A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

Bill White · 2004-04-23 22:34:22

Were the six days of Gensis intended to describe time in the chronological sense (chronos) or the kairotic sense?

If time is measured in the kairic sense, can anyone really say how much time passed in the strict chronological sense? Within kairos isn't chronos essentially meaningless anyway? Perhaps the word "day" was chosen as a metaphor for what simply cannot be expressed in human language, that being the time before "time" came to be?

Anyway, why does it matter?

The essential truths of the Gospels stand unchallenged whether the cosmos is 6000 years old or 12 billion years old. And the essential truths remain unchanged even if our distant ancestors were slime molds and later precursor apes.

ikester7579 · 2004-04-23 22:54:39

Genesis 1:5 sums it up:
Ge 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
There are three references to a day being a day. The seperation of light from darkness, and the light being called a day. There was no light for 4 billion years straight, was there? Then there another reference to different times of that day, the first day. Evening and morning. Then there the reference to what it all adds up to be, the first day.

The first mention of the number 100 is in Genesis 5:3, And Adam lived an HUNDRED and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
The first mention of the word thousand is in Genesis 20:16, And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a THOUSAND pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved.

And the first mention of the number million is in Genesis 24:60, And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of MILLIONs, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.
Notice that another number is added. What is a thousand times a million? 1 Billion?

This shows that when the need for a huge number is needed and the word billion was not around yet. God had a way to express it.
So if 6 days were supposed to be 4 billion years, it would have been written as such.

clark · 2004-04-26 12:55:46

What do you think the actual age of the Earth or the Universe tells you about God?

GraemeSkinner · 2004-04-26 13:13:39

What do you think the actual age of the Earth or the Universe tells you about God?

She should have stopped paying life insurance years ago.
(Breaking my cardinal rule for the second time this year - never discuss religion or politics).

Graeme

ikester7579 · 2004-04-26 22:38:44

What do you think the actual age of the Earth or the Universe tells you about God?

It tells me that somethings man will never accept. I believe that things look old as a by-product of quick creation. Since we cannot test this, it can only come from what seems to fit.

Example: Any element that is needed in a certain stage for creation, God could speak into existence and use it. An element or material that would normally take millions or even billions of years to be in the state that it is in when we examine it today. I believe God left this evidence here as His testament to His power even over time. Why? Because He created time. But because scientists won't factor in creation or a creator, they look at what they find as physical evidence as an as is evidence. In other words, it is what it is with out devine intervention.
You see, most things dated are right on the money about what age something might be. But when any other intervention, such as God, is factored out. The only conclusion is what you see. And when your judging using only one direction(no other way) for only one conclusion(origins without God), then what you see is what you get.

I'm not saying the dating methods are off. It's when you don't factor in the capabilities of God, then God does not fit.

Bill White · 2004-04-27 06:40:16

What do you think the actual age of the Earth or the Universe tells you about God?
It tells me that somethings man will never accept. I believe that things look old as a by-product of quick creation. Since we cannot test this, it can only come from what seems to fit.
Example: Any element that is needed in a certain stage for creation, God could speak into existence and use it. An element or material that would normally take millions or even billions of years to be in the state that it is in when we examine it today. I believe God left this evidence here as His testament to His power even over time. Why? Because He created time. But because scientists won't factor in creation or a creator, they look at what they find as physical evidence as an as is evidence. In other words, it is what it is with out devine intervention.
You see, most things dated are right on the money about what age something might be. But when any other intervention, such as God, is factored out. The only conclusion is what you see. And when your judging using only one direction(no other way) for only one conclusion(origins without God), then what you see is what you get.
I'm not saying the dating methods are off. It's when you don't factor in the capabilities of God, then God does not fit.

Why would God seek to deceive us?

clark · 2004-04-27 08:38:09

Ah, I finally understand.

The circle will hold.

The basis of your belief is founded on the assumption that the Bible is the word of God. In this book, it explains that the Earth was created by God; and men, using the history contained within the Bible, have ascertained the date of creation (some 6,000 years ago based on the listed genealogy contained within the Bible).

Science is incapable of proving, or disproving this theory, since it can only measure the work of God, and God, in his infinite wisdom, created the Universe with constant laws. These laws have the unfortunate side effect of not allowing Man to see beyond the rules of creation (that God placed upon the Universe so Man could understand His work, and perhaps appreciate it on Sunday's).

Now, since Science cannot prove or disprove this theory, we can rest assured that the Earth is no older than 6,000 years becuase it has been ascertained, by Man, based on the Word of God contained within the Bible. No amount of Science can ever prove that the Bible is wrong, in any way. The Bible cannot be wrong, even if Science and our own eyes tell us otherwise.

What utter, utter, nonsense. But I suppose it makes sense.

Time to pull the rip cord. [foosh!]

ikester7579 · 2004-04-27 22:35:46

Ah, I finally understand.
The circle will hold.
The basis of your belief is founded on the assumption that the Bible is the word of God. In this book, it explains that the Earth was created by God; and men, using the history contained within the Bible, have ascertained the date of creation (some 6,000 years ago based on the listed genealogy contained within the Bible).
Science is incapable of proving, or disproving this theory, since it can only measure the work of God, and God, in his infinite wisdom, created the Universe with constant laws. These laws have the unfortunate side effect of not allowing Man to see beyond the rules of creation (that God placed upon the Universe so Man could understand His work, and perhaps appreciate it on Sunday's).
Now, since Science cannot prove or disprove this theory, we can rest assured that the Earth is no older than 6,000 years becuase it has been ascertained, by Man, based on the Word of God contained within the Bible. No amount of Science can ever prove that the Bible is wrong, in any way. The Bible cannot be wrong, even if Science and our own eyes tell us otherwise.
What utter, utter, nonsense. But I suppose it makes sense.
Time to pull the rip cord. [foosh!]

The creation is not written in scientific format so therefore it is not scientific. Besides, how can a God be scientific when no laws of science apply?
Can you explain the laws of eternity? I can't.
Can you explain the laws of speaking something into existence? I can't.
What this is more or less saying, there are laws of things that we do not know of. Of things we cannot see.

Example: It is said by some creation scientist that creation was something to do with frenquency. The frenquency of God's voice for each thing He created. Science is just now started to learn that certain sounds at certain frequencies can destroy or create what was not there.
Like a singer hitting a high c note can destroys glass or crystal. Most water vaporizers today use a frequency to turn water into vapor.
Altering the frequency of light has an effect as shown here: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.j … ns99993750
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.j … ns99993581
There's even something called stop light technology that will make the transfer of information through computers, from one hardware to another not measurable by todays standards. This will also help in quatum computing. Your desktop pc will have the speed of a supercomputer.... Well almost.
Through our break throughs in this field of technology, I believe we will find out how God did create. But because we don't know about it yet, does not mean it did not happen. It's only a matter of time before someone figures this out.

Euler · 2004-04-27 22:53:29

If the Earth does not exist, then the Earth's atmosphere does not exist. If the atmosphere does not exist, sound waves will not be able to be transmitted through it. So how could the sound waves have existed if there is no medium in which to transmit them?

The creation is not written in scientific format so therefore it is not scientific. Besides, how can a God be scientific when no laws of science apply?

You seem to be saying here that science can not be trusted for anything.

Through our break throughs in this field of technology, I believe we will find out how God did create

Here you seem to be saying that science will explain everything. Aren't you contradicting yourself?

ikester7579 · 2004-04-27 22:56:20

What do you think the actual age of the Earth or the Universe tells you about God?
It tells me that somethings man will never accept. I believe that things look old as a by-product of quick creation. Since we cannot test this, it can only come from what seems to fit.
Example: Any element that is needed in a certain stage for creation, God could speak into existence and use it. An element or material that would normally take millions or even billions of years to be in the state that it is in when we examine it today. I believe God left this evidence here as His testament to His power even over time. Why? Because He created time. But because scientists won't factor in creation or a creator, they look at what they find as physical evidence as an as is evidence. In other words, it is what it is with out devine intervention.
You see, most things dated are right on the money about what age something might be. But when any other intervention, such as God, is factored out. The only conclusion is what you see. And when your judging using only one direction(no other way) for only one conclusion(origins without God), then what you see is what you get.
I'm not saying the dating methods are off. It's when you don't factor in the capabilities of God, then God does not fit.
Why would God seek to deceive us?

The deception that there is, is our own. When we explain scientific theories, do we include God? Name one theory that even remotely suggest a creator? Why not? And because we leave God out of everything science finds, how would God fit in today's science?
I'm often told that alot of great scientists were christians. And what would science say to those christian scientists if they were alive today, with their views of God? This is why there is a seperation of scientists.
1).You have those who believe in science and it's findings and theories only.
2) You have those who dable in a belief of God but accept science over God (there are varying degrees of how much of each side a person will accept from either side in this catagory).
3) Then you have those who believe only in God and approach all of science from that view.

Science used to not be this way. But there are those who decided that God does not belong. So a seperation was needed and was done. In upon doing so, other views or theories had to support a non-God origin of life and the begining of everything. And so this is where we are at.
Your either in the 1 or 2 catagory. I'm in the number 3 catagory which won't work with 1 or 2 because I won't compromise the word of God. It's not an arrogant stance, it is what I believe and have faith in.

But I also know that God gives us all choices. You may choose the 1 or 2 catagory. That's fine because that is your choice. Just as I choose number 3.

ikester7579 · 2004-04-27 23:01:40

If the Earth does not exist, then the Earth's atmosphere does not exist. If the atmosphere does not exist, sound waves will not be able to be transmitted through it. So how could the sound waves have existed if there is no medium in which to transmit them?
The creation is not written in scientific format so therefore it is not scientific. Besides, how can a God be scientific when no laws of science apply?
You seem to be saying here that science can not be trusted for anything.
Through our break throughs in this field of technology, I believe we will find out how God did create
Here you seem to be saying that science will explain everything. Aren't you contradicting yourself?

Lol, your reading to much into everything I say. I'm not attacking science. I'm saying that science does not know it all. And when they make this break through in what the formulation is for frequencies and all that can be done. I think we will find out how God created.
If frequencies can't travel through space, then how do we communicate into space? Whether it's through microwaves or what ever, it still requires a frequency of some sort to do it.

Euler · 2004-04-27 23:47:23

If frequencies can't travel through space, then how do we communicate into space? Whether it's through microwaves or what ever, it still requires a frequency of some sort to do it.

Electromagnetic waves (radio, microwaves, infrared, light, UV, X-rays, gamma-rays) travel through space. In addition particles of matter can be created is sufficiently high-energy electromagnetic wave are sufficiently concentrated. This also creates corresponding particles of antimatter which tend to destroy the matter particles, but that is probably not an insoluble problem. While I am not convinced that this is what happened, it is certainly an interesting theory.

ikester7579 · 2004-04-28 03:14:21

If frequencies can't travel through space, then how do we communicate into space? Whether it's through microwaves or what ever, it still requires a frequency of some sort to do it.
Electromagnetic waves (radio, microwaves, infrared, light, UV, X-rays, gamma-rays) travel through space. In addition particles of matter can be created is sufficiently high-energy electromagnetic wave are sufficiently concentrated. This also creates corresponding particles of antimatter which tend to destroy the matter particles, but that is probably not an insoluble problem. While I am not convinced that this is what happened, it is certainly an interesting theory.

Just as a note on Electromagnetic Waves. There's a machine currently still in the testing stages. This machine is capable of diagnosing the human body at the cellural level. You see, each cell, blood cells or tissue cells, produces it's own frequency. This also goes for cells like cancer etc... that produce there own frequency as well. This machine can detect damaging cells , like cancer, way before even medical science. How? Currently, all your cells in your body add up to one unique frequency that is yours only. This is because no one on earth has the same amount(number) of each different cell that's in your body. This machine seperates each frequency of each cell.
Example: Most of the common cancer cell frequencies are now known through experiments with this machine. If you have a few of these cancer cells, the machine can seperate the frequency and come up with a positive for having it(which ever kind it is). It even has a scale from 1-10, telling the tester how bad(how many cells) it is. This testing can all be done within a few minutes or a couple of hours. There also finding out that the machine can also detect all kinds of deseases and identifies them by their frequency.
What is hopeful is that it is believed that a alternative frequency can be found for each desease which would kill it or fix it through the bodies immune system.

dicktice · 2004-04-28 09:50:50

You really must define the frequency of what you are writing about, if you want constructive replies, e.g.: What are the emission sources of the electromagnetic-frequency wavelengths you mean? I haven't a clue from what you've written. So take a flyer at it explaining what you mean: It could lead to an interesting dialogue.

ikester7579 · 2004-04-28 21:04:22

I really don't know the technical end of how the machine works. Besides, the people I know that's working on this project told me it was best not to give out to much info because someone could actually hurt themselfs trying to duplicate what their doing. But I will give you a couple of the cancer frequencies found.
Sarcoma 20,080.
Carcinoma (they have found tree frequencies for this one, which could mean three different types) 21,208 86,160 212,280. I can't tell you what band or range the frequency is.

It's not just the frequency that works. It's also it's strength. To much electrical stimulation can actually make cancer cells grow much quicker. So these machines put out a very low strength of the frequency. It has not affected the out come of each test. And so far the machine is more acurate in detecting cancer and detecting what type.

The doctor that came up with the idea works in Germany. He was doing studies on the electrical current of the nervous system of the human body when he came up with the idea of a machine to do this. He says that it was so simple that he wonders why no one else ever thought this up.
Right now it's the research and developement that is taken so long. Testing for frequencies and finding but not knowing what they are.

They are even testing it on plants. And finding that certain frequencies make them grow bigger and have bigger yeild. This idea actually came from a farmer who had some scientific knowlege. He took the frequency of a bird that chirped early every morning and put that frequency on loud speakers and pointed it at his corn field. He found that his corn grew faster and had a bigger yield and the stocks were stronger. Upon further and more indepth testing of what was going on, they found that the corn had openings on the stock that would open wider when this frenquency was present. Allowing the plant to absorb more CO2 and O2 .

This is why I believe we are on the tip of finding out alot more through this frequency testing.

You may want more technical info. I'm sorry there's not much more I can tell you.

dicktice · 2004-04-29 07:41:10

Thanks. How about posting a reference or two, or something to "Google"?

Alt2War · 2004-04-30 12:40:30

Thanks. How about posting a reference or two, or something to "Google"?

I'm working on a patent for my Jesus Juce™ Plant Fertilizer

Algol · 2004-05-02 12:13:12

ok.......

If God is all powerfull (which im not contesting)

and can 'speak' anything into existence

Why did it take him six days?

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 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.

Doesnt sound like a days work to me - more like 30 seconds. But if he didnt rest till the 7th day, what was he doing for the rest of the time?

Or maybe God didnt tell us everything, maybe he just wanted to get across the point that he made everything, and he did it in stages, and it was actually quite hard and he was proud of his little project and he didnt want us to get the impression that he had rushed things or cut any corners?

Palomar · 2004-05-02 13:15:24

I'm saying that science does not know it all.

*Science doesn't claim to know it all...(unlike religion).

Science -doesn't- expect/demand/insist people simply accept this or that as being "the truth" just because it says so...(unlike religion). Science isn't based on one tome put together by questionable historians with a definite bias hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Science moves forward, to learn and grow and discover; it is active. Religion is stagnation.

And because we leave God out of everything science finds

*Prove there is a God, just like it's been proven the Earth orbits around the Sun.

You can't, so you have to try to convince others to "have faith," as if blind and unchallenged trust that a thing *is*, is a virtue.

You're entitled to have your faith and beliefs; I can believe there are pink elephants under the clouds of Neptune, but without proof to back up my claims, why should I expect people to take my word for it or accept it "on faith"?

All religions in the world, no matter how they differ (sometimes dramatically), claim to be in possession of THE absolute, undisputed truth. So who is wrong? And why? By what standard? Your subjectivist beliefs.

Ah well. Brick wall again.

--Cindy

~Eternal~ · 2004-05-02 13:22:21

I warned you didn't I :<

Shaun Barrett · 2004-05-02 19:03:57

That 'cell frequency' diagnostic test is getting close to the rotating crystal contraption Dr. McCoy used on "Star Trek" to work out in a jiffy what was wrong with crew members of the Enterprise.
Who knows? Maybe the German guy is on to something.

It's difficult, though, to imagine how a machine detecting various frequencies of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) could track down the individual radiation emanating from one or a few particular atoms in one or a few particular cells in a human body. I don't know how many cells there are in an average human, nor how many atoms there are in an average human cell, but it's gonna be a big number!
All atoms, at temperatures above absolute zero, emit EMR (infra-red and radio waves, for example). So this new machine will be picking up EMR from atoms in the person being examined, EMR from the atoms in the machine itself, EMR from the air molecules in the room, EMR from outer space, even EMR from the fillings in the doctor's teeth! If it's sensitive enough to focus on radiation from the atoms in small groups of cancerous cells deep inside a human body, it'll pick up radiation from everywhere.
Wouldn't it be tricky to eliminate all the background emissions and get an accurate reading on the problem areas?
???

Algol · 2004-05-03 05:05:56

According to the YEC HEADQUARTERS the average person has 75 trillion cells.

You should read this, its pretty funny.

http://yecheadquarters.org/catalog1.2.html]LOL

ikester7579 · 2004-05-03 05:17:13

Sorry for not getting back sooner. Pc got a virus. E-mail type called randex. Luckily I back up the important files just last week so did not lose much. Then upon getting my pc back up and on the internet, got another one through a download during updates .
But was able to go into safe mode and delete it. So all is fine now.
From the responces I see so far. It was a waste of time to even mention this machine. But there is a simular machine already on the market. It's capablilities are not as good. But since you want to see some proof. http://www.rifehealth.com/]rife machine
Anyway, the rife machine has been used by people who made claims to rip people off. Saying it can cure most anything not knowing that the rife machine is shipped sometimes off frequency. Along with to strong(stength) of a frequency which can stimulate cancer cells and make them grow rapidly. but that's what research and developement is for and I believe they released this machine before it was tested throughly.

ikester7579 · 2004-05-03 05:19:49

According to the YEC HEADQUARTERS the average person has 75 trillion cells.
You should read this, its pretty funny.
http://yecheadquarters.org/catalog1.2.html]LOL

Funny though I got that off an scientific website. Hmmm, guess science can be wrong.

ikester7579 · 2004-05-03 05:23:42

That 'cell frequency' diagnostic test is getting close to the rotating crystal contraption Dr. McCoy used on "Star Trek" to work out in a jiffy what was wrong with crew members of the Enterprise.
Who knows? Maybe the German guy is on to something.
It's difficult, though, to imagine how a machine detecting various frequencies of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) could track down the individual radiation emanating from one or a few particular atoms in one or a few particular cells in a human body. I don't know how many cells there are in an average human, nor how many atoms there are in an average human cell, but it's gonna be a big number!
All atoms, at temperatures above absolute zero, emit EMR (infra-red and radio waves, for example). So this new machine will be picking up EMR from atoms in the person being examined, EMR from the atoms in the machine itself, EMR from the air molecules in the room, EMR from outer space, even EMR from the fillings in the doctor's teeth! If it's sensitive enough to focus on radiation from the atoms in small groups of cancerous cells deep inside a human body, it'll pick up radiation from everywhere.
Wouldn't it be tricky to eliminate all the background emissions and get an accurate reading on the problem areas?
???

I was wondering why they used a carbon suppression type wire to relay the frequency instead of a regular copper wire.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2004-04-23 22:34:22

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#102 2004-04-23 22:54:39

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#103 2004-04-26 12:55:46

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#104 2004-04-26 13:13:39

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#105 2004-04-26 22:38:44

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#106 2004-04-27 06:40:16

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#107 2004-04-27 08:38:09

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#108 2004-04-27 22:35:46

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#109 2004-04-27 22:53:29

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#110 2004-04-27 22:56:20

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#111 2004-04-27 23:01:40

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#112 2004-04-27 23:47:23

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#113 2004-04-28 03:14:21

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#114 2004-04-28 09:50:50

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#115 2004-04-28 21:04:22

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#116 2004-04-29 07:41:10

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#117 2004-04-30 12:40:30

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#118 2004-05-02 12:13:12

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#119 2004-05-02 13:15:24

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#120 2004-05-02 13:22:21

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#121 2004-05-02 19:03:57

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#122 2004-05-03 05:05:56

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#123 2004-05-03 05:17:13

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#124 2004-05-03 05:19:49

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#125 2004-05-03 05:23:42

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

Board footer