dorbie 0 #301 December 14, 2006 Yes everyone would see the BG radiation all around them no matter where they are. The BG radiation is from proto-matter particle soup before it coalesced, we're looking back in time at that soup when we observe it. It is extremely red shifted. Every region we see BG radiation from is now in a similarly evolved state to our part of the Universe (on a large scale). Observers there see BG radiation all around them, some of that radiation was emitted from our particles billions of years ago before we underwent gravitational collapse. Some parts of our Universe cannot see us yet because we're red shifted beyond the visible boundary of their BG radiation sphere, just as we cannot see beyond our BG sphere to events earlier than it's opaque boundary (not that there'd be much to see), but it is not the boundary of our Universe or an event horizon in the sense you imagined. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #302 December 14, 2006 >Yes everyone would see the BG radiation all around them no matter >where they are. Ah, OK. I thought you were referring to an observer who suddenly saw the background radiation appear as the 'wavefront' hit him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #303 December 14, 2006 It's almost the reverse. The BG radiation sphere is constantly receeding and every point in the Universe sees its surface of the hypersphere reveal more stuff as progressively older light from more red shifted proto-matter reaches it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #304 December 14, 2006 I take it you hold a literal interpretation of Genesis. I have a question that has bugged me about that view (okay, I have many, but I will only ask one to start with) My questions does not come from the field of science. I admit I do not understand most earth sciences. that is okay as many scientist are clueless about theology. I have my field they have theirs. So my question comes from theology, not science. What day was Satan created? It had to be before day 7 when God rested. Or did God create Satan after he "finished?" I'm not trying to debate if Satan was created, we assume everything was. I'm not debating if he was a fallen angel or anything else (other than who he is now) If Genesis is to be taken literally than when was Satan created? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #305 December 14, 2006 QuoteWhat day was Satan created? It had to be before day 7 when God rested. Or did God create Satan after he "finished?" I'm not trying to debate if Satan was created, we assume everything was. I'm not debating if he was a fallen angel or anything else (other than who he is now) If Genesis is to be taken literally than when was Satan created? The Bible is not clear on this matter. The Bible is really about man and his relationship with his creator. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #306 December 14, 2006 QuoteAlso, if God only created 2 peeps.... everyone else is the product of incest... also bad? The whole idea of and prohibition against incest didn't come around until (I think) Leviticus thousands of years down the road. The gene pool wouldn't have been corrupted in the beginning. Therefore, there wouldn't be anything "wrong" with reproducing with a sibling. So, you're right. We are all the product of (what we consider to be) incest (at least initially). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #307 December 14, 2006 Thanks for the answer. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #308 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhat day was Satan created? It had to be before day 7 when God rested. Or did God create Satan after he "finished?" I'm not trying to debate if Satan was created, we assume everything was. I'm not debating if he was a fallen angel or anything else (other than who he is now) If Genesis is to be taken literally than when was Satan created? The Bible is not clear on this matter. The Bible is really about man and his relationship with his creator. yep. Satan is not mentioned in Genesis at all. And that's what I've said: The Bible is really about man and his relationship with his creator. Not about scientific descriptions. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #309 December 14, 2006 QuoteAnd that's what I've said: The Bible is really about man and his relationship with his creator. Not about scientific descriptions. I agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peggs82 0 #310 December 14, 2006 I've spared myself reading the 13 pages of posts to simply state my view if for nothing else than for myself. For years I found myself on a spiritual downslide. Began with being heavily religious attending church many times a week, then less, then changing my opinions on god and my relationship with him. It was about a year ago when I finally drew my spiritual line in the sand. I felt that I could not rationally believe what I believe in science, but also call myself religious. What made me draw the line was this debate. The fanaticisim with which christians choose to persue this debate was just too much. To ignore cold tangible facts, only to claim a book written by man is the absolute truth was lunacy to me. How can one see the bones of homo erectus, neanderthal, and homo sapians and claim that there is no possiblity. Look at the bones of dinosaurs millions of years old and claim the earth is 10,000 years or less.... To want to pull evolution out of the class room and teach creationism...Give me a break! I won't have sceience and education taken out of our classrooms for this neo-conserviative bable. Keep god in church, and out of schools. Yeah yeah...I can hear the come back now..."if god was in schools...we wouldn't have had columbine!" - tell that to the girl that said she believed in god right before she was shot. The FSM (flying sphetti monstor) never gets old to me Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #311 December 15, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat day was Satan created? It had to be before day 7 when God rested. Or did God create Satan after he "finished?" I'm not trying to debate if Satan was created, we assume everything was. I'm not debating if he was a fallen angel or anything else (other than who he is now) If Genesis is to be taken literally than when was Satan created? The Bible is not clear on this matter. The Bible is really about man and his relationship with his creator. yep. Satan is not mentioned in Genesis at all. And that's what I've said: The Bible is really about man and his relationship with his creator. Not about scientific descriptions. Huh? If Skysaint is to be believed Satan plays an active and important role in the relationship between man and god - its not a scientific matter at all.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #312 December 15, 2006 QuoteSome parts of our Universe cannot see us yet because we're red shifted beyond the visible boundary of their BG radiation sphere, just as we cannot see beyond our BG sphere to events earlier than it's opaque boundary Give us a break, we're trying okay? QuoteThe idea that a supreme being set everything in motion (in my language, set Planck's Constant, the gravitational constant etc and then just stepped back and let it all be) doesn't bother me. But by the same token, if we discover that Planck's Constant is what it is for a very specific reason, I'm not going to take that as a challenge to my faith, the way many religious types see science as a challenge to _their_ faith. Do you think it's more likely it will be found to have meaning in eV-seconds or in joule-seconds? QuotePlate tectonics, circuits, and numbers are all also theories. I think numbers are more of a construct than a theory, conceptually inert in and of themselves. And "circuit theory" is somewhat of a misnomer. It's not really a theory, it's a set of approximations to Maxwell's equations (which happen to be pretty good so long as the structures you're dealing with are much smaller than the wavelengths you're interested in.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #313 December 15, 2006 <> I dont understand. How is discussing Satan scientific? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #314 December 19, 2006 QuoteWhat day was Satan created? There was no "Satan" in the old Testament. He's a New testament deity. It's to my understanding that there wasn't any deity that represented evil in the Old Testament (annoyance of one, maybe, in the Garden of Eden). There was at least five different deities he had ran into and a few he made bets with(Job). They were not the same guy. He didn't create those. He didn't even know some of them. It kind of fits into my theory that the New testament and Old testament weren't and never are going to mesh well with each other. Kind of reminds me of Star wars and Empire strikes back. Importance and centrism of certain original characters were changed to assist the plot of the Sequel._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #315 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhat day was Satan created? There was no "Satan" in the old Testament. He's a New testament deity. It's to my understanding that there wasn't any deity that represented evil in the Old Testament (annoyance of one, maybe, in the Garden of Eden). There was at least five different deities he had ran into and a few he made bets with(Job). They were not the same guy. He didn't create those. He didn't even know some of them. It kind of fits into my theory that the New testament and Old testament weren't and never are going to mesh well with each other. Kind of reminds me of Star wars and Empire strikes back. Importance and centrism of certain original characters were changed to assist the plot of the Sequel. Your understanding of orthodox theology is lacking. Job 1:6 One day, when the angels had gathered around the LORD, and Satan was there with them, While the theology of Satan in the OT is not as developed as in the NT it is there. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #316 December 20, 2006 damn! now, i gotta check other versions._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #317 December 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat day was Satan created? There was no "Satan" in the old Testament. He's a New testament deity. It's to my understanding that there wasn't any deity that represented evil in the Old Testament (annoyance of one, maybe, in the Garden of Eden). There was at least five different deities he had ran into and a few he made bets with(Job). They were not the same guy. He didn't create those. He didn't even know some of them. It kind of fits into my theory that the New testament and Old testament weren't and never are going to mesh well with each other. Kind of reminds me of Star wars and Empire strikes back. Importance and centrism of certain original characters were changed to assist the plot of the Sequel. Your understanding of orthodox theology is lacking. Job 1:6 One day, when the angels had gathered around the LORD, and Satan was there with them, While the theology of Satan in the OT is not as developed as in the NT it is there. Small point, do you know whether the names used in the Hebrew (or even Greek) are consistent in that passage and in the rest of the old and new testament? Consistency of naming in the translations does not automatically imply consistency in the originals.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #318 December 20, 2006 The Hebrew word is Satan -- it is a transliterated word, not a translated word. The Hebrew word would have been pronounced "saw tawn" That word is found in other OT text. In Greek it was satanas. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #319 December 20, 2006 What I'm wondering though is whether it is consistant all through or whether in some places other names have been standardised to Satan in the english versions. I had thought a very common name for the devil in the Bible was Lucifer - "The Morningstar"?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #320 December 20, 2006 QuoteI had thought a very common name for the devil in the Bible was Lucifer - "The Morningstar"? That was his stage name. His agent gave it to him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #321 December 20, 2006 QuoteWhat I'm wondering though is whether it is consistant all through or whether in some places other names have been standardised to Satan in the english versions. I had thought a very common name for the devil in the Bible was Lucifer - "The Morningstar"? The only place I'm aware of Lucifer is on Isaiah and many (actually most) scholars do not attribute it to Satan but to Nebuchadnezzar. From Adam Clarke commentary: Verse 12. O Lucifer, son of the morning The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render heilel as signifying Lucifer, ;, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, "Howl, son of the morning;" and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends: see his reasons in Parkhurst, under halal. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #322 December 20, 2006 I guess Satan wants to cure cancer. There' a nice article in this month's Scientific American about how evolutionary biology is helping researchers better understand the body's immune response to cancerous tumors, and opening up promising new avenues for treatment. I'm surprised the omniscient "intelligent designer" gave us cancer in the first place.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #323 December 20, 2006 ThanksDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #324 December 20, 2006 QuoteThat word is found in other OT text. In Greek it was satanas. Got a black magic woman Got a black magic woman Got a black magic woman.....tryin' to make a devil out of me! Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #325 December 20, 2006 satanas NOT santana ... steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
