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. 

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/09/stephen-hawking-proves-the-existence-of-god-2/

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 exist...in 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)




Where did our numerical symbols come from?

Does anyone else find the symbol of numbers fascinating?

The shape of the zero was very clever indeed. When you draw it...it starts as nothing, becomes a point and then takes a shape and then the point returns to nothing, the point at which it came. The numerical shape returns to itself, returns the shape of zero, returns to nothing.

Now, I find it confusing that eight uses the zero doubled up. That number really should have been another symbol.

I find it more confusing that the number ten, twenty, and so on use the number zero at all. There is no zero involved in ten or twenty. There is a one involved in ten. One row of ten. There is a two involved in twenty. Two rows of ten. But why zero?

Then we have infiniti. The horizontal figure eight. This makes sense as it is zero. It is nothing, becoming something and returning to nothing again. But because it is infinite, it does it again. Like a cycle. This makes a lot of sense.

So, who was behind the symbol of zero and infiniti and who was behind the symbol of eight and ten, and twenty, and so on?

Well, as it turns out the symbol we use today for zero came from the Hindu symbol of zero. This is interesting, because their concept of nothingness is still relevant today, especially given the new developments of what nothing means in quantum physics, in the true reality of nature.

Hindus only, within the context of Indo-European, have consistently used a zero.

But we can see that the Hindus did not use the two-zero format for the eight originally. That evolved later during Medieval times. I have to say that was a mistake. The symbol doesn't make sense.


What about ten, twenty and so forth?
Even though it doesn't make sense to me to use a zero, because there is no zero in the number quantity, of course this makes sense so that place values are used and therefore we can write any number using just ten symbols.

But it may have been better to isolate zero as its own symbol, and use a different symbol for ten, twenty. Perhaps like this 1~ or 2~ to mean ten and twenty. 11~ would mean one hundred and ten.

I just don't like the combination of something and nothing I guess. But, the place value was an important step.


What about infiniti? The symbol apparently came to us by John Mallis in 1655.

Wallis did not explain his choice of this symbol, but it has been conjectured to be a variant form of a Roman numeral for 1,000 (originally CIƆ, also CƆ), which was sometimes used to mean "many", or of the Greek letter ω (omega), the last letter in the Greek alphabet.(wiki)

How did Morality happen?

Morality is not absolute in detail because it is not the same for all living things. We see morality altering from species to species in how they behave. But, some kind of morality evolved to sustain life.

It may be an absolute part of a conscious being, but varies in its detail.

Can energy achieve higher order without life? without consciousness? without morality?

Was morality an accident that let us survive? or was it inevitable so that we would survive, into higher consciousness... so that energy could reach fuller entropy? 

Is Consciousness Inevitable?

Consciousness, is it inevitable?

When we look at energy we see it runs toward entropy and likes to take the fastest path there. So, from that we have determined that energy goes into order and higher organization in fact to reach the fastest path to entropy. More energy will be used up. 

However- this seems to mean that high organization of particles is inevitable then. Though you can say this accident happen or that random thing...it seems eventually the higher organization will occur. Then, Consciousness occurs in this higher organization of things...consciousness is like a by product of this higher order of particles....and it seems inevitable to me because nature goes from random to non-random and chaos to order and because nature keeps moving forward building upon itself and is persisting toward the fastest path to entropy. But then it is also inevitable. So, my question now is on one hand consciousness seems inevitable and on the other hand there are many 'accidents or random things that occur' before it happens. So it is like an inevitable accident?

Or perhaps the game is set up to allow for random and accidents, but in the end consciousness will eventually prevail.

Are morals independent or absolute or what?

Morality is an independent reality?

Morals don't exist for an individual. They are a Collective. Just like particles interacting with the environment do so as a collective. Then they conform.

 Morality and ethics are a collective. If you take any group you look at you cannot then look at it with you on it from an external force onto an inward one. You have to see how the people in the group feel and think . From the inside to the inside. If those people are feeling oppressed or hurt or they feel pain about this sacrificing of children then for that group it is not good. If no one in the group had any feelings or care about a sacrifice of a child, even the child itself then is it morally wrong for the group? If they were say robots with no care of their death? For them then that would not be immoral. But that is because morality is contingent upon the collective. Nature works as a collective.

I then came across this article which seems to think somewhat like  I mentioned:

"Law instead follows from collective behavior, as do things that flow from it, such as logic and mathematics. The reason our minds can anticipate and master what the physical world does is not because we are geniuses but because nature facilitates understanding by organizing itself and generating law." -http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/laughlin.cfm

I would add this law comes from the collective, how the parts work together and this is really how morals and ethics evolve as well.

Of course this is Laughlin who Kruass criticized, but I agree with Laughlin here. 

I completely disagree that without science you can't have morals or ethics. Compassion and how you feel, empathy and being selfless has nothing to do with science. You might be able to understand better what it is or where it came from...but yes you have to understand consequences to have some judgment of it, but you don't need science for that either. You simply need reason/logic/understanding a sequence of events. This is not science. Again science may help us understand what logic and reason is or where it came from, but it is not science itself. Reason and emotion determine your ethics and morals. Science simply helps us understand how and why of all of it.

As a mother Bonobo looks at her baby, she follows her instincts and her compassion and the level of teaching of care giving from her small community. She knows nothing of science. She is merely following her emotions and level of reason.

As an outside judgment of humans we can look at them and judge, but they are judgers of their own culture and own behavior. What they have deemed acceptable will pass and what is not will not in their group. That is their moral and ethic code.

Water, Tree of Life, Bible, Science, Darwin, Indians

Let us imagine for a brief minute that everything is water. The tree outside is water. The person beside you is water. The food you are eating is water. The sky above is water. The universe is water. You are water. Yes, imagine everything to be water. 

Now imagine, everything is linked because it is in fact all the same water...Rushing in and out of itself. 

Now, your mind and all consciousness imagine to be a net. 

This net moves through this water, catching things that are physical. The (water or the consciousness) manifested a table which got caught in your net, manifested a crab which got caught in your net, manifested a person which got caught in your net, manifested a star which got caught in your net. 

But all these physical things you caught are not real. They are not the water, but a manifestation- an illusion. The real is this water, this substance that is all things, this substance that we can't catch in our net to perceive it, see it or measure it. 

The water, the real, passes through our net all the time with little perception from most of us. 

It is interesting to me that the book of Genesis and even scriptures from other cultures use water to describe the early beginnings. Water is a very interesting phenomenon. In Genesis, the spirit hovered and moved over the surface of the abyss. The Earth was described first as a ball of water. 

Another picture from an image is that of a tree. In Genesis we find the Tree of Life. It is a very interesting image conjured in our minds. A TREE. And what is this tree of? LIFE.

Now, has anyone read Darwin's great book, Origin of the Species? Umm...I think there is something in there about a tree. Oh, yeah, the tree of biological evolution. 

Is it just me, or do those two trees seems very similar? 

On a different subject:

I think that if in biology we can see all our physical make-up described, retained and encoded into a single genome code, a code which could be considered in a way less then 3D...it makes sense that all the non-biology physical make-up would be found to be described, retained and encoded in a 2D format as well. 

This is what the current physicists are finding. This is called the Holographic Universe principle and while it was once not considered very viable, it is now being considered by most to be one of the more accurate descriptions of our universe. 

All the information that makes up our everything is really a code which we can't see directly. This makes everything we see really an illusion. Science is now showing us what many ancient spiritualists had said for millennia.  

I think that our FIELDS act actually like FILTERS, which filter this code from the other side... to our side. The information may look very disordered to us on the other side or perhaps it looks very ordered, but once it vibrates through the FIELDS, it takes on independent characteristics, in a way- like a personality, that makes the information appear separate and as independent parts and in a form we understand -have evolved to perceive. 

But lots of information is vibrating from the 2D format and in and out of this 'sphere of water' yet we don't perceive much of it, only that which is filtered through our fields which then becomes a part of our physical reality. 

Sometimes we might indirectly see some of this information and that is what virtual particles would be I think. "Virtual particles" are coming out of the nothingness of our space. This nothingness still has fields though and so the "wave-information" however minor has an interaction, but is not completely filtered to our physical reality so we don't experience it. 

I'll finish with my latest opinion in response to another closed minded individual caught in the web of reason alone while wearing blinders:

 No, I'm not saying to give credibility to other people's experiences. If you have not experienced it or have evidence of it then it would be stupid of you to just accept it.

What I am saying is that there is a difference to being narrow in your view of things, and open in your view of things. There is a difference in being blinded by your own arrogance and open to understanding. 

Humans don't have all the answers and might not be able to find them all. Our minds can only understand and perceive so much.

For myself I don't take the view so black and white as you. In my opinion you are superficially looking at faiths of the world like most and therefore seeing contradictions and so they are all wrong. 

I have two comments on that.

If you look at the words of the spiritual leaders and not the mumo-jumbo (Buddha, Hindu Guru, Kabbalist, Christ, Rumi) you find a lot of similarity. There is a common thread of oneness of everything, selflessness, compassion, love, harmony, denial of self, and many more commonalities.    

(In fact much of what the ancient Indian Spiritualist and Kabbalist and Sufist taught are showing to be possibly accurate by modern science from big bang, to worm holes, to the holographic universe, to everything literally being one though it appears separate, to the wholeness of all, to it all coming from nothing -which should be understood as a dynamic eternal nothingness not in the sense most think of it).

The geography, language, rituals, superstitions, clothing, dogma, and supernatural explanations are all just lines to make boxes for everyone to fit into. This is the superficial mumbo jumbo and was not taught by the spiritual leaders. 

There is an old Indian story: 
     There are six people in a dark room and one moves to the center to hit an object. He says, "It is a long bumpy thing with slim at the end." Another man moves to the center and says, "No, it is large and wide and leathery." The other man comes to the center and says, "No, it is short and furry and soft." The other man says, "No, it is like five rocks sitting on the sand." The next man says, "No, it is beating thump thump." The last man says, "No, it is flappy, and rounded and soft."
Then, the lights turn on and they see they have all found different parts to the same whole ---an elephant. 
 
FYI: Ancient people were capable of figuring out all kinds of things. The Mayans and Egyptians both had highly sophisticated understanding of the cosmos and the human body. Further since these ancient peoples of the world lived in nature constantly, not in front of computers or TVs or phones, they were not disconnected like many of us today and so could understand nature in ways that would evade us. 
   

Fairies, God, Nature, Spirit, Connection

The Argument:

There are actually thousands of scriptures from around the ancient world about unicorns and fairies.
The dominant religions in Europe before Christianity took over were full of fairies. As well as other ancient religions around the world with almost identical myths (although different NAMES for what were essentially fairies).
The same case that is made for the existence of god, could be made for the existence of fairies.

And if god is in reference only to our personal needs, and only dwells within us? Than it's not god, it's just some psychological construct.

The Response:


Frankly, I don't think much of what u r referring to is myth. I call it legend. Most stories are embedded in some form of fact, something that happened and a story emerges from there. There probably were some kind of horses with one horn on their head which is how the stories may have started. There are fossils of one horned horses actually. Even trolls and leprechauns may have an actual link to a real people which was shown on the discovery channel. A very short species. 

Not sure what u mean by only our personnel needs and something within us. I would't agree that if that is all it is then its merely psychological. But to me, "god" is something that is used to describe what is within all living things and even non-living things, that connects everything to itself and manifests in all living things. Is everything and nothing. 

I don't think the material world is real at all, but an illusion.

And I think nature is far more interesting than most of you give it credit for, and doesn't have to make sense to us, or be measured by us or dissected by us to be.

I think a connection to something allows u to understand it in a way mere measurements alone cannot. I can dissect ur brain, but that tells me nothing of how well you spoke English or your mathematical skill. When I am connected to u, get to know u then I learn these things. Scientists in the past failed to see how clever great apes were by mere measurements. It was three women who dared to named their apes and connect to them that learned and showed everyone how amazing they really were. 

 People of the past may not have the sophisticated tools we have today, the computers and fancy gizmos that allow such precise measurements. But they were connected to nature in a way many of us fail today.

Connecting allows for intuitive truth, which is why Einstein rightly understood SR even though no one understood how and why he would come up with it.