Most of what I write about is a combination of both the natural world and the spiritual world and while I agree with most of modern science to date, I do think there is also a spiritual layer to reality.

Sift through the PAGES and POSTS for more interesting information guaranteed to make you think and question.


#1 Nothing is No Information

#2 Something is Some Information

#3 NoThing is Infinite/Unlimited information

Be careful how you understand NOTHING to be and how the word is used when you read my pages and articles on the web. I hold that the true vacuum energy of our universe and of in fact everything is from NOTHING of Infinite Information, is dynamic, and full --not empty, stagnate, and of zero information.

All the information collected from this process of existence and life is also retained inside of the Nothing. Who knows how many times existence and life have happened. I don't think information is lost or destroyed, and I don't think it returns into a zero-information kind of nothing.

Both understandings of nothing look very similar. They are both undefinable, unquantifiable, immeasurable...but they are opposites. The difference between zero and infinity.

FYI: There is One thing all of life wants, even human life and that is the effects of LOVE.



Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.

Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.
Nothing is everything, but everything is not nothing.

From Spirit to Nature

From Spirit to Nature

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

In answer to a blogger's question of why Genesis has stars, sun made after the Earth

Because this blogger rejected my comment to leave on his post in answer to this guy's question, I have posted it here instead. Apparently, to most Christians my ideas are still witchcraft and I shall be burned at he stake.

zuma August 4, 2013 at 8:48 am
Big Bang timeline contradicts Genesis 1.
In accordance to the Big Bang timeline, stars and galaxies were formed approximately 12 to 15 billion years before the present and yet the sun was formed 4.6 billion years ago. The earth was subsequently formed approximately 4.54 billion years.
The following is the sequence that has been laid out by the scripture:
a)The heaven and earth were created prior to any substances:
Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The word, earth, in Genesis 1:1 gives the implication the earth was created the earliest as the same as heaven. Yet stars were formed prior to the earth’s formation in accordance to the Big Bang timeline.
b)The creation of sun:
According to the scripture, the sun was created after the creation of the earth:
Genesis 1:3-4, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.” Even if one would consider the creation of sun on day four, it would still fall after Genesis 1:1, the creation of the earth.
As the creation of sun, Genesis 1:3-4 was placed after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:1, it implies that the sun was created after the creation of the earth. Yet in the Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse and that is the sun was formed 4.6 billion years before the earth, 4.54 billion years.
c)The creation of stars:
Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.”
The phrase, [he made] the stars also, in Genesis 1:16 implies the creation of stars.
As the creation of stars in Genesis 1:16 was placed after the creation of the earth (Genesis 1:1) and the sun (Genesis 1:3-4), it implies that stars were created prior to the creation of the earth and sun. Yet in Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse since stars were formed in approximately 12 to 15 billion years ago before the formation of the earth, 4.54 billion years, and the sun, 4.6 billion years.
The discrepancies as mentioned above between the Big Bang and the scripture have placed the reliability of Big Bang theory into question.
How could Christians engross in Big Bang theory then?

I think Christians come in three groups. One is the group where they take the moral teaches, but don't read many passages literally. The other group takes the moral teachings and the passages literally superficially (which is what you have done above). The other group takes the moral lessons and the passages literally with deeper understanding.

I fall in the last group, but I would also call myself a Buddhist, a Jew, a Sufist, a Hindu, a Kabbalist, and a Naturalist as well as a Spiritualist. I think there are truths in many teachings and BS as well.

For the explanation, I will give summed up version of what took me four years of study and of which I consequently wrote a book about entitled The Ancient Genesis. Now, the book could have been inspired by a higher power, by just men or be complete rubbish. I will not argue that point. What I will say is that when one reads, one needs to read carefully, be it of any literature to understand context of culture, context of history and context of intention.

Basically the jist is this. Learn some Hebrew and Phonetician and also ancient and modern day Hebrew culture.

When you do you will understand these basic principles:

1-Yom which is defined as a day in Genesis can mean A Period of Time. (There is a lot of references and support for this in my book). Further common sense might lead one to ask how is a day defined before the Earth or Sun are said to even Day 1 and Day 2, and some of Day 3.

2-Bara is for spiritual creation only in Genesis 1. Period. This word is translated in the English as created (s). After much much study I have come to realize this to be the true case. This occurs in Day 1 when the building blocks of everything arose. This occurs in Day 5 for the life of water animals. This occurs in Day 6 for the life of humans. (There is further understanding of why it only happens for water life supported in my book and notes, but basically land animals evolved from water life and so what was given to them in Day 5 eventually evolved into the land animals in Day 5 later.

3-Asha is for physical processes in Genesis 1 only. Period. This word is translated as made in English.

4-What Asha means than is to take the parts and build. Example. I have a hammer, nails, and wood. I now can build a house. There are scientific mechanisms that can explain every Asah process, because Asah is a physical process.

5-God does bring about many things in Genesis 1 Without the use of made or create, without the use of Asha and Bara.

Why use Asah and Bara then if God's words alone can bring about plants from the ground, etc. This is because those words give us more insight, more information, into what is actually happening. The focus is not that something is coming ....or has come, but  how and its relevance.

So, with some basic understanding let us go back to your question....

Why is the sun and stars mentioned in Day 4 when the Earth is mentioned in Day 3, clearly a day earlier.

Not only does that not make sense in terms of cosmological evolution, it doesn't make sense in terms of common sense. If a day is in fact the sun going up and down in accordance to the Earth, which clearly these people would see ....then how can you even have  day in Day 3 for the Earth BEFORE the appearance of the sun?

So, either the writer was very stupid, or he did this deliberately. I chose to think the later.

The basic answer is because before the Earth, the stars and sun did not have relevance, they would not have been seen. The word MADE which is actually Asah brings additional understanding as it means to give purpose, to give direction to give .

It means  natural processes used to guide, form, make, command, and direct information...using, guiding, preparing, maintaining, making

What the *intention* of this passage is is that: In this period of time, the sun and stars were now given purpose and relevance to the Earth, are being maintained in relation to the Earth.

*It does not mean that the sun and stars were created from nothing spontaneously and instantly in this moment and appeared suddenly right after the Earth.*

The rabbi Nahimandies (he lived 500 years ago so is not informed by modern day science) calls asah, ‘creation by in-formation’ and he calls bara ‘creation from nothing’. (As seen in his commentaries and in the back of my book)

No comments:

Post a Comment

What is God?

For myself, I view God as a Spirit. An infinite, illimitable, eternal Spirit. What is a Spirit? For myself, I view a Spirit as the most fundamental form, most simple form of energy.

I think to call the Spirit/God as intelligent or conscious, restricts and limits our own understanding of it. This is because we view life and nature through our own intelligence and consciousness. Ours evolved naturally from simple to complex and is restricted by body/space/time.

A God would not have these limits, would not have evolved and would not be complex. Therefore its "intelligence" and "conscious" would be nothing like we understand.

God is not a consciousness inside a brain or an intelligence inside a brain or even a mind inside a brain. Though a mind might be the closest we can think of it. God would exist outside of space and time and inside of it; therefore, its "consciousness" would encompass past-present-future and even before time. Its intelligence could be much like a mathematical genius quantum computer. Perhaps an Awakened Energy-Spirit- would be a better definition.

There are two kinds of energy in my view. Spiritual and Physical. When we understand virtual particles and fundamental particles better, I think we come closer to understanding what Spiritual Energy can do as well.

Spiritual Energy >>Withdrawal>>Space Forms>>Physical Energy Emerges>>Fields> Virtual Particles> Forces>Fundamental Particles>Everything Physical Forms.

Science examines the natural/the physical, not the spiritual.

I agree with everything from science, except when biologists (not mathematicians) use words like purposeless, without guide, directionless, without goals.

I agree with mathematicians assessment of randomness.

The reason is because in biology, we are talking about things without a consciousness -processes and mechanisms are non living things and can't have a purpose in the sense that they are using the word. They don't have a consciousness. They are not aware.

We are examining processes and mechanisms, but what is this substance (energy) that these processes and mechanisms are using. From where does this substance (energy) come?

Those are essentially the questions at the crust of the real inquiry into what is reality.

Simply because the process or mechanism is not conscious itself, does not mean they were not structured deliberately or without intent or thought, or that a spiritual energy does not exist.

This simply means that physical things and processes and mechanisms without a consciousness don't have a conscious purpose/goal.

Well, Duh.

So, I agree biological evolution doesn't have a conscious purpose/goal in and of itself -because we are examining only the physical Things, the physical processes and physical mechanisms.

This says nothing about the spiritual significance.

However, they do have a natural purpose/goal.

All energy persists toward entropy =Death.
All life persists to survival =Life

Further, all energy follows a pattern from simple>complex, chaos>order, from heterogenous>homogenous, from random>non random, from death>life>death.

These patterns are reflected in our natural laws.

So, all of energy does follow a guide or a direction. It is the direction or reflection of the natural laws.

is Nothing all there is?

Science seems to be going in the direction that true nothingness does not exist. This is because whenever you find nothing, you find virtual particles.

I would have to agree not just with the science, but with that concept in my view of life and reality.

Nothing does not exist, because whenever you find nothing--you actually find everything just in its most simple and fundamental form. Nothing is NoThing, not the non-existence of everything.

The most simple and fundamental form of reality is NoThing and this is why this happens in my opinion.

The real question for me is, how much of life experience and memories is retained in this simple fundamental form that makes up our universe and our everything?

How is it retained?

We can see cells seem to have a sense of memory and experience, but do virtual particles too?

Do all our memories and life experiences retain themselves in some fundamental form of energy?

Could what we call the soul or spirit be an echo of nature itself?

It does seem that virtual particles have to behave certain ways. It pops as a gluon only to become a photon or such...because it seemingly has to conform to the existence it pops into. Some virtual particles might pop into our existence as anti-quarks, but most have to conform and so we see the photon it is supposed to be.

Why do virtual particles conform? What rules are they following? It seems they are somehow aware of what is around them if they are conforming. (Not to imply this awareness has to be conscious.)