Jesus and Einstein on the Expansion of the Universe
ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
There is also no qualifier that says that the light spoken of in the bible is resticted to light emitted by stars, especially since stars were not "appointed" until the 4th day.
i think is most likely from the throne or God, allowed to enter darkness of captivity
Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
jesus' ministry was set this way
Mat 4:16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
Jhn 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
I don't know the connection between physical and spiritual light but some type seems to exist.
in the charts presented was there intense gravity and then a release?
I haven't googled anything about light. if you are asking about original light. the God said Let there be light. And light is. If our sun didn't exist there would still be light. Light can be from various sources. stars ,comets. the throne
in Gen 1:3 it is actually showing light entering darkness. where there had not been light before.
If our sun did not exist, then neither would the earth.
Quote:
you are really asking can planets be formed without a sun?
Why would I be asking that when cosmology already mandates that planets form around a sun?
Your interpretation conflicts with established science.
Quote:
the narrative is not to inform us of every detail of creation but the preparation of a place for redemption for sinners. If Gen 1 :3 light as the first action in the narrative, does it say when earth planet was created?
now your mistake is evident .. THERE is NO ESTABLISHED SCIENCE for creation it is all conjecture and theory. Cosmology does not even state for sure how planets are formed , even in my time offering different theories. but current theories do not account for the larger mass planets are not nearest the higher gravity of the sun as fits the "established science"
I am trying to understand scripture and science, not one over the other.. IF science is fully understand correctly and scripture is fully understand correctly they must agree. if our meanings of terms and timing of events do not agree we must determine the original language and meaning. as for science the same, our theories must remain theories until evidence can establish truth not conjecture as facts. our understanding changes as we learn more about both and remain open minded to all evidence even from scripture and science.
my posiition is Satan and the fallen angels were expelled from heaven and where could they go to be separated from an omnipresent God who dwells in light. Boom origen of this cosmos. it is the only reason I can find for this cosmos to exist. and what better to trap non physical beings used to constant light. Darkness and and expanding universe where space is increasing and their understanding of the upcoming demise in their minds.
then in God's good time, further creation begins for redemption of these sinners,
if I am correct, science will confirm or at least not rebuke this spiritual position.
can light be separated from the creation of the sun?
now your mistake is evident .. THERE is NO ESTABLISHED SCIENCE for creation it is all conjecture and theory.
We have to go with the most proven principles in all of physics - General & Special Relativity - and they support my position.
Quote:
Cosmology does not even state for sure how planets are formed , even in my time offering different theories. but current theories do not account for the larger mass planets are not nearest the higher gravity of the sun as fits the "established science"
Planets form via accretion around existing stars.
Quote:
I am trying to understand scripture and science, not one over the other.. IF science is fully understand correctly and scripture is fully understand correctly they must agree. if our meanings of terms and timing of events do not agree we must determine the original language and meaning. as for science the same, our theories must remain theories until evidence can establish truth not conjecture as facts. our understanding changes as we learn more about both and remain open minded to all evidence even from scripture and science.
What you are attempting to do is bend the laws of physics to match your young -earth world-view.
Quote:
my posiition is Satan and the fallen angels were expelled from heaven and where could they go to be separated from an omnipresent God who dwells in light. Boom origen of this cosmos. it is the only reason I can find for this cosmos to exist. and what better to trap non physical beings used to constant light. Darkness and and expanding universe where space is increasing and their understanding of the upcoming demise in their minds.
then in God's good time, further creation begins for redemption of these sinners,
if I am correct, science will confirm or at least not rebuke this spiritual position.
I agree that the physical Universe was created as a venue for spiritual warfare.
However, the Genesis creation account is a physical one, not a spiritual one...thus, when 'light' is mentioned it must be in the context of physical light (the sun)....not God's presence.
Quote:
can light be separated from the creation of the sun?
Yes.
E = MC^2
This famous equation tells us that light is an integral part of matter and energy.
The initial state of the Universe was infinitely hot pure energy confined into an infinitely small point. The light produced by this expansion did not involve the suns.
There isn't a qualifier in the bible that says that the light that G-d made is restricted to only one range of frequencies or that it is necessary for that light to be percieved by human eyes, because, guesshttp://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/Spectrum.jpg what?
There were no human eyes when G-d said "let there be light" so the assumption that light must be ristricted to the range that humans can detect is negligent and dismissable.
Lame.
Night and day was the result of that lighg, and to avoid the easy factually supported verse by insisting that it is wrong because high energy Cosmic Rays technically are also electromagentic radiation just shows what a total hard head and uncompromising bias one sided authoritarian critical opponent you can be.
There is a olutely no reason to read into Genesis that God was saying no Electromagnetic Energy existed attrhe Big Bang, because intially, that was what appeared.
It would be reasonable for most sane people to see the connection between no visible light appearing initially, and Genesis so so, tho.
We have to go with the most proven principles in all of physics - General & Special Relativity - and they support my position.
Planets form via accretion around existing stars.
What you are attempting to do is bend the laws of physics to match your young -earth world-view.
I am trying to reconcile scientific evidence and scriptural evidence. because if both are true and completely understood by us, then they should agree. The traditional view from both viewpoints are not totally correct.
Quote:
I agree that the physical Universe was created as a venue for spiritual warfare.
However, the Genesis creation account is a physical one, not a spiritual one...thus, when 'light' is mentioned it must be in the context of physical light (the sun)....not God's presence.
I agree, but there is a connection because spiritual beings are here in this physical cosmos. and were here before Gen 1.
Quote:
Yes.
E = MC^2
This famous equation tells us that light is an integral part of matter and energy.
The initial state of the Universe was infinitely hot pure energy confined into an infinitely small point. The light produced by this expansion did not involve the suns.
so light could exist before this sun was made.
but albert falls apart if light is not constant doesn't it. it was almost shown this year in Switzerland.
light would appear to not be constant if space is expanding, is that being taught?
but albert falls apart if light is not constant doesn't it. it was almost shown this year in Switzerland.
light would appear to not be constant if space is expanding, is that being taught?
No...it was not 'almost' shown this year....as this was an admitted error in their calculation. The speed of light still stands.
No...it was not 'almost' shown this year....as this was an admitted error in their calculation. The speed of light still stands.
of course, the error was admitted by physicist who also give use other theories. We all realize that if the speed of light is not constant, then E=mc 2 falls apart. of course velocity is distance/time.. and if the distance is not constant..... then.....?
Do you know if they will continue the experiments in Switzerland?
No...it was not 'almost' shown this year....as this was an admitted error in their calculation. The speed of light still stands.
maybe we need read when we google ....
"While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no such theoretical constraint when space itself is expanding. It is thus possible for two very distant objects to be expanding away from each other at a speed greater than the speed of light. Since the parts of the universe cannot be seen after their speed of expansion away from us exceeds the speed of light, the size of the entire universe could be greater than the size of the observable universe.
It is also possible for a distance to exceed the speed of light times the age of the universe, which means that light from one part of space generated near the beginning of the Universe might still be arriving at distant locations (hence the cosmic microwave background radiation). These details are a frequent source of confusion among amateurs and even professional physicists.[1] Interpretations of the metric expansion of space are an ongoing subject of debate.[2][3][4][5]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
We would have to agree with an intelligent force constantly in the production of work. But I will add this entire creation is not the major event from heavens pov.
Is there any other event considered to be more of a major event than the creation and expansion of the universe. IMO, anything else would be classified as a minor event by comparison.
August 21st, 2012, 01:44 PM
Linear Mode
