Posted on 02/25/2009 6:52:31 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
First, you must demonstrate an ability to comprehend truth.
That’s easy enough. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Now about this utter truth thing.
Instead of making a condescending ass of yourself, why not just be frank and tell the poster you think he/she is lying about being at Roswell in 1947? You will not get affirmation by peeing on your fellow freepers.
I just had a feeling you wouldn't be able to comprehend the utter truth of the statement "This [planck density] is a unit which is very large, about equivalent to 10^23 solar masses squeezed into the space of a single atomic nucleus" as it relates to the use of the term 'raqia' or 'firmament' for supposedly 'empty' space.
The upper quote is from there, the lower is yours:
This is a unit which is very large, about equivalent to 1023 (10 to the 23rd.) solar masses squeezed into the space of a single atomic nucleus. At one unit of Planck time after the Big Bang, the mass density of the universe is thought to have been approximately one unit of Planck density.
“This [planck density] is a unit which is very large, about equivalent to 10^23 solar masses squeezed into the space of a single atomic nucleus.”
Further here is meaning of the word “raqiya”:
“raqiya`
raw-kee’-ah
from ‘raqa`’ (7554); properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:—firmament.”
You'll have to make the connection between Planck's density and the sky.
Well, since that was the reason I provided the link, I guess I don't know why you think this is such an accomplishment?
"You'll have to make the connection between Planck's density and the sky."
Now see, you are already hopelessly confused. The article wasn't talking about the sky and neither was I.
“Putting aside the foibles of academia, my main point is that the expanse (firmament) is a real material that God made early in Creation Week.”
Humphreys’ main point is his use of the word firmament.
I provided the meaning of firmament as agreed to by common dictionaries.
Humphreys is trying to use physics to prove his erroneous understanding of firmament as a solid substance and then again erroneously apply it to the Bible.
Yeah, young earth creationists do have a problem with his work, but they don’t look at it long enough to see the the profound insight of it. I was a YEC until I saw this. The reference point in Genesis I is told from God’s perspective, not man’s. Man’s perspective picks up in Genesis 5, “Zeh HaSefer HaToledot Adam” - This is the book of the Generations of Adam. Adam lived 130 years, and begat Seth. Seth begat, etc.” So, the human time frame picks up in Gen 5. The first six days are looking forward in time. Reference point is extremely critical in the Theory of Relativity, especially when the universe is expanding from the size of a “mustard seed” to 180 million billion light years across...I did a teaching on this, if you have Powerpoint you can see it here:
http://www.beithaderekh.org/torah/Teachings/bresheet5769.ppt
Shalom b’Shem Yeshua
“Man’s perspective picks up in Genesis 5” [excerpt]Exodus comes after Genesis 5.
The original Hebrew text literally says, six days.¶ And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it [is] a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that [ye] may know that I [am] the LORD that doth sanctify you.
Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it [is] holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth [any] work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant.
It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
¶ And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Exdodus 31:12-18
Yes both link and quote in the post you responded to start with. Forced to repeat quote for you because you missed it the first time and now you insist quote only. Deliberately ignorant.
'Sky' can have multiple meanings, but neither the article nor I used the term. You must insist on that definition for your erroneous point to have any meaning.
"Humphreys’ main point is his use of the word firmament."
Nope, that's your misunderstanding of what Humphreys and I both said.
"Humphreys is trying to use physics to prove his erroneous understanding of firmament as a solid substance and then again erroneously apply it to the Bible."
You are trying to use narrowly selected definitions to support your erroneous understanding of firmament, ignore physical evidence and then insist that your erroneous understanding is the only acceptable understanding of the Biblical use of the term. Deliberate narrow-mindedness.
.
The man said what his main point was and I quoted him but you say no .
“Putting aside the foibles of academia, my main point is that the expanse (firmament) is a real material that God made early in Creation Week”
Your post #35: quote, no link. If a link, where?
“’Sky’ can have multiple meanings, but neither the article nor I used the term. You must insist on that definition for your erroneous point to have any meaning.”
The article use the word firmament, which is defined as sky, etc. And no “physical evidence” was offered by either you or the author so there’s none to ignore.
And I’m still waiting for your explanation of this “utter truth” you’ve found:
“A comparison of nuclear density to Planck density demonstrates the utter truth of the use of the term ‘firmament’”
Just how does that work? Nuclear density, Planck density, firmament?
You say its an utter truth so explain this and don’t just put us off with some throw away comment. Or is it you have no idea?
It's not his quote that I have a problem with. It's your misrepresentation of it. You said, "Humphreys’ main point is his use of the word firmament." His main point is not 'his use of the word firmament'. His point is "that the expanse (firmament) is a real material". There is a difference and you misrepresent him.
"Your post #35: quote, no link. If a link, where?"
Oh the link's there alright. Either you or your browser have a problem.
"The article use the word firmament, which is defined as sky, etc. And no “physical evidence” was offered by either you or the author so there’s none to ignore."
No, you define it as 'sky'. That's not what the article said and you ignored the physical evidence referred to in the article and by me.
"And I’m still waiting for your explanation of this “utter truth” you’ve found: “A comparison of nuclear density to Planck density demonstrates the utter truth of the use of the term ‘firmament’”"
You simply aren't capable of comprehending truth, as I said in post #41.
"Just how does that work? Nuclear density, Planck density, firmament? You say its an utter truth so explain this and don’t just put us off with some throw away comment. Or is it you have no idea?"
You misrepresent Humphrey, the article and my statements. You can't even find a link in a post. It's clear that you are the one who has no idea what you are doing but you insist on remaining that way. That's fine.
This is your link?
“A comparison of nuclear density to Planck density demonstrates the utter truth of the use of the term ‘firmament’.”
I KNOW where your quote came from and said so, what does THAT have to do with firmament?
You say you offered physical evidence, so what is it?
You don’t have any, period. And Humphreys doesn’t either, he offers his interpretations of others’ theories and that is not physical evidence.
“You simply aren’t capable of comprehending truth, as I said in post #41.”
If I hear any from you, I am. I’m still waiting.
Bye.
You misinterpreted what my position is. A Day is a day. 24 = 24 hours. The six days of Genesis were 6 literal 24 hour days. FROM GOD’s PERSPECTIVE. There is something called reference point, time dilation, etc, especially in the expansion rate of the universe, and all of this is already told in Psalm 90:4. I can read the Hebrew just fine. Ani medaber Ivrit. I should have told everyone that I’m a Young Earth Creationist and an Old Earth Creationist SIMULTANEOUSLY! LOL. It depends on PERSPECTIVE. This is the theory of relativity, and the medieval rabbi Nachmanides pointed this out a a long time ago, before we had a radically changed view of cosmology after Penzias and Wilson.
Shalom!
“You misinterpreted what my position is.” [excerpt]Misunderstood actually.
“A Day is a day. 24 = 24 hours. The six days of Genesis were 6 literal 24 hour days. FROM GOD’s PERSPECTIVE.” [excerpt]So, how long is 6 days in the perspective of someone who is outside of time?
place makrker for later reading
You were quite proud of yourself for finding the quote I provided on wiki. I merely pointed out that I had included a link to that quote on wiki in the original post you had responded to and couldn't see why you were so proud of yourself for finding it. It was a simple matter of clicking the link that I had provided. Then you claim you couldn't find a link. Now you did find the link. I'm glad you finally got that worked out.
"You say you offered physical evidence, so what is it? You don’t have any, period. And Humphreys doesn’t either, he offers his interpretations of others’ theories and that is not physical evidence."
Again, you misrepresent Humphreys and me. The article clearly referred to the physical evidence for firmament as did I. You are simply incapable of recognizing it because you are committed to willful ignorance. You would rather argue about firmament only referring to 'sky' than to open up a closed mind and think outside the little box you are in.
"If I hear any from you, I am. I’m still waiting.
You heard truth from both Humphreys and me but are insistent on remaining willfully ignorant. That's fine. It looks good on you.
"Bye."
Bye.
Considering the fact that God was on speaking terms with Moses, if they had misunderstood, God would have corrected them.
If they had misunderstood and God had not corrected them, he would have lied.
I have little doubt of the Israelites' understanding -- and even then their was dissension and rebellions in the 40 years of wandering. My doubt is about your understanding.
Frankly, I doubt the understanding of anyone who is not fluent in Biblical Hebrew.
Now, the Jewish sages Rashi and Maimonides, who were fluent in Biblical Hebrew said it was otherwise than 24 days -- Indeed, Rashi wrote, "Scripture does not teach us anything about the order of creation." Even though they did not believe in the Divinity of Jesus, I trust their understanding of Biblical Hebrew. Certainly more than I trust yours.
“Frankly, I doubt the understanding of anyone who is not fluent in Biblical Hebrew.” [excerpt]I think it would be more accurate to say that you doubt anyone who does not agree with your position.
“Even though they did not believe in the Divinity of Jesus, I trust their understanding of Biblical Hebrew.” [excerpt]Its called cherry picking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.