>snipˇ
>>Thirdly, I sincerely believe that the 6 Scriptural days and 15-20
>>billion years of cosmology's universe age are one and the same event
>>viewed from different perspectives. At this point I don't have any
>>precise way (and in your case a specific sequence of words AKA verse)
>>that clearly details how it was compressed (or expanded depending ones'
>>point of view) these billions of years into 6 days.
>
>Do you have any scientific support either?
>
Well letâs understand one thing. The generations of man do not begin in
Gen. 1: 1 but rather in Gen. 1:27. There is a lot of time elapsed between
these two verses. And here is where I believe many commit errors. We
canât take 6000 years of genealogies and declare that this is the lifespan
of the universe.
But to answer your question on scientific support, I have began with the
following formula:
(T2 - T1) = (t2-t1)[1 - (V2/C2)]0.5 Relativistic Time given by A. Einstein
A year in Jupiter isnât the same as a year on Earth, if one defines a year
as one complete rotation of a planet around the sun. So we can be on
Jupiter speaking about a year while on earth time we are talking about tens
of years.
>>
>>There were certain events taking place that clearly show that God and
>>men move in different dimensions. We can't go outside ours but God
>>does.
>
Well dimensions may have been a poor choice of a word here, I better one
would be spheres. We read in Scripture that there is place where created
beings show up to Îpresent themselves before the Lordâ such as the sons of
God and Satan. (Job 2:1) Since Satan was expelled from heaven (Is. 14:12)
this place isnât the same as the abode of God as described by Paul in II
Cor. 12:2 "I hnew a man in Christˇsuch an one caught up to the third heaven."
If there is a third heaven then a first and second must certainly exist and
them, there is earth. Only through either death or special visions can we
enter intro these realms or spheres or actually see beings who dwell in
then around us (II Kings 6:17, 20)
>
>That is the case regardless of whether God created the universe instantly
>6000 years ago or 18 billion years ago. If God created the universe via the
>big bang, then the light spoken of was not from the sun either.
>
What light are you making reference to Gen. 1:3 or Gen. 1:15?
>
>I would correct you here. That is a an interpretation of what permeates
>Scripture. The idea that the world will be exactly as it was in the
>beginning is demonstrably false from the scripture themselves. God told
>Adam and Eve to multiply. But in the future, there will be neither male
>nor female and without sexes, there can't be sex and without sex, no
>multiplying. So, given what the Bible says about sex, the future will not
>be identical with the past. And thus the lion may lie down with the ox,
>lamb and other victims, but that does not mean that it was that way
>necessarily in the past.
>
You are correct if youâre making reference to the ultimate kingdom of God.
However, what is going to happen during the millenium reign of the messiah
on this earth? Remember the last part of Revelation when Satan will be
bound for a thousand years while the messiah reigns on earth? Rev. 20:3-15.
These are two distinct events. One is to be lived in this planet and the
other in the new earth after this one is Îmelted awayâ as Peter describes
it II Pet. 3:12
>
>But that verse about 'they shall not hurt nor destroy' is referring to the
>future not the past. So what is the justification for applying it to the
>past other than some overarching theoretical/theological concept? If sex
>is gone in the future and it wasn't gone in the past, how can you be sure
>that hurting and destroying were gone in the past? Plants were hurt and
>destroyed by the munching of various contented carnivores (in your scheme).
>
But God created the plants for food. Gen. 1:29-30 As a matter of interest,
some folks teach that we should eat only veggies since that is what God
gave men and animals to eat pre-fall. And during the early 70s there was
this Coptic Church in SE Florida who taught that they had a divine right to
eat and smoke marihuana and quoted Gen. 1:29 as a cornerstone for their
teaching. They got away with it until the DEA found them being a front for
a Jamaican druglord.
But for this teaching is a problem. After leaving Egypt God commanded His
people to eat lamb during passover. So this theory isnât that sound.
>
>But if Jubal was the father of tents, the first tent was 1.6 million years
>ago, made by Homo erectus. See
>
>Gen 4:20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents,
>and of such as have cattle.
>"One of the most interesting but seldom recalled archaeological traces is
>of a stone structure at site DK in the lowest strata at Olduvai. This
>structure has been interpreted by my mother as the site of a windbreak or
>simple hut, where stones were perhaps used to support a series of branches.
> There are stones piled unnaturally one upon another in small heaps, and
>these were found in a roughly circular pattern with a diameter of some 12
>feet (3.6 m). In my view, this is certainly a 'man-made' structure and is
>of quite special significance to our understanding of our ancestors as far
>back as 1.8 Ma." ~ Richard Leakey, "Recent Fossil finds From East Africa,"
>in J.R. Durant ed. Human Origins, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) p 60-61
>
Iâm sorry Glenn but this description hardly gives me any assurance or
evidence that the first official tent that we know of occurred 1.6 years
ago. A round stone structure is the site of a tent?
While I lived in Teheran during the late 70s, I saw countless caravans
that came into the persian bazaar. They usually pitched their tents,
placed their rugs over the sand and stayed there for a few days, maybe
weeks and afterwards departed. I doubt it very seriously that anybody
could come back in a million years and find any remains of their sites.
There is nothing left except for the human and animal bodily secretions
burried under the sand which Iâm sure little critters will feast on.
And to these type of tents is the hebrew word referring to. Tents like the
tabernacle they carried during those 40 years in the desert.
>Thank you for the compliment. I have pointed out that the all inclusive
>language is not really all inclusive. If one translates the term 'eretz'
>as land, rather than as planet earth, you have a perfect biblical
>description of a local flood.
That is why I made my questions. However there is language that is pretty
inclusive Îall fleshâ. More study and in depth research will bring out the
answer. However youâre quite right in your assessment of the word Îaretzâ.
There is a variation in the hebrew from Gen. 6:7 "ˇI will destroy man
whom I have created from the face of the earth (adamah)ˇ" But for the rest
of the flood account the word Îaretzâ is used.
But lets note one thing. When God makes his initial assessment, He wants
to destroy it all. But what happens on verse 8? Noah finds grace before
the eyes of God. Could this event have changed the divine intent and God
decided just to do away with life in the corrupt region of Mesopotamia?
HmmmˇMore research.
> And as to the 'under all the heavens'
>phrase, you will find a similar use of thunder being heard from lightning
>that strikes all places under the heavens in Job 37:3. Since I can't hear
>lightning from Oklahoma city, or even from Denton Texas, I presume that the
>phrase 'under the whole heaven' is used to describe the land from horizon
>to horizon. Within that region, I can hear the thunder. Do you think the
>Bible is wrong by saying that thunder can be heard after it has been
>directed to various places under the whole heaven?
With the aid of technology today yes I heard gun blasts from Bagdad. :)
>
> Was this event
>>something that happen only in the populated earth (humanly speaking) or
>>was it a global catastrophe? Will 40 days of rain and 150 days of
>>flooding leave any lasting evidence for us to find?
>
>YES. 40 days of rain left about 6 feet of sand along the Mississippi River
>basin and covered lots of farm fields in 1993
>
But how many trees have been removed from the Mississippi shores? Remember
that the land in pre-flood times may have looked quite different than
todayâs. Have you ever seen a real cedar tree in Lebanon? Yet they were
quite famous in antiquity and were even used to build Solomonâs first
temple. The Scriptures mention that one could smell their forests in
Jerusalmen, but not so today.
>
>Plant growth there is so rapid that any new sediment will be covered
>rapidly. Secondly, not much sediment can be carried deep into the jungle
>because the trees make the water move very slowly. That means that no sand
>will be carried very far from the Amazon.
>
Well Ponce de Leon and his men had a dandy of a time while exploring
Florida in search of the fountain of youth. But a quick drive from the
keys to Palm Beach and one will wonder why they had such bad time. Because
most of the vegetation they fought is gone by now.
>
>Fascinating. Do you have a name for this guy? And a reference? I would
>love to learn more about this.
>
Well Glenn not only will you love Moses ben Nahman (1194-1270 AD Spain &
Israel) who is also known as Nahmanides but you will quote his work ÎGuide
For The Perplexedâ (1190) in your writings. He believed (as I do) that the
complete understanding of the universe origins is found in the Pentateuch.
The information is layout explicitly or by hints which are sometimes found
in the written textâs form. (Prov. 25:2 "It is the glory of God to conceal
a thing; but the honour of kings to search out a matter.")
For one thing there are two hebrew words for soul: nefesh and neshama. The
same material was used to create animals and men: dust ö adamah. Gen. 2:7
and Gen. 2:19 use this term (man and animal creation).
But the closing of Gen. 2:7 have something in hebrew that is lost in
English. The acutal hebrew text reads: "ˇand the adam became to a living
soul". Nahamides, seven hundred years ago wrote that the Îtoâ is
superflous from a grammatical stance and so must be there to teach
something. Lamed (Îtoâ), he noted, indicates a change in form and may have
been placed there to describe mankind as progressing through stages of
mineral, plant, fish and animal. Finally upon receiving the neshama, that
creature which was formed already became human. Nahamides concluded in his
extensive comentary regarding this Îtoâ as: "Or it may be that the verse is
stating that prior to receiving the neshama, it was a completely living
being and by the neshama it was transformed into another man". (Nahmanides
comentary on Gen. 2:7)
Now these remarks come from one of the major jewish kabalistic commentators
on Scripture. He contends that the Biblical text has told us that before
the neshama there was something like a man that was not quite human.
How do you like this little bit of info?
>
>I am glad to hear this. We agree that science and theology are not
>mutually exclusive. But if that is the case, one should be able to present
>a scenario that unites the two.
>
Trying to get there is one of the reasons I read messages of this list.
Best Regards,
Dario