My Theory on the Big Bang, Genesis Creation, and Re-creation

reply to post by Locoman8


I can't agree. The hebrew term "satan" means accuser and hinderer. Its used numerous times in the Bible in reference to more than just "The Satan". I just provided a verse from Numbers that shows this use. The Angel of the L-rd isn't being deceptive in the verse. In fact most of the others uses, like the one in Numbers, refer to the Hindrance or Adversity aspect of the word.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Locoman8

 

I can't agree. The hebrew term "satan" means accuser and hinderer. Its used numerous times in the Bible in reference to more than just "The Satan". I just provided a verse from Numbers that shows this use. The Angel of the L-rd isn't being deceptive in the verse. In fact most of the others uses, like the one in Numbers, refer to the Hindrance or Adversity aspect of the word.

hin·der 1 (hndr)
v. hin·dered, hin·der·ing, hin·ders
v.tr.
1. To be or get in the way of.
2. To obstruct or delay the progress of.
v.intr.
To interfere with action or progress.


de·ceive (d-sv)
v. de·ceived, de·ceiv·ing, de·ceives
v.tr.
1. To cause to believe what is not true; mislead.
2. Archaic To catch by guile; ensnare.
v.intr.
1. To practice deceit.
2. To give a false impression: appearances can deceive.

These definitions are from www.freedictionary.com

So to hinder is to interfere or slow down progress. To deceive is to mislead. Misleading someone causes interference of that person's progress. The two meanings are interchangeable for Satan if you really think about it. Either way, I don't want to get caught up on the meaning of satan's name. Let's get back to the big bang, creation, and recreation. You don't have to agree, but I'd rather not stall the thread on this matter.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


There was never a serpent (or snake) in the Garden of Eden. The Hebrew word that was used is nachash, which can be interpreted in two different ways. It can refer to 'one that shines' or 'one that whispers'. Eve was never visited by a serpent, the myth actually involved a 'shiny whispering figure'. Just one example of the many critical mistranslations from the original version.

To the OP; I think we made it quite clear in your last thread that Genesis did not describe creation, but re-creation, much like other corroborating myths.

reply to post by serbsta


Thank you for explaining the thing about the snake. Thank you for your common sense of biblical scripture. Thanks for supporting the thread.

reply to post by Locoman8
Explanation: RE:"If you don't agree, please... I beg of you to explain how the "Big Bang" actually happened. What was the cause of the Big Bang? I have yet to hear evolutionists, scientists or athiests to explain the cause of all things."

The simplest and most accurate LOGIC based answer is "OBSERVATION BY AN OBSERVER!".

Here is why....

Timeline:

Originally posted by serbsta
reply to post by MikeboydUS

 

There was never a serpent (or snake) in the Garden of Eden. The Hebrew word that was used is nachash, which can be interpreted in two different ways. It can refer to 'one that shines' or 'one that whispers'. Eve was never visited by a serpent, the myth actually involved a 'shiny whispering figure'. Just one example of the many critical mistranslations from the original version.

To the OP; I think we made it quite clear in your last thread that Genesis did not describe creation, but re-creation, much like other corroborating myths.

You do realize the whisper is actually "Hiss".

Nachash is used for serpents here: Gen 3:1, Gen 3:2, Gen 3:4, Gen 3:13, Gen 3:14, Gen 49:17, Exo 4:3, Exo 7:15, Num 21:9, Num 21:9, Num 21:9, 2 Ki 18:4, Job 26:13, Psa 58:4, Psa 140:3, Prov 23:32, Prov 30:19, Eccl 10:8, Eccl 10:11, Isa 27:1, Isa 27:1, Jer 46:22, Amos 5:19, Amos 9:3, Micah 7:17 Isa 14:29, Isa 65:25 Num 21:6, Num 21:7, Deu 8:15, Jer 8:17

What you are telling me makes no sense, especially in regards to Aaron's rod and the Bronze serpent used by Moses.

It clearly says in Genesis 3:1 that the Nachash is the most cunning of the creatures of the ground (soil).

והנחש היה ערום מכל חית השדה אשר עשה יהוה אלהים ויאמר אל האשה אף כי אמר אלהים לא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן׃

This shining one stuff is nonsense, just like the Isaiah 14 nonsense.

[edit on 1/1/10 by MikeboydUS]

reply to post by Locoman8

Science says there was a "Big Bang" that happened which birthed the universe. Question to all.... Since there has to be a cause to every effect, what was the cause of the "Big Bang?"

The Big Bang Theory is a load of hogwash in my opinion. If we assume a constant speed of light whilst ignoring that the electromagnetic spectrum can be perturbed by matter as it travels such vast distances across the cosmos, then yes, we can deduce a beginning to the universe. Yet, this is not even the only assumption we have to make in order to deduce a big bang event. There are many more required assumptions and as of late many new invented unseens are becoming required in order to hang onto a dying model of the universe.

My theory is that the first line of the bible "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." To me there is proof that the genesis creation account could have begun through God's "Big Bang" creation.

I don't personally believe in God, but I have my own idea for what reality is.

Between verses 1 and 2 in the bible, there is a huge time gap. You'll notice that the earth was void and desolate. There was, however, water on the planet before God began the creation of life on the planet. This, in my opinion, could have been a result of a great cosmic spiritual battle between God and Satan AFTER a previous life on earth... Cambrians, Dinosaurs, Prehistoric Mammals, etc.... Comets hitting the earth, the result of the massive extinction of dinosaurs could have been the result of a spiritual battle. When we read of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, we see Satan as a serpent, meaning that he was already cast down to earth after trying to overtake the throne of God in heaven.

I've never gleaned that at all from Genesis. Can you cite the relevant verses and give a detail explanation as to how they might imply what your saying?

What we read in Genesis after 1:1 is a RE-CREATION account. This recreation results in the beginning of mankind on earth 6000 years ago. The earth is billions of years old, but mankind is only about 6000 years old. This is my explanation of the "Big Bang Theory", the "Old earth intelligent design theory" and a debunking of the "Young Earth intelligent design theory". Anyone have objection to this possibility?

Technically, modern man is roughly thirty thousand years old, but the homo species is roughly two-hundred and fifty thousand years old. I personally think the re-telling in genesis was a mistake that never got edited out. It gives the same basic account as in the first telling, but then makes a few subtle changes in the second.

If you don't agree, please... I beg of you to explain how the "Big Bang" actually happened. What was the cause of the Big Bang?

The big bang could not have happened. A gravitational singularity is a paradox in itself. How can something with such an immense gravitational field where nothing can escape suddenly 'explode' or expand out allowing everything to escape? I've never heard any explanation for how that happens, only that it did happen. Well, I suppose they call it the "inflationary period", but they don't describe any mechanism for how such a gravitationally dense object can undergo inflation.

I have yet to hear evolutionists, scientists or athiests to explain the cause of all things.

At the same time, I've never heard any really good explanation as to why the monotheistic deity could exist, would create, or why it creates. Why it's the only creator or how it arose. Equally, I don't understand the concept of readily believing in an eternal creator that exists without needing to be created, but then not believing in a reality that eternally exists without needing to be created. I see no signs of a deity other than in the written works of ancient man looking for answers to the unknown.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


You do realize that nachash is both an adjective and a noun? The 'shining' is not nonsense, it is the meaning of the adjective form of the word. Michael Heiser (PhD) puts it nicely in this document here. The adjective form of the word is used quite a lot throughout the New Testament, always in translation as being something that shines, such as 'shiny brass' or 'bright brass'.

Originally posted by Locoman8

What was the cause of the Big Bang?

If you must know God entered an atom and couldn't get out again and so exploded outward, basically he was duped by the devil into doing so.

So what we have know is God in the form of a universe. This is why we need a black hole of something similar to bring us all into oneness again.

And yes consciousness existed before the big bang.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by pharaohmoan]

Thanks for your thread.

You're on to something, because most people that deny the Biblical time line of Earth, conveniently do so because they have a linear view of time.

The gap you mention may be because Day 1 can actually be the day the Big Bang actually occurred. This day could have lasted almost one billion years with each subsequent day lasting considerably less than the previous, until eventually time finally becomes linear.

Think of time more as a parabola versus a straight line.

Time is relative, based on who keeps track of it.
Another example, if you travel through space at the speed of light for one year, then come back home, all your loved would have aged a lot more than that one year you were away.

Originally posted by serbsta
reply to post by MikeboydUS

 

You do realize that nachash is both an adjective and a noun? The 'shining' is not nonsense, it is the meaning of the adjective form of the word. Michael Heiser (PhD) puts it nicely in this document here. The adjective form of the word is used quite a lot throughout the New Testament, always in translation as being something that shines, such as 'shiny brass' or 'bright brass'.

I like some of Dr. Heiser's work. I would like to ask him what about the rest of the sentence. The whole sentence in context would still make it sound like a creature of the ground or soil. Personally I don't think it was an animal from the order serpentes, but something different. Something like the Tannin. In the book of Exodus, Nachash and Tannin are used interchangeably. In Genesis 1:21 the Tannin are created. Modern translations render them as whales or crocodiles, but thats not correct. They are usually translated in the Greek to Drakon.

Interestingly, the Greek word Drakon also has its roots in something that gleams or flashes making it easily seen or visible.

[edit on 2/1/10 by MikeboydUS]

reply to post by Alxandro

You're on to something, because most people that deny the Biblical time line of Earth, conveniently do so because they have a linear view of time.

There is no other view of "time". Time itself does not exist. A lot of people don't really understand such concepts of 'time' and 'energy'. These aren't properties of the universe that exist of their own accord.

Another example, if you travel through space at the speed of light for one year, then come back home, all your loved would have aged a lot more than that one year you were away.

Time dilation has not been proven, we don't actually know if such a thing would occur or not. Time itself doesn't even exist and is nothing more than a useful concept.

reply to post by sirnex




The GPS constellation has to be continually corrected due to gravitational time dilation.

Source: Simply Einstein: relativity demystified By Richard Wolfson
books.google.com...=onepage&q=%22gravitational %20time%20dilation%20%22&f=false

General relativity in the global positioning system
www.phys.lsu.edu...

Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System
www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu...

The first experiment confirming the effects of time dilation was in 1971 with the use of aircraft and atomic clocks. It was known as the Hafele and Keating Experiment.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...








[edit on 2/1/10 by MikeboydUS]

reply to post by MikeboydUS

The GPS constellation has to be continually corrected due to gravitational time dilation.

You still believe in GR/SR??? That's cute.

The first experiment confirming the effects of time dilation was in 1971 with the use of aircraft and atomic clocks. It was known as the Hafele and Keating Experiment.

A.G. Kelly laid that one to rest back in '96.

reply to post by sirnex


The US Naval Observatory deals with it on a daily basis, involving corrections for the GPS constellation. For them and many others the dilation is an everyday factor.

So tell me is there a "Time Dilation Conspiracy"?

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by sirnex

 

The US Naval Observatory deals with it on a daily basis, involving corrections for the GPS constellation. For them and many others the dilation is an everyday factor.

So tell me is there a "Time Dilation Conspiracy"?

No, no conspiracy that I know of. The two methods of correction don't really rely on "time dilation" from what I can gather. It's more of, still being under the impression that the Einstein-ian model of the universe is correct. It's cute, but gravity to prove gravity and equating space to a rubber sheet and massive bodies as bowling balls.... Let us also not forget that the inventor of the atomic clock was also disenchanted with the inadequacies of the experiments using "his" clocks to prove time dilation. I noticed you didn't have anything to say about A.G. Kelly as well.

so cute some unknown random in the world honestly thinks he is smarter then Einstein when he probably hasn't even graduated from grade school hahahahaha


we ALL believe you don't worry!!!!

roflllllllllllllmaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

reply to post by sirnex


Everybody's a critic, huh? I can't stand it when people feel smarter and don't show the proof. Mikeboy gave you a number of links to look at. What do you have? Just asking.

reply to post by Gakus


If you keep up on top of current science, they're now saying time itself doesn't exist. Something I've been trying to say for years now.

reply to post by Locoman8

Everybody's a critic, huh? I can't stand it when people feel smarter and don't show the proof. Mikeboy gave you a number of links to look at. What do you have? Just asking.

The quality of the original results has however been criticized. According to a 1996 reexemination of the data by A. G. Kelly, the final published outcome had to be averaged in a biased way in order to claim such a high precision.[7] Also, Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, published an article in 1988 in which he discussed the (in his opinion) inadequate accuracy of the experiment.

source

More on 'time does not exist' link

How can GPS correct for something that doesn't exist? That's all I'm saying.

*edit

Here's a paper on Einstein's derivation of time dilation: link

[edit on 4-1-2010 by sirnex]