Genesis Chapter One

[Coolhand]

On 5/22/2019 at 9:17 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Not commentaries, but a question.  Does Genesis 1:16 have anything to do with Astrology?  Or am I seeing something that isn't there?

 

 

 

It looks to me like 14 could; of course depending on what we meant by astrology. NIV is pretty close to the Tanakh and the LXX:

 

"And God said, 'Let there be lights in the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years."

 

It looks to me like the lights or "sources of light" were put there with purpose, specifically marking seasons and times. To me this then begs the question of authorship and original audience and what that would have meant to them. 

 

 

 

[Coolhand]

On 5/23/2019 at 6:33 AM, Pastor Dave said:

Ok Coolhand, let me start by saying, I see Genesis 1 as a best explanation of how the universe began to a man 3500 years ago. Men who did not have the knowledge that we have accumulated over time.

 

I was once taught that when looking at scripture, if a text can be looked at from more than 1 perspective, it should be. All possible views should be examined, and the most likely or most reasonable understanding should be given the most validity.

 

The first thing I think we should discuss is the use of the word Yom. The Hebrew word Yom has multiple meanings. While it is traditionally understood to be a 24 hour day, it is also used to refer to the time from sunup to sundown, just as in English. Where it gets interesting is when we look at some of the other ways Yom can be used. The most applicable, to me, would be that Yom can be used to denote an undetermined amount of time, such as an Eon or age. When we look at the use of the word Yom through out Genesis 1 as an age or Eon the whole text seems to have taken on a different level of explanation. In my opinion, when looked at in this way it seems that science is finally catching up with what is being explained in Genesis. There are only a couple of places where science and Genesis disagree. In those areas science can not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's explanation is more accurate than the Genesis account.

 

Hey brother,

 

So, "yom." This is a good example of how studying the original languages was of no help at all. Sometimes the original is very helpful and quite a blessing, sometimes it doesn't help, and sometimes it causes more questions than it does answers.

 

In this case I think the context is more helpful than the word study. "Morning and evening was the -----day." From the context it looks to me like it means day as in morning an evening, like a regular 24 hour day. Regarding other places in Genesis it looks to me like they have a similar range of meaning for "yom" that we do for day.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Coolhand said:

 

It looks to me like 14 could; of course depending on what we meant by astrology. NIV is pretty close to the Tanakh and the LXX:

 

"And God said, 'Let there be lights in the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years."

 

It looks to me like the lights or "sources of light" were put there with purpose, specifically marking seasons and times. To me this then begs the question of authorship and original audience and what that would have meant to them. 

 

 

 

 

The King James Version speaks of ruling the day and ruling the night.  That sounds like Astrology -- to me.  The greater light is the Sun.  The lesser light is the Moon.  That makes the Sun and Moon -- rulers.  

 

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.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

Genesis 1:18

And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Seeker]

On 5/28/2019 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 There is no expansion of space within a galaxy.

 

Could I trouble you for a source on that one, please? As I understood it, all space is expanding.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Seeker said:

 

Could I trouble you for a source on that one, please? As I understood it, all space is expanding.

 

 

 

I have been watching the You Tube videos on physics and cosmology.  In particular, Neil DeGrase  Tyson  -- of the Hayden Planetarium.

 

It is only the space between galaxies that is expanding.  The gravitational forces within the galaxies are strong enough to counter this force -- generally called, dark energy.  If this were not the case, galaxies would lose cohesion and the stars would fly off.

 

If all space were expanding in our solar system -- the orbits of all the planets would be expanding.  We would be getting more and more distance between ourselves and the Sun and we would all be dead from the cold.

 

If all space everywhere were expanding -- molecules would fly apart.  There would be no matter -- anywhere.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Seeker]

I suspect you've misunderstood part of what he said. It's a subject he covers a lost, and a specific link would be appreciated.

 

AFAIK (and I do follow the topic) there is no essential difference between intergalactic space and the space between my ears. Both are expanding in the same way.

 

It's like the water in a flowing river - moored boats do not float downstream. The river supports the boats (galaxies), the mooring (gravity) maintains their positions. The river, however is still flowing.

 

"More" space is appearing everywhere evenly. Electromagnetic forces maintain the sizes of material objects, gravity maintains the relationship between disconnected objects, but the underlying space is still expanding.

[Coolhand]

21 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

The King James Version speaks of ruling the day and ruling the night.  That sounds like Astrology -- to me.  The greater light is the Sun.  The lesser light is the Moon.  That makes the Sun and Moon -- rulers.  

 

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.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

Genesis 1:18

And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

 

 

 

 

Oh I see what you are saying, yeah it does. The Hebrew uses something like "authority" for "rule," as does the LXX.

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

29 minutes ago, Coolhand said:

 

 

Oh I see what you are saying, yeah it does. The Hebrew uses something like "authority" for "rule," as does the LXX.

 

 

 

 

Which still leaves the question.  What is the intent behind the original?  It's much worse than translating modern Hebrew into modern English.  This is ancient Hebrew -- and the cultural gap is staggering.  To me, it looks like Astrology.

 

For one thing, it presumes sentience on the part of the Sun and Moon.  This is consistent, with the Biblical calling the stars, the Host of Heaven.    In other words, God's army or angels.  

 

 

[RevBogovac]

 

On 6/26/2019 at 10:59 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

On 6/26/2019 at 7:33 PM, Seeker said:

 

Could I trouble you for a source on that one, please? As I understood it, all space is expanding.

 

 

 

I have been watching the You Tube videos on physics and cosmology.  In particular, Neil DeGrase  Tyson  -- of the Hayden Planetarium.

 

It is only the space between galaxies that is expanding.  The gravitational forces within the galaxies are strong enough to counter this force -- generally called, dark energy.  If this were not the case, galaxies would lose cohesion and the stars would fly off.

 

If all space were expanding in our solar system -- the orbits of all the planets would be expanding.  We would be getting more and more distance between ourselves and the Sun and we would all be dead from the cold.

 

If all space everywhere were expanding -- molecules would fly apart.  There would be no matter -- anywhere.  

 

 

 

I like Roger Penrose (and Vahe Gurzadyan)'s view on the the universe iterating through infinite cycles (Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (ccc).

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

 

 

I like Roger Penrose (and Vahe Gurzadyan)'s view on the the universe iterating through infinite cycles (Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (ccc).

 

 

I followed your link and got lost.  How did we get from an expanding Universe -- with the rate of expansion speeding up -- to infinite cycles?  I'm not arguing.  I'm asking.

 

 

[RevBogovac]

10 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

I followed your link and got lost.  How did we get from an expanding Universe -- with the rate of expansion speeding up -- to infinite cycles?  I'm not arguing.  I'm asking.

 

 

 

 

You're right, off course... I should have quoted the discussion below. That was more on topic regarding this link e.a. 

 

 

 

On 5/28/2019 at 8:04 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

On 5/28/2019 at 10:22 AM, RevBogovac said:

 

Yeah, but there are basically two views on that expansion rate: exponential and s-curve; the former is used by the present day majority to "prove" their ("short"-term) point of view, the latter is supported by a small progressive part that simply extrapolates that in nature there is no (proof found of) endless exponential growth but it always comes down to s-curves. More of a "pulsating" universe; expanding a.t.m. but somewhere in the (very distant) future it will be condensing again (and so forth)....  And as you often like to point out; a lot of valid ideas started out once by a small minority...

That is the model on it's way out.  The current word in favor is "oscillating".  In this model, there is a "Bang".  Not an explosion.  A sudden expansion.  (The word they use is "inflation".)

 

According to this model, there is a Bang -- followed by "inflation" -- followed by slowing expansion -- followed by contraction -- ending in "The Big Crunch".  Rinse and Repeat.  (oscillating).

 

This is why they were taking the new measurements and calculations.  Two discoveries.  1.  The Inflation was not slowing down.  It's speeding up.  2.  There isn't enough mass in the Universe to stop the expansion.

 

That leaves the possibility of Cosmic geometry.  They asked, if Space really is curved, maybe the expansion ends up where it started?  The consensus is no.  Don't ask me to explain.  The math is beyond me.

 

The consensus is that the Universe will continue to expand, until Entropy is the final result.  They refer to this state as "Heat Death."

 

This assumes that the values for Dark Energy remain constant.  There is no expansion of space within a galaxy.  That is because the gravitational forces within a galaxy, serve to prevent Dark Energy, from expanding space.  If this is so, the Universe will end in Heat Death.

 

If this changes -- if space inside the galaxies starts expanding -- the Universe will end in "The Big Rip".

 

As to the multiverse -- As yet unproven speculation.  There are different models for this.  All unproven.  I find the arguments interesting.  There is no proof for any of it.

 

The math is beyond me.  It hurts my head.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

 

You're right, off course... I should have quoted the discussion below. That was more on topic regarding this link e.a. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Of course?  I am often mistaken.  About many things.     The field of Cosmology is in great flux.  There are more questions than answers.  For instance, the nature of Dark Energy.  The force behind the expansion of space.  Dark Energy might exist.  Or the expansion of space could have a different explanation.  If it is Dark Energy -- things could change.  For all we know, there could be a mechanism -- which changes Dark Energy -- from a repulsive force -- to an attractive force.  We don't know.  Exploration is preliminary.

 

At this point -- there is a consensus, that the expansion of space is caused by Dark Energy.  If Dark Energy remains constant -- the Universe will end in heat death.  That is -- total entropy.  If Dark Energy becomes more powerful -- Heat Death is replaced by -- the Big Rip.  Every atom and sub atomic particle will be ripped apart by the expansion of space.  Of course, not for billions of years.

 

Something to remember.  The expansion of space only occurs between galaxies.  That is why the galaxies are receding from each other.  Inside galaxies, the expansion of space is countered by gravitational forces.  The exception is galactic clusters.  When galaxies are close enough to each other, gravity will prevent Dark Energy from expanding the space between them.

 

It's fascinating stuff.  I follow as well as I can.  It does hurt my head.     

 

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[RevBogovac]

28 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

[...] It's fascinating stuff.  I follow as well as I can.  It does hurt my head.     

 

 

 

This is my simple understanding of it: as stars fade and implode into black holes, the other stars that turned into black holes in that galaxy start to attract one another until one all-encompassing black hole reaches a critical mass to explode again... causing a big bang (again).

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

This is my simple understanding of it: as stars fade and implode into black holes, the other stars that turned into black holes in that galaxy start to attract one another until one all-encompassing black hole reaches a critical mass to explode again... causing a big bang (again).

 

 

Maybe not.  Black Holes "leak".  They emit energy in the form of Hawking radiation -- named for Stephen Hawking.  Over time, a Black Hole will evaporate.  It takes a lot of time for that to happen.  Still, we are talking about the Cosmos.  Deep time allows even Black Holes to dissipate.  

 

Do you want something to chew on?  Nothing can travel through space, faster than the speed of light.  However -- the space between galaxies can expand faster than the speed of light.  In the distant future, the light from distant galaxies will be lost to us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RevBogovac]

13 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Nothing can travel through space, faster than the speed of light.  However -- the space between galaxies can expand faster than the speed of light.  In the distant future, the light from distant galaxies will be lost to us.

 

 

 

Isn't that "just" theory? I mean, AFAIK that presumption is based on the assumption of exponential growth of that speed. And as far as we can observe now we see an exponential curve in the growth of that speed. However, in nature, a lot of growth that is observed as exponential at first later turns out to be an S-curve instead of an exponential curve...

 

A lot of interesting questions left, indeed... 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Isn't that "just" theory? I mean, AFAIK that presumption is based on the assumption of exponential growth of that speed. And as far as we can observe now we see an exponential curve in the growth of that speed. However, in nature, a lot of growth that is observed as exponential at first later turns out to be an S-curve instead of an exponential curve...

 

A lot of interesting questions left, indeed... 

 

 

 

 

It's based on observation of the "dopler" effect.  (red and blue light shift)  The most distant galaxies are receding the fastest.  This is happening, because the space between the galaxies is expanding.

 

Reality is stranger than fantasy.  

 

 

[RevBogovac]

19 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

It's based on observation of the "dopler" effect.  (red and blue light shift)  The most distant galaxies are receding the fastest.  This is happening, because the space between the galaxies is expanding.

 

Reality is stranger than fantasy.  

 

 

 

Yes, the observation is correct. And at present the rate is expanding. The problem is with the assumption it will keep expanding exponantially (exponential curve) while in nature more often than not something that starts as an exponential curve ends up as an s-curve (so the rate "smoothes" back gain)...

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Yes, the observation is correct. And at present the rate is expanding. The problem is with the assumption it will keep expanding exponantially (exponential curve) while in nature more often than not something that starts as an exponential curve ends up as an s-curve (so the rate "smoothes" back gain)...

 

 

Either way, it's interesting.  The scientists were shocked to discover that the expansion was speeding up.  It's not what they were expecting.  I have confidence that if different facts show up, they will be accepted.  After all, these are scientists.  Not clergy.  They want to be corrected.  

 

 

One of the things that puzzles me:  The finding that space itself has greater than zero mass.  Very tiny, but greater than zero.  And space is expanding.  In time, that could be a lot of mass.  Well, it's interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]