American interpretation
 

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:04:02 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:23:55 GMT, "JB" wrote:

I doubt the sincerity
of what this "might be."
You got that right. Just exercising a line of thought.

I will skip the rest of the fluff.

Just when it was getting good! We were close to hearing how the Somalian
pirates believe in evolution, and I was hoping to get a Jeffrey
Dahmer/evolution connection.

Hi Mike,

I don't know what dots you are trying to connect, especially from a
argument that lifts its rhetoric from the CIA playbook of the late 40s
[gad, that rusty polemic of Stalin getting a free ride reeks of
Nixon's first stump speech].

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

American interpretation
 

Jim Kelley wrote in
:

Gordon wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote in news:YQXHl.5960$Lr6.2997
@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com:

Brian Oakley wrote:
If you look at the word "day" as it is used in the Hebrew language
in the OT, it means in almost every instance, a literal day. So
why would we want to imagine that it would mean anything else when
the Bible is pretty clear.
How could a "literal day" possibly exist before God
created the Sun on the 4th "day"???

He created light on the first day.

Well, consistent with that, records seem to indicate there was a big
flash of it at one point. And if that was Him, then He is also
responsible for all the stars and planets which subsequently
coalesced.
At which point there began an enormous and complex organic chemistry
project which, given the amount of time He's allowed it to work, has
now provided almost an infinite variety of results, including the
inhabiting of at least (and perhaps only) one of the planets with
intelligent life.

There are of course a variety of simplified, abridged, and age (or
epoch) appropriate versions of this history, the actual scale of which
is only slowing revealing itself to us. So it's apparent that if a
creator created all of what is, then He is responsible for a far more
intelligent design than the history books give Him the credit for; far
too intelligent perhaps for us to comprehend. Or maybe He is the
simple minded guy with anger management issues they wrote about
hundreds of years prior to sanitation. I don't claim to know.

ac6xg

Sure, why not? Works for me.

American interpretation
 

OK, so this is getting way OT.
But, since you brought it up...
(skip down a bit)

Cecil Moore wrote in news:Kw8Il.8793$im1.6807
@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:

Gordon wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote in news:YQXHl.5960$Lr6.2997
How could a "literal day" possibly exist before God
created the Sun on the 4th "day"???

He created light on the first day.

That may be, but a 24 hour day, i.e. sunrise to
sunrise, was impossible without the sun which was
created on the 4th day.

Let's review:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness
[was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved
upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God
divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice in Gen 1:4 that God divided the light from the darkness?
Thus the first day. Without the sun. Don't ask me how.
But, the sun is not the only thing in the universe that creates
light. Nor does it create the only type of light. Fireflys
for instance create a bioluminecense (sp?) type of light.
So the sun is not needed to create light. Nor is the first day
defined in terms of the motion of the sun.


Actually, The Bible says that 1000 years in the
life of man is like one day to God. So why can't
2 billion years just as easily be like one day to
God?

The sun was indeed created about 8 billion years
after the Big Bang. 8 billion years divided by
"4 days" is indeed 2 billion years.

OK, that's a reasonable theory.
We could ask Him when we get the chance.

Now: When God said "Let there be Light", What type
of antenna was he using?

American interpretation
 

Gordon wrote:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The Bible needs to be re-translated in "light" of
the most recent facts.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the Big Bang
which contained the future ingredients of the sun,
the earth, the moon, and everything else that
exists in the universe today.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God said, Let the universe expand and cool so that
space becomes transparent and photons can move freely
at the speed of light.

Now: When God said "Let there be Light", What type
of antenna was he using?

For the first ~400,000 years after the Big Bang, the
universe was opaque. When the universe became transparent
thus allowing light to propagate freely, it would
be another ~7-8 billion years before the sun and the
earth coalesced from the primal material.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

Have you ever read Mark Twain's "Letters From Earth"?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

American interpretation
 

In the beginning was nothing. Then God created light. There was still
nothing but you could see better.

Kevin, WB5RUE


"Gordon" wrote in message
...
OK, so this is getting way OT.
But, since you brought it up...
(skip down a bit)

Cecil Moore wrote in news:Kw8Il.8793$im1.6807
@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:

Gordon wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote in news:YQXHl.5960$Lr6.2997
How could a "literal day" possibly exist before God
created the Sun on the 4th "day"???

He created light on the first day.

That may be, but a 24 hour day, i.e. sunrise to
sunrise, was impossible without the sun which was
created on the 4th day.

Let's review:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness
[was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved
upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God
divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice in Gen 1:4 that God divided the light from the darkness?
Thus the first day. Without the sun. Don't ask me how.
But, the sun is not the only thing in the universe that creates
light. Nor does it create the only type of light. Fireflys
for instance create a bioluminecense (sp?) type of light.
So the sun is not needed to create light. Nor is the first day
defined in terms of the motion of the sun.


Actually, The Bible says that 1000 years in the
life of man is like one day to God. So why can't
2 billion years just as easily be like one day to
God?

The sun was indeed created about 8 billion years
after the Big Bang. 8 billion years divided by
"4 days" is indeed 2 billion years.

OK, that's a reasonable theory.
We could ask Him when we get the chance.

Now: When God said "Let there be Light", What type
of antenna was he using?

American interpretation
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Gordon wrote:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The Bible needs to be re-translated in "light" of
the most recent facts.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the Big Bang
which contained the future ingredients of the sun,
the earth, the moon, and everything else that
exists in the universe today.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God said, Let the universe expand and cool so that
space becomes transparent and photons can move freely
at the speed of light.

Now: When God said "Let there be Light", What type
of antenna was he using?

For the first ~400,000 years after the Big Bang, the
universe was opaque. When the universe became transparent
thus allowing light to propagate freely, it would
be another ~7-8 billion years before the sun and the
earth coalesced from the primal material.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

Have you ever read Mark Twain's "Letters From Earth"?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Here is where we always go wrong. Re-interpreting things based on our own
understanding. This is how the flat-earth people got started. If it don't
make sense, just leave it there as a curiosity until it should make sense
when all is revealed. Lean not on your own understanding.

American interpretation
 

JB wrote:
Here is where we always go wrong. Re-interpreting things based on our own
understanding.

Are you saying The Bible was originally
written in English? Can you actually
read ancient Hebrew?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

American interpretation
 

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:04:02 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:23:55 GMT, "JB" wrote:

I doubt the sincerity
of what this "might be."
You got that right. Just exercising a line of thought.

I will skip the rest of the fluff.

Just when it was getting good! We were close to hearing how the Somalian
pirates believe in evolution, and I was hoping to get a Jeffrey
Dahmer/evolution connection.

Ask the Somalian pirates what they think.
Maybe Jeff thought eating his lovers would be a form of evolution. It is a
form of "CHANGE".
Evolution also implies that a species get's better over time. This is
highly debatable.



I don't know what dots you are trying to connect, especially from a
argument that lifts its rhetoric from the CIA playbook of the late 40s
[gad, that rusty polemic of Stalin getting a free ride reeks of
Nixon's first stump speech].

CIA playbook? Wasn't that a comic book showing kids how to clog toilets?


73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Screw rhetoric and polemic. We don't even need to put labels on it.
Government power can be divided into that which is moderated by the consent
of the governed, and Government power that isn't. When a Government doesn't
have to worry about getting beheaded or losing an election, it is free to
govern at it's own pleasure.

Just look at the result of it. And no fair re-spinning history. McCarthy
thought it wasn't a very good idea to have Soviet spys in the Army crypto
room after WW2 so he started asking about it and why they shouldn't just
find another job. So rather than denying it, Dems got Hysterically
Dramatical and haven't stopped since. Most of them just went on the talk
show circuit and got honorary chairs at the universities, so it isn't like
they were walking the streets living out of dumpsters. The Venona project
finally revealed that most of them were in fact either foreign agents,
handlers or helpers of a hostile power.

Tell me you hadn't noticed that the bright future promised to the world by
scolding magpies, doesn't exist anywhere they have achieved totalitarian
control. When you control by fear, you don't really need the hearts and
minds of the people anyway. All they have to do is look and act that way,
or else.


As for those who think this is off-topic, then change the subject line to
something about antennas.

American interpretation
 

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:07:13 GMT, "JB" wrote:
Screw rhetoric and polemic.

That would have been enough to write, but it was only the prelude to
the paleo-polemic of John Birch (aka screwed) rhetoric I've snipped.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

American interpretation
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
Here is where we always go wrong. Re-interpreting things based on our
own
understanding.

Are you saying The Bible was originally
written in English? Can you actually
read ancient Hebrew?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

No and No. Nor can I read Aramaic, Greek or other languages. Thanks for
the illustration.

Language always leaves room for misinterpretation. Even when using simple
5th grade English, many people only grasp certain key words and have
difficulty grasping the meaning of complete sentences let alone complete
paragraphs, so have trouble communicating in the first place. They fail to
interpret the experience of others and are doomed to learn from their own
mistakes and be mis-lead. It is interesting to point out though, many
different versions of the Bible (other than commentary or paraphrase) by
different translation teams do very well at conveying the same thought and
it is worth while to do parallel study to have a better understanding of
that problem. The imprecision of common usage of the English and other
languages also seems to be a limitation, but not so much as you would
expect. One of the translation skills comes from reading many other
surviving texts and even hostile sources, to get a better picture of
language usage and events of the day. It is a good thing to have some
patience with people who jump to conclusions even because it is so difficult
for all of us. It is certainly even more difficult for those under duress,
but without love and courage we are dead already.

Grace and Peace