Biblical Astronomy statements- old SDC thread

[newtonian]

crazyeddie- I'm crazy for my wife, thank you.<br /><br />The rest of your post doesn't make sense. <br /><br />Are you reading the posts here, or have you traversed from a parallel universe?

 

[newtonian]

hansoloO- Hi!<br /><br />Yes, I like that Einstein quote also. <br /><br />And it is true, provided said religion is based on evidence or accurate knowledge.<br /><br />For example: <br /><br />"Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." - 1 Thessalonians 5:21<br />Kmarinas86 - Well, it is true many religions are comparable to philosophies. In fact, many traditional doctrines in Christendom come, not from the Bible, but from Greek philosophy - but that is way off from thread theme!<br /><br />In contrast, my religion rejects traditions and philosophies.<br /><br />The key difference between philosophy and true science is observational evidence. <br /><br />Granted, theoretical physics and astro-physics is in between, being based on observations and observed math ratios and formulas, but going beyond what can actually be proven by observations.<br /><br />Also, Biblical statements that the earth is round, the terminator is a circle and the earth is hung upon nothing were made at a time when observational evidence was not available.<br /><br />However, most Biblical astronomy statements have now been proven accurate by observations.<br /><br />And also remarkable is that no Biblical astronomy statement has been proven inaccurate!

 

[newtonian]

crazyeddie- Well, are you taking back this posted statement?<br /><br />You posted earlier concerning the 25 Biblical astronomy statements I listed:<br /><br />"they would be describing "science" that was thousands of years old, when most people thought the Earth was flat and the stars were little holes in a dome that allowed light to shine through from heaven."<br />Now, however, you posted agreement with Calli's post that some ancient sources did indeed teach the earth is round.<br /><br />Well, which is it?<br /><br />Calli's post is close to accurate - as I have already noted and will continue to document.<br /><br />However, the key difference is timing - the Biblical statements that the earth is round preceeded the Greek philosophers Anaxagoras and Aristotle.

 

[newtonian]

Calli - Do you still have that ancient orb evidence available? How old was it? And from whom? <br /><br />Yes, that myth that no one knew earth was round before Columbus is indeed popular. <br /><br />Note that our literature made clear that Anazagoras of the 6th century BCE and Aristotle of the 4th century BCE taught the earth is round. <br /><br />Also, from our literature, is evidence from Norway (the vikings preceeded Columbus in discovering America):<br /><br />A Norwegian textbook written in 1250 not only said the same thing {earth is round], but also gave the reasons for the varying climates of the earth, the angle of the sun at different times of the year and the prevailing winds. Not all the ancient knowledge had been lost it- was just out of favor for a while."-The How and Why Wonder Book of Explorations and Discoveries, referenced in ?Awake,? 12/22/77, p.17

 

[newtonian]

26. Origin of light cannot be determined unless one can observe for a very long time-<br /><br />19 Where, now, is the way to where light resides?<br /><br />As for darkness, where, now, is its place,<br /><br />20 That you should take it to its boundary<br /><br />And that you should understand the roadways to its house?<br /><br />21 Have you come to know because at that time you were being born,<br /><br />And [because] in number your days are many? - Job 38:19-21<br /><br />How true this is! Not only can we not see back to the origin of light, but also we cannot determine its boundaries. <br /><br />Our light cone is considerably smaller than the actual boundaries the light from our universe has reached, so we cannot discern the boundary of light and darkness.<br /><br />And seeing its boundaries is linked with time - seeing long distances in Astronomy is actually looking back in time<br /><br />#27- Why is north up or over in modern astronomy and cartograhpy?<br /><br />The statement:<br /><br />(Job 26:7) . . .He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing. . .<br /><br />Could it be that from God's reference point or location that north really is up or over?<br /><br />Or is the Hebrew word translated "over" a word with many definitions including outside or away from, etc.?<br />

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow">"Prove all things, hold fast that which is good"</font><br /><br />Just a curious note. How can you prove all things and then know which is good? Especially since you've proven them all?<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

mooware - Good question about my signature. That is the King James Version of 1 Thessalonians 5:21.<br /><br />My favorite translation reads:<br /><br />(1 Thessalonians 5:21) . . . Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. - NW<br /><br />The footnote concerning make sure (AVrove):<br /><br />Lit., "Be you proving."<br /><br />Note that it is a process - past, present, future.<br /><br />Of course, individual statements are already proven, for example: <br /><br />The earth is round (Hebrew hhug) - Isaiah 40:22<br />The terminator on earth is a circle - Job 26:10<br />The earth is hung upon nothing- Job 26:7<br />The heavens and earth had a beginning - Genesis 1:1<br />The earth was covered with water - Genesis 1:2<br />Etc.<br /><br />However, other statements are not yet proven, e.g.: <br /><br />Stars with no set course-Jude 13<br />Stars in darkness forever - Jude 13<br />Etc.<br /><br />Ongoing research will help us determine exactly how our universe is stretching out like a fine gauze - Isaiah 40:22<br /><br />Many other Biblical statements, many not listed yet, invite continued scientific research to prove in detail. <br /><br />Non-believers are welcome to try to disprove, of course.<br /><br />Which are you, out of curiosity?<br />

 

[newtonian]

crazyeddie - Thank you. I really appreciate your directing me there- I had no idea I was offending killium. I have editied accordingly and will adapt my responses so killium will be pleased, hopefully.<br /><br />Now, back to thread theme- I am now zeroing in on Biblical statement #11:<br /><br />(1 Corinthians 15:39-41) 39 Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. 41 The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory.<br /><br />The phrase I am keying in on is: star differs from star in glory.<br /><br />The context gives clues as to how different stars could be. It compares the differences in life forms on earth.<br /><br />Nova, Origins publicized some of the amazing differences in earth's life forms. <br /><br />And astronomers are now also confirming amazing differences in stars.<br /><br />In this post I will stress magnetars, an extreme example of how different stars can be.<br /><br />These amazing little stars can burst one million times brighter than the Eddington limit - thought to be the upper limit that a star can radiate!!!!<br /><br />See "Scientific American," February, 2003, article entitled "Magnetars", by Chryssa Kouveliotou, Robert C. Duncan and Christopher Thompson, pp. 35-41<br />

 

[newtonian]

crazyeddie - Actually, no- I am notoriously terrible at taking hints. <br /><br />You had best spell out exactly what you mean, and the reasons, in your post.<br /><br />Getting back to "star differs from star in glory," today's broadcast of Cosmic Odyssey shed more light on the matter (pun intended).<br /><br />Besides the inherrent variable magnetic fields in some stars which cause a few to become magnetars while the majority do not, there are also inherent factors stemming from the original accretion.<br /><br />The broadcast pointed to the Orion and Eagle nebula observations.<br /><br />The broadcast photos were, btw, awesome. <br />However, they showed that the proceses involved in the formation of stars from protostars is very complex.<br /><br />Included were awesome photos of stars that actually look like comets! <br /><br />How's that for awesome variety in stellar glory!<br /><br />But the reason for these 'tails' on these stars could involve many other causes for variety. <br /><br />What is now known for sure (recently discovered) is that star sizes are in part determined by when the protostars emerge from their protective cloud shield which gave birth to them.<br /><br />And the way they emerge is also complex, often due primarily to solar winds from other stars.<br /><br />To wit, earlier massive stars with strong UV radiation is apparently the primary cause for these star tails.<br /><br />I tell you no tale!<br />

 

[jaredgalen]

Stars in darkness forever - Jude 13 -- Black Holes???

 

[newtonian]

jaredgalen- I did not understand your post, perhaps you did not understand my question or the statement it is based on.<br /><br />First, the statement:<br /><br />(Jude 13) . . .stars with no set course, for which the blackness of darkness stands reserved forever.<br /><br />It is an illustration among other illustrations which are also true literally, which begs the question as to whether this statement is also true literally.<br /><br />From what we have learned recently in Astronomy, it could be true literally. Here's one model consistent with the statement taken literally:<br /><br />1. Black holes do not shed light of their own. In fact, their light becomes darkness, in harmony with this related illustration of Jesus:<br /><br />(Matthew 6:23) . . .If in reality the light that is in you is darkness, how great that darkness is!. . .<br /><br />2. Some astronomers propose that a portion of our universe may already have reached faster than light expansion, which could lead some stars to escape the light of our universe:<br /><br />2A- Inflation models:<br /><br />At perhaps 10^-35 seconds after big bang our universe may have expanded FTL. Some stars may have been accelerated to escape velocity from our universe (compare "stars with no set course"). In that case, they would be forever beyond the light of our universe, which did not escape until much later after the big bang.<br /><br />2B - Acceleration of expansion models.<br /><br />One model has portions of our universe near the visibility horizon already accelerated to FTL, beyond our light cone. It is no great stretch (compare Isaiah 40:22, the stretching of our universe) to consider some portions have left the light cone of our universe forever.<br /><br />3. You all know any other models that would allow some stars to have no set course and be in darkness forever?<br />4. The illustration in Jude 13 applies to people who are lawless, i.e. operating on a set of laws different than God's laws for us. <br /><br />Could st

 

[newtonian]

The following concerns the relative precision of timing using sun, moon and stars plus the possibility of other universes with other times, such as other space times.<br /><br />It involves both astronomy research and Biblical research.<br /><br />#28 - Different times (e.g.: space-times; variable rotation for length of day).<br /><br />Stars for times and seasons vs. our not getting to know the times and seasons which are in our Creator's jurisdiction. I.e., we can get to know some of the times but not all - yet. Astronomy: different universes with different space-times; primordial time; ancient length of day and night; etc. How precise can time be calculated using the stars, sun and moon?<br /><br />The statements:<br /><br />(Genesis 1:14) . . .: "Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years."<br /><br />(Acts 1:7) . . ."It does not belong to YOU to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction;. . .<br /><br />The natural question is: which times and seasons does it not belong for us to get to know? <br /><br />BIBLICAL:<br /><br />The context of Acts 1 shows this has reference to the 7 times of Daniel 4 in prophecy = the appointed times of the nations in Luke 21:24, which we now know ended in 1914 (Daniel 12:4,8-10).<br /><br />ASTRONOMY:<br /><br />However, it also reminds us of the statement in Genesis 1 concerning the times and seasons on earth and in the heavens.<br /><br />For example, how long was the division between day and night on earth during the 4th creative day? During Genesis 1:2?<br /><br />When was the beginning (literally "a beginning) in Genesis 1:1?<br /><br />Could there be other "times" besides the "space-time" which exists in our universe - e.g. in the universe (=heaven) in which God resides?<br /><br />BIBLICAL:<br /><br />A clue to this fact is that Daniel 4 has two fulfillments involving two

 

[nexium]

Jude 13: Depending on the precission desired, no stars have set courses for astronomers, but likely, God can know their every perturbation, no matter how minor, or unusual. Some are less regular than others ie Barnard's star has a large proper motion. Likely compact stars changed direction significantly when they left main sequence as a result of non-symetrical mass ejection. Stars that have been compact for a billion years are offen cold and dark. Neil

 

[newtonian]

Neil - Hi!<br /><br />Well, if the perturbations are already set, then in effect the object is following a set course.<br /><br />I suspect the verse is talking about actually escaping the laws of our universe somewhat like the people being illustrated have left God's moral laws:<br /><br />(Jude 13) . . .stars with no set course, for which the blackness of darkness stands reserved forever.<br /><br />I.e., escaping the light cone of our universe.<br /><br />Note that I am engaged in scientific speculation, the correct interpretation of both the scientific facts and the verse are not determined at this time, to my knowledge.<br /><br />Well, to get a complete picture of the Biblical astronomy model one would also have to consider 1 Corinthians 15:41 - "star differs from star in glory."<br /><br />The different types of stars you describe would also demonstrate this difference in radiant glory.<br /><br />And lifespan is also involved as the cold dark stars you refer to are also old, bringing to mind Hebrews where our heavens are described as growing old and so severely changed it is compared to death or destruction:<br /><br />(Hebrews 1:10-12) . . .And: "You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands. 11 They themselves will perish, but you yourself are to remain continually; and just like an outer garment they will all grow old, 12 and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as an outer garment; and they will be changed, but you are the same, and your years will never run out."<br /><br />Note that the word "perish" in Greek literally means "will destroy themselves" (Footnote, NW translation).<br /><br />Now, other verses show the sun, moon and earth will remain forever. The verses do not contradict so therefore these bodies will be so severely changed it could be compared to destruction- yet Psalms 37:29 indicates earth will always be populated with good people.<br /><br />But getting back to Jude 13, note that th

 

[newtonian]

Please note my edit of this point in the original post.<br /><br />I continue to be amazed at the photos, notably by Hubble, of various stars, especially the beautiful planetary nebulae (misnomer) from supernovae - amazingly varied in form due to the variation of the original star properties, notably radiation (aka glory).

 

[newtonian]

On 9/13/04 I posted information on ancient creation accounts in this post:<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=askastronomer&Number=44794&Search=true&Forum=askastronomer&Words=Hindu&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=43607<br /><br />Stevehw33 has recently stated I ignored ancient creation accounts, so I am bumping this thread so he can see the proof that he is mistaken.