dprprb

THANKS SoBG!! From the Dr. on your link- "This brings us to Genesis 3 and the Fall, of course, but a few things are apparent, or at least worth thinking about: 1. It’s quite possible to read Genesis 1-2 without thinking that the two humans in the story are specific people." I was reading Dr. Steven Dimattei's assessements( a biblical scholar) for this type of opinion among scholars....i was looking for the occurence of translation variants (i.e. that Gap theory uses in Gen 1:1-5 between "was" and 'becomes' void. (not to change the subject) ) and generally trying to understand the fundamental Hebrew text. THANK YOU

I dont need to rescue my narrative due to a lack of ugly facts. If there was an ugly fact somewhere it was lost on me due to the pontifications about everything else but the mechanics suggested by my words. You know like 2+2 does not equal 5 , the 2nd law of thermodyn would prevent this from reconnecting or even 'you know I understand why you thought that but that is definitely not what that means' etc etc. All that other garbage sideways issues(if I made a mistake then so be it) I choose to abandon as all merely distractions from mechanics and Scripture in the Act of God destroying the earth and needing to leave something for Noah to put his foot down on. The discussion is whether God goes back to Gen1:1, and what He leaves in the path of His destruction. Between Scripture and science there are two sources of ugly fact 7mm rounds- im not ducking dodging running or crack potting. I heard parallel worlds isnt physics but that is anti-Scriptural in this setting IMO.

In response to some of Enochs critique I would like to point out that Scripture is part of my set of assumptions(DUH!) and within it several key events that should be part of anyones assumptions that comments here. 1. The physics at the interior of the Tabernacle when God is 'in' 2. "The physics of" Gabriel meeting with Mary to discuss her pregnancy 3. " "God walking with Adam 4. " " Chariots coming down picking up prophets and carrying them wholesale to heaven. 5. " "Jesus returning to heaven 6. " "a triangle shaped door opens between the sky and heaven 7. " "Jacobs ladder 8. " "Jesus ascends to heaven 9. " "bottomless pit opens So at least 9 accounts from Scripture indicate that heavenly connections between separate timelines converge and diverge between at least two of the 3 mentioned 'existence places' Heaven, Hell, and Earth. Therefore it is not a hand wave dismissal that the mechanics Im suggesting doesnt exist and cant be described. Now someone's paradigm can be insulted and they react in a protectorate manner to try and say apple physics here and miracle oranges there. But the entrance and exit of entities and visible structures to interact with and lack of explosions and antimatter collisions in Scripture appear to indicate that physics is at least resonant enough to sustain the Scriptural account (also obvious). In those 9 occurences it is piecewise and local - the Flood account would be an example of "wholesale coverage". Those 9 occurences where 'conscious' timelines (to indicate Im using narrative 'timeline' description not physicists) exist for angels and God and human flesh are like wormhole structures. Therefore I dont think my conjecture is out of order.

Ok so best and worst possible analogy......I had to share this because it is so ridiculous that Im shakin my head. Im trying to wrap my head around the paths as two separate timelines come together. Its like being at Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh- two rivers converge and become one (but water has volume that doubles the size of the result). Riding a boat at the confluence is the confusion of what water came from which source. So thats one way to visualize it. Here goes...the mindbending part is to follow Gods path as suggested down one source and back the other. We have to be careful going up or back the second derived path. The best analogy I thought was remember back in the 70s and 80s when we took apart cassette tapes and played them backwards by switching the direction? Thats the mindbending part that the information (God's forward dynamic contribution- reason and purpose) is written backwards on the flowing substrate. Of course the hilarious irony is that it was rumored that we would hear the satanic subliminal messages inherent in rock music. LOL but it turns out that that is the best analogy of Gods path with the stretchiness of iron oxide tape that ruins the information encoded on it. So Im not qualified to say technically what kind of transferrence of data points between paths might occur or whether a supercomputer could play the tape forward and account for the stretching (time) to replay it as Creation events but the Scriptural phrase destroy both them and the land implies to me that not a trace of the former Creation history from flood to Day 1 exists and that the recording tape has been erased leaving only the remnants that are conserved under the laws of physics. What that remnant becomes in its historical stretched setting would be a matter of indestructible nature of information. I must investigate this

OK THANKS Enoch Most of what i said is a direct verbatim from "Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch and not my own tab dropping. My take away from his work was that Many Worlds is an interpretation- just like the Copenhagen interpretation which is a representation -and conjectured from the basis of all paths taken by a photon which causes the cancellation in the double slit experiment from Feynman. Since it is an ad hoc device to explain results it is given no substantial basis just as virtual particle is virtually synonymous with real particle. I think that you see no point to doing anything with my narrative and no further conversation is necessary , but I was able to simplify what i was saying during our conversation so Thanks...

1. Geology- I will use what can be deduced from empirical crossections that are visible or possible to reconstruct from interpolated core drills around the globe.-physical time is required not a resolution to whether something is science or not. 2. The unfordable Gap -I thought you meant- between the YEC literal and traditional understanding from Scripture (approx 4000BC) and the body of interpretations of OEC Day AGE versions, Gap theory, and what you or anyone else deems as pseudoscientifc conclusions. (radiometric dating etc)- the difference necessary to have any reconcilition is time. We can have the same dreary converse and go our separate ways agreeing to disagree..it maintains the status quo and defeats forward progress. Point of a negotiation is lost on those who have adopted a position of no negotitation required. Yet there 'they' sit and if they dont make it to the other side then I have a task. 3. I dont think I can factor primes either. If I want an 'out' to honor God's words about nothing is impossible then I can think about what that might mean - Separate topic for another time is 2 things God wont do and that God cant learn is a good point and Id like to think further about that first. My proposal is a different way to insert time into the narrative (such as a Day Age or Gap thoery is inclined to do) that does not violate Scripture and the traditional 4000BC style interpretation with 7 24 hr days of Creation. There are separate historical lines that part and reconverge with paradoxically observables that are not truth defeating. In fact, parallel world interpretations of quantum mechanics(QM) may provide a mechanical means for this - and yes I understand that it is assumed to be non interacting parallel worlds except that they do influence the outcome of an experiment. (which equals the double slit results) So they influence the outcome here in our observables right? Ive never seen you disagree with that. Now lets give it divine purpose if that can be coherent. Can it be done?

God enacts Noahs flood by either 1) mechanisms that exist from Creation where the land is called forth from 'the waters' or 2) by returning to that time (Gen 1:1) because He is 'destroying' the land and the breathing creatures and reenacting the first day while Noah safely floats. Citing Gen 1:1 is popular to people who see a global flood and by assumption recall the #1 mechanism for God to enact this Flood. But if God creates a global flood by going back to Gen 1:1 to start over with a clean slate then it is possible that comments about that from elsewhere in scripture can be mistaken as Gap theory preamble to Gen1:1 becuase as an explanation of how the flooding occurs God actually goes back via#2 to make it happen. Because it is God that goes back because the world was full of violence in Noahs time becuase of Satan then God infuses Scripture with that reasoning. Taking that into account means that Gap theorists have picked up these indicators of this elsewhere in Scripture but are also hotdoggin time onto the end to accomplish some other agenda which doesnt belong there. Acceptance of #2 method kills the local flood idea in the same stroke because God goes back to Gen1:1 to make it happen. You have to think carefully about the differences of #1 and #2 - one implies naturally that the world Noah steps back out onto is inherently the same it just gets dunked. That's why i say Mt Everest has nothing to do with the height of the Flood waters.

No i was not aware of that particular back story that was not included in the Canon...what is that book (collection of writings that it is in) called?

Perhaps there was too much quackery surrounding it but I thought that I nailed this one down tight... God By going back to Gen 1 (to Flood the world in Noahs time) He infuses that Scripture with the purpose of His visit "the earth was filled with violence" There is no preamble to Gen 1:1 where Satan caused a flood and any Scripture you are using to justify that Gap theory is Scriptural support that I encapsulate here that is 'superimposed' ...which as a by product kills local Flood theory. Your truth antenna are picking the signal up but backfilling a preamble story to support that truth or rescue PreColumbian societies from the Flood is incorrect. God is the only being that gives Scripture meaning.

You were the one that said 'unfordable' gap. Only an Act of God can cross such a thing. So if my proposal is correct then an Act of God honors the YEC original position something I now also do despite years of OEC confusion and neglect. Now if we admit miracles(completely unexplained and untouched ) then what is wrong with my somewhat physics sounding narrative? what do you find most objectional? Is it sitting with us OECer's in church?

I think it was We chose evil according to the Scriptural account and THEN God chose the path of love in response. I think in the area of where the left path and right path are merging the ability to see both causeways makes it easy to form false connections. But the ability to see that is wholly dependent on having eaten the forbidden fruit.

And I have a good source (not outta my imagination Im mean a real source) for K-T boundary info but the posting direction has gone so far off course that I feel stupid posting it in the midst of everyone chewing on word usage and given the log book it appears that the original poster abandoned the discussion and wouldnt reply anyway. IS THERE AN UGLY FACT IN THE HOUSE? I dont have a problem with them shutting me up-really. I AM a crackpot.

It's a label. I have a varied audience that sees some evidence as 'pseudo-science' and 'science' depending what they believe. Since I would like to focus on the topic rather than be lead away by CTRL+P posts because someone over reacts to my use of the word 'geology' anywhere near the word 'science' it is merely my attempt at defeating this language barrier to call things both. I do notice that a GREAT NUMBER of your posts (that should be fielded) disintegrate and participants are quickly lead away from the thrust of your Op on those simple grounds alone. You have had my sympathy. You will also note that I added a similar label(hypothetical reading) to the line 2 item description to indicate that that is part of my interpretation rather than Scriptural. Yes As far as actual science Im completely unqualified. At best I might a achieve a narrative that points out acts of God and highlights we think about what that means and the tradition of perspective that we have adopted. I dont have to be anyone or anything to point to acts of God , the rest is flowdown and beyond any one's credentials.

The guy nailed up there on the cross next to Him, has about the same amount of time as the OP, and he says "Surely you are the Son of God.." and he has an audience. Jesus says the outcome is.... And this was the thief's only 'work'.

Yes both are quotes after the Flood thus fitting into the reboot of Creation I hypothesized- temporally speaking. You are pointing to potential literal paradoxical information that , lacking other cross exam, would force me to the conclusions I made(as the only structural result possible)...especially when coupled with the underlying belief that Creation is true because it is an Act of God -also forcing an internal narrative to be reconsidered. What Dprprb dreams up to say is meaningless because it is Acts of God that are the thing that infuses meaning into what we read. If that is my only take away from this endeavor them Amen. Hopefully though, I can highlight these paths that He has taken for others, to save of course, in love. With respect to time and temporal constructs Im being heavily influenced at the present time by David Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality" - I wouldnt very often recommend lay literature to anyone because authors typically allow themselves liberties and 'dramatizations' when addressing the hobby level fans. Such extrapolations and wishful talk is completely absent from their professional publications and it is actually misleading. BUT Dr. Deutsch does a very good job of stating what it is and what it is not- thus eliminating the crackpots from his wake.