At 01:18 AM 10/7/98 -0700, Dario A Giraldo wrote:
>Well letās talk about the timepiece of the universe. The clock of the
>universe (according to Misner, Throne & Wheeler -Gravitation; Weinberg
>-Gravitation and Cosmology; Fukugita, Hogan, Peebles -History Of The
>Galaxies) is the light of the universe with each wave of light being a tick
>of the cosmic clock. Their frequency are the timepieces of the universe.
This is clearly a misunderstanding of GR. I note that you didn't cite page
numbers. I KNOW that David Bowman is better qualified than I to respond to
all this, but I also know that you are not doing GR correctly.
>
>Since sunlight waves reach earth stretching longer by 2.12 parts in a
>million relative to similar light waves generated on earth, the rate at
>which they reach us is lowered by 2.12 parts/million. For every million
>earth seconds, the sunās clock loses 2.12 seconds relative to our clock
>here on this planet. And this is 2.12 parts/million equal 67 seconds/yr
>which is the exact amount predicted by the laws of relativity (sunās
>surface gravity is 30 times greater than earthās. This means than in one
>earth-year, a sun-based clock would tick one year minus 67 seconds).
>
>Now, there are so many places where we could place a clock that ticked so
>slow, that 15+ billion earth years would pass while it recorded only 6 24
>hour periods. So to get an equality between six Genesis days and 15+
>billion earth years is not a problem.
Sure, just above an event horizon for a black hole would do the trick. The
only problem was that the bible is not talking about a black hole, but
about earth history. You can also get a clock to slowdown if you change
the gear ratios. But so what. The Bible isn't talking about clocks, but
evenings and mornings. This is about as ad hoc solution to the problem of
the 6 days as I have seen.
>> This still does not say that the early earth had children playing with
>> asps. It might say that this will occur in the Messianic Kingdom, but where
>> is the verse that says it applies backwards?
>
>Glenn, you have to be kidding. In Jeremiah 30:1 through Jeremiah 31:40 God
>prophesied about Israel restoration. Please read the whole prophecy. This
>was a message given to the prophet by God Himself who directs Jeremiah to
>write it down in a book. In Jer.30:20 "Their children will be as in days
>of old, and their community will be established before me·"
I still don't see the application of the asp verses in Isaiah to the
creation. "Their children will be as in days of old" But it doesn't say in
Jeremiah WHAT will be as in the days of old? Playing with asps or having
red hair? Jeremiah says nothing about asps. Nor does he say anything about
vegetarian animals. If you want to take a snip and paste approach to the
scripture then from Jer 30:19-23 KJV, I can snip the words "and... children
...cause... the whirlwind". While those words are from the Bible, it isn't
Biblical (although most mothers would believe that that statement is true.)
Your means of interpretation paste different sections with unclear meaning
and claim that that is the only way to paste it all together.
>
>Jer. 31:5 Ī·the farmers will plant them and enjoy their fruit·v.12 ·they
>will rejoice in the bounty of The Lord -the grain, the new wine and the
>oil, the young of the flocks and herds. They will be like a well watered
>garden and they will sorrow no more·"
>
>May I suggest you approach your pastors (I hope you have a home church) and
>ask them to explain to you the doctrine of restoration. What does it mean,
>why is there, is it Biblically sound and does it apply only to humans.
My my, after I went through all that questioning about my church attendance
with Stephen Jones, I didn't think I would see that again for a long time.
You have restored my faith that when a person's theology is challenged,
they will claim that the challenger is not a believer/church goer or
somehow among THEM. In this way, one can ignore the challenger as an
'outsider'. That is what Henry Morris did when he classified Davis Young
and I among those who have compromised our geology and thus relegated the
Flood to insignificance. One certainly doesn't have to listen to a
compromiser.
I am aware of the doctrine of the restoration and I do attend a very
conservative church. The restoration from biblical evidence is NOT the same
as the original creation.
Please answer this:
Future restoration has no sun, no moon, no ocean, no night, no sex (see Rev
21:1, 23,25 and Mat 22:30. Exactly why do you think it is an EXACT
restoration when the Bible, which you claim to believe, says clearly, it
isn't???? If the future world has no death, there is no guarentee that
there was no death before the Fall anymore than the lack of a
sun/moon/sex/sea means that these things didn't exist on the early earth.
The future is clearly different and the Bible says so.
>Maybe your version. But mine does support restoration, regeneration and a
>perspective that the whole creation will be as it was in the beginning
>before disobedience gave up dominion of it to itās current state.
I don't deny the restoration, I deny the exactitude of it. And Jesus didn't
say it was restored to that as "it was in the beginning befor disobedience"
Revelations 21:5 says "And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make
all things new."
This is entirely different than saying I make all things as they were. V. 4
says that the former things were passed away. IT is new.
>> That is not the same thing. That is from the new testament and does not
>> define the Hebrew phrase "under the whole heaven."
>
>But the idea is the same. In case you have not found out, the NT is
>nothing more than the OT explained.
In an entirely different language with totally different idioms and culture.
>> If you hold to a global flood, which you seem to do (or did originally),
>> that view is most closely associated with young-earthers. Old-earthers
>> don't need a global flood.
>
>I hold to a Biblical flood that killed all flesh occurred. I guess Iām the
>exception to your rule since I hold that the universe is as old as current
>cosmology says it is: 15-20 billion years.
>
>So if you'll ask me: was the universe created in six days, I'll answer yes.
>
>Or if you'll ask me: is the universe 15+ billion years old, I'll answer yes.
OK, then I stand most humbly corrected. You are not a YEC. So, what strata
defines the flood layer and is your evidence of a global flood???
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm