Friend wrote:fuzoid: i just though the web site i referred to covered everything you ask of real good!

Well, as far as I'm concerned, it did not do a real good job. There seems to be an awful lot of speculating going on to explain away the discrepancies between Luke and Matthew. So regardless what this site has to say on the topic, the discrepancies remain.

I am not a good typer and i didn't want to spend a lot of time on it when i could use it as a reference.

No problem. And I actually do appreciate your attempt. However, it is the same old apologetics argument that I once accepted as fact.... until I began researching outside of the Christian mainstream, that is! I now recognize it for what it is, revisionist history with the intent to force the bible to agree with well known historical facts.

Do Matthew and Luke really contradict each other, I thought the site i referred to explained Matthew and Luke real good, I did not ignore it, I gave it my best shot

I saw the apologist site's speculation regarding the timeline, and as mentioned, it does not do a good job at explaining away the discrepancy. Anyway, since you made no reference to the timeline in your response but you did about Quirinius, I figured you were intentionally skipping over it.

i think in Luke, the reason it did not mention Magi or the killing, was that Mary was still with a child at the time they went to register, way to early for the Magi in Luke chapter 2.

I'm not following. What would Mary still being with child have to do with anything? The magi and the alleged slaughter of the innocents happened after the birth of Jesus, according to the bible. And Luke is referring to, after the birth of Jesus!

And Jerusalem , Bethlehem, and Nazareth are close enough to travel back and forth for Jewish holidays.

Well, I will agree that Bethlehem is fairly close to Jerusalem (approx. 6.5 miles), but Nazareth is around 65 miles from Jerusalem. So it would be much more difficult for them to travel back and forth on foot, or even with a donkey.

The killing of the innocents was not mentioned in Luke because it was pretty common place for Herod to kill kill kill,

You are doing the same thing the site you provided is doing, speculating. If the event was important enough to mention in Matthew, then it should have been important enough for Luke to mention. Especially since what you believe to be prophecy relies on it for their flight to, and subsequent return from Egypt! As mentioned, no amount of rationalizing can explain away this discrepancy.

I know that this kind of slaughter should have been mentioned in Luke or by Joseph or it was maybe kinda common place for Herod,

Had the event occurred, you can be sure Josephus would have mentioned something about it. And while it was common to slaughter ones enemies, man, woman, and child, it was not common for rulers to murder a specific group of infants within their own kingdom. Such an event would have been recorded.

he even killed his own son and wives when they got in the way and Luke does not mention that either.

Ahh..... but history does!

Herod was a mad man.

No argument from me!

Hosea 11:1 agrees with Mathew 2:15

Only because it was forced to agree. Without such a history for Jesus, it cannot be said about him, "...and out of Egypt I called my son." Meaning an unfulfilled prophecy. But the ironic thing about Hosea 11 is, it is not about prophecy for a messiah. If you read the chapter in context, the son being called out of Egypt is Israel, not Jesus.

I do not know why Luke does not mention it!

Because the event never happened.

Maybe it was out of context for the author.

What was out of context for what author?

You did say that there was another site other than a christian point of view on the topic of Quirinius, so the christian point of view can't be that far off the mark.

There are a number of non-Christian sites which have an accurate portrayal about Quirinius. And it doesn't matter how close the bible comes to portraying history if it is inaccurate! BTW, I like your choice of words. Off the mark, or rather, missed the mark, is another translation for sin.

When people can't figure out something we tend to say that it's not true, or it doesn't fit, i believe that there is the right answer for everything. We just have to find it!

You're correct, there is a right answer, and it's to be found in history, not the bible.

fuzoid
http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid

ET wrote:If we start from the Adamic Age (point of reference) found in the Bible, and we add up all the generations, we will come up with around 5770 or so years of genealogy (the census records) and thus found here will be your supposed 6000 years, as most of the religious opinions perceive as the depiction.

And? Your point being?

In 1959 leading scientist were asked their opinion on how old the universe was, and the consensus of the brightest minds of that time replied that it was eternal, as in, NO beginning!!!

Your history is a bit off. Although Edwin Hubble is credited with discovering doppler redshift in 1929, or at least that's when he published the Redshift Distance Law (commonly referred to as Hubble's law), James Edward Keeler was already making measurements of redshift and understood their significance in 1918. It was these measurements that were the first observational support for the Big Bang theory which had been proposed by Georges Lemaitre in 1927. So the concept for a beginning to our universe existed long before the CMB's (cosmic microwave background) discovery in 1964 by radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.

Let's stop here for a moment and ponder, you see, if you at that time had a belief in the biblical account, that there was a beginning, be it on blind faith alone, you'd have gotten some sort of retort as in "there was no beginning and thus no God you are just a superstitious uneducated fool and as such we do not have time for you".

Your timeline is off by a wide margin.

Oh the drama!!!

LOL!!! Yes, the drama.

In 1965, the echo of the big bang was found (by accident), and the world scientific paradigm shifted to a universe that now had its beginnings.

It was 1964, and the scientific paradigm shifted long before this.

I stop to wonder if any of the scientists of the time even acknowledge their previous state of worldly disenchantment or any of the harsh condemnations they'd freely given to the ever so common folk of the day...

Specific example(s) please.

...because NOW as it stands the first three words WE all can agree on some 5725 years later... IN THE BEGINNING!!

And? Your point being?

fuzoid
http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid

fuzoid wrote:

ET wrote: If we start from the Adamic Age (point of reference) found in the Bible, and we add up all the generations, we will come up with around 5770 or so years of genealogy (the census records) and thus found here will be your supposed 6000 years, as most of the religious opinions perceive as the depiction.

And? Your point being?

Good question. My point being that most who argue this point of a history of Earth only being 6000 do not take into account that there are two time lines. One is the cosmos perspective, while the other is the human time. I recommend that you check out Gerald Schroeder if you have not already, here is a link of him talking about the difference. http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx Interesting stuff.

Also, put forward is "one might conceive of a science without religion, but it is an oxymoron to conceive of religion without science. Revelation and nature are the two aspects of one creation". This point made by a 12th-century Jewish philosopher named Moses Maimonides could not have gotten more correct.

fuzoid wrote:

ET wrote: In 1959 leading scientist were asked their opinion on how old the universe was, and the consensus of the brightest minds of that time replied that it was eternal, as in, NO beginning!!!

Your history is a bit off. Although Edwin Hubble is credited with discovering doppler redshift in 1929, or at least that's when he published the Redshift Distance Law (commonly referred to as Hubble's law), James Edward Keeler was already making measurements of redshift and understood their significance in 1918. It was these measurements that were the first observational support for the Big Bang theory which had been proposed by Georges Lemaitre in 1927. So the concept for a beginning to our universe existed long before the CMB's (cosmic microwave background) discovery in 1964 by radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.

Exciting isn't it.

fuzoid wrote:

ET wrote:Let's stop here for a moment and ponder, you see, if you at that time had a belief in the biblical account, that there was a beginning, be it on blind faith alone, you'd have gotten some sort of retort as in "there was no beginning and thus no God you are just a superstitious uneducated fool and as such we do not have time for you".

Your timeline is off by a wide margin.

Oh the drama!!!

LOL!!! Yes, the drama.

In 1965, the echo of the big bang was found (by accident), and the world scientific paradigm shifted to a universe that now had its beginnings.

It was 1964, and the scientific paradigm shifted long before this.

Hey in my defense, it was the 60's, and my parents were hippies. So, I blame the drugs they did for me being off by the year.

fuzoid wrote:

ET wrote:I stop to wonder if any of the scientists of the time even acknowledge their previous state of worldly disenchantment or any of the harsh condemnations they'd freely given to the ever so common folk of the day...

Specific example(s) please.

It was just a rant and a wonderfully executed poor me drama. I use to debate this topic in school. I always lost.

fuzoid wrote:

ET wrote:...because NOW as it stands the first three words WE all can agree on some 5725 years later... IN THE BEGINNING!!

And? Your point being?

fuzoid

That although I do not have a religious persuasion I do prefer to live in a universe with a Creator. Also, I can push my awareness forward in time but require a starting point. Odd it doesn't work both ways. I suppose it is my comfort level. Thanks for listening.

ET wrote:

fuzoid wrote:

ET wrote: If we start from the Adamic Age (point of reference) found in the Bible, and we add up all the generations, we will come up with around 5770 or so years of genealogy (the census records) and thus found here will be your supposed 6000 years, as most of the religious opinions perceive as the depiction.

And? Your point being?

Good question. My point being that most who argue this point of a history of Earth only being 6000 do not take into account that there are two time lines. One is the cosmos perspective, while the other is the human time.

Agreed. However, the human time extends a lot further back than 6,000 years.

I recommend that you check out Gerald Schroeder if you have not already, here is a link of him talking about the difference. http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx Interesting stuff.

It's funny that you should mention Gerald Schroeder because Genesis and the Big Bang is one of the first extra-biblical books I read when I decided to dig a lot deeper into the Genesis account of creation. He was the first that made me realize there was an alternative explanation and it matched with correctly interpreting the word day as long periods of time rather than 24 hour days or 1000 years, for that matter! I love the way Schroeder's re-interpretation of Genesis literally reads like the Big Bang. I'm sure you're already aware of this but I'm going to post a few paraphrased excerpts for our casual Christian readers:

In the beginning, all the matter of the universe was contained in a point no larger than a mustard seed. This seed expanded, expanding the universe as it did so.

Damn, I can't remember what follows off the top of my head. I would have to dig out my well worn copy to finish it. But I do remember he goes on explaining how for the first 300,000 years, or so, the universe was too hot for matter to form and gravity was too intense to allow light to escape. If I remember correctly, it was at this point that Schroeder related the early universe to Genesis 1:2. Only after cooling and expanding beyond gravities ability to hold everything back, light escaped for the very first time. Let their be light, Genesis 1:3! Etc...

Also, put forward is "one might conceive of a science without religion, but it is an oxymoron to conceive of religion without science.

Agreed. Now if we can only convince these fundamentalist bible thumpers that science was God's tool when the universe was created. And science says the universe is approximately 14.5 billion years old, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that life evolved, all in accordance with the laws of science laid down by what we call the creator.

Revelation and nature are the two aspects of one creation".

Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by revelation? Are you implying God revealed this to humankind? Or do you mean that humans, being inquisitive creatures, revealed the laws underlying creation and in a way, sort of discovered God?

This point made by a 12th-century Jewish philosopher named Moses Maimonides could not have gotten more correct.

We are in agreement once again. But I prefer the more mystical side of Nachmanides.

fuzoid wrote:

ET wrote: In 1959 leading scientist were asked their opinion on how old the universe was, and the consensus of the brightest minds of that time replied that it was eternal, as in, NO beginning!!!

Your history is a bit off. Although Edwin Hubble is credited with discovering doppler redshift in 1929, or at least that's when he published the Redshift Distance Law (commonly referred to as Hubble's law), James Edward Keeler was already making measurements of redshift and understood their significance in 1918. It was these measurements that were the first observational support for the Big Bang theory which had been proposed by Georges Lemaitre in 1927. So the concept for a beginning to our universe existed long before the CMB's (cosmic microwave background) discovery in 1964 by radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.

Exciting isn't it.

Absolutely! I can't seem to get enough of this stuff. Check out the material of physicist, Fred Alan Wolf. I believe you'll be pleasantly surprised!

fuzoid wrote:

ET wrote:Let's stop here for a moment and ponder, you see, if you at that time had a belief in the biblical account, that there was a beginning, be it on blind faith alone, you'd have gotten some sort of retort as in "there was no beginning and thus no God you are just a superstitious uneducated fool and as such we do not have time for you".

Your timeline is off by a wide margin.

Oh the drama!!!

LOL!!! Yes, the drama.

In 1965, the echo of the big bang was found (by accident), and the world scientific paradigm shifted to a universe that now had its beginnings.

It was 1964, and the scientific paradigm shifted long before this.

Hey in my defense, it was the 60's, and my parents were hippies. So, I blame the drugs they did for me being off by the year.

LOL!!! Well, I was born in the 60's and the 70's were my teenage years. So excuse accepted. ROFLMAO!!!

fuzoid wrote:

ET wrote:I stop to wonder if any of the scientists of the time even acknowledge their previous state of worldly disenchantment or any of the harsh condemnations they'd freely given to the ever so common folk of the day...

Specific example(s) please.

It was just a rant and a wonderfully executed poor me drama. I use to debate this topic in school. I always lost.

Well, it does help to have specifics to support your position. No wonder you always lost! LOL!!!

fuzoid wrote:

ET wrote:...because NOW as it stands the first three words WE all can agree on some 5725 years later... IN THE BEGINNING!!

And? Your point being?

fuzoid

That although I do not have a religious persuasion I do prefer to live in a universe with a Creator. Also, I can push my awareness forward in time but require a starting point. Odd it doesn't work both ways. I suppose it is my comfort level. Thanks for listening.

It appears we are in agreement once again. Besides Fred Alan Wolf, check out the research being performed on the holographic principle. It relates quite nicely with Wolf's material.

Very interesting debate. We need to have more like this. But if we're in agreement, it wouldn't be a debate, now would it? LOL!!! BTW, I own all of Schroeder's books with the exception of God According to God: A Physicist Proves We Have Been Wrong About God All Along. And I plan on adding this book to my collection very soon. Hey, I own a Kindle 2! I wonder if this book is available as an e-book? Anyway, I also see he has updated his website and got rid of the introduction. I must admit it appears to be more user friendly now. And on that note, I hope this conversation has piqued the interest of some bible thumpers enough to check out what a scholar of the Torah and MIT trained physicist has to say about the bible and God.

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

fuzoid
http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid

fuzoid wrote:

ET wrote:Good question. My point being that most who argue this point of a history of Earth only being 6000 do not take into account that there are two time lines. One is the cosmos perspective, while the other is the human time.

Agreed. However, the human time extends a lot further back than 6,000 years.

Well there maybe an explanation on this by the Torah. One creation brings in the heavens (or universe and the laws of nature), the second the animal life or what is called nefish, then at the end of the six day of creation is done a nashoma (self awareness / free will) and this is the point zero or beginning of Adamic Age. This is a highly celebrated day in the Jewish culture that is considered to be the start of the calendar.

What is interesting is that leaves wiggle room to evolve a suitable "container" for said awareness and that may or may not have taken millions of years to bring about by way/using of the laws of nature. Lets look at this take on a evolutionary foldout to awareness: prehension, irritability, sensation, perception, impluse, emotion, symbols, concepts, conop, formop, vision-logic. That is a lot to think about (pun intended), the rules are each level needs some sort of mastery since it will be included in the next higher level. Lets look at more of the nuts and bolts; neuronal organisms, neural cord, replilian brain stem, limbic system, neocortex (triune brain), complex neocortex, then who knows maybe that dude from the martix.

So it is not to far a stretch to say in from the dream realm, and then the causal realm, eventually a clarity of Now-ness, which would begin to permeate the waking, dreaming, and deep sleep state, until all states are suffused with a radiant Wakefulness, and at that point you are... POOF Awakened!

Clocks now ticking... I do have a flair for drama!!

fuzoid wrote:

ET wrote:I recommend that you check out Gerald Schroeder if you have not already, here is a link of him talking about the difference. http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx Interesting stuff.

It's funny that you should mention Gerald Schroeder because Genesis and the Big Bang is one of the first extra-biblical books I read when I decided to dig a lot deeper into the Genesis account of creation. He was the first that made me realize there was an alternative explanation and it matched with correctly interpreting the word day as long periods of time rather than 24 hour days or 1000 years, for that matter! I love the way Schroeder's re-interpretation of Genesis literally reads like the Big Bang. I'm sure you're already aware of this but I'm going to post a few paraphrased excerpts for our casual Christian readers:

In the beginning, all the matter of the universe was contained in a point no larger than a mustard seed. This seed expanded, expanding the universe as it did so.

Damn, I can't remember what follows off the top of my head. I would have to dig out my well worn copy to finish it. But I do remember he goes on explaining how for the first 300,000 years, or so, the universe was too hot for matter to form and gravity was too intense to allow light to escape. If I remember correctly, it was at this point that Schroeder related the early universe to Genesis 1:2. Only after cooling and expanding beyond gravities ability to hold everything back, light escaped for the very first time. Let their be light, Genesis 1:3! Etc...

Yah I love this stuff. How deep does the rabbit hole go?

fuzoid wrote:

ET wrote:Also, put forward is "one might conceive of a science without religion, but it is an oxymoron to conceive of religion without science.

Agreed. Now if we can only convince these fundamentalist bible thumpers that science was God's tool when the universe was created. And science says the universe is approximately 14.5 billion years old, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that life evolved, all in accordance with the laws of science laid down by what we call the creator.

Most of the blame goes to the Church (IMO). I wonder how many inquisitive minds they have shut off. Sad.

fuzoid wrote:

ET wrote:Revelation and nature are the two aspects of one creation".

Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by revelation? Are you implying God revealed this to humankind? Or do you mean that humans, being inquisitive creatures, revealed the laws underlying creation and in a way, sort of discovered God?

From the aspect of the Torah which makes the revelation claim, also states that things are hidden, which as you mentioned hopefully science will discover which then perhaps becomes the undeniable fingerprint of God. Good example being, only 32 lines used to describe the creation of the known universe. The book actually starts with science. That is the hidden part. As we start to understand where we are, we can go back and look and it starts to fit. Freeky!

fuzoid wrote:

ET wrote:That although I do not have a religious persuasion I do prefer to live in a universe with a Creator. Also, I can push my awareness forward in time but require a starting point. Odd it doesn't work both ways. I suppose it is my comfort level. Thanks for listening.

It appears we are in agreement once again. Besides Fred Alan Wolf, check out the research being performed on the holographic principle. It relates quite nicely with Wolf's material.

Very interesting debate. We need to have more like this. But if we're in agreement, it wouldn't be a debate, now would it? LOL!!! BTW, I own all of Schroeder's books with the exception of God According to God: A Physicist Proves We Have Been Wrong About God All Along. And I plan on adding this book to my collection very soon. Hey, I own a Kindle 2! I wonder if this book is available as an e-book? Anyway, I also see he has updated his website and got rid of the introduction. I must admit it appears to be more user friendly now. And on that note, I hope this conversation has piqued the interest of some bible thumpers enough to check out what a scholar of the Torah and MIT trained physicist has to say about the bible and God.

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

fuzoid

I will check out Wolf's material thanks for the suggestion. I'm enjoying the discussion as well.

No, the Earth was NOT created 6,000 years ago! That is 19th century stuff. Try 6 billion years old.

The New Testament is half code, half mythology, Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus (Jewish Mishnaic Law states, "An unmarried man may not be a rabbi." Mary Mag. anointed Jesus - the prerogative of the wife (of Jesus). I left church because they lied to me.

There are two versions of creation - one is the Jahvist, the other the Priestly.

There is Paganism in the New Testament - death and resurrection.

Tired of people who see blindly.

Andrea wrote:No, the Earth was NOT created 6,000 years ago! That is 19th century stuff. Try 6 billion years old.

The New Testament is half code, half mythology, Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus (Jewish Mishnaic Law states, "An unmarried man may not be a rabbi." Mary Mag. anointed Jesus - the prerogative of the wife (of Jesus). I left church because they lied to me.

There are two versions of creation - one is the Jahvist, the other the Priestly.

There is Paganism in the New Testament - death and resurrection.

Tired of people who see blindly.

Tired of people who believe Dan Brown's nonsense.

fuzoid wrote:

ET wrote:
I recommend that you check out Gerald Schroeder if you have not already, here is a link of him talking about the difference. http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx Interesting stuff.

It's funny that you should mention Gerald Schroeder because Genesis and the Big Bang is one of the first extra-biblical books I read when I decided to dig a lot deeper into the Genesis account of creation. He was the first that made me realize there was an alternative explanation and it matched with correctly interpreting the word day as long periods of time rather than 24 hour days or 1000 years, for that matter! I love the way Schroeder's re-interpretation of Genesis literally reads like the Big Bang. I'm sure you're already aware of this but I'm going to post a few paraphrased excerpts for our casual Christian readers:

In the beginning, all the matter of the universe was contained in a point no larger than a mustard seed. This seed expanded, expanding the universe as it did so.

Damn, I can't remember what follows off the top of my head. I would have to dig out my well worn copy to finish it. But I do remember he goes on explaining how for the first 300,000 years, or so, the universe was too hot for matter to form and gravity was too intense to allow light to escape.

Yup. That is the part before matter, space and or time could grab hold. The word used means basically "dark-energy-void without form" and it is only used once to describe it.

I am going to post some of his stuff off the site (that is linked above for anyone wanting to look further into it).

Einstein's Law of Relativity

We look at the universe, and say, "How old is the universe? Looking back in time, the universe is approximately 15 billion years old." That's our view of time. But what is the Bible's view of time looking from the beginning? How does it see time?

Nahmanides taught that although the days are 24 hours each, they contain "kol yemot ha-olam" - all the ages and all the secrets of the world. Nahmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a dimension for the speck: something very tiny smaller than a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation. There was no other physical creation; all other creations were spiritual. The Nefesh (the soul of animal life) and the Neshama (the soul of human life) are spiritual creations. There's only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else. Nahmanides describes the substance as "dak me'od, ein bo mamash" - very thin, no substance to it. And as this speck expanded out, this substance - so thin that it has no essence - turned into matter as we know it.

Nahmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman" - from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold." When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no essence - that's when the Biblical clock starts. Science has shown that there's only one "substanceless substance" that can change into matter. And that's energy. Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold. Nahmanides has made a phenomenal statement. I don't know if he knew the Laws of Relativity. But we know them now. We know that energy - light beams, radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays - all travel at the speed of light, 300 million meters per second. At the speed of light, time does not pass. The universe was aging, but time only grabs hold when matter is present. This moment of time before the clock begins for the Bible, lasted about 1/100,000 of a second. A miniscule time. But in that time, the universe expanded from a tiny speck, to about the size of the Solar System. From that moment on we have matter, and time flows forward. The clock begins here.

Now the fact that the Bible tells us there is "evening and morning Day One", comes to teach us time from a Biblical perspective, from near the beginning looking forward.

Now if the Torah were seeing time from the days of Moses on Mount Sinai - long after Adam - the text would not have written Day One. Because by Sinai, hundreds of thousands of days already passed. It would have said "A first day." By the second day of Genesis, the Bible says "a second day," because there was already the first day with which to compare it.

Even if the Torah was seeing time from Adam, the text would have said "a first day", because by its own statement there are six days. The Torah says "Day One" because the Torah is looking forward from the beginning. And it says, how old is the universe till Adam? Six Days. We look back in time, and say the universe is 15 billion years old. But every scientist knows, that when we say the universe is 15 billion years old, there's another half of the sentence that we never say. The other half of the sentence is: The universe is 15 billion years old as seen from the time-space coordinates that we exist in.

The key is that the Torah looks forward in time, from very different time-space coordinates, when the universe was small. But since then, the universe has expanded out. Space stretches, and that stretching of space totally changes the perception of time. Imagine in your mind going back billions of years ago to the beginning of time. Now pretend way back at the beginning of time, when time grabs hold, there's an intelligent community. (It's totally fictitious.) Imagine that the intelligent community has a laser, and it's going to shoot out a blast of light every second. Every second -- pulse. Pulse. Pulse. And on each pulse of light the following formation is printed (printing information on light, electro-magnetic radiation, is common practice): "I'm sending you a pulse every second." Billions of years later, way far down the time line, we here on Earth have a big satellite dish and we receive that pulse of light. And on that pulse of light we read "I'm sending you a pulse every second."

Light travels 300 million meters per second. So at the beginning, the two light pulses are separated by a second of travel or 300 million meters. Now they travel through space for billions of years until they reach the Earth. But wait a minute. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. The universe expands by space stretching. So as these pulses travel through space for billions of years, space is stretching. What's happening to these pulses? The space between them is also stretching. So the pulses really get further and further apart. Billions of years later, when the first pulse arrives, we read on it "I'm sending you a pulse every second." A message from outer space. You call all your friends, and you wait for the next pulse to arrive. Does it arrive second later? No! A year later? Maybe not. Maybe billions of years later. Because the amount of time this pulse of light has traveled through space will determine the amount of space stretching that has occurred, and so how much time there will be between the arrival of the pulses. That's standard cosmology.


15 billion or six days?

Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 15 billion years of history. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons and neutrons (their nucleosynthesis), relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning and time today is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.

The Talmud tells us that the soul of Adam was created at five and a half days after the beginning of the calendar. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. . How would we see those days stretched by a million million? The million million expansion of five and a half days gives an age of the universe as 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of about 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is in my opinion extraordinary.

-----------------------

All this talk about an expanding universe is making me hungry. Time for a grilled cheese sandwich.

Now the part that spooks me out is if physics is correct and the universe is expanding, in the analogy of sending a message at the speed of light taking a long time from our perspective to reach us, due to the stretching effect, that would mean that the universe if expanding faster that light for that to occur.

PS: In the latest Star Trek Movie they mentioned that calculations needed to transport someone between two ships in warp would need to include the fact that space was moving. I thought that was way cool. It also makes me wonder if to travel in space can we deploy am envelope around a ship to make it not move in relationship to space thus moving us from one point to another faster than light. Great I'll have to google that now... Gosh, I'll never get to sleep tonight.

ET wrote:Good question. My point being that most who argue this point of a history of Earth only being 6000 do not take into account that there are two time lines. One is the cosmos perspective, while the other is the human time.

fuzoid wrote:Agreed. However, the human time extends a lot further back than 6,000 years.

ET wrote:Well there maybe an explanation on this by the Torah.

That may be, however, creation mythology extends a lot further back than the Torah. In fact there is a strong possibility it is based on the Epic of Gilgamesh. And if evolution is a reality, which I believe it is, humanities timeline may be on the order of a million years or more. In any event, we know for a fact that North America was habitated more than 13,000 years ago by what is commonly referred to as Clovis People. And if some estimates are to be believed, it could be as long as 25,000 years ago. So the Clovis People pre-date the mythological Adam & Eve by a minimum of 7,000 years and possibly by as much as 19,000 years

One creation brings in the heavens (or universe and the laws of nature), the second the animal life or what is called nefish, then at the end of the six day of creation is done a nashoma (self awareness / free will) and this is the point zero or beginning of Adamic Age. This is a highly celebrated day in the Jewish culture that is considered to be the start of the calendar.

With all due respect to Judaism, Clovis People were genetically identical to modern humans. So there is no way possible that modern humans began with Adam & Eve. And the Clovis People precede Moses' creation account, first written around 500 BCE. They also precede the Epic of Gilgamesh written around 2700 BCE. In fact, they precede the first recorded history by the Mesopotamians! And they emigrated to North America, so this only pushes their time of existence even further back! Or were you including them in your Adamic Age? And if you were, then you'll need to expand on what you mean by this.

What is interesting is that leaves wiggle room to evolve a suitable "container" for said awareness and that may or may not have taken millions of years to bring about by way/using of the laws of nature.

If it were me, I would say it took billions of years! There is fossil evidence that simple life formed relatively quickly on the earth. So life has been around about 3 to 3.5 billion years, on earth at least. And if a suitable container did evolve, then it would have had to been in accordance with the laws of nature. Unless we want to accuse God of being a deceiver?

Lets look at this take on a evolutionary foldout to awareness: prehension, irritability, sensation, perception, impluse, emotion, symbols, concepts, conop, formop, vision-logic. That is a lot to think about (pun intended), the rules are each level needs some sort of mastery since it will be included in the next higher level. Lets look at more of the nuts and bolts; neuronal organisms, neural cord, replilian brain stem, limbic system, neocortex (triune brain), complex neocortex,...

Uh huh! And there was plenty of time for life to master each level.

...then who knows maybe that dude from the martix.

Okay, you lost me on this one. What dude? There were a number of characters in the movies playing various roles. Ironically I love the Matrix movies, dark as they may appear, so you would think I should know what you're referring to. But instead I'm drawing a blank.

So it is not to far a stretch to say in from the dream realm, and then the causal realm, eventually a clarity of Now-ness, which would begin to permeate the waking, dreaming, and deep sleep state, until all states are suffused with a radiant Wakefulness, and at that point you are... POOF Awakened!

How very mystical of you! And it makes a heck of a lot more sense than believing, POOF, God created Adam fully aware. But the theory I like best is that we are co-creators with God. And I'm not referring to the quantum physics fact that we create our reality. I literally mean that we have always existed and for whatever the reason, we co-created with God and agreed to allow ourselves to experience what we refer to as the physical. So we have always been radiantly Awake! We just allowed ourselves to be seriously dumbed down so we could experience this existence in this universe.

Clocks now ticking... I do have a flair for drama!!

Yes, you do.

ET wrote:I recommend that you check out Gerald Schroeder if you have not already, here is a link of him talking about the difference. http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx Interesting stuff.

fuzoid wrote:It's funny that you should mention Gerald Schroeder because Genesis and the Big Bang is one of the first extra-biblical books I read when I decided to dig a lot deeper into the Genesis account of creation. He was the first that made me realize there was an alternative explanation and it matched with correctly interpreting the word day as long periods of time rather than 24 hour days or 1000 years, for that matter! I love the way Schroeder's re-interpretation of Genesis literally reads like the Big Bang. I'm sure you're already aware of this but I'm going to post a few paraphrased excerpts for our casual Christian readers:

In the beginning, all the matter of the universe was contained in a point no larger than a mustard seed. This seed expanded, expanding the universe as it did so.

Damn, I can't remember what follows off the top of my head. I would have to dig out my well worn copy to finish it. But I do remember he goes on explaining how for the first 300,000 years, or so, the universe was too hot for matter to form and gravity was too intense to allow light to escape. If I remember correctly, it was at this point that Schroeder related the early universe to Genesis 1:2. Only after cooling and expanding beyond gravities ability to hold everything back, light escaped for the very first time. Let their be light, Genesis 1:3! Etc...

ET wrote:Yah I love this stuff. How deep does the rabbit hole go?

Since we've barely scratched the surface, I would say the hole go goes pretty deep.

ET wrote:Also, put forward is "one might conceive of a science without religion, but it is an oxymoron to conceive of religion without science.

fuzoid wrote:Agreed. Now if we can only convince these fundamentalist bible thumpers that science was God's tool when the universe was created. And science says the universe is approximately 14.5 billion years old, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that life evolved, all in accordance with the laws of science laid down by what we call the creator.

ET wrote:Most of the blame goes to the Church (IMO). I wonder how many inquisitive minds they have shut off. Sad.

By Church, I'm assuming you are referring to Roman Catholicism? If so, you would be partially correct. Suppression of differing opinions has probably been going on for as long as humans first became aware of something beyond survival. But in the current age, yes, Rome did start it. And the Protestants weren't far behind.

ET wrote:Revelation and nature are the two aspects of one creation".

fuzoid wrote:Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by revelation? Are you implying God revealed this to humankind? Or do you mean that humans, being inquisitive creatures, revealed the laws underlying creation and in a way, sort of discovered God?

ET wrote:From the aspect of the Torah which makes the revelation claim, also states that things are hidden, which as you mentioned hopefully science will discover which then perhaps becomes the undeniable fingerprint of God.

We'll have to part company where the Torah is concerned. If God does exist, then I see no reason why IT couldn't communicate with humans. But with all the planets in the universe and the life many of them must have, I have a hard time believing our planet is any more special where God is concerned. Besides, I do believe the Torah takes its source from much earlier mythology, including the Epic of Gilgamesh. But I do believe that eventually the undeniable fingerprint of God will be discovered. And it will be through quantum physics, not religion.

Good example being, only 32 lines used to describe the creation of the known universe. The book actually starts with science. That is the hidden part. As we start to understand where we are, we can go back and look and it starts to fit. Freeky!

Personally, I don't believe the Torah could have started any other way if its intent was to provide a timeline for creation up to the appearance of humans. And while I have great respect for Gerald Schroeder, his science and his biblical interpretations, I do have to wonder how much of it he is forcing to agree. I'm not sold on the Torah or its original source(s) as being a revelation from God, or aliens for that matter! But I will admit that I cannot deny the possibility.

ET wrote:That although I do not have a religious persuasion I do prefer to live in a universe with a Creator. Also, I can push my awareness forward in time but require a starting point. Odd it doesn't work both ways. I suppose it is my comfort level. Thanks for listening.

fuzoid wrote:It appears we are in agreement once again. Besides Fred Alan Wolf, check out the research being performed on the holographic principle. It relates quite nicely with Wolf's material.

Very interesting debate. We need to have more like this. But if we're in agreement, it wouldn't be a debate, now would it? LOL!!! BTW, I own all of Schroeder's books with the exception of God According to God: A Physicist Proves We Have Been Wrong About God All Along. And I plan on adding this book to my collection very soon. Hey, I own a Kindle 2! I wonder if this book is available as an e-book? Anyway, I also see he has updated his website and got rid of the introduction. I must admit it appears to be more user friendly now. And on that note, I hope this conversation has piqued the interest of some bible thumpers enough to check out what a scholar of the Torah and MIT trained physicist has to say about the bible and God.

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

fuzoid

ET wrote:I will check out Wolf's material thanks for the suggestion. I'm enjoying the discussion as well.

If you're not familiar with his work, then you're in for a real treat. Wolf is one of the few physicists that has the balls to admit that quantum physics hints at the possible existence of God. A holographic universe is the key, I believe. Time will tell on this one, and we may not have to wait too long for an answer! The GEO600 Gravity Wave Detection experiment accidentally discovered the first possible evidence. And further, more refined measurements are in the works. Stay tuned for this one.