Who cares about the age of the earth, or space?

[ivebeenshown]

Also, just looking at the moon tonight, I don't even need to cite the libration of the moon as evidence that the Israeli people could have knowledge of the spherical nature of celestial bodies. Just the phases of the moon in themselves should be enough.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

But alot of science has been proven to be correct,

I think you are not aware of what science is, by making a statement like that. "Science" is not possible to be "proven correct" because if it is not already "correct", then it isn't "science".

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Also, just looking at the moon tonight, I don't even need to cite the libration of the moon as evidence that the Israeli people could have knowledge of the spherical nature of celestial bodies. Just the phases of the moon in themselves should be enough.

All the descendants of Noah had access to the writings of Enoch, and Enoch was shown the entire creation, and all the heavenly hosts and the laws ordained for them. Men departed from the true knowledge then as now, but there were always men who sought wisdom, and who studied the ancient writings of Enoch the prophet, and who were given more understanding in the things written by Enoch and by all the prophets after Enoch.
Enoch wrote the book of cosmology, and that is "true science", about the created heavens.


In the Dead Sea Scrolls, we read that Abraham was well acquainted with the writings of Enoch, and had his own copy of Enoch's writings, which he undoubtedly got from Noah and Shem when he dwelt with them from age ten to age 49 -leaving their house not long after the the fall of the tower of Babel, as the real book of Jasher reports [Book of Jasher Bible - SpeedBible by johnhurt.com -the history of the patriarchs redacted from their own records, which Moses redacted even more for the Torah]

-http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC.htm -
1 Enoch, chapters 72-81 are the heavenly ordinances chapters.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the Genesis Apocryphon, the men of Pharaoh who returned Sarai to Abraham, asked Abraham to teach them wisdom, values and truth, and so Abraham read to them from the writings of Enoch.

Translation of 1Q Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen)
[Sarai to go to Zoan [with me, for she was v]ery [careful] with her person so that no [one] would see her […]. But after those five years, three men who were princes of Egypt [came … …] of Pharaoh Zoa[n] about my affairs and about my wife, and they presented [me numerous gifts and aske]d m[e to teach them] values, wisdom, and truth. So I read in their presence the [book of] the words of [En]och

 

[solarwave]

I think you are not aware of what science is, by making a statement like that. "Science" is not possible to be "proven correct" because if it is not already "correct", then it isn't "science".

The hypothesizes of scientists have been back up by evidence and reason..... to be more accurate

 

[yeshuasavedme]

The hypothesizes of scientists have been back up by evidence and reason..... to be more accurate

What scientists, what evidence, in what field, with whose reason?

 

[solarwave]

What scientists, what evidence, in what field, with whose reason?

You know what I mean don't be awkward

 

[ivebeenshown]

The hypothesizes of scientists have been back up by evidence and reason..... to be more accurate

They can't really back up a big bang theory, seeing as they have never witnessed such an event, neither can they disprove an immobile earth due to general relativity.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

You know what I mean don't be awkward

You made a general statement of opinion without specific proofs. I asked for specifics, and proofs.
There is no such an entity as "science", anyway, so you will have to define the area you are speaking of, name the men who make the claims in that area, and show their absolute proofs of their claims.

 

[solarwave]

They can't really back up a big bang theory, seeing as they have never witnessed such an event, neither can they disprove an immobile earth due to general relativity.

You can't back up belief in Jesus' resurrection or God because you havn't seen them and yet you realise there is more to belief than seeing what is right in front of you. Do you believe that anything in history happened or that the universe started with your birth since you can't see anything before that? There is reason to think the Big Bang is true and it is reasonable to think the earth goes round the sun.

You made a general statement of opinion without specific proofs. I asked for specifics, and proofs.
There is no such an entity as "science", anyway, so you will have to define the area you are speaking of, name the men who make the claims in that area, and show their absolute proofs of their claims.

I don't even remember what I said now. Anyway science has led to things like computers working.

 

[ivebeenshown]

You can't back up belief in Jesus' resurrection or God because you havn't seen them and yet you realise there is more to belief than seeing what is right in front of you. Do you believe that anything in history happened or that the universe started with your birth since you can't see anything before that? There is reason to think the Big Bang is true and it is reasonable to think the earth goes round the sun.

Not really... :o

They seem to conflict with the bible, and I don't see how my view is any less valid... considering they cannot cite the big bang as absolute truth. I consider the bible the absolute truth on such a matter because it was from the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mess]

I think you are not aware of what science is, by making a statement like that. "Science" is not possible to be "proven correct" because if it is not already "correct", then it isn't "science".

By your logic science is an absolute truth, and is never altered. In fact science is not an absolute truth, and is constantly changing because they to know they hold no truth. Today they say this, tomorrow they say the exact opposite, all to hold on to a dieing theory.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

By your logic science is an absolute truth, and is never altered. In fact science is not an absolute truth, and is constantly changing because they to know they hold no truth. Today they say this, tomorrow they say the exact opposite, all to hold on to a dieing theory.

There is an absolute Truth, and His name is not "science", rather He is the Creator of all true "science", which men always seek to learn, and which men go astray in learning, and never come to the knowledge of the truth when they deny His absolute authorship of all creation. That is why men who are fallible are always changing their minds and opinions, while God's Truths -His Word by which He spoke and created all things- stands without change.

Ecc 8:17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek [it] out, yet he shall not find [it]; yea further; though a wise [man] think to know [it], yet shall he not be able to find [it].

 

[jonathan180iq]

Not really... :o

They seem to conflict with the bible, and I don't see how my view is any less valid... considering they cannot cite the big bang as absolute truth. I consider the bible the absolute truth on such a matter because it was from the Holy Spirit.

No. It may conflict with your interpretation of the Bible. That doesn't mean that it conflicts with the Bible. Interpretations are known to be flawed. Yours and mine.

Your view of Geocentrism is less valid because it is physically observable to be incorrect. Our point of view skews our interpretation of the world around us; of the universe around us. It's like driving down the road at night and looking up at the moon. Is the moon following you? Of course not, even though it appears that way from your perspective. You are not the center of the universe.

And you're right about theoretical physics and astronomy. Like the "Big Bang" and any other origin assumptions, they are simply making inferences based on the little information that they have and some other assumptions about origins. Could they be absolutely incorrect? Yes they could. But they may also have a clue as to what they're talking about. You have to be open to both possibilities, test what is true, and hold onto the truth...(1 Thessalonians 5:20)

 

[yeshuasavedme]

You can't back up belief in Jesus' resurrection or God because you havn't seen them and yet you realise there is more to belief than seeing what is right in front of you. ....

So by your logic, you have no knowledge, no learning, no truth, because you have not experienced, tested, or proven all things that you have ever read or heard, at any place or any time.

And as to the resurrection of Jesus, there were many infallible proofs to His resurrection shown to many witnesses of His resurrection, as is written, and I am a witness of His resurrection power in my life, as He lives in me since He regenerated me in Spirit and joined me to His family, by the adoption which is called second birth of Spirit, into the New Man Living Spirit.

Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

The wonderful thing about the proof of the resurrection of Jesus is that He offers it, personally, to "whosoever will" call on His name to be saved, and each one who does so, in truth, from their heart, is made a "witness, and by regeneration of Spirit the Torah/Word/Christ is "sealed in their hearts", as was typed in the oracles committed to the namesake people of the New Man name.

Exd 25:21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.

The New Man body of Christ come in flesh is the True Mercy Seat, typed by solid gold in the living oracles committed to the namesake people of the New Man name. Each born again in Christ believer is placed in the true Ark, which the covering of is the Mercy Seat body of Christ come in flesh as our Atonement and "Door" into Life.
While we wait, covered by our Head, the Christ come in flesh, we are His "pupa" =disciples, who are awaiting metamorphosis into the regenerated =dissolved and reformed in elements, glorious New Man image of the New Man, made for the glory to indwell -now that is true science, worth learning and experiencing.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] the Mercy Seat/hilastērion, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

After the resurrection, each born again in Christ believer is placed as a member within the true Ark that was typed by Moses, and the true Witness and the true Torah/Word is sealed and bound in their "New Man" hearts.

Isa 8:16
Bind up the witness/testimony, seal the Torah among my disciples.

1Jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

 

[jonathan180iq]

By your logic science is an absolute truth, and is never altered. In fact science is not an absolute truth, and is constantly changing because they to know they hold no truth. Today they say this, tomorrow they say the exact opposite, all to hold on to a dieing theory.

It's not assuming that science is an absolute truth. I do see a problem with his wording though.

The beauty about science is that it is allowed to be changed based on new information. Once new and better or more precise information is obtained, the scientific records adjusts so that it contains correct information. Are there faults in the record? Sure. Do some old practices and teachings die hard? Sure. What do you expect? It is a man-made construct. But it is constantly getting better based on the information that can be gathered. It admittedly understands that not all available information has been obtained. It admits human weakness and lack of knowledge in the singular man. That's why peer review exists and that's why there are many standards in place to try and weed out bias.

If I was a teacher and believed and taught that 2+2 = 5, and you then came along and physically showed me why and how 2+2 = 4, you would think I was loony if I held onto my false idea, right? Would you want me to continue teaching that 2+2=5, or should I correct the information and teaching what is accurate? ...that's science.

One more thing. I think you assume that all scientists everywhere operate under the evolutionary umbrella and that all of their findings are some conspiracy to try and substantiate a specific world view. That is simply false and insulting to people who genuinely study the physical world which God has given us to live in. We are part of creation, just like everything else in God's creation. We inhabit physical bodies and we live by consuming other physical things. The spiritual side of us, which wasn't give to the other physical beings on the planet, is totally separate and is something that can't be measured by science. But there is a large part of who we are that can be.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

No. It may conflict with your interpretation of the Bible. That doesn't mean that it conflicts with the Bible. Interpretations are known to be flawed. Yours and mine.

Your view of Geocentrism is less valid because it is physically observable to be incorrect.

God is the author of creation and He told us what He did, in Genesis 1. The earth was created first, and founded on nothing, and then He made the foundations and light [day 1], and stretched out the heavens -plural =all of them, on day 2, from the earth, between the divided waters of earth, and made the sun and moon on day 4 and set them in the heavens, and the stars also.
Geocentrism is the only truth about the Creation, as God has told us He did it that way, in Genesis 1, and corroborated Moses' writing by many prophets, beginning with Enoch the prophet, the seventh from Adam, to John the Revelator, who saw the stars fall to earth, the heavens dissolved, and regenerated for the New Beginning.

 

[jonathan180iq]

God is the author of creation and He told us what He did, in Genesis 1. The earth was created first, and founded on nothing, and then He made the foundations and light [day 1], and stretched out the heavens -plural =all of them, on day 2, from the earth, between the divided waters of earth, and made the sun and moon on day 4 and set them in the heavens, and the stars also.
Geocentrism is the only truth about the Creation, as God has told us He did it that way, in Genesis 1, and corroborated Moses' writing by many prophets, beginning with Enoch the prophet, the seventh from Adam, to John the Revelator, who saw the stars fall to earth, the heavens dissolved, and regenerated for the New Beginning.

And the fact that the physcially observable solar system doesn't operate the way that you expect, based on your interpretation of those passages, means nothing? Does the conflict upset your view of God?

If it tests your faith, I'll drop it. But I just want you to consider that your interpretation may be the issue, not the Word of God.

If what is plainly seen contradicts what we believe, then which one do you think is messed up? God's creation, since it isn't acting like we think it should, Our understanding of God's word, or the Word of God itself? ....I'm betting it's us.

 

[ivebeenshown]

And the fact that the physcially observable solar system doesn't operate the way that you expect, based on your interpretation of those passages, means nothing?

General relativity. The earth as the immobile center of the universe is just as valid due to general relativity. Just because it makes the movements of the heaven immensely more complex to describe or understand from this viewpoint does not render it invalid, because they will never get to the bottom of understanding the inner workings of space and the darkness that thrives in it anyways -- did you ever think that some aspects of science are similar to the 'bottomless pit' that the beast rises from? Oh wow, I feel like I just had a revelation.

It's a lot easier for me to accept that we were given dominion over the earth and not the heavens, and to understand that all I really need to know about space is the sun's continuous rising and setting and the moon and the phases thereof, which tell the seasons and times. It is a simple and practical viewpoint, and I believe in my own heart that it is a truth told by the bible.

 

[solarwave]

Not really... :o

They seem to conflict with the bible, and I don't see how my view is any less valid... considering they cannot cite the big bang as absolute truth. I consider the bible the absolute truth on such a matter because it was from the Holy Spirit.

And you can't cite the Bible as absolute truth on your reasoning. If you believe the Bible because it is the most likely thing to be true then fair enough, but the science you are rejecting are most likely to be true too.

They don't conflict with the Bible either, they conflict with your interpretation of the Bible, and if you hold yourself to be infallible then thats your choice.

So by your logic, you have no knowledge, no learning, no truth, because you have not experienced, tested, or proven all things that you have ever read or heard, at any place or any time.

In the post to which you are refering I wasn't stating what I thought, I was using ivebeenshown's reasoning against him to show how it would destory his own beliefs, not only science.

 

[jonathan180iq]

General relativity. The earth as the immobile center of the universe is just as valid due to general relativity. Just because it makes the movements of the heaven immensely more complex to describe or understand from this viewpoint does not render it invalid,....

Sure.

Now ask yourself why it makes the movements of the heavens immensely more difficult to understand... Could it be simply because the geocentric view of the universe is inaccurate?

Also, check out Ocham's Razor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

When something appears to work in theory, but then doesn't actually pan out that way in real life, do we hold onto the failed theory or do we keep going on as if it is correct, even though it obviously isn't?

Listen, it is physically observable, given if you had enough money to hop in your own space shuttle and jump just outside of Earth's orbit, to watch the Earth, and all the other bodies of the solar system, orbiting around the Sun. It's not just some snazzy science project model. It is physically the way that the world works. You can argue theories all you want to. I'll give you that. But the operation of the planets and stars and the gravity that fuels the whole thing is not an opinion or a theory. It is a fact. All of the other planets in our solar system are not effected in the slightest way by the location of the Earth. They are in their own orbits around the sun, experiencing their own seasons and days and they even have their own moons....just like the Earth. The difference is us. No where else can you find life.

What makes us special? There are 100,000,000 things about Earth that are significant to life, but being the center of the Universe is not one of them.