PDA

View Full Version : Physical properties of the Rainbow



EndtimesDeut32/70AD
11-23-2012, 10:17 PM
I'm wondering about the physical characteristics and causes of the properties of the rainbow. Has anyone here a good study or scientific research about the rainbow including why it curves upward and so forth. Is the curvature due to the suns curvature or the earths?.... or both.... or neither???

Does the ends of the rainbow actually come down at a specific location and at a given time...or do the 'ends' relative to the angle and location from where they are viewed??

Can a rainbow be seen from above when it's appearing or is it only seen by those who see the light passing through rain to make the prism effect.

Richard Amiel McGough
11-23-2012, 11:54 PM
I'm wondering about the physical characteristics and causes of the properties of the rainbow. Has anyone here a good study or scientific research about the rainbow including why it curves upward and so forth. Is the curvature due to the suns curvature or the earths?.... or both.... or neither???

Does the ends of the rainbow actually come down at a specific location and at a given time...or do the 'ends' relative to the angle and location from where they are viewed??

Can a rainbow be seen from above when it's appearing or is it only seen by those who see the light passing through rain to make the prism effect.

Rainbows are caused by light being refracted through raindrops. It is a double refraction, so the source of light my be behind you.
658


657

These images are from this article (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/u14l4b.cfm) that explains the physics.

Rainbows are full circles. The bottoms just happen to be cut off by the earth. You see more of the circle if you get higher from the surface of the earth. You can form completely circular rainbows with a hose, like in this pic:

659

These facts, which show that rainbows are a natural phenomenon, present a problem with Genesis which says that God made the rainbow as a sign of his covenant:
Genesis 9:12 And God said: "This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 "I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14 "It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; 15 "and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Obviously, we need to reinterpret the Bible in light of science. Fundamentalists get it backwards and try to interpret science in light of the Bible. That's why they reject evolution and the age of the earth, etc.

Why are you interested in the physics of rainbows?

EndtimesDeut32/70AD
11-24-2012, 10:15 AM
These facts, which show that rainbows are a natural phenomenon, present a problem with Genesis which says that God made the rainbow as a sign of his covenant:
Genesis 9:12 And God said: "This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 "I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14 "It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; 15 "and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Obviously, we need to reinterpret the Bible in light of science. Fundamentalists get it backwards and try to interpret science in light of the Bible. That's why they reject evolution and the age of the earth, etc.

Why are you interested in the physics of rainbows?
It doesn't represent a problem to me, but rather the opposite. As Peter indicates in 2 Peter 3, the earth was once out of water and 'in water'. The water that it was 'out of' would have referred the liquid state of water [seas and oceans]and the water that it was 'in' would have been the vaporous state of water and thus referred to the vapor canopy. The earth had been watered with dew. Since the time of the fall of the vapor canopy, the earth has been watered with rain. Only the watering of the earth via rain allows the conditions to support the rainbow effect.

I'm contemplating an association between the phraseology of God's "setting HIS bow in the clouds" [pointing upwards] and others who "draw the bow" along with the lores of others such as nimrod and Nero who shot arrows in the air, with Nimrod claiming to have 'killed' god in the action. I'm contemplating this especially in associtation with the idea of Noah being a foretype of Christ and the second person of the trinity who effected a New Heavens/new earth. Noah effected a new physical heaven/earth [and removing the curse upon the earth (Gen 5;29)] Jesus effected a new personal heavens/earth, [ordinances and domian] in contrast with both the mosaic covnt heavens/earth and the original conditional stipulative heavens/earth of the original garden thus removing the curse of the law of sin/death

Thanks.

Richard Amiel McGough
11-24-2012, 05:39 PM
It doesn't represent a problem to me, but rather the opposite. As Peter indicates in 2 Peter 3, the earth was once out of water and 'in water'. The water that it was 'out of' would have referred the liquid state of water [seas and oceans]and the water that it was 'in' would have been the vaporous state of water and thus referred to the vapor canopy. The earth had been watered with dew. Since the time of the fall of the vapor canopy, the earth has been watered with rain. Only the watering of the earth via rain allows the conditions to support the rainbow effect.

I'm contemplating an association between the phraseology of God's "setting HIS bow in the clouds" [pointing upwards] and others who "draw the bow" along with the lores of others such as nimrod and Nero who shot arrows in the air, with Nimrod claiming to have 'killed' god in the action. I'm contemplating this especially in associtation with the idea of Noah being a foretype of Christ and the second person of the trinity who effected a New Heavens/new earth. Noah effected a new physical heaven/earth [and removing the curse upon the earth (Gen 5;29)] Jesus effected a new personal heavens/earth, [ordinances and domian] in contrast with both the mosaic covnt heavens/earth and the original conditional stipulative heavens/earth of the original garden thus removing the curse of the law of sin/death

Thanks.
Your interpretation presents a number of challenges to me.

1) It appears you are assuming the truth of a global flood. That directly contradicts all scientific evidence. There was no global extinction in the last 10,000 years or so. There was no genetic bottleneck. It is impossible to imagine that all organism traveled to the Middle East, got on the ark, and then traveled back to their natural habitats in the Arctic, Antarctic, Australia, etc. Is this what you really believe?

2) There is no evidence for any "water canopy." This is just a speculation invented to try fit the Bible story, and it directly contradicts the rest of the Bible. If there were a water canopy that blocked out the sun so there could be no rainbows, then they couldn't see the stars or the moon. The physics of hydrodynamics makes it impossible for a wet planet not to have rain. Indeed, large buildings with solid roofs have their own internal weather, such as the Nasa's Vehicle Assembly Building which is described on the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Assembly_Building) as follows: "The interior volume of the building is so vast that it has its own weather, including "rain clouds form[ing] below the ceiling on very humid days", which the moisture reduction systems are designed to minimize."

3) The idea that "Noah effected a new physical heaven/earth" makes no sense. It seems like you are holding to the "covenant creationism" when you speak of the "mosaic covnt heavens/earth" but why then do you speak of the literal physical heaven and earth being affected by Noah's flood? And how were the "heavens" affected by the flood anyway? Your interpretation strikes me as inconsistent. Have I missed something?

4) Do you have a source for your assertion that "Nimrod claiming to have 'killed' god in the action"?

EndtimesDeut32/70AD
11-25-2012, 10:22 PM
Your interpretation presents a number of challenges to me.

1) It appears you are assuming the truth of a global flood. That directly contradicts all scientific evidence. There was no global extinction in the last 10,000 years or so. There was no genetic bottleneck. It is impossible to imagine that all organism traveled to the Middle East, got on the ark, and then traveled back to their natural habitats in the Arctic, Antarctic, Australia, etc. Is this what you really believe?

2) There is no evidence for any "water canopy." This is just a speculation invented to try fit the Bible story, and it directly contradicts the rest of the Bible. If there were a water canopy that blocked out the sun so there could be no rainbows, then they couldn't see the stars or the moon. The physics of hydrodynamics makes it impossible for a wet planet not to have rain. Indeed, large buildings with solid roofs have their own internal weather, such as the Nasa's Vehicle Assembly Building which is described on the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Assembly_Building) as follows: "The interior volume of the building is so vast that it has its own weather, including "rain clouds form[ing] below the ceiling on very humid days", which the moisture reduction systems are designed to minimize."

3) The idea that "Noah effected a new physical heaven/earth" makes no sense. It seems like you are holding to the "covenant creationism" when you speak of the "mosaic covnt heavens/earth" but why then do you speak of the literal physical heaven and earth being affected by Noah's flood? And how were the "heavens" affected by the flood anyway? Your interpretation strikes me as inconsistent. Have I missed something?

4) Do you have a source for your assertion that "Nimrod claiming to have 'killed' god in the action"?

1)
That directly contradicts all scientific evidence.I disagee that it contradicts ALL scientific evidence. Truly scientific evaluation must include literary accounts, eyewitness sightings of the Ark recorded in history as well as being open to the supra-natural. It is also must be open to consider that the continent may have been as a super-continent at one time and then divided in the days of Peleg as noted in the Gen account.

2) What evidence of a fallen water canopy would you want to see? It's fallen, it's not there!! There is evidence of caverns and water caves to support the waters of the deep being released. How do YOU account for animals without decay [or with very little] frozen almost instantly with green semi-tropical vegitation in their mouths and stomachs? Also, the dinosaurs would have take Huge amounts of vegitation. What about the evidence of petrified wood, even in underground mines? What about places were sedementary layers of 'rock' [supposedly deposited over 'billions' of years for each layer] are twisted in a "z" shape without breakage of the layers.?

3)Deut 5:29 indicates that the earth was changed to relieve mankind from the curse of the land. In Ez 36:35, after the removal/change of the mosaic covenant 'heavens and earth' the area which was desolate [spiritually desolate can be part of the intention also] is said to become like the Garden of Eden. When the 'heavens and earth' are spoken of in Matt 5,24 and 2 peter 3, it is referring to the mosaic covenant ordinances and domain that then still were. They too were swept away 'like a flood' as predicted in Dan 9 and Is 59.

4) can be researched.

sylvius
11-26-2012, 11:46 PM
R

These facts, which show that rainbows are a natural phenomenon, present a problem with Genesis which says that God made the rainbow as a sign of his covenant:
Why are you interested in the physics of rainbows?

The middle color seems to be green.

See: The green grass (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3354-Single-Molecule-Images-IBM-Scientists-Capture-Photographs-Showing-Chemical-Bonds&p=49811#post49811)

Coinciding the middle letter of "yom hashishi" :yo:

The rainbow shooting arrows that hit the target (= don't miss)

sylvius
11-28-2012, 07:12 AM
The rainbow in fact is the sign of favor, "chen", that Noach found.

The giving of the sign taking place on the 365th day after the beginning of the flood, i.e. the ideal Yom Kippur (= twelve moon-months + ten days)


Genesis 8:20-21,

And Noach built an altar to the Lord, and he took of all the clean animals and of all the clean fowl and brought up burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled the pleasant aroma, and the Lord said to Himself, "I will no longer curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth, and I will no longer smite all living things as I have done.


The ground was cursed because of Adam's sin,
Genesis 3:17,

And to man He said, "Because you listened to your wife, and you ate from the tree from which I commanded you saying, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed be the ground for your sake; with toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life.





cf. Genesis 5:28,

And he named him Noach, saying, "This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands from the ground, which the Lord has cursed."


So in fact the rainbow expresses the same as the number of 153 large fish.

The earth that was cursed because of Adam's sin did bring forth "ets oseh pri" (tree making fruit) instead of "ets pri oseh pri" (fruit tree making fruit), and next it is written "vayar elohim ki-tov" (And God saw that it was good). This word "tov" being the 153rd word from the beginning. (Genesis 1:11-12)

So I bet God did see the rainbow! (even before the sun was created :yo:)

Genesis 8:16,

And the rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will see it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and between every living creature among all flesh, which is on the earth."

Richard Amiel McGough
11-28-2012, 02:56 PM
Your interpretation presents a number of challenges to me.

1) It appears you are assuming the truth of a global flood. That directly contradicts all scientific evidence. There was no global extinction in the last 10,000 years or so. There was no genetic bottleneck. It is impossible to imagine that all organism traveled to the Middle East, got on the ark, and then traveled back to their natural habitats in the Arctic, Antarctic, Australia, etc. Is this what you really believe?

1) I disagee that it contradicts ALL scientific evidence. Truly scientific evaluation must include literary accounts, eyewitness sightings of the Ark recorded in history as well as being open to the supra-natural. It is also must be open to consider that the continent may have been as a super-continent at one time and then divided in the days of Peleg as noted in the Gen account.

When I said it contradicts "ALL scientific evidence" I was referring to ideas like the following:

A global flood. This is contradicted by the annual ice cores which show no interruption in the last 100,000 years.
A global extinction of all terrestrial life. There is no evidence for this, and much against it.
A water canopy - there is no evidence for this. It was invented merely in an attempt to explain some Bible verses.
etc.

Your assertion that there have been "eyewitness sightings of the Ark" is just that - an assertion. It proves nothing and I can't think of any reason it should be given any credence at all. Remember Ron Wyatt? Here are a few of the items (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt) from Biblical history he claimed to have seen with his own eyes:

Noah's Ark (the Durupınar site, located 18.25 miles south of Mount Ararat)[2]
Anchor stones (or drogue stones) used by Noah on the Ark[3]
The post-flood house, grave markers and tombs of Noah and his wife[4]
The location of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other Cities of the Plain: Zoar, Zeboim and Admah[5]
Sulfur/brimstone balls from the ashen remains of Sodom and Gomorrah.[6]
The Tower of Babel site (in southern Turkey)[7]
How the Egyptians may have built the pyramids.[8]
The site of the Israelites' crossing of the Red Sea (located in the Gulf of Aqaba)[9]
Chariot wheels and other relics of the army of Pharaoh at the bottom of the Red Sea
The site of the biblical Mt. Sinai (in Saudi Arabia at Jabal al Lawz)[10]
A chamber at the end of a maze of tunnels under Jerusalem containing artifacts from Solomon's Temple[11]
The site of the Crucifixion of Jesus
Christ’s blood, dripped onto the Mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant beneath the Crucifixion site.
Burial pots off the coast of Ashkelon[12]

I can't think of any "eyewitnesses" with less credibility than those who have claimed to have seen the Ark of Noah. Here's what the wiki says about him:
Ronald Eldon Wyatt (1933 – August 4, 1999) was an adventurer and former nurse anesthetist noted for advocating the Durupınar site as the site of Noah's Ark, among other Bible-related pseudoarchaeology. His claims were dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, and even by leaders in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church, but his work continued to have a following among some fundamentalists and evangelical Christians.

The fact that he had, and still has, a following shows how religious folk are not particularly adept at critical reasoning.

As for the possibility of "supra-natural" events - I have no problem with that idea in principle. That's not the reason for my rejection of Noah's flood. It simply seems more reasonable to doubt the event than to believe it happened in a way that left no trace.

I have the same problem with the idea that the continents were divided in the "days of Peleg." That contradicts all earth science, plate tectonics, etc. For example, we have fossils that show the continents were close together millions of years ago, not a few thousand years ago.





2) There is no evidence for any "water canopy." This is just a speculation invented to try fit the Bible story, and it directly contradicts the rest of the Bible. If there were a water canopy that blocked out the sun so there could be no rainbows, then they couldn't see the stars or the moon. The physics of hydrodynamics makes it impossible for a wet planet not to have rain. Indeed, large buildings with solid roofs have their own internal weather, such as the Nasa's Vehicle Assembly Building which is described on the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Assembly_Building) as follows: "The interior volume of the building is so vast that it has its own weather, including "rain clouds form[ing] below the ceiling on very humid days", which the moisture reduction systems are designed to minimize."

2) What evidence of a fallen water canopy would you want to see? It's fallen, it's not there!! There is evidence of caverns and water caves to support the waters of the deep being released. How do YOU account for animals without decay [or with very little] frozen almost instantly with green semi-tropical vegitation in their mouths and stomachs? Also, the dinosaurs would have take Huge amounts of vegitation. What about the evidence of petrified wood, even in underground mines? What about places were sedementary layers of 'rock' [supposedly deposited over 'billions' of years for each layer] are twisted in a "z" shape without breakage of the layers.?

In science, we often infer things that "were there" that now "are not there." We infer them from EVIDENCE. It is the EVIDENCE that implies they were there. What evidence implies a water canopy? None that I know of. Occam's Razor is a very important principle of science. It would be folly to simply invent a new thing to explain every problematic passage of the Bible.

I don't understand why you assert that there is "evidence of caverns and water caves to support the waters of the deep being released." Everyone knows that there are "fountains" of water all over the earth. I have not challenged that point. I don't see how they would support the story of the flood.

I have never studied the animals that were "quickly frozen." If you would supply a link to the evidence that you find compelling I will review it.

What does the fact that "dinosaurs would have take Huge amounts of vegetation" prove? What does petrified wood prove? What do the z shaped layers prove? It would help if you formulated an argument.





3) The idea that "Noah effected a new physical heaven/earth" makes no sense. It seems like you are holding to the "covenant creationism" when you speak of the "mosaic covnt heavens/earth" but why then do you speak of the literal physical heaven and earth being affected by Noah's flood? And how were the "heavens" affected by the flood anyway? Your interpretation strikes me as inconsistent. Have I missed something?

3)Deut 5:29 indicates that the earth was changed to relieve mankind from the curse of the land. In Ez 36:35, after the removal/change of the mosaic covenant 'heavens and earth' the area which was desolate [spiritually desolate can be part of the intention also] is said to become like the Garden of Eden. When the 'heavens and earth' are spoken of in Matt 5,24 and 2 peter 3, it is referring to the mosaic covenant ordinances and domain that then still were. They too were swept away 'like a flood' as predicted in Dan 9 and Is 59.

I don't understand how Deut 5:29 shows that "the earth was changed."

Deuteronomy 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!




4) Do you have a source for your assertion that "Nimrod claiming to have 'killed' god in the action"?
4) can be researched.
But why should we believe any mythology about Nimrod? He's barely mentioned in the Bible. And people have been known to be rather "creative" when inventing mythology around biblical characters.

sylvius
11-29-2012, 12:19 AM
Rainbows are caused by light being refracted through raindrops. It is a double refraction, so the source of light my be behind you.
658


657



So the light being refracted must be the light of the first day, in Jewish tradition known as "or haganuz", the hidden light,. because God did immediately hide it so that evildoers could not make use of it.

Which is also the light that God saw to be good. "vayar elohim et-haor ki-tov" (Genesis 1:4), the first time "tov" is mentioned (33rd word from the beginning)

The clue of it must be that evildoers can't see that God saw it to be good that the earth did bring forth "ets oseh pri" instead of "ets pri oseh pri".

Mystery of evil!

Without evil life would be boring, colorless.

Genesis 9:13,
אֶת-קַשְׁתִּי נָתַתִּי בֶּעָנָן "et-hakashti natati b'anan" , "My bow I have given in the cloud"

cf. Daniel 7:13,
וַאֲרוּ עִם-עֲנָנֵי שְׁמַיָּא, כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ אָתֵה הֲוָא, "vaaru im-ananei shemayah k'var enosh ateih havah", "there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man"

cf. Mark 14:62,
ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, Ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

sylvius
11-29-2012, 06:10 AM
Revelation 6:2,



καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος λευκός, καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἐπ' αὐτὸν ἔχων τόξον, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ στέφανος, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν νικῶν καὶ ἵνα νικήσῃ.

And I saw and see a white horse, and the one sitting on him held the rainbow, and him was given a crown and he went out gaining victory and to gain victory.

What's'that strange kind of a horse ain't he?

The horse of the chess-play can jump over the edge, i.e. make a corner, which might have to do with the "rosh pinnah" = head of the corner, i.e. the stone rejected by the (square-minded) builders

There is mentioning of four horses, white, fiery red, black and pale green.

But the white horse returns in Revelation 19:11-13,


Καὶ εἶδον τὸν οὐρανὸν ἠνεῳγμένον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος λευκός, καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἐπ' αὐτὸν [καλούμενος] πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός, καὶ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ κρίνει καὶ πολεμεῖ.
οἱ δὲ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ [ὡς] φλὸξ πυρός, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ διαδήματα πολλά, ἔχων ὄνομα γεγραμμένον ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν εἰ μὴ αὐτός,
καὶ περιβεβλημένος ἱμάτιον βεβαμμένον αἵματι, καὶ κέκληται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ.

And I saw the heaven open, and see a white horse, and the one sitting on him [called] trustworthy and true, and he judges and wages war in uprightness .
His eyes bing like a flame of fire, and on his head many crowns, having a name written on it that no one knows except for he himself.
And he is clothed in a mantle dipped in blood, and his name is called the word of God.


Which makes think of the 1-4 principle of creation:
"Four forces from one"
http://www.inner.org/string/string.htm

The ratio 1:4 ("one to four" or "one becoming four") is one of the pillars of creation as revealed in the beginning of the Torah. We will here observe four phenomena from Genesis based upon the ratio 1:4.

The two letters alef (= 1) and dalet (= 4) form together the word for "vapor." In the beginning of creation, the "vapor" rose from the earth to moisten the earth for the sake of the creation of man.

One river flows from Eden to the garden, which thereafter, leaving the garden, divides into the four great rivers of the earth.

"The Tree of Life" (etz ha'chaim) = 233. "The Tree of Knowledge of good and evil" (etz hada'at tov v'rah) = 932. 932 = 4 times 233. Thus the ratio of the two trees is "one to four" (the "one" being the Tree of Life and the resulting "four" being the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil).

The word "good" (tov, the positive force of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil) = 17. The word "life" (chaim, of the Tree of Life) = 68. 17:68 = 1:4. The word for "life" possesses four letters. The average value of each of its letters is "good." Thus we see that the fundamental force of "life" (of the Tree of Life) is in fact the positive force of "good" (inherent in the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil). The two trees thus create an infinite cycle of Divine energy.

To conclude, the most obvious phenomenon in the Torah related to the four forces of nature deriving from one, is that God's essential Name Havayah is composed of four letters. "God is One." In the future it will become revealed that "God is One and His Name is One." "His Name" refers to the four letters of Havayah. This is the ultimate revelation of the Divine "unified field theory."

note:
φλὸξ πυρός = flame of fire,
also in LXX Exodus 3:2,

ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος κυρίου ἐν φλογὶ πυρὸς ἐκ τοῦ βάτου καὶ ὁρᾷ ὅτι ὁ βάτος καίεται πυρί ὁ δὲ βάτος οὐ κατεκαίετο

And the angel of the Lord appeared to hiim in a flame of fire from out of the bush and he saw that the bush burned and the bush was not consumed



Flame of fire, Hebrew "labbat esh", with the famous gematria of 733(= (7 x73) + (6 x37), wich structures the snowflake:

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUDcQ63tAIwq14F3KTWch0KdrEzk8J_ Q2GMbdLMZT-Euqo0v79rA

sylvius
11-29-2012, 07:29 AM
Revelation 2:17 being kind of a key:


ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ τοῦ μάννα τοῦ κεκρυμμένου, καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ ψῆφον λευκὴν καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν ψῆφον ὄνομα καινὸν γεγραμμένον ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν εἰ μὴ ὁ λαμβάνων.

The one who has ears let him hear what the spirit says to the church, to the victorious one I will give him from the hidden manna and I will give hima white pebblestone and on the pebblestone written a new name that no one knows except for the one who receives it.


With the white pebblestone could be calculated the number of the beast ...

Richard Amiel McGough
11-29-2012, 11:49 AM
So the light being refracted must be the light of the first day, in Jewish tradition known as "or haganuz", the hidden light,. because God did immediately hide it so that evildoers could not make use of it.

What are you talking about? The "refracted light" that makes a rainbow comes from the sun, that big bright thing you see every day in the sky.

BTW - it's nice that you uploaded an avatar pic! Makes you more human. :thumb:



Which is also the light that God saw to be good. "vayar elohim et-haor ki-tov" (Genesis 1:4), the first time "tov" is mentioned (33rd word from the beginning)

et-haaur = 613 :eek:



The clue of it must be that evildoers can't see that God saw it to be good that the earth did bring forth "ets oseh pri" instead of "ets pri oseh pri".

Mystery of evil!

I am constantly mystified by how you could invent an entire doctrinal system based on what is NOT written.



Without evil life would be boring, colorless.

Very true. But there is no such "thing" as "evil" per se. That's just a word we use to describe things that are harmful, cruel, or whatever to finite mortal composite beings such as ourselves. Evil is not a "thing" that could be added or subtracted from reality. God did not, and could not, "create evil" as if it were a separable property of reality.

Richard Amiel McGough
11-29-2012, 11:55 AM
note:
φλὸξ πυρός = flame of fire,
also in LXX Exodus 3:2,

ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος κυρίου ἐν φλογὶ πυρὸς ἐκ τοῦ βάτου καὶ ὁρᾷ ὅτι ὁ βάτος καίεται πυρί ὁ δὲ βάτος οὐ κατεκαίετο

And the angel of the Lord appeared to hiim in a flame of fire from out of the bush and he saw that the bush burned and the bush was not consumed



Flame of fire, Hebrew "labbat esh", with the famous gematria of 733(= (7 x73) + (6 x37), wich structures the snowflake:

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUDcQ63tAIwq14F3KTWch0KdrEzk8J_ Q2GMbdLMZT-Euqo0v79rA

A closely related, and much more significant number, is the value of LOGOS (WORD) = 373 = 7 x 37 + 6 x 19

The pair of primes 19/37 is the third Hex/Star pair defined by the sequence 1/1, 7/13, 19/37, 37/73, etc.

http://biblewheel.com/images/LogosStar_WW.gif

And this, of course, is "of the snow" (mishshaleg) = 373 (Proverbs 31:21). I discuss this in my article The Logos Star (http://biblewheel.com//GR/GR_LogosStar.php).

Thus Genesis 1:1 reflects creation by the Word of John 1:1

Genesis 1:1 = 2701 = 37 x 73 ==> 373 (a coalescence of the digits of the fourth Hex/Star pair 37/73)

This is but one example of the integration of Greek and Hebrew gematria.

sylvius
11-29-2012, 01:11 PM
What are you talking about? The "refracted light" that makes a rainbow comes from the sun, that big bright thing you see every day in the sky.

The light doesn't make the rainbow (= the spectrum), but the rainbow is a property of the light.

By the way, it doesn't say that God made the rainbow, only that he did place (give) it in the cloud.


So what you did write above in #2 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3460-Physical-properties-of-the-Rainbow&p=50632#post50632http://) is not right


These facts, which show that rainbows are a natural phenomenon, present a problem with Genesis which says that God made the rainbow as a sign of his covenant












Very true. But there is no such "thing" as "evil" per se. Evil smells


That's just a word we use to describe things that are harmful, cruel, or whatever to finite mortal composite beings such as ourselves. Evil is not a "thing" that could be added or subtracted from reality. God did not, and could not, "create evil" as if it were a separable property of reality.

In fact we do evil all the time.
That's also what the bible says, Genesis 8:21,


the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth

Romans 7:18-24,

For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. The willing is ready at hand, but doing the good is not. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want. Now if do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. So, then, I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand. For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self, but I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind, taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body?

Richard Amiel McGough
11-29-2012, 01:49 PM
The light doesn't make the rainbow (= the spectrum), but the rainbow is a property of the light.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. The rainbow = the spectrum of the light that makes the rainbow.



By the way, it doesn't say that God made the rainbow, only that he did place (give) it in the cloud.

So what you did write above in #2 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3460-Physical-properties-of-the-Rainbow&p=50632#post50632http://) is not right


Here is what I said in Post #2:



These facts, which show that rainbows are a natural phenomenon, present a problem with Genesis which says that God made the rainbow as a sign of his covenant:
Genesis 9:12 And God said: "This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 "I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14 "It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; 15 "and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Obviously, we need to reinterpret the Bible in light of science. Fundamentalists get it backwards and try to interpret science in light of the Bible. That's why they reject evolution and the age of the earth, etc.


You are correct that my use of the word "made" is inaccurate. It uses the word natan (to give). So God "gave" his rainbow in the cloud. Does this mean that rainbows existed before God "gave" his rainbow? If not, then the problem remains. If so, then we have a new problem. What does it mean for God to "give" something we already have?

Richard Amiel McGough
11-29-2012, 01:52 PM
In fact we do evil all the time.
That's also what the bible says, Genesis 8:21,

the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth


Romans 7:18-24,
For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. The willing is ready at hand, but doing the good is not. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want. Now if do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. So, then, I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand. For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self, but I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind, taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body?


The word evil merely describes behavior and the outcome of behavior. Evil is not a thing. It would be like saying that there is a thing like "speed" because cars go fast.

Your error is known as the Fallacy of Reification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29). You are treating an abstraction (evil) as if it were a real, concrete thing.

sylvius
11-30-2012, 01:27 AM
I don't understand what you are trying to say. The rainbow = the spectrum of the light that makes the rainbow.

When God said "let there be light" it implicated all manifestations of light including the rainbow.




Does this mean that rainbows existed before God "gave" his rainbow? If not, then the problem remains. If so, then we have a new problem. What does it mean for God to "give" something we already have?

He gave it as a sign, אוֹת, "ot", even on the ideal Yom Kippur, the 365th day after the beginning of the flood, Genesis 8:14, the verse with the same gematria as Genesis 1:1, viz. 2701 = 37 x 73.

Above I did reason that it in fact was the sign of the favor, "chen", Noach did find.

So only his favorites might see it as such, while the others only do see a natural phenomenon.

LXX has σημεῖον

cf. Matthew 24:29-30,

Εὐθέως δὲ μετὰ τὴν θλίψιν τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκείνων ὁ ἥλιος σκοτισθήσεται, καὶ ἡ σελήνη οὐ δώσει τὸ φέγγος αὐτῆς, καὶ οἱ ἀστέρες πεσοῦνται ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν σαλευθήσονται. καὶ τότε φανήσεται τὸ σημεῖον τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ τότε κόψονται πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ὄψονται τὸν υιὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης

sylvius
11-30-2012, 01:48 AM
The word evil merely describes behavior and the outcome of behavior. Evil is not a thing. It would be like saying that there is a thing like "speed" because cars go fast.

Who then is the evil one, ὁ πονηρὸς ?

Matthew 13:19,

Παντὸς ἀκούοντος τὸν λόγον τῆς βασιλείας καὶ μὴ συνιέντος, ἔρχεται ὁ πονηρὸς καὶ ἁρπάζει τὸ ἐσπαρμένον ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν σπαρείς.


In any case he is meant to be the one who takes away the possibility of a hundredfold yield, "meah sh'arim" = 666.

But you didn't even notice ...

sylvius
11-30-2012, 02:21 AM
Also the towerbuilders missed the sign,
they feared a second flood.

Genesis 11:4,


And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make ourselves a name, lest we be scattered upon the face of the entire earth."

Which makes think of the new WTC tower in New York City.

The distance between heaven and earth is said to be 500 cubits,
so the tower had to be higher than that.

The new (Liebeskind) WTC tower had to be 1776 feet = 541 meter high.

541 being gematria of "Yisrael" -- like if the devil plays with it :winking0071:

541 even a RAM Star Number:

http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_541.php :eek:

sylvius
12-01-2012, 01:29 AM
A closely related, and much more significant number, is the value of LOGOS (WORD) = 373 = 7 x 37 + 6 x 19

The pair of primes 19/37 is the third Hex/Star pair defined by the sequence 1/1, 7/13, 19/37, 37/73, etc.

http://biblewheel.com/images/LogosStar_WW.gif

And this, of course, is "of the snow" (mishshaleg) = 373 (Proverbs 31:21). I discuss this in my article The Logos Star (http://biblewheel.com//GR/GR_LogosStar.php).

Thus Genesis 1:1 reflects creation by the Word of John 1:1

Genesis 1:1 = 2701 = 37 x 73 ==> 373 (a coalescence of the digits of the fourth Hex/Star pair 37/73)

This is but one example of the integration of Greek and Hebrew gematria.

Do you think John was aware of these things?

(That he was acquainted with Hebrew gematria might be clear from the numbers 38 and 153 and 666)

Might the phrase : "And the word ( "ho logos") became flesh" have to do with this?

Hebrew letters are consonants, which means that the written word remains silent (secret) until it is vocalized, i.e. spoken out.

Might this also be the secret of God's name?


Rashi on Exodus 3:15,

This is My name forever: Heb. לְעֹלָם [It is spelled] without a vav, meaning: conceal it [God’s name] תהַעִלִימֵהוּ [so] that it should not be read as it is written. — [from Pes. 50a] Since the "vav” of (לְעֹלָ ם) is missing, we are to understand it as לְעַלֵּם, to conceal, meaning that the pronunciation of the way God’s name is written (י-ה-ו-ה) is to be concealed. — [from Pes. 50a.]

We know where it is hidden, even you, viz. in the initial leters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" (Genesis 1:31- 2:1)

"The "vav” of (לְעֹלָ ם) is missing" -- the "vav" here is a vocal-sign, even as the Greek "o -mikron", that appears twice in "logos".

sylvius
12-02-2012, 12:18 AM
This is very interesting, the Omega-rainbow:


http://www.biblewheel.com/images/omegarainbow3.gif

and RAM was the inventor of it!

http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_800.php

It indeed sheds new light on the saying "I am the Alpha and the Omega" - even as example of the integration of Greek and Hebrew gematria.

Omega being "the sign", "the token of the covenant".

23rd sign,

http://www.hadafah.com/haot.htm


HaOt receives its name from Exodus 3:12.

HaOt: In Hebrew the sound Ha before a word is the definite article: The; and Ot means both Sign and Letter. Thus HaOt is pronounced: Ha-Ot and means The Sign. Throughout history the four-pronged Shin has been called by many names: The Missing Letter; The Lost Letter; The Found Sound; The Wholly Letter; The Holy Letter; The Letter of the World to Come; The 23rd Letter; The letter of Kindness; Shin with Four Heads; and Ot Olam, The Eternal Letter.

Omega is a vocal-sign, you even might say "the mother of all reading",

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_lectionis

Sign of divine mercy.

Richard Amiel McGough
12-02-2012, 11:36 AM
This is very interesting, the Omega-rainbow:


http://www.biblewheel.com/images/omegarainbow3.gif

and RAM was the inventor of it!

http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_800.php

It indeed sheds new light on the saying "I am the Alpha and the Omega" - even as example of the integration of Greek and Hebrew gematria.

Omega being "the sign", "the token of the covenant".

23rd sign,

http://www.hadafah.com/haot.htm



Omega is a vocal-sign, you even might say "the mother of all reading",

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_lectionis

Sign of divine mercy.

Let me get this straight .... are we actually agreeing about something? :specool:

But I've never seen much significance in the idea of a "23rd sign" since that seems like it's just made up out of human imagination. I have a very strong habit of not putting much "stock" in such things.

sylvius
12-02-2012, 12:28 PM
Let me get this straight .... are we actually agreeing about something? :specool:

But I've never seen much significance in the idea of a "23rd sign" since that seems like it's just made up out of human imagination. I have a very strong habit of not putting much "stock" in such things.


So maybe there is more in "reishit" = 911 = "charis".

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3467-Gematria-number-911&p=50825#post50825

Genesis 1:1 to be read as "With favor God created the heaven and the earth"

Favor being the main thing of the universe, Hebrew "chen", gematria 58.

Brilliant being the polished diamond with 58 facets

http://www.brinksjewellers.com/diamonds-4-c.html


A good cut enables a diamond to make the best use of light. A round brilliant cut diamond has 58 facets, which are small flat polished surfaces cut into a diamond. When a diamond is in proper proportion light is reflected from one facet to another and then dispersed through the table facet. When diamonds are cut too deep or shallow light is allowed to escape.

http://www.brinksjewellers.com/images/left-diamond1.png

sylvius
12-02-2012, 01:40 PM
Brilliance is Hebrew "zohar"

Daniel 12:3,

וְהַמַּשְׂכִּלִים יַזְהִרוּ כְּזֹהַר הָרָקִיעַ, "v'hamashkilim yizharu k'zohar harakia", And the enlightened will shine like the brilliance of the firmament.


The book Zohar is so called after Spanish Luz, after "que haya luz" = let there be light.

http://ec.aciprensa.com/c/cabala.htm



Su t*tulo Zohar (luz, resplandor) es obtenido de las palabras del Génesis 1:3 ("Que haya luz") con la exposición de las cuales comienza.



Hebrew Luz is the name of the place where Jacob dreamt of the ladder, which he renamed in Bet-El.

It is also the name of the bone that cannot decay, not dissolve in water nor be burnt in fire.

And it is a nut, i.e. the kernel can be eaten, the eighth fruit of the land (after the seven fruits of Deuteronomy 8:8)

EndtimesDeut32/70AD
12-02-2012, 09:31 PM
When I said it contradicts "ALL scientific evidence" I was referring to ideas like the following:

A global flood. This is contradicted by the annual ice cores which show no interruption in the last 100,000 years.
A global extinction of all terrestrial life. There is no evidence for this, and much against it.
A water canopy - there is no evidence for this. It was invented merely in an attempt to explain some Bible verses.
etc.

I know, but you exclude other data and exclude the extra-natural from the data which you claim is accurate.

Ron Wyatt is not the main source of 'eye witness' accounts, and I somewhat question his duniper site as acurate. The talmud records people knowing where it was and various sightins and visitations are recorded up to/through biblical times.



In science, we often infer things that "were there" that now "are not there." We infer them from EVIDENCE. It is the EVIDENCE that implies they were there. What evidence implies a water canopy? None that I know of. Again,what evidence would you desire to proof that it was once there.??



I have never studied the animals that were "quickly frozen." If you would supply a link to the evidence that you find compelling I will review it. So here would be evidence to contradict your theories and time-lines and yet you say that you've never studied it? And to which discussion you say all the evidence contradicts a 'global flood". And you criticized us for believing it? For one, you could search for the baby mammoth that was unearthed 2 yrs ago almost completely intact. http://www.bing.com/search?q=Frozen+baby+wooly+mammoth&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=frozen+baby+wooly+mammoth&sc=1-25&sp=-1&sk=


What does the fact that "dinosaurs would have take Huge amounts of vegetation" prove?
What was coal formed from? Why are there upside down petrified tree trunks found among the coal mines in Pa?


What does petrified wood prove? How could wood "petrify" unless buried and buried with the right chemical solutions? How could wood petrify if simply deadened in a natural fall, living in the middle of a forest.


What do the z shaped layers prove?
Think about it Richard. If the geological strata was supposed to be laid down over millions and billions of years, with each strata hardening under the weight and time of other strata, how could strata of rock several layers thick and several tens of feet thick twist itself into a z shape without breaking the rocks?

Why are aquatic fossils and shells found in rock formations in and within mountains.???



I don't understand how Deut 5:29 shows that "the earth was changed." It was Gen 5:29, sorry.



But why should we believe any mythology about Nimrod? He's barely mentioned in the Bible.

Nimrod is the Hebrew name for Marduk of the babylons and Nibiru from the Sumerians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_Planet I believe that the Egyptians and the Greeks/Romans have another name for him... Nimrod is the founder of the babylonian cult religions. He rebelled against and usurped God's way and counterfeited the way of life and faith given through Eve and Noah to Abraham. Abraham and Nimrod were contemporaries and knew each other; though Nimrod was older. Nimrod was the founder of "Religion through rituals and religious law and especially man-made or man ordained religions. That is why the practices of the mosaic covenant became known as babylon the great after Christ fulfilled those types. Nimrod is not a-theism but anti-revealed theism.


And people have been known to be rather "creative" when inventing mythology around biblical characters
The 'mythology' is not around the bible characters. The fact that the bible characters are referred to in other cultures by different names helps support the reality of the persons.

Richard Amiel McGough
12-03-2012, 12:48 PM
When I said it contradicts "ALL scientific evidence" I was referring to ideas like the following:


A global flood. This is contradicted by the annual ice cores which show no interruption in the last 100,000 years.
A global extinction of all terrestrial life. There is no evidence for this, and much against it.
A water canopy - there is no evidence for this. It was invented merely in an attempt to explain some Bible verses.
etc.


I know, but you exclude other data and exclude the extra-natural from the data which you claim is accurate.

What "other data" do I "exclude"?

What "extra-natural" data do I exclude that I say is "accurate"?



Ron Wyatt is not the main source of 'eye witness' accounts, and I somewhat question his duniper site as acurate. The talmud records people knowing where it was and various sightins and visitations are recorded up to/through biblical times.

I more than "question" his site is accurate. I have no reason to believe any of it. By all evidence, he was a total wack-job.

The fact that the Talmud records people "knowing" things means nothing because the Talmud is full of unverified claims and rank superstitions.




In science, we often infer things that "were there" that now "are not there." We infer them from EVIDENCE. It is the EVIDENCE that implies they were there. What evidence implies a water canopy? None that I know of.
Again,what evidence would you desire to proof that it was once there.??

Any evidence! The problem is that there is no more evidence for the water canopy than there is for pink unicorns on the moon.




I have never studied the animals that were "quickly frozen." If you would supply a link to the evidence that you find compelling I will review it.
So here would be evidence to contradict your theories and time-lines and yet you say that you've never studied it? And to which discussion you say all the evidence contradicts a 'global flood". And you criticized us for believing it? For one, you could search for the baby mammoth that was unearthed 2 yrs ago almost completely intact. http://www.bing.com/search?q=Frozen+baby+wooly+mammoth&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=frozen+baby+wooly+mammoth&sc=1-25&sp=-1&sk=

How does the frozen baby wooly mammoth "contradict my theories and time-lines"? I haven't studied them because they present no problem that I know of.

I have presented the evidence that contradicts the idea of a global flood. You have answered none of it. There is no evidence of any mass extinction in recent times. There is no evidence of any genetic bottle neck that would exist if all the animals descended from pairs in recent history. The ice core samples from Antarctica are unbroken. There should be a layer showing a flood if one existed. And there are countless other problems.




What does the fact that "dinosaurs would have take Huge amounts of vegetation" prove?
What was coal formed from? Why are there upside down petrified tree trunks found among the coal mines in Pa?

Your line of questioning shows that you have been reading creationist literature. Have you studied real geology at all? If so, you would know how geologists answer your question and you would not have asked it. I've seen ridiculous and deliberately deceptive assertions made by creationists concerning polystrate trees. Our friend David M was deceived by them when he posted this claim (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47244#post47244):
This is a fossil tree is supposedly extending through millions of years of strata. Think about that. Does that make sense.


How long does it take to form sedimentary layers? Charles Officer is a research professor at Dartmouth. In his 1996 book, The Great Dinosaur Extinction Mystery, he says, "...a rate of one centimeter per 1000 years is typical," p.56. But just look and think about this 30 foot fossil tree. It is one of hundreds found near Cookville, TN in the Kettles coal mines which derived their name from the shape of the lower portion of these fossil trees. This tree begins in one coal seam, protrudes upward through numerous layers and finally into another layer of coal.

And here is how I answered (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47335#post47335):
[You need] to understand that in the cases of the fossilized trees it was laid down quickly. This is obvious because otherwise the tree would have rotted. The creationist lied to you when he said that the "fossil tree is supposedly extending through millions of years of strata." That is the false claim that you uncritically accepted. There is not one geologist on the planet who would assert that. It is ridiculous beyond description. It is a perverse lie made up by creationists to deceive gullible Christians who do not check the facts. The truth is just the opposite. The truth is that mainstream geologists have no trouble understanding the fossil trees. The layers were obviously laid down very quickly. This is common knowledge. It was stated over and over again in the second paragraph of the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil) that Rose cited for you called Geological Explanation:


In geology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology), such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition_%28sediment%29) favor their formation.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#cite_note-DiMichele.2B2011a-1)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#cite_note-Gastaldo2004a-3) Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rift_%28geology%29) basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratovolcano). Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_delta) and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_tectonics), global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_margin) collapse, or some combination of these factors.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#cite_note-Gastaldo2004a-3) For example, geologists such as John W. F. Waldron and Michael C. Rygel have argued that the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joggins,_Nova_Scotia) was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull apart basin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pull_apart_basin), and resulting rapid accumulation of sediments.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#cite_note-Waldron.2B2005a-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#cite_note-Waldron.2B2005b-5) The specific layers containing polystrate fossils occupy only a very limited fraction of the total area of any of these basins.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#cite_note-Waldron.2B2005a-4)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#cite_note-6)

As you can see, the creationist claim about what geologists say directly contradicts what geologists really say! He has absolutely no excuse for asserting such a blatant falsehood. It was not a simple misunderstanding. He lied. This scientific explanation of the polystrate fossil trees has existed since the NINETEENTH CENTURY [source (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html)]!

The kinds of "challenges" that you are presenting are typical deception put out by creationists. Most of them have been answered for over a century.




What does petrified wood prove?
How could wood "petrify" unless buried and buried with the right chemical solutions? How could wood petrify if simply deadened in a natural fall, living in the middle of a forest.

Who says it wasn't buried?




What do the z shaped layers prove?
Think about it Richard. If the geological strata was supposed to be laid down over millions and billions of years, with each strata hardening under the weight and time of other strata, how could strata of rock several layers thick and several tens of feet thick twist itself into a z shape without breaking the rocks?

The crust is very dynamic. How do mountains rise and fall? Do you have any understanding of geology at all, or do you just go about collecting "problems" in an effort to refute the entire body of science supported by tens of thousands of observations? Are you suggesting all the geologists are part of a grand conspiracy designed to disprove the Bible? If so, then you don't know anything about the history of geology. It began with many men fully committed to Biblical geology, but the evidence forced them to abandon those ideas.

Do you have an alternate theory that could stand? If not, then what's the point of challenging an established body of science?



Why are aquatic fossils and shells found in rock formations in and within mountains.???

Plate tectonics dude! Do you reject all science?



It was Gen 5:29, sorry.

Genesis 5:29 29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

So you interpret God's "curse" as indicating a change? Even if true, it doesn't tell us the nature of the change. Is there any geological evidence for such a change?




But why should we believe any mythology about Nimrod? He's barely mentioned in the Bible
Nimrod is the Hebrew name for Marduk of the babylons and Nibiru from the Sumerians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_Planet I believe that the Egyptians and the Greeks/Romans have another name for him... Nimrod is the founder of the babylonian cult religions. He rebelled against and usurped God's way and counterfeited the way of life and faith given through Eve and Noah to Abraham. Abraham and Nimrod were contemporaries and knew each other; though Nimrod was older. Nimrod was the founder of "Religion through rituals and religious law and especially man-made or man ordained religions. That is why the practices of the mosaic covenant became known as babylon the great after Christ fulfilled those types. Nimrod is not a-theism but anti-revealed theism.

The mythology developed around Nimrod is not proof of anything. It sounds like you got this info from Hyslop's ludicrous book "The Two Babylons."

And neither is the "Twelfth Planet" a reliable source for anything in my estimation.

There is no biblical foundation for your ideas about Nimrod.

And it was the BIBLE that established "Religion through rituals and religious law" in Israel.




And people have been known to be rather "creative" when inventing mythology around biblical characters
The 'mythology' is not around the bible characters. The fact that the bible characters are referred to in other cultures by different names helps support the reality of the persons.
How do you suggest we discern between mythology and authentic history?

EndtimesDeut32/70AD
12-03-2012, 05:55 PM
[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;50902]

What "extra-natural" data do I exclude that I say is "accurate"?
Sorry Richard, this is getting a little to much like beating one's head against a wall.
Your [and the scientist's] research only allow for natural progression of events according to the data in the way which they now observe occurring.
Their conclusions and dating systems are thus also tied to natural progression and the recent historical knowledge rather than experiential knowledge. Thus, they exclude the possibility of a super and supra-natural influence global due to seeking to defeat a biblical account.

I'm sure we've been through these arguments before, an there's no sense addressing them again.



I more than "question" his site is accurate. I have no reason to believe any of it. By all evidence, he was a total wack-job.
I disagree on some points, but that's not the topic of this thread.


Any evidence! The problem is that there is no more evidence for the water canopy than there is for pink unicorns on the moon.
Are you saying that there are not pink unicorns on the back side of the moon?

Again, what evidence would you want to see of a vapor/water canopy which is fallen.? Would there supposed to be a glass dome which once encased it? What evidence would you want to see of something which is not there any longer?



How does the frozen baby wooly mammoth "contradict my theories and time-lines"? I haven't studied them because they present no problem that I know of. How did they get instantly frozen?


The ice core samples from Antarctica are unbroken. There should be a layer showing a flood if one existed. And there are countless other problems.
Pick up a Thompson chain reference bible and study the archeological digs of Kish.. or is it Kush? I think I mentioned this to you before.



Your line of questioning shows that you have been reading creationist literature.
Wrong assumption, though I'm familiar with some of it.


Have you studied real geology at all? If so, you would know how geologists answer your question and you would not have asked it. I've seen ridiculous and deliberately deceptive assertions made by creationists concerning polystrate trees.

Perhaps deliberately deceptive to you, but your geologists now admit that "You need] to understand that in the cases of the fossilized trees it was laid down quickly. This is obvious because otherwise the tree would have rotted. I don't think any creationist has a particular bent against individuals within the evolutionary believers so that they would intentionally mislead or mis-state a perspective.

But it must have occured only in KY. Gotcha.

I'll look over the resto of your post later, but again you seem intent on belittling "ME" and claiming aboslute truth known by accepted science.
Your agressiveness indicates to me an insecurity and demanding of my adoption of your beliefs.

But that's another topic.

Regarding the "Z" shaped rock strata:


The crust is very dynamic. How do mountains rise and fall? Do you have any understanding of geology at all, or do you just go about collecting "problems" in an effort to refute the entire body of science supported by tens of thousands of observations? Are you suggesting all the geologists are part of a grand conspiracy designed to disprove the Bible? If so, then you don't know anything about the history of geology. It began with many men fully committed to Biblical geology, but the evidence forced them to abandon those ideas.
I didnt' think you would have an answer for that.

I counter that SOME interpretations of science are contrived to present informatiion or disinforation to support evolutionary theory rather than absolute and known with certainty fact. And I believe that some of this disinformation may be due to and a result of an intentional agenda or agenda's.

Richard Amiel McGough
12-03-2012, 09:29 PM
I know, but you exclude other data and exclude the extra-natural from the data which you claim is accurate.
What "extra-natural" data do I exclude that I say is "accurate"?
Sorry Richard, this is getting a little to much like beating one's head against a wall.
Your [and the scientist's] research only allow for natural progression of events according to the data in the way which they now observe occurring.
Thus, they exclude the possibility of a super and supra-natural global flood due to seeking to defeat a biblical account. Their conclusions and dating systems are thus also tied to natural progression and the recent historical knowledge rather than experiential knowledge.

I think I misunderstood your comment. I thought you said that there were some "extra-natural data" that I "claim is accurate." I don't claim any "extra-natural data" is "accurate." That's what I was asking about. Now I see that you probably meant that there was some "accurate extra-natural data" that I excluded. Some of the frustration comes from poorly worded comments.

Your assertion that scientists are MOTIVATED by a desire to "defeat the biblical account" is quite absurd and contrary to the history of science. Many of the early scientists hoped that they could prove the Bible with science, but their integrity forced them to admit that it could not.

Science does not exclude anything that can be supported by evidence. If the "super-natural global flood" left no evidence, then why should you or any scientist believe in it?



I'm sure we've been through these arguments before, an there's no sense addressing them again.

There is every reason to address them again. I am a reasonable man. You will have no problem convincing me of anything well-supported by logic and facts.



Are you saying that there are not pink unicorns on the back side of the moon?

Yes, I would be willing to bet a million dollars on that fact. I could be wrong, but the probabilities are totally in my favor.



Again, what evidence would you want to see of a vapor/water canopy which is fallen.? Would there supposed to be a glass dome which once encased it? What evidence would you want to see of something which is not there any longer?

Again, why would anyone believe in something with no evidence of any kind? Have you considered the problems with the physics of a water canopy?



How did they get instantly frozen?

How do you know it was "instant"? And even if it was "instant" how would a flood accomplish that? And what is the standard scientific explanation? Surely, if you are making a case based on the frozen mammoths you must have researched the standard scientific answers.



I'll look over the resto of your post later, but again you seem intent on belittling "ME" and claiming aboslute truth known by accepted science.
Your agressiveness indicates to me an insecurity and demanding of my adoption of your beliefs.

Sorry if I came across as "aggressive" but if you've been following the conversations you would know why. I have been constantly confronted with blatantly and deliberately deceptive creationist literature that has deceived many Christians.



Regarding the "Z" shaped rock strata:


The crust is very dynamic. How do mountains rise and fall? Do you have any understanding of geology at all, or do you just go about collecting "problems" in an effort to refute the entire body of science supported by tens of thousands of observations? Are you suggesting all the geologists are part of a grand conspiracy designed to disprove the Bible? If so, then you don't know anything about the history of geology. It began with many men fully committed to Biblical geology, but the evidence forced them to abandon those ideas.

I didnt' think you would have an answer for that.

What are you talking about? I gave an answer. Apparently you have never researched how the dynamics of the crust shape rock strata. If you had researched it you easily could have found an answer, such as here (http://creation.com/coal-memorial-to-the-flood#20120326). The z-shaped coal seams (which is what I gather you meant, you should have given a link) have not caused any problem for geology. It's just another typical unfounded creationist talking point (http://creation.com/coal-memorial-to-the-flood#20120326). I can't imagine how any informed person could believe their claims. They've been totally debunked countless times.



I counter that SOME interpretations of science are contrived to present informatiion or disinforation to support evolutionary theory rather than absolute and known with certainty fact.
Sure. Science is a human enterprise, and humans do things like that. And that's why the scientific method is designed to correct for such errors. Religion has no self-correction method, and that's why it can't be trusted to guide us into truth.

sylvius
12-04-2012, 11:04 AM
The flood took place in the biblical year 1657, which is about 2/7 x 5800.

58 being gematria of both the name Noach and of "chen", the favor Noach did find

So the 3,5 times (time, times and half a time) mentioned in dthe book Daniel and after that in Revelation, might well allude to the flood.

The more since Noach is the son of man, tenth generation of Adam, coinciding the letter "yud" of the name God hidden in the 26 generations from Adam to Moses.

And also since Lamech, the one who fathered and named Noach, in the generations-list of Adam via Cain, is the one who said:
Genesis 4:24,

"If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then for Lemech it shall be seventy seven fold."

Arriving at 490 times, i.e. the seventy weeks of years, on which the preterists stare blind.

That also Matthew did understand it this way might be clear from Mathew 18:21-22,

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

Τότε προσελθὼν ὁ Πέτρος εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Κύριε, ποσάκις ἁμαρτήσει εἰς ἐμὲ ὁ ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀφήσω αὐτῷ; ἕως ἑπτάκις; 22λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Οὐ λέγω σοι ἕως ἑπτάκις ἀλλὰ ἕως ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά

EndtimesDeut32/70AD
12-04-2012, 12:24 PM
I think I misunderstood your comment. I thought you said that there were some "extra-natural data" that I "claim is accurate." I don't claim any "extra-natural data" is "accurate." That's what I was asking about. Now I see that you probably meant that there was some "accurate extra-natural data" that I excluded. Some of the frustration comes from poorly worded comments. No, I'm referring to extra-natural or super-natural intervention above and sometimes contrary to what is observed to be a natural progression. And this is even in the geological realm without regard for the intricacies of the animal/human realm.

I think the odds of there being a pink unicorn on the back side of the moon are about equivalent [or greater] than the possibility that the intricacies of dual gender/procreative animal and human life spontaneously developed without cause, design or intention from [for example] a lightning strick on a soupy mix of elements; and for that life to find support and sustainance from a similarly inctricate living vegetative planet.

Your perspectives and THEORIES which reject the divine, holy, super and supra-natural origins, intentions and Creation of life as the work of a Creator are [as noted before] similar to the belief that the Starship Enterprise is to be formed through the spontaneous, mindless, intentionless falling of molecules from space. It's illogical and unreasonable.


Again, why would anyone believe in something with no evidence of any kind? Have you considered the problems with the physics of a water canopy? The christian perspective is that divine/supernatural intervention CAN defy normal physics; such as Elija's floating axhead; Jesus walking on the water, Daniel in the lions den; The resurrection of Lasarus and Christ, feeding of 5000, the divine, super and supra natural origins and beginnings of life...etc, etc...

One of the evidences of the previous vapor canopy is actually in the reality of the Rainbow AND the record of the time of it's stated beginnings. Why and for what motive would God or the people fabricate a story about God setting his Bow in the clouds which would coincide with the time of the flood? If there had been Rain and Clouds before, there would have been Rainbows before this time. The notation and biblical account of the Rainbow occuring AT this time implies that it was not there beforehand. Without the understanding of prisms and the effect on light; and without the need to prophecy and foretype future 'floods' [such as Sodom/Gomorrah, Red sea crossing sweeping away the pursuing egyptians, and the "flood' over Jerusalem by Roman desolation; there would be no need for a story of a more global flood in the biblical account. [Except of course to remake the earth to be a more hospitable and lift the 'curse' on the earth through Noah [Gen 5:29] And thus, there would be no need to fabricate a story of a rainbow only occuring from that time forward.

The rainbow and the flood story are part of the prophecies and foretypes of the later historical actions of God in reaffirming his entity, his existence and his overall positive good intentions and purposes of life as developed through History. They are documented to have been recorded well before Moses and thus not a new fabrication.

Thus, if there had not been some other atmoshpere before the mention of God setting his bow in the clouds; the rainbow would not have 'appeared' after the flood. It would have been mentioned as part of the original creation scenario.

The water vapor canopy would have kept the earth at a more moderate temperature; diffused the light and had other effects. With it's falling, the poles would have quickly lost temperature.

With the falling of the 'water' wherein the earth stood as mentioned by Peter; there is no manner [naturally] for it to 'fall' again; thus the promise to never destroy the earth by flood again is practical. Some people understand that this implied that there would be a future global destruction by fire [such as in 2 Peter 3]

But Peters acknowledgement that the positive 'ends and foundations of the world' had come upon them in the first century along with the concepts of the "New heavens and New Earth' being the New ordinances/freedom in Christ and new domain of the indwelt life] and contrast with the mosaic covenant heavens and earth agrees and supports that the mosaic covt. heavens and earth [principles, ordiances and domian (Job 38:33)] [2 Peter 3] were the ones reserved for 'fire' and destruction. This was prophesied in [Deut 32:22] 22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

The vapor canopy is furthermore part of the concepts involved in baptism [also through the red sea and in the Jordan River] A'new life begins or is testified to on the other side of the "baptism"



What are you talking about? I gave an answer. Apparently you have never researched how the dynamics of the crust shape rock strata. If you had researched it you easily could have found an answer, such as here (http://creation.com/coal-memorial-to-the-flood#20120326). The z-shaped coal seams (which is what I gather you meant, you should have given a link) have not caused any problem for geology. It's just another typical unfounded creationist talking point (http://creation.com/coal-memorial-to-the-flood#20120326). I can't imagine how any informed person could believe their claims. They've been totally debunked countless times.
I mentioned nothing about coal seams. But Layers of sedimentary rock; 10 foot thick with about 5-7 different layers shaped together in a Z without any breakage of the rocks at the corners. The implications are that the layers were not deposited over millions/billons of years EACH, but that layers were deposited within a shorter period of time, then twisted by upheaval and geological forces before hardening.

I don't know if any understanders of the flood reject the concept that at the same time of the flood, [or afterwards] there may have been other immense geological forces and occurances occuring simultanously.



Sure. Science is a human enterprise, and humans do things like that. And that's why the scientific method is designed to correct for such errors. Religion has no self-correction method, and that's why it can't be trusted to guide us into truth.
I disagree. Your correct about dogmatic religions; but not about ones spiritual journey and guidance by the Spirit of Truth.

EndtimesDeut32/70AD
12-04-2012, 12:46 PM
The flood took place in the biblical year 1657, which is about 2/7 x 5800.

58 being gematria of both the name Noach and of "chen", the favor Noach did find

So the 3,5 times (time, times and half a time) mentioned in dthe book Daniel and after that in Revelation, might well allude to the flood.

The more since Noach is the son of man, tenth generation of Adam, coinciding the letter "yud" of the name God hidden in the 26 generations from Adam to Moses.

And also since Lamech, the one who fathered and named Noach, in the generations-list of Adam via Cain, is the one who said:
Genesis 4:24,

"If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then for Lemech it shall be seventy seven fold."

Arriving at 490 times, i.e. the seventy weeks of years, on which the preterists stare blind.

That also Matthew did understand it this way might be clear from Mathew 18:21-22,

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

Τότε προσελθὼν ὁ Πέτρος εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Κύριε, ποσάκις ἁμαρτήσει εἰς ἐμὲ ὁ ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀφήσω αὐτῷ; ἕως ἑπτάκις; 22λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Οὐ λέγω σοι ἕως ἑπτάκις ἀλλὰ ἕως ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά



Excellent.

I have come to consider that Lamech/Noah/his 3 sons are a subtle forecast and foretype of the trinity. Thus Lamech properly understood God's intent and desires if displacing doubt and ignorance of God through the supernatural, miraculaous seed promised to come through the woman. He 'moritifed' the effector and the effects of the curse through faith. Noah, his son then effected the 'new Creation' and removal of the curse on the land as a foretype of Christ fulfilling the 'seed' being promised to Eve.

And through this process and through the dual gender procreative continuation of life [with both being individually justified] we find evidence of the reality of his supernatural entity.

Abraham/Isaac/Jacob-Israel and Jesse/David/Solomon are other forecasts of the tri-unity of the Father-Spirit/the Son/ and the indwelling Spirit of unconditional/unlimited adoption and bi-lateral access.

Can you decypher how long before the flood that Lamech would have said these words?

Yes, at least up until this time, our preterist focus has been on countering the understanding of the futurists and have neglected the prophecies of the pre-flood patriarchs.

I believe that Lamechs lifespan being recorded as 777 yrs indicates yet another positive example of the 'man of faith' who mortified his own man of doubt and negativity/complaining in contrast with the 666 'man of sin'; with 'sin' ascribed as disbelief. Hence Lamech had two wifes because he had no reason towards animosity or enmity towards them.