Comparing cosmologies, ancient and modern.

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

newtonian

Guest
Please feel free to post any current scientific model or ancient myth.<br /><br />This post will be frequently edited as I modify the list of cosmologies with a brief description of each, and hope to go more into depth on each in this thread.<br /><br />A. Stephen Hawking<br /><br />1. Isaac Newton - Force tells mass how to accelerate; mass tells gravity how to exert force<br />. <br />2. Aristotle - stars are fixed - attached to solid crystal spheres<br /><br />3. Copenicus - earth revolves around sun; stars appear fixed only because of they are at enormous distances.<br /><br />4. The ancient Hindu model<br /><br />5. Biblical astronomy<br /><br />6. M-theories - collision of membranes, String theories<br /><br />7. The balloon model<br /><br />8. Current flat models<br /><br />9. Ancient creation myths<br /><br />10. Immanuel Kant - 1755<br /><br />11. Einstein - Curved spacetime tells mass-energy how to move; mass-energy tells spacetime how to curve; e=mc^2<br /><br />12. Gravity leaking theories, either leaking out to other dimensions and/or universes, or leaking in from other dimensions and/or universes - as an alternative view of the cause of gravity.<br /><br />13. Heraclides of Pontus.<br /><br />14. Aristarchus of Samos<br /><br />15. Ptolemy<br /><br />16. Galileo<br /><br />17. Johannes Kepler - 1610 - finite number of stars<br /><br />18. Hipparchus<br /><br />19. Roman Catholic doctrine (e.g. vs. Galileo)<br /><br />20. Thomas Wright - 1750<br /><br />21. Sir William Herschel - 1811<br /><br />22. Lord Rosse - 1845<br /><br />23. Jean Phillippe (Loys) de Cheseaux - 1744<br /><br />24. Heinrich Olbers - 1826<br />25. Hugo Seeliger - 1895<br /><br />26. Willem de Sitter<br /><br />27. Alexander Friedman - 1922<br /><br />28. Abbe Georges Lemaitre - 1927<br /><br />29. Arthur S. Eddington - 1920<br /><br />30. V. M. Slipher - 1915<br /><br />31. Edwin P. Hubble - 1924 ff<br /><br />32. M. L. Humason - 1929-1931<br /><br />33. W. D. MacMillan - 1918-1925 - Steady State Theory<br /><br />34. Fred Hoyl
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
Well the ancient Etruscans who inhabited Italy in Pre-Roman days believed that the heavens were divided into 16 segments controlled by various deities. <br /><br />The cosmic conceptions associated with directions (in accordance with Piacenza liver) also had an influence on the the significance of the gates of cities and military camps. These traditions were fully utilised in Town planning, and the concepts were passed on to the Romans. The auspicious Eastern facing <i>porta praetoria</i> was a lucky gate, and legionaries would march to battle through this gate.<br /><br />The Etruscans interpreted signs or omens according to the sector in the sky in which they occurred. Lightning in particular had a special significance. The Etruscan priests who interpreted lightning were known to the Romans as augurs, and haruspices pronounced haroo-speekays (singular - Haruspex) also believed, in common with earlier Babylonian religion that the liver of a sheep is divided in a similar way to the heavens, and the liver of a sheep sacrificed according to ritual could also be used to predict events. The role of the haruspex was to interpret these entrails.<br /><br />Among the Etruscan sacred books, those concerned with the art of interpretation of lightning, thunder and lightning strikes were called the Books of Lightning or libri Fulgurales. <br /><br />The Roman historian Seneca had this to say about it:<br /><br />"This art, says Seneca, is founded on an essential conviction of the Etruscans: the signs from the sky are destined by the gods to inform mortals of their intentions. They are therefore divine signs which are absolutely necessary to understand. <br /><br />While we know that the lightning is the result of the collision of clouds, the Etruscans think that the collision happens in order for the lightning to be produced. In other words, lightning does not occur because it has been produced, but it is produced because it has something to announce."<br /><br />
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Alpha_Tauri - Thank you. I will have to add Etruscan to my list in an edit.<br /><br />That is somewhat similar to Jewish Cosmology in the Pseudepigrapha, especially in 1 Enoch.<br /><br />Alas, I have to go to work, but I will post the comparison later.<br /><br />Ok, a few minutes I can post two quotes:<br /><br />1 Enoch 44 (chapter has only one verse):<br /><br />"I saw another thing regarding lightning: how some stars arise and become lightning and cannot dwell with the rest."<br /><br />1 Enoch 59: 1-3<br /><br />"In those days, my eyes saw the mysteries of lightnings, and of lights, and their judgements; they flash lights for a blessing or a curse, according to the will of the Lord of the Spirits. ..."<br /><br />They had some very interesting beliefs about lightning and stars, etc. Totally unscientific, and totally different from Biblical astronomy - which is especially noteworthy since Bible writers were Jewish!
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
My theory, called the Cyclical Multiverse theory, attempts to explain distant redshifts as being partly gravitational. Its called a Multiverse because the idea is that our observable universe is one on many large conglomerations of galaxies billions of light years across which are nearby other conglomerations of galaxies. These conglomerations would be part of a very large particle. If we were to look at the whole thing, the we would see other particles next to it which form a very small part of a larger "multiverse" with its own planets, stars, and galaxies. The Cyclical Multiverse theory is essentially a fractal. It's called cyclical because the idea is that very large masses causing the gravitational redshift are the recyclers of star material. Therefore, by recycling the elements, stellar hydrogen can be replenished - allowing for an longer lifespan of the universe.<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/dosearch.php?Cat=&Forum=All_Forums&Words=multiverse%20theory&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=50&Old=allposts<br /><br />The major problem I see with this right now is that the redshifts of nearby to midway galaxies increase in redshift per apparent unit of distance at a greater rate than the redshifts of midway to faraway galaxies. On the other hand, the rate of gravitational redshift per distance is greater when light is closer to and escaping (these very large masses)... so there is a problem with the scale of the redshift in these areas. That's large hole in my theory I identified so far. New understanding of redshift with respect to the medium in which light travels, at least on my part, is necessary.<br /><br />Graphic of Very Large Masses:<br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=askastronome
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Alpha_Tauri - Here is a little more on the cosmology in 1 Enoch:<br /><br />1 Enoch chapter 43 is entitled "More secrets of the cosmos."<br /><br />Quoting the first part (verses 1,2):<br /><br />"And I saw other lightnings and the stars of heaven. And I saw how he called them each by their (respective) names, and they obeyed him. And I saw the impartial scales for the purpose of balancing their lights at their widest areas. And their natures are as follows: their revolutions produce lightning."<br /><br />Interesting that they believed star revolutions could produce lightning!<br /><br />Let's examine some more "secrets of the cosmos" from 1 Enoch - chapter 72, entitled "The Sun.":<br /><br />"I saw six openings through which the sun rises and six openings through which it sets. The moon also rises and sets through the same openings, and they are guided by the stars; ...<br /><br />"There are many windows (both) to the left and the right of these openings. First there goes out the great light whose name is the sun; its roundness is like the roundness of the sky; and it is totally filled with light and heat. The chariot on which it ascends is (driven by) the blowing wind.... By this fourth gate through which the sun rises during the first month there are twelve open windows from which a flame flows, when they are opened at the appropriate time" - 1 Enoch 72:3-5, 7<br /><br />Note there are some accurate points, but most of it is unscientific. The chapter does indicate the year is 364 days long - not far off!<br /><br />The chapter's conclusion is interesting: (concerning the sun)<br /><br />"As for the intensity of its light, it is sevenfold brighter than that of the moon; nevertheless, (the sun and moon) are equal in regard to their (respective) sizes." - 1 Enoch 72:37<br /><br />BTW - I am quoting from:<br /><br />"The Old Testament Psuedepigrapha," Volume 1, 1983, published by DOUBLEDAY & COMPANY, INC, GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK.<br />
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
"Interesting that they believed star revolutions could produce lightning!"<br /><br />It's possible to interpret ancient texts any way you wish. For example somebody might say that this is an explanation of lightning within the early solar nebula, if they were thus inclined.<br /><br />The Etruscans probably acquired elements of this cosmology through the Phoenicians, who settled on the Western coast of Italy. There was a sanctuary excavated at Pyrgi, near Cerveteri. dedicated to the Etruscan Goddess, Uni and the Phoenician equivalent 'Astarte', the Western equivalent of Ishtar. A bilingual inscription was found in Etruscan and Western Phoenician, which dated as late as the mid 5th century BCE.
 
A

alokmohan

Guest
Ancient Hindu cosmology tells one second of Braholok is hundred years on earth.There was elemet of relativity of time,possibly only such mythology.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Alpha_Tauri - Thank you for another informative post.<br /><br />Well, yes, you can extend a statement way beyond what is said in interpretation - which is what your example does.<br /><br />However, I was commenting on what was actually said - there is a difference.<br /><br />It is essentially the difference between translation and interpretation - though some translators will interpret to an extent by their choice of which valid definiton of a word to use in a translation.<br /><br />As a case in point, note "In a beginning" vs. "In the beginning." Both translations are valid - context determines whether a or the or nothing should be supplied in English.<br /><br />However, there is a limit here. The verse could never be interpreted as harmonizing with the Steady State theory, since any beginning to our universe would conflict with said theory.<br /><br />So, no, you cannot interpret ancient phrases in any way. And if you extend an interpretation beyond what is said, it is simply your own extension not what is actually said - albeit granted the extension is in harmony with what is said, not in contradiction to it.<br /><br />The statement in 1 Enoch can indeed be interpreted the way you state in an extended way - however, that is not the contextual application. In the context, the sun is distinguished from the stars, so to interpret star revolution as referring to solar revolution is out of harmony with the context. <br /><br />And it is solar rotation, not revolution, that could be said scientifically to involve flashing of light, perhaps even lightning, in the formative stage of our solar system - depending on which cosmological model you accept as accurate.<br />_____________________<br /><br /><br />That is very interesting about the connection of the Etruscan Uni with Astarte and Ishtar.<br /><br />Did you realize the word Easter as in the western holiday is actually derived from the name of this goddess?<br /><br />_________________________<br /><br />A few questions about Etru
 
N

newtonian

Guest
alolmohan - Interesting - one second as a hundred years.<br /><br />Can you quote the text and the source? I like quote mining.<br /><br />In Biblical astronomy, God (Jehovah) has a totally different concept of time than we do on earth. Here are quotes of two texts, the former was originally in Hebrew, the latter was originally in Greek:<br /><br />(Psalm 90:4) ". . .For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, And as a watch during the night."<br /><br />[In those days [i.e.: in that day] a watch during the night was typically 4 hours long] - pun intended.<br /><br />(2 Peter 3:8) "8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. . ."<br /><br />It would be reaonable to conclude that in different universes time would be different - the recent Science channel broadcast on parallel universes stated that laws of physics could also be different in different universes - assuming laws would even exist in a chance synthesis of a universe.<br /><br />On ancient Hindu cosmology, can you confirm the following quote as accurate:<br /><br />"The Hindus conceived that the earth had several foundations, one on top of the other. It rested on four elephants, the elephants stood on an enormous tortoise, the tortoise stood on an immense serpent, and the coiled serpent floated on universal waters. " - "The Bible, A Book for All People," page 19.<br />
 
A

alokmohan

Guest
I got in a book by Jayanta Narlikar,renowned astronomer.The book is seven wonders of the cosmos.I will give the quote later on.As for last paragraph ,you are correct.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
You all and Alpha_Tauri - The Science channel has two broadcasts currently repeating today and tomorrow: <br /><br />See my thread on the program about Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Hawking.<br /><br />And now airing considers more ancient history in a series entitled Solar Science, the 2003 episode in entitled Heavens Above and it considers many ancient cosmologies, including the ancient Babylonian zodiac.<br /><br />And that the ancient astrological charts are one sign off due to apparent celestial motions.<br />It also discusses Stonehenge and the Egyptian pyramids.<br /><br />It is interesting that many ancient cosmologies combine astrology and astronomy.<br /><br />In contrast, the Bible encourages astronomy but condemns astrology.<br /><br />Anyway, both science channel broadcasts are relevant to this thread and interesting.<br /><br />Apparently I am not the only one interested in this - the Science channel isn't just airing programs to stimulate my little inquiring mind!
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
Ok, I'll take the bait:<br /><br />"They had some very interesting beliefs about lightning and stars, etc. Totally unscientific, and totally different from Biblical astronomy - which is especially noteworthy since Bible writers were Jewish!"<br /><br />So how do you interpret Genesis, in particular Noah's Flood, and how do you reconcile this very specific story with scientific fact? <br />
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Alpha_Tauri - Note that I am an organic gardener in incredibly good weather here in south Louisiana, so my time here on SDC is limited.<br /><br />Now, I would normally start with cosmology, but since I am right now watching a program on Sodom and Gomorrah, another catastrophe, I will post on that first.<br /><br />The program is entitled Ancient Apocalypse and is on the Discovery Times channel, DTMS (channel 285 DirecTV), episode entitled Sodom and Gomorrah:<br /><br />A geologist studies the possible site of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were suddenly destroyed.<br /><br />It is an interesting program - including centrifuge reconstruction of liquefaction from an ancient earthquake near the shore of the dead sea.<br /><br />I.e., soil composition near the shore is conducive to liquefaction.<br /><br />It is also noted that the area has underground methane that would be released during such an earthquake, accounting for the Biblical fire.<br /><br />Also noted was evidence that ancient Egyptian asphalt [mummy coming from an Egyptian word for asphalt) has the signature (some type of spectrum-graph comparison) of the specific type of asphalt found at the Dead Sea.<br /><br />That would be a reason for cities near the shore of the Dead Sea - exporting asphalt.<br /><br />An ancient ruin north of the Dead Sea is discussed which was apparently an Olive Oil factory.<br />The specific theory the highlighted geologist adheres to is a massive landslide with results which included fire from the methane.<br /><br />However, this model, as the program states, does not confirm all the literal details of the Biblical account.<br /><br />The program does not address how molten salt could have fallen encrusting Lot's wife - some archaeologists have confirmed evidence of salt encrusting in the area.<br /><br />It also does not address the burning sulfur the Bible account refers to - sulphur deposits have also been found in the area if my memory serves me correctly.<br /><br />And it encourages searc
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
So what you're saying is that you interpret as opposed to taking it literally, which is not consistent with your comments regarding lightning and the Jewish interpretation by the way. <br /><br />Why not use your primitive religion principle and say that it's an allegorical story? There is no evidence of a worldwide flood, and trying to cram all the world's species into a small ark just would not work. How many species of trees are there? What about flighless birds from Antarctica, or New Zealand? Did Noah do a world tour to gather up the local species? <br /><br />The only interpretation has to be loose. Noah is common to the Torah, the Qu'ran and the Old Testament. The flood has elements of similarity with the story of Gilgamesh, or Utnapishtim to be precise. <br /><br />The Qu'ran itself of course is a mixture of Paganism, Zoroastrianism, Jewish Mysticism, and Apocryphal Christian writings. <br /><br />"My personal model for the Noachian flood is still at the formative stage."<br /><br />Good. Too many Christians try to defend half-baked interpretations. Religion has its moral and spiritual purposes, but when you try to distort scientific findings using ancient religious texts, that's where you're get into trouble. It's best to keep them separate.<br /><br />There is no Etruscan flood legend, although we don't have many original texts from that civilisation. Flood legends are worldwide. You just have to look at the recent Tsunami to get one inspiration. Verbal tradition over hundreds of years tends to get distorted very easily. <br /><br /><br />Maybe this is better continued in the free section.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Alpha_Tauri - What is it you feel I did not take literally?<br /><br />Actually, I do take the Genesis account literally - so there must be some misunderstanding.<br /><br />[On day, Hebrew Yohm, Moses gave this literal definition of day from God's concept of time: <br /><br />(Psalm 90:4) ". . . For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, And as a watch during the night. . ."<br /><br />Remember, Moses wrote both the 90th Psalm and Genesis!]<br /><br />Please specify what you are referring to by my not taking the Genesis account literally [perhaps evening and morning? - Yes, as in the twilight of someone's life that would be figurative - also a hint on how light increased during the creative days as a whole - as in the literal Hebrew imperfect verb state used for when light came to be - progressive from a dark start to day firmly established, as Jewish days do begin at dark]?<br /><br />Also, I am not aware of the Jewish interpretation of lightning. <br /><br />I simply quoted an English translation from 1 Enoch in the Pseudepigrapha referring to lightning.<br /><br />You posted:<br /><br />"There is no evidence of a worldwide flood."<br /><br />Actually, I posted some evidence and there is plenty more. Please comment on the evidence already presented, and I will then post more evidence.<br /><br />You posted that you could not cram all of the world's species into the ark,<br /><br />You have made the mistake of using modern scientific classification and assuming the Biblical classification indicated by the word "kind" is identical.<br /><br />Of course, it is not. Moses was not aware of modern classification methods to determine what is or is not a different species.<br /><br />The simple basis for kind is that all life on earth "reproduces after its own kind," a phrase repeated in Genesis.<br /><br />That would mean all species that have a common ancestor are of one kind.<br /><br />Scientists (including creationists) differ on what constitutes a kind, and researc
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
You haven't answered my question. What about the penguin, the kiwi, the kangaroo and tree parasites for example?<br /><br />If they were not in the ark, what are they descended from?<br /><br />If you believe that some animals, for example dinosaurs were left behind, explain why you believe the bible is incorrect?<br /><br />What is your justification for 7000 years per 'day' and not, say 500 million years? Isn't that an interpretation in itself rather than a literal reading?<br /><br />Why do some creationists believe that the Earth is much older? Is it not a question of interpretation?<br /><br /><br /><br />
 
T

tom_hobbes

Guest
Here's a good page on flood myths. Sounds from many like a giant Tsunami. <br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html<br /><br />One theory is that the filling of the Black Sea basin was part of the racial memmory responsible.<br /><br />http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#339966"> I wish I could remember<br /> But my selective memory<br /> Won't let me</font><font size="2" color="#99cc00"> </font><font size="3" color="#339966"><font size="2">- </font></font><font size="1" color="#339966">Mark Oliver Everett</font></p><p> </p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Tom_Hobbes - Thank you for that extensive link and research on flood legends. <br /><br />I lack time this morning to research the link, however I can quickly cut and paste a briefer summary of the flood accounts and which agrees essentially with the model you stated concerning common racial memory of an event:<br /><br />"Flood Legends. Such a cataclysm as the Deluge, which washed the whole world of that time out of existence, would never be forgotten by the survivors. They would talk about it to their children and their children's children. For 500 years after the Deluge, Shem lived on to relate the event to many generations. He died only ten years before the birth of Jacob. Moses preserved the true account in Genesis. Sometime after the Flood, when God-defying people built the Tower of Babel, Jehovah confused their language and scattered them "over all the surface of the earth." (Ge 11:9) It was only natural that these people took with them stories of the Flood and passed them on from father to son. The fact that there are not merely a few but perhaps hundreds of different stories about that great Deluge, and that such stories are found among the traditions of many primitive races the world over, is a strong proof that all these people had a common origin and that their early forefathers shared that Flood experience in common.-CHART, Vol. 1, p. 328.<br /><br />These folklore accounts of the Deluge agree with some major features of the Biblical account: (1) a place of refuge for a few survivors, (2) an otherwise global destruction of life by water, and (3) a seed of mankind preserved. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain, the Polynesians, the Eskimos and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and the American Indians-all of these have their Flood stories. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 2, p. 319) states: "Flood stories have been discovered among nearly all nations and tribes. Though most common on the Asian mainland and th
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Tom_Hobbes - Here is a brief list for comparison purposes.<br /><br />I am posting the list before commenting on comparisons so you also can compare:<br /><br />Flood Legends<br /><br />Samples from six continents and the islands of the sea; hundreds of such legends are known<br /><br />Australia - Kurnai<br /><br /> Destruction by Water<br /><br /> Humans Spared<br /><br /> Animals Spared<br /><br /> Preserved in a Vessel<br /><br />Babylon - Berossus' account<br /><br /> Destruction by Water<br /><br /> Warning Given<br /><br /> Humans Spared<br /><br /> Animals Spared<br /><br /> Preserved in a Vessel<br /><br />Babylon - Gilgamesh epic<br /><br /> Destruction by Water<br /><br /> Divine Cause<br /><br /> Warning Given<br /><br /> Humans Spared<br /><br /> Animals Spared<br /><br /> Preserved in a Vessel<br /><br />Bolivia - Chiriguano<br /><br /> Destruction by Water<br /><br /> Divine Cause<br /><br /> Warning Given<br /><br /> Humans Spared<br /><br /> Preserved in a Vessel<br /><br />Borneo - Sea Dayak<br /><br /> Destruction by Water<br /><br /> Humans Spared<br /><br /> Animals Spared<br /><br /> Preserved in a Vessel<br /><br />Burma - Singpho<br /><br /> Destruction by Water<br /><br /> Humans Spared<br /><br /> Animals Spared<br /><br /> Preserved in a Vessel<br /><br />Canada - Cree<br /><br /> Destruction by Water<br /><br /> Divine Cause<br /><br /> Humans Spared<br /><br /> Animals Spared<br /><br /> Preserved in a Vessel<br /><br />Canada - Montagnais<br /><br /> Destruction by Water<br /><br /> Divine Cause<br /><br /> Warning Given<br /><br /> Humans Spared<br /><br /> Animals Spared<br /><br /> Preserved in a Vessel<br /><br />China - Lolo<br /><br /> Destruction by Water<br /><br /> Divine Cause<br /><br /> Humans Spared<br /><br /> Animals Spared<br /><br /> Preserved in a Vessel<br /><br />Cuba - original natives<br /><br /> Destruction by Water<br /><br /> Warning Given<br /><br /> Humans Spared<br /><br /> Animals Spared<br /><br /> Preserved in a Vessel<br /><br />East Africa - Masai<br /><br /> Destruction by Water
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Alpha_Tauri - I answered your question about species in general. <br /><br />Granted I did not specifically discuss the Penguin, etc.<br /><br />Dinosaurs were extinct long before the last catastrophe - there are no dinosaurs found frozen in Siberia.<br /><br />Therefore, of course, no dinosaurs were on the ark as no dinosaurs existed at Noah's time.<br /><br />The Genesis account does not indicate plants were taken on the ark to preserve species, though that is certainly possible.<br /><br />Of course, plants were taken as food for the animals.<br /><br />Seeds would survive the flood outside.<br /><br />Also, most plants extant today will grow from cuttings in mud.<br /><br />Ditto various micro-organisms and parasites.<br /><br />Note that two of each kind of unclean animal and seven of each kind of clean animal was taken on the ark.<br /><br />The Bible is not incorrect - please examine my former post more carefully.<br /><br />The 7,000 year creative day is an educated guess based on Bible chronology, Bible prophecy and the verse I quoted in Psalms showing God's concept of time.<br /><br />Before I answer in depth, I would like to know if you agree that Moses would have been referring to God's concept of time in listing a summary of what happenned on each creative day?<br /><br />To wit: 1,000 years is like one day, or 1,000 years is like a watch during the night, as Moses wrote in the 90th Psalm.<br /><br />I already posted the normal length of a night watch - 4 hours.<br /><br />Now, have you tried doing the math?<br />Interpretation vs. literal reading? Well, if you consider Biblical context then you would realize this is simply one of many cases of the Bible interpreting itself.<br /><br />Many words have more than one literal definition - including the word day both in Hebrew and in English.<br /><br />Now, why would God use 24 hour days when He is extraterrestrial, and remember the first 6 creative days were before humans existed.<br /><br />In another post I will indeed detail how Biblica
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
"The earth, btw, is probably about 4.5 billion years old. "<br /><br />There's hope for you yet <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />"Before I answer in depth, I would like to know if you agree that Moses would have been referring to God's concept of time in listing a summary of what happened on each creative day? "<br /><br />No. I don't. I think it's an obvious interpretation. So if the Earth took seven days at 7000 years per 'day', why is it not 49,000 years old? Some creationists believe this. Why are they wrong, and you right? <br /><br />Basically you and the young Earth creationists are interpreting a document that has no ground rules for interpretation in different ways.<br /><br />So do you believe in the process of evolution?<br /><br />The only Australian Aboriginal legends of a flood are from a small part of Victoria that has been prone to flooding.<br /><br />What about dating? Do you accept that the various types of scientific dating are valid? These include Potassium argon dating, C14 dating, thermoluminescence, dendrochronology etc. They are all relatively consistent with each other where the techniques overlap.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Alpha_Tauri - <br /><br />I guess before we end up thinking we disagree when we actually agree but are being confused by semantics, we should come to an understanding on definitions of words.<br /><br />For example. where do you draw the line between translation and interpretation?<br /><br />That being said, here are some obvious ground rules for any text, the Bible included:<br /><br />1. The usage of words or symbols (incl. symbolisms) in any text should be considered above definitions used outside said text.<br /><br />E.g. Biblical usage of the word day is authoritative in determining the defintion of day - Hebrew yohm.<br /><br /> 2. A translation using a definition should do so in harmony with the context. First, the immediate context, then the overall context of the text.<br /><br />3.. Given a choice between a translation, or a valid possible interpretation, which contradicts the overall context of the text vs. one whch is in harmony with the overall context of the text - the harmonious translation or interpretation should be preferred.<br /><br />[Unless, of course, one does not want to understand the text but merely to degrade it.]<br /><br />BTW - this is why many think the Bible contradicts itself - they choose interpretations and translations which contradict other statements in the Bible.<br /><br />I have found that there are no actual contradictions in the Bible, just mistranslations and wrong interpetations which violate the overall Biblical context and usage of words and phrases, etc.<br /><br />Getting back to comparitive cosmology - here is another case illustrating my point:<br /><br />Another poster implied Newton believed in a static universe because he used the phrase fixed stars.<br /><br />However, this is a doubtful interpretation, since the overal context of Newton's discoveries on cosmology involved both the laws of motion he formulated and force of gravity which he showed was involved in motion.<br /><br />Likewise with the word day. <br /><br />Moses wrote Gen
 
N

newtonian

Guest
You all - we have digrressed from thread theme to biblical astronomy - which is another thread I will shortly bump.<br /><br />This thread is supposed to be about comparitive cosmologies.<br /><br />To get us back to thread theme, here are a couple of more recent variations in cosmology models:<br /><br />"In 1927 the Belgian abbe Georges Lemaitre proposed that the universe originated from a big bang or "primelval atom". Later its expansion almost ceased, then accerated away." - The World of Science," 1991, Volume 8, page 108.<br /><br />According to the Lemaitre model the expansion of the universe at the big bang gradually slowed to a point where gravity and cosmic repulsion were nearly equal.<br /><br />Note that Einstein earlier had proposed such a force for repulsion, now dubbed dark energy, aka the cosomological constant, aka vacuum energy.<br /><br />The Lemaitre model then proposed a period where the universe was nearly static - compare earlier more permanent static universe models.<br /><br />However, Lemaitre then proposed a period of gradual increased expansion due to the cosmic repulsion force, now dubbed dark energy.<br /><br />And the present state of the universe, according to the Lemaitre model, is one of accelerated expansion.<br /> <br />I am not sure what the future state of the universe would be according to the Lemaitre model.<br /><br />Do any of you know?<br /><br />There was also the Eddington-Lemaitre model which had no big bang, but acclerated away from a finite size. - Ibid., p. 108<br /><br />Has the latter model been disproven? <br /><br />The above source considered it one of a number of viable alternate theories to the standard Big Bang, which was not accelerating but rather decelerating.<br /><br />Biblical astronomy, btw, does imply ongoing stretching of the fabric of space - see Isaiah 40:22 - the stretching fine gauze model.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY