No supernatural, no gods.

[Tharmas]

(Just a note on the bible. Gods day can be like a thousand of our years).

How do you know this? Does it say this somewhere in the Bible?

I sense an embarassingly specific bible quote coming on, haha.

So here you go. For some reason I don't feel embarrassed

A thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by
or like a watch in the night.

(New International version), from Psalm 90:

 

[Shadowy Man]

(Just a note on the bible. Gods day can be like a thousand of our years).

How do you know this? Does it say this somewhere in the Bible?

I sense an embarassingly specific bible quote coming on, haha.

So here you go. For some reason I don't feel embarrassed

A thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by
or like a watch in the night.

(New International version), from Psalm 90:

Note the simile. It isn’t saying explicitly that the days in genesis are to be read as thousands of years. Nor do I think the Jewish calendar’s year (currently 5783) take that into account. Then again, I’m assuming that quote want originally in English so who knows what it really said.

 

[Jarhyn]

(Just a note on the bible. Gods day can be like a thousand of our years).

How do you know this? Does it say this somewhere in the Bible?

I sense an embarassingly specific bible quote coming on, haha.

So here you go. For some reason I don't feel embarrassed

A thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by
or like a watch in the night.

(New International version), from Psalm 90:

Note the simile. It isn’t saying explicitly that the days in genesis are to be read as thousands of years. Nor do I think the Jewish calendar’s year (currently 5783) take that into account. Then again, I’m assuming that quote want originally in English so who knows what it really said.

Hence my point that it was certainly some idiot at home on their couch thinking about systems theory through the lens of theology, and seeing something true through the assumption of something silly.

It's a description of a dissociative relationship that could at the time only be thought of by thinking about systems theory from the perspective of God/creation.

Edit: I will note that they didn't even phrase their written statement in such a way as to make it actually contain a complete truth, having begged the question of whether or not there is a god, and shaping it around only that one instance of such dissociation.

I only came to understand the general case because our dumb games and concepts of creating things are much more fleshed out than ancient peoples'.

 

[Politesse]

Note the simile. It isn’t saying explicitly that the days in genesis are to be read as thousands of years. Nor do I think the Jewish calendar’s year (currently 5783) take that into account. Then again, I’m assuming that quote want originally in English so who knows what it really said.

Always a worthwhile consideration. I have no Hebrew to call upon I'm afraid, but the equivalent verse in 2nd Peter is clear enough:

Ἓν δὲ τοῦτο μὴ λανθανέτω ὑμᾶς, ἀγαπητοί, ὅτι μία ἡμέρα παρὰ κυρίῳ ὡς χίλια...

"Let this not escape you, much-beloved-ones, that one day (μία ἡμέρα) to [the] Lord is like a thousand (ὡς χίλια)..."

The author specifically states it as "one day", not "a day", a decision which is even more clear in Greek. A number, not an article. It is most certainly poetic, though it is also being used in 2 Peter much the same way as Learner is using it here - as a justification for a looser interpretation of divine prophecy than the most literal reading would suggest.

 

[Politesse]

Nor do I think the Jewish calendar’s year (currently 5783) take that into account.

It does not. The 12th century Mishneh Torah, which effectively set that calendar in stone, uses what they had (much earlier on, in the 2nd century) calculated as the first day after the creation as the first day of year 2 in the Jewish calendar. So the actual first "year" is vague and may have taken any period of time according to the assumptions of that calendar, left quite purposefully undefined in fact. It's first month is known as the "moon of chaos" suggesting confusion before the fixation of the cycles of the heavens, and this is made clearer in early Rabbinic writings. This was a debate even at the time, and they did not want the calendar dates used as a weapon in it.

 

[steve_bank]

Sounds like a debate over ancient poetry.

Why would the Genesis writer have an intent other than creating a tribal story?

In the bible 40 days and 40 nights, 40 years, A Jew on the forum posted that 40 meant 'a while'.

That gd created the Earth in 60 days and rested on the 7thday may have meant god worked up a sweat and then took a break.

A 'week's work', an image somebody could relate to and understand. Putting the work of creation in an understandable human scale.

So this is what academics get paid for......

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A 'week's work', an image somebody could relate to and understand. Putting the work of creation in an understandable human scale.

Clearly the Great Woo was Babylonian and liked to watch the moon.

 

[DBT]

Genesis specifies literal days of creation, a morning and evening of each day of Creation. This can't be misconstrued as epochs.

 

[bilby]

(Just a note on the bible. Gods day can be like a thousand of our years).

How do you know this? Does it say this somewhere in the Bible?

I sense an embarassingly specific bible quote coming on, haha.

Admiral, if we go "by the book" like Lieutenant Saavik, hours could seem like days

- Khan 1:26

 

[Jarhyn]

Genesis specifies literal days of creation, a morning and evening of each day of Creation. This can't be misconstrued as epochs.

I think that you underestimate the infinite human capacity to misconstrue things for the sake of furthering their arguments.

 

[Learner]

I believe in a beginning, but not from a 'central point' for example, the physical universe (+ distant galaxies) all appeared 'at the same time'!

Then you're at least a century out of date, because Einstein showed (and subsequent observations demonstrate that he was correct) that time and space are not universal; That is, there's no such thing as "at the same time" for objects that are in motion relative to one another.

Some distant galaxies seem to be at a developed stage similar to ours, but incredibly, we're seeing an image eons and eons into the past, being that it takes that time for light from that distance to reach us. I dare say, and think you could make a simple logical deduction or rather, a plausible guess from what's known from our current observation. Are the objects going in one direction e.g. going away from us, as an understood by an expanding universe? Well no.. there are stars that are not effected by expansion. i.e. blueshift stars are coming towards us (redshift stars or galaxies are going away). Andromeda for example, I believe is a blueshift galaxy.
Also... a central point of the expansion has never been observed.

Moving clocks run slow. The only way for anything in the universe to happen everywhere "at the same time" would be for everything in the universe to be in the same place at that time. If different things are in different places (and therefore are necessarily accelerating differently to each other) they don't agree on what time it is, nor on how fast time is passing.

GPS depends absolutely upon an understanding of exactly how time varies between different reference frames. It works using Einstein's formulas, and it wouldn't work that way if time were absolute (it would instead require us to use Newton's formulas).

Nothing around here moves fast enough for the non-universality of time [....]

Nothing moves fast enough..
The universe is thought to be more than 92 billion miles in size. Does it mean that 13.5 to 15 billion miles is observable all round, although this is the accepted age? Are we to say then, that the expansion of the universe initially expanded at speeds so much faster than light?

Also wondering that if you can't actually see the very boundaries of the universe, wouldn't it suggest, that you can't really know when the BB and expansion initially occured?

(Apologies for slow response, have to use the phone, a bit tedious)

 

[Shadowy Man]

Are the objects going in one direction e.g. going away from us, as an understood by an expanding universe? Well no.. there are stars that are not effected by expansion. i.e. blueshift stars are coming towards us (redshift stars or galaxies are going away). Andromeda for example, I believe is a blueshift galaxy.

Andromeda is within the local group of galaxies, which are gravitationally bound so not partaking in the Hubble flow. Outside then local group all galaxies will be redshifted.

 

[Learner]

Are the objects going in one direction e.g. going away from us, as an understood by an expanding universe? Well no.. there are stars that are not effected by expansion. i.e. blueshift stars are coming towards us (redshift stars or galaxies are going away). Andromeda for example, I believe is a blueshift galaxy.

Andromeda is within the local group of galaxies, which are gravitationally bound so not partaking in the Hubble flow. Outside then local group all galaxies will be redshifted.

Aha, that's it. You reminded me of what it was I forgot -
local groups and non local. The issues back then was... there were a few blueshift stars 'further away' than.., or 'behind' the redshift stars!

 

[Shadowy Man]

Are the objects going in one direction e.g. going away from us, as an understood by an expanding universe? Well no.. there are stars that are not effected by expansion. i.e. blueshift stars are coming towards us (redshift stars or galaxies are going away). Andromeda for example, I believe is a blueshift galaxy.

Andromeda is within the local group of galaxies, which are gravitationally bound so not partaking in the Hubble flow. Outside then local group all galaxies will be redshifted.

Aha, yes indeed. You reminded me of what it was I forgot about local groups and non local. The issues back then was... there were a few blueshift stars 'further away' then, or 'behind' the redshift stars!

You’ll have to be more specific about this “issue” because I’m uncertain to what you are referring. Perhaps a misunderstanding of something?

 

[Learner]

Are the objects going in one direction e.g. going away from us, as an understood by an expanding universe? Well no.. there are stars that are not effected by expansion. i.e. blueshift stars are coming towards us (redshift stars or galaxies are going away). Andromeda for example, I believe is a blueshift galaxy.

Andromeda is within the local group of galaxies, which are gravitationally bound so not partaking in the Hubble flow. Outside then local group all galaxies will be redshifted.

Aha, yes indeed. You reminded me of what it was I forgot about local groups and non local. The issues back then was... there were a few blueshift stars 'further away' then, or 'behind' the redshift stars!

You’ll have to be more specific about this “issue” because I’m uncertain to what you are referring. Perhaps a misunderstanding of something?

The blueshift and redshift stars seem approximately local in distance to each other, a blueshift star was 'behind' a redshift star. I'm sure...this was the surprise back then, if memory serves me right.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Are the objects going in one direction e.g. going away from us, as an understood by an expanding universe? Well no.. there are stars that are not effected by expansion. i.e. blueshift stars are coming towards us (redshift stars or galaxies are going away). Andromeda for example, I believe is a blueshift galaxy.

Andromeda is within the local group of galaxies, which are gravitationally bound so not partaking in the Hubble flow. Outside then local group all galaxies will be redshifted.

Aha, yes indeed. You reminded me of what it was I forgot about local groups and non local. The issues back then was... there were a few blueshift stars 'further away' then, or 'behind' the redshift stars!

You’ll have to be more specific about this “issue” because I’m uncertain to what you are referring. Perhaps a misunderstanding of something?

The blueshift and redshift stars seem approximately local in distance to each other, a blueshift star was 'behind' a redshift star. I'm sure...this was the surprise back then, if memory serves me right.

Well, if we are talking about stars then they’ll be in our galaxy and each may have its peculiar velocity and not be related to distance. The redshift-distance correlation is for galaxies. I won’t comment further without a specific reference. No worries…

 

[Learner]

Pardon me... previously I meant the distances to be in billions of light-years.. not miles lol.

 

[aupmanyav]

Why? Because I am not eternal.

Jarhyn, but what you are composed of is eternal. Atoms, molecules, energy. They will be there even when we have ceased to exist.

In an eternal universe of infinite time, why not?

There should be a reason, a cause, for universe to exists, otherwise it becomes special pleading, just like that of God. And if it came about, there must have been a phase when it did not exist.
If anyone is an atheist (a true atheist ), then causality has to be accepted. The reasons might not be known, that is another story. Science can work on it.

 

[DBT]

Natural causality is an aspect of physics and the universe at large.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Creationist types like this a day for God can be millions of years to try to make Genesis 1 seem reasonable. But eons do not have mornings and evenings as per Genesis 1. Adam supposedly was 105 years old when his son Seth was born. But God's 7th day means if a day of Genesis 1 was an eon, then Adam would have to have lived an eon before his son Seth was born. And never mind Genisis 1 and 2 contradict each other making the entire apologist nonsense meaningless anyway.

Well, creationists don't engage with reality. So I don't really care what they think about anything. They're just too crazy. It's a belief system that can only exist inside a bubble of constant re-enforcement. Creationist "theory" doesn't have a form where it can be talked and reasoned about.

For example, I've read a lot on occultism and numerology. I never made any sense of it. Symetrical numbers are good because symetrical numbers are good. That's not an argument. It can't go anywhere.