon the erroneous filters you read Scripture through.

You could only reply with your laughing dog pictures. It seem he was right that you have a filter to read scripture through, it is your God's Singularity/Three Witness Bible Code.

If you say so. :0) Strong’s Lexicon shows 22 uses of ‘eth (#853) from Genesis 1:1 to Zechariah 6:8. Anyone going through these listings will see a common thread of the demonstration of entity. We have connections to the Heaven and Earth (Gen. 1:1) and to the Light (Gen. 1:3) and then Eve (Gen. 4:1) and Cain (Gen. 4:1) and then Methuselah (Gen. 5:22) and so forth with some exceptions ('this place' in Gen. 19:13, 'them ordinances' in Exodus 18:20, etc.).

That is not Strongs concordance, that is the Blue Letter Bible concordance using Strong's numbers. In contrast The King James Concordance lists 111 times the word is translated in the OT, and this for a word that is usually not translated. Here is a link to Genesis 1 in Hebrew where I have got google to highlighted the 26 times eth is used in just the first chapter of the bible.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...-א+ואת+OR+את+OR+אתם+OR+אתו&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

No it does not say that. It says the earth was formless and void, not that it had been perfect before and became void or was made void.

Click to expand...

Scripture says that God created . . . not any Big Bang. :0) The ‘eth Erets that God created in Gen 1:1 became formless and void in Genesis 1:2 = Big Bang.

Scripture says God created but it does not say how he created. I am afraid your laughing dog has not answered any of my points. Where does the bible say the creation in Gen 1:1 was perfect, and where does it say the earth of Gen 1:1 became formless and void? And if you are going to complain that Gen 1:1 says created rather than Big Bang, where does Gen 1:2 say Big Bang? At least Gen 1:1 describes the creation of the universe. Where is a creation of the universe described in Gen 1:2?

(snip nonsense)

By nonsense you mean claims you cannot support?

Absolutely. All died IN Adam (1Cor. 15:22) in the moment that the earth became formless and void. Genesis 1:2. That is where the angels and men came to exist for the two realms of the heavens and earth, until they can be restored and inherit ‘heaven’ of Genesis 1:8. The incarnate ‘gods’ (Ps. 82:6, Jn 10:34 = bearded races) only started incarnating in this universe with Adam’s ‘incarnation’ in Genesis 2:7 on this ‘seventh day,’ as all of those were “IN” him as ‘her seed.’ Gen. 3:15. Satan’s evil ‘your seed’ of the same verse entered the righteous branch through the consuming of the fruit of the tree of good and evil with the angelic half going to Adam and the man half going to Eve the mother of ‘all the living’ (Gen. 3:20). All of these ‘gods’ are members of one another in God’s Infinite Realm (far left) like the members of Christ’s Body in Heaven (see Romans 12:4-5). That means all of these gods are incarnate inside each other with the original son of God being the king sitting on a throne in the very center of his infinite self. This also means that all of these ‘gods’ died “IN” Adam in the moment that Satan murdered him to start this Creation show rolling, which is the reason that Scripture can say that “All die IN Adam” in the first place. :0)

How do people die in Adam in Gen 1:2 before Adam was created? Why should the death of Adam occur in Gen 1:2 before he ate the fruit which is when God said he would die. Are you saying Adam was reincarnated and died twice? Where is the evidence Adam was there in Gen 1:1? Why would you think Paul is referring to Gen 1:2 which does not mention Adam, instead of Gen 3 which mentions not only Adam but God warning that he would die if he sinned. Paul taught in Romans 5 that Adam's death spread to all men, why do you think his reference to all died in Adam refers to all the universe instead of all men? Even if all died in Adam means the universe died when Adam sinned, that does not mean Adam was the universe any more than saying I died and rose in Christ, means I am Jesus Christ.

Technically the ‘eth Shamayim of Genesis 1:1 is “The Word” of John 1:2 that was pierced to become the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

Citation please.

who contains this entire universe (Col. 1:15-17).

The universe benig held together in Christ does not make the universe Christ, or the heavens of Gen 1:1 Christ.

That is the reason that Jesus Christ refers to “My Father who is IN HEAVEN” (Matt. 10:32-33) and the Holy Spirit is seen descending from “Heaven” (John 1:32) and the Son is the Bread from “Heaven” (John 6:31-33, 41, 50-51, 58). These are not references to the ‘heaven’ of Genesis 1:8 that is in this universe, but Scripture is talking about the “Highest Heaven” (1Kings 8:27) or the “Heaven” of Genesis 1:1.

OK I accept you distinction between the heavens of Gen 1:1 and the firmament God later created which he called the heavens. I also agree that the heavens (and Paul mentions that there are at least three of them). Meanings range from the sky, the universe the, spiritual realm with IIRC the suggestion God dwells above that. However the problem is not helped by the fact the OT always uses the plural form heavens, and it is very difficult to connect specific reference to the heavens to our modern understanding of cosmology. A lot of folks here think the firmament in Gen 1 is a simplified description of the sky. Anyway, no matter how you read it, it does not say the heavens is the Word, or the Father Son and Holy Spirit.

OK gotta leave it there for now. I will get back to your second post and edits later.

shernren · Sep 14, 2008

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
(Galatians 1:8 NIV)

Nothing else needs to be said about this Terral, whoever or wherever he may be, and whatever his agenda is.

The Center of this Universe

Nathan45

Guest

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Senior Member

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

:)

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

you are not reading this.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency