spiritman

Angels can take on different characteristics, just do a topical study on them and you will find they can differ in how they look

Sure thing, God certainly could have "pushed" the speed of light far beyond C. He just would have had to also make sure to supernaturally keep stars from collapsing and a host of other effects this would have produced. . .and then He would have needed to hide all of that to make it look like C has never changed more than 0.0006% some nine billion years ago. In other words, yes God could have built a deceptive universe in order to trick us. Hello; I'm new here, and a little confused about this conversation. Is the idea being discussed that the speed of light can vary? If so, that's a pretty heavy claim to make. Are you really confident that you are in a position to refute the theory of relativity? The point of calling the speed of light 'c' is that it is a constant. Physicists say we should not think of it as a velocity, but rather as a conversion factor between space and time. That is, it appears to be a LOGICAL constant. Take another logical constant, Pi in geometry. Pi specifies the ratio between cicumference and diameter in a circle. We can be wrong about pi, or not know its true value, but the value itself will not change. We can't change Pi without changing the logical relationship of figures that are defined in terms of each other. Hi Aiwa, welcome; My point is that if the velocity of light has changed any at all, then the speed of light is not constant, here is a link from your own scientific community that states that the speed of light has changed over the years: speed of light changed Since this information came from your own scientific community there shouldn't be a problem with it should there? And if the speed of light has slowed down then in the past it was going at a much higher velocity wasn't it. Which brings me to the conclusion that the Universe is not as old as claimed.

For the most part space is a vacuum. And really, most of the things we know that effect the speed of light slow it down. Whenever light goes into a medium it slows down (based on the mass and density of medium) and in space mediums (like interstellar gas) can absorb the photons (putting it at a complete stop) and release the photon latter at an unknown time. We've seen evidence that of light being slowed down and/or stopping part way. We haven't seen anything to suggest that it goes faster in some places. Under certain special conditions in the lab scientists can make the light go faster than c, but you cannot send information (we see lots of information in light from stellar objects) faster than the speed of light. Really!? Assuming the universe is 10,000 years old, and 13 billion light years is the farthest we can observe, the light needed to go at an average of 1.3 million times faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. If that is what you are really proposing (universe is young), there is nothing to suggest that anything on that magnitude has ever happened. The speed of light in a vacuum is essentially a constant. The problem for you is that scientists can see throughout the history of the universe if the speed of light has changed in any significant way. While the speed of light has changed slightly (less than 1%), there is no evidence of drastic changes needed to void using starlight as one way of determining a minimum age. For our purposes it is essentially unchanged. Scientists don't use the speed of light to determine the age of the universe. It is a good way to establish a minimum age though, and it is a fairly easy concept to get across that can take us back to 13 billion years. From what I understand scientists get the age of the universe by analyzing the cosmic background radiation (CMB) and the expansion rate, which gives us about 13.7 billion years old. Neither of which use the speed of light to find the age of the universe. Dner, Please consider these points: 1. At the begining of creation, God made everything and sped the light up to reach the earth instantly. 2. but over time light was slowed to it's present speed. Therefore since you agree and luker agree that God can supernatural change or interact with the laws of physics, then this is something that needs to be considered. it's not that God is trying to decieve you, but scientists just see things the way they are now because they weren't there in the begining.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you give an example? I think the important thing to notice is that outside of the very early universe (which we simply don't know yet), the speed of light has changed very little. So you admit the speed of light has changed, therefore follow my logic here ( If it has changed once, ) it can change again, And these are my two points: 1. The speed of light can vary depending on it's enviorment. ( there's no telling what kind of enviroments are out there in space) 2. And if the speed of light can change based on it's enviorment, and we don't know all the eviroments out there in space. 3. then it is illogical to assume that light traveling from a great distance, has not interacted with some enviorment to either speed it up or slow it down. The chances that it has not interacted with such an enviroment are astonomical. 4. Therefore we should not assume that the speed of light is constant 5. Therefore it is illogical to use the speed of light in determining the age of the universe.

That clears up nothing except that you clearly didn't understand the article you linked to which is discussing how the fine structure constant (alpha) may have varied slightly in the past which, in turn, could have had a slight effect on the speed of light. The underlying argument I am trying to convey is that everything in this universe is built upon physics, and if you mess with those physics you mess with the whole universe. Messing with the speed of light, for example, to try and get a young universe is going to cause some pretty catastrophic problems elsewhere. If you change the fine structure constant your going to change the strength of the force between all electrically charged particles, I'm really hoping you caught that "all", as in every freaking electrically charged particle in the universe. If you push that value over 4% in either direction stars are no longer physically able to sustain themselves so. . .once again. . .good luck with that. Additionally, you don't seem to realize that if these findings are accurate it would mean that the fine structure constant was 0.0006% smaller 9 billion years ago than it is today. If you're going to propose that light sped up beyond that amount you'll need to take all the findings you just cited and drop kick them into a black hole of confirmation bias. Lurker You just stated that C may have varied in the past, and that this had a slight effect on the speed of light, therefore as I stated before Light speed can vary and is no longer constant, thanks for making my point. I truely believe that if God decided to push the speed of light beyond what you call the 'c" He can do it without tearing up the universe.

Outside of the stuff in the paper I linked to, there's lots of hypotheses about the early universe that deal with very high values for c called VSL models. There is no consensus or majority that c was X amount higher or lower in the past, but scientists are clearly not ruling out the possibility and there is evidence that such may be the case. Here is an interesting article This goes against classical physics and such, but the great thing about science is that nothing is set in stone and it goes wherever the evidence leads. Right now it looks like the evidence suggests that c has changed over time. Our understanding of how the universe works is changing and as long as that change is based on evidence it should be pursued. Then Dner, the question begs to differ why are you holding on to scientific theories that are in conflict to each other? One scientist says one thing then another says something different. Sounds like a bunch of confusion to me!!

What amazes me the most 9ner, is that despite evidence that I have presented to you, by your own scientific community, you choose to cling to some obsolete Ideal that the speed of light is constant. The fact is Light traveling on it's way to earth can pass through who knows what to effect it's speed by the time it gets here. D-9 likely understands that the actual value of c does not change but that light is absorbed and re-emitted by matter which then appears to slow it down. The actual speed of light does not change. If the value of c were to change then the energy output of stars in the past should by drastically different than the energy output today unless, of course, you're going to argue against E=mc^2. . .in which case all I can say is good luck with that. Lurker Ok lurker, I guess I need to clarify my point a little more. Let's say that light leaves a star and is traveling at what scientists call light speed, what is that 186,000 miles/ps. Ok now this light interacts with something within a quarter of its traveling time from the star, this speeds it up to say 300 times the normal speed of light. the travel time would be greatly deminished.

What amazes me the most 9ner, is that despite evidence that I have presented to you, by your own scientific community, you choose to cling to some obsolete Ideal that the speed of light is constant. The fact is Light traveling on it's way to earth can pass through who knows what to effect it's speed by the time it gets here.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733

Nice blog, very good and wise words.

Upon studing Evolution for myself, I have discovered that most Christians understand that there are 2 types of Evolution: 1. Micro Evolution 2. Macro Evolution Micro Evolution is proven to take place on a small scale: For example 2 long haired dogs get dumped off in a hot climate. Over time their off spring no longer need the long hair, so the gene goes dormant. The gene is still there it just doesn't do anything. Macro Evolution: Is considered to be Larger changes which Christians are opposed to. For example Man decending from an ancestor other than human. Macro evolution clearly is counter to the scriptures. Because as Christians we believe that we were created by God from the Dust of the Earth, and Adam and Eve were fully Adult Humans on Day 1 when God created them.

Thanks nebs good article

I like what the cop said; " maybe he will upgrade to paper". :24:

How true Fez, thanks for that insight!!

Nice Josh, I used to have visions when I was younger. I never asked for the interpretation because I always figured God will reveal them in His time. And He did. Looking back at my visions they were future events, and it would have been impossible unless of course God revealed the meaning of the vision for me to know what it meant, because, some of the factors were not in place yet. For example if a person has a vision of what happened at 9/11 before the towers were even built, how would you be able to understand unless God revealed it to you. It sounds to me like your vision maybe a future event involving perhaps a change of power from one country to another. The fact that you refer to the statue of liberity with broken windows, definately seem to indicate some kind of disaster for the United States. Perhaps the Tree represents one country that is rich, then the vulture represents, the riches being taking away and given to another cournty which maybe the second tree you saw. The Pennies, could represent the fruit that the 1st country brought forth, and perhaps, the Gold represent the fruit that the 2nd country brings forth. The room with the 10 men in it seems like a no brainer to me dead on with the book of revelation. Ok well I'm not an interpreter of dreams and never claimed to be . I'm just having fun speculating what it might mean. Blessing to you Bob

I believe the scripture warns against keeping the gospel to ourselves, I mean why are we saved in the first place, just so we can sit around and enjoy the benifits of salvation? I think not, Somewhere a minister, or pastor, or even a friend voluntarily took the time to witness to us about the gospel, we should do no less. As far as the experience and knowledge goes, Sin and salvation are a basic doctrine of scripture, that's the first thing we learn before we even come to Christ, so witnessing about this subject shouldn't be difficult. As for me concerning question I'm asked, If I know the answer; I'll tell you, If I don't, I'll look it up, if I still don't know the answer, which does happen, then I'll simply say I don't know the answer. Matt 5:14-16 (KJV) 14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

That guy didn't kill himself because christians demonized homosexuality, he killed himself because someone taped him in the act and put it out there for the world to see. The people responsible for his death are those who exposed him. My guess is that the guy doing all the blaming is probably gay himself. I wouldn't let this individual get under your skin. He's already got you calling him names. He's not worth stumbling over. Let it go. God will deal with him in His own time. Good response man

Hi everyone, As far as falling away, I'm a firm believer in Santification, and yes the word is in the scripture. Merriam Websters on-line dictionary: Definition of SANCTIFICATION 1: an act of sanctifying 2a : the state of being sanctified b : the state of growing in divine grace as a result of Christian commitment after baptism or conversion. Scripture containing the term Sanctification John 17:19 (KJV) 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth Eph 5:26 (KJV) 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it (The Church) with the washing of water by the word, The ideal here seems very clear, to Sanctify the Church by cleansing us through the word, of God. So in summery; Do Christians always act like Christians, No, Sanctification is a process a work of the Holy Spirit that works in us to helps us be Christ like. We won't be perfect until we reach heaven, we are stil in these fleshly body's. Another scripture I like, talks about the discipline of Christ when we go to far out on a limb: Heb 12:5-8 (NASB) 5 and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, "My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, Nor faint when you are reproved by Him; 6 For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, And He scourges every son whom He receives." 7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. So a good way to tell if you're a true Christian or not is, If you get by with things without discipline if not, then you are a true Christian. I know in my own life, when I go to far out on a limb; God always draws me back to him. Blessings Bob .

I know the feeling, I at times as well have felt lonely as if I don't fit in. Perhaps I'm just too picky about who I associate with. but I do notice, that when I stop having a pity party for himself, and get involved with others situations, a smile a friendly word of encouragement, or a helping hand, I get noticed more. There is an old saying; keep on casting your bread upon the waters, and soon it will come back to you. or is that a song Oh well!!

I agree, Jesus is a gentleman and doesn't force anyone to believe in Him. This would only help to turn people away from Christ.

The problem with the passage is not that it describes a miracle, it's that it describes both the sun and moon as moving relative to the earth when we know that in point of fact the earth moves relative to the sun. This reflects the common geocentric cosmology of the time. Lurker Interesting point of view Lurker; But consider my point of veiw for a second. Let's say that in that era, Joshua knew about the way the heavens moved, I doubt it though considering more than likely if one looks it up, you may find it's more likely that this knowledge did not come into play until around Galieo's time, when the first telescopes where invented. If Joshua thought that the Sun Moved around the earth, and instead God stopped the Earth from moving, would it still not appear even if it were the earth that stopped, that to Joshua it would apprear as if the Sun had stopped? I don't see anywhere here in this passages or surrounding passages where God explains how He did it, do you? Peace and blessings to you Lurker spiritman

Hi bro...No worries, I completely understand that. When I briefly mention it as a so-called contradiction, I simply mean that is how is might appear to some people...of course it isn't a contradiction, as the Bible does not contradict itself, and when it appears that people have found a contradiction, all they have done in many cases is jump to a wrong conclusion and presumed 2+2=5. I think in the case of the two separate geneologies, they are perfectly straight-forward, when you understand that there might be some name differences, and that it is conceivable and acceptable for the writers to skip several generations...they weren't necessarily aiming for a precise account of every single person involved in the geneology, but were giving a condensed version just to demonstrate the physical evidence for Yeshua ben Yosef being of the Royal line of David, as foretold and promised by the Father. This satisfies me...it might not satisfy others, but then it is not something I have ever sought to prove. We are encouraged to be able to give an answer to the hope that is within us. 1 Peter 3: 13 Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, 15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 16 and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. To my mind that does not mean having to dot every i and cross every t....some of us will be more capable at explaining some things than others, some will have a more intellectual approach, others a friendly kind demeanor...others thrusting and challenging....but all of us who know the L-rd have the knowledge of His presence, and can by our very 'born again nature', give an explanation of whom we have believed in and trusted for our redemption. One thing I remember when I was being led to the L-rd over a period of several years...I had many questions, which I thought were very reasonable, and with them I was able to fend off anything getting too close and personal....it was much easier to talk about the innocent babies who die without a chance of knowing G-d, or why He should allow so much suffering in the world through starvation and natural disasters, than to have my own sinful nature challenged, and the brevity of life high-lighted. When the Spirit of G-d finally pierces a persons hard rebellious heart full of pride and self-justification...then all the questions and prior concerns become inconsequencial in the light of the need to repent and receive His forgiveness, and what was once so desperately important, vanishes with the joy of knowing His love. That doesn't mean our questions, hopes, and fears are unimportant....but it brings home what is truly important, and the vast difference between just words and ideas, compared to the One who has Words of Eternal Life....and who brings about a complete change of heart.....in fact a New heart. Hi Brother, I totally agree with you. I guess the main reason why I chose your post to respond to this, is because I heard this Genology thing mentioned several times, and I was concerned that there might be a new believer reading about it. I have a habit of when I'm reading these posts, thinking things like; " What if a new believer is reading this and they wonder about it." So when I don't see an indepth explaination then I try and post one. I should have replied more to D-9 then, you sorry brother. I have read many of your posts and consider you a well versed Christian in the faith. God Bless you. Spiritman

With Jesus there are two genealogies and they don't line up with the other, so by default at least one of them is fictitious. And why are so many details given about the lives of people who obviously didn't exist in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey? Apparently such detail was significant enough to include it in the literature. There are many roles people take on in literature and in the Bible. A good way to show how great a person was in their role was through a story about them. And as many cultures combined history and mythology so too did the Hebrews. I think many of us have a different approach to Scripture. When something in the Bible appears to be unclear, not possible, a contradiction or an apparent mistake, I have learnt that either I do not understand the passage in its proper context, or that the full message of what is being said eludes me...and like many others I have a number of things on the back-burner that I may not find an answer to in my life-time, but which do not flummox me or cause me to in any way be cautious about the veracity of Scripture. What I do not do, and am not prepared to do, is to side with human reasoning and logic, against Scripture, so that I bring it down to the limited level of my own understanding. In this instance concerning the two recorded geneologies, there are various attempts found to make sense of them in a Jewish context, that can be accessed on the internet, together with a plethora of examples that try to use this apparent anomaly to discredit the Bible, mostly utilised by Atheistic sites. Somewhere in between are those like yourself, who because of your overall approach to Scripture are happy enough to call one or both fallacious and leave it at that....to me this emasculates the import and authority of Scripture watering it down to a weak, insipid and ineffective collection of writings that have some good parts to them, but are rife with inconsistancies. This is in sharp contrast to what we find in Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. I am also reminded of this verse in Ecc 7:29 "Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices." I would also like to reiterate that the Bible has many different types of writing contained in it, some historical, some poetic, some allegorical, some prophetic etc etc, but we cannot try and ascribe our own definitions to a section if we take it out of context because it would not make sense in the proper understanding of Scripture.... For example to look at the Ark and describe it as allegorical would be non-sensical as it is written as historical narrative, and would break the rules for proper textual exergesis. Similarly the geneology of Jesus is contained in a historical eye-witness perspective...and staying with the thought you had earlier....why would G-d put it there just to deceive or diliberately fudge the issue. I know many of us (me included) are happy enough to leave it there and just believe that Jesus was descended from David as the Bible declares, and I don't feel any need to try and explain why Matthew seems to contradict Luke...I know and believe.... it just seems that way. That doesn't mean putting ones head in the sand...it means there are numerous issues that one could spend ones whole life challenging and arguing about, but it often proves fruitless and faithless, feeding intellectual curiosity while neglecting the spirit. There are many side-tracks....many inventions. There is nothing edifying about trying to disprove/discredit Scripture, or disbelieving what has been written in order to satisfy the intellect when it is rooted in the flesh and through pride seeks answers over what G-d has declared and promised....that is not living by faith...it is living in disbelief, and to my mind is clearly a house built upon sand. Hi Botz, The explaintion of the so called contradiction of the two genealogies, is not a contradiction at all. It's quite simple really if one thinks about it. You have two different Individuals experiencing the same thing, Even though they are experiencing the same thing, there will be diffferences in their intepretations. Matthew will place details in his writings that he feels are important leaving some out, that he feels aren't. And Luke will do the same. Try this experiment. Ask one of your family members or a friend to look at an object with you make it have as much detail as possible, then each of you write down what you noticed about that object. You both looked at the same object, but more than likely you both will have differences in your observations.

With Jesus there are two genealogies and they don't line up with the other, so by default at least one of them is fictitious. And why are so many details given about the lives of people who obviously didn't exist in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey? Apparently such detail was significant enough to include it in the literature. There are many roles people take on in literature and in the Bible. A good way to show how great a person was in their role was through a story about them. And as many cultures combined history and mythology so too did the Hebrews. D-9ner, thanks for answering my comments. It probably has become obvious to you by now that I'm an young earth creationist. The simple reasons are as follows: 1. I believe that the word of God is literal, and not some fictitious literure. 2. The over whelming evidence that backs YEC up. For example there are plenty of Historians that confirm the existence of most or all of the people listed in the Bible, that you claim are fictitious. Here is just a sample. Book title: The New complete works of Josephus Bio: Josephus was a First century jew who was a Diplomat, general, and Historian. Josephus was Born in 37 A.D four years after Jesus was crucified. Josephus wrote several books: 1. The Jewish War, 2. Jewish Antiquities, the Life, 3. Against Apion. Examples of Josephus Historical writings about Historical figures: Book: the New complete works of Josephus: Book 18; chapter 3 verse 3. Josephus writes: " Now there was about this time Jesus a wise man. if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to Him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men that loved hm at the first did not forsake him as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning Him are not extinct at this day. Book : The New complete works of Josphus Book 1; chapter 6 verse 5: Josphus writes: I will now treat of the Hebrews. The son of Peleg, whose father was eber, was Reu whose son was Serug. to whom was born Nahor; whose son was Terah, who was the father of Abraham, who accordingly was the tenth from Noah and was born in the two hundred and ninety-second year after the Deludge. For Terah begat Baram in his seventieth year Nahor begat Haran when he was one hundred and twenty years old. Here are some other people that you claim to be fictitious, that this Historian lists as real people: Milcah, Uz Buz, Kemuel, Kesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph, Bethuel, Reumah, Maacah, Tebah, Laban. This list goes on but for time sake I will just write the short version I might be as bold to suggest that before you believe everything that some tell you, that you do research, and look it up for yourself. Because there is an old Bible proverb that says: If the Blind lead the Blind they will both fall into a ditch. Peace and Blessings Spiritman

D-9ner, thanks for the discussion, As usual, nothings changed, The Evolutionary theories are still full of speculation, and guessing games. I've enjoyed our convo. see ya on the boards. Spiritman