is also profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction
which is in righteousness,
17 that the man of G-d may be complete,
furnished completely to every good work.
Here's how Wesley comments:
2TI 3:16 All scripture is inspired of G-d -
The Spirit of G-d not only once inspire
those who wrote it, but continually
inspires, supernaturally assists, those
that read it with earnest prayer. Hence it
is so profitable for doctrine, for
instruction of the ignorant, for the
reproof or conviction of them that are in
error or sin, for the correction or
amendment of whatever is amiss, and for
instructing or training up the children of
G-d in all righteousness.
===========================================
Thanks have to go to the folks at WalMart
for making available to me the Bible CD
that I've used several versions of over the
past years. It's been a great help each
day as I type out this stuff. If you don't
have a computer Bible CD, I recommend it
(to the layman).
===========================================
The Ussher chronology is a 17th-century
chronology of the history of the world
formulated from a literal reading of the
Bible by James Ussher, the Anglican
Archbishop of Armagh (in what is now
Northern Ireland). The chronology is
sometimes associated with Young Earth
Creationism, that holds that the universe
was created only a few millennia ago.
Ussher's work, more properly known as the
Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi
origine deducti (Annals of the Old
Testament, deduced from the first origins
of the world), was his contribution to the
long-running theological debate on the age
of the Earth. This was a major concern of
many Christian scholars over the centuries.
...Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC
differed little from other Biblically-based
estimates, such as those of Bede (3952 BC),
Ussher's near-contemporary, Scaliger (3949
BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC) or Sir Isaac
Newton (c. 4000 BC).[1] Ussher's specific
choice of starting year may have been
influenced by the then-widely-held belief
that the Earth's potential duration was
6,000 years (4,000 before the birth of
Christ and 2,000 after), corresponding to
the six days of Creation, on the grounds
that "one day is with the Lord as a
thousand years, and a thousand years as one
day" (2 Peter 3:8). This view had been
almost completely abandoned by 1997,
[citation needed] six thousand years after
4004 BC. However, there are many
scientists[2], some biblical scholars, as
well as a number of evangelical Christians,
who declare their literal interpretation of
the Bible and a 6000-year-old Earth.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
Here's someone you never heard of before.
But I look forward to reading the recent
translation, since I don't know Latin.
Here's a link to an article about the
people who did the translation work:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/archbishop.asp
What Ussher didn't know about was the
theoretical framework developed by Einstein
and the notion of time dilation. The
concept is implicit in the scripture
reference given above from II Pt. 3:8.
One day is as a thousand years.
A question to answer here is whether it is
the case that the outer edges of the
expanding universe would be younger in age
or older in apparent age than what we
observe as the apparent age of our planet,
earth? Or, to put it another way, is the
apparent age of the earth a consequence of
the time dilation theoretically implied by
Einstein? Of course, the assumption here
is that the universe did expand from what I
believe is called a singularity. We can't
know for sure. It's just one possible
theory. But it grabs my attention. I
don't remember seeing anyone write anything
about this subject before. And it has my
curiosity. Oh, by the way, since the
cesium atomic clock is located at a high
elevation, if I'm not mistaken, it has
to be calibrated for the gravitational
time dilation factor at it's elevation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
--->
gravitational time dilation (as treated in
general relativity) is not reciprocal: an
observer at the top of a tower will observe
that clocks at ground level tick slower,
and observers on the ground will agree.
Thus gravitational time dilation is agreed
upon by all observers, independent of their
altitude.
--->
Now imagine the universe as it expands say
to one mile across. the center, being much
more massive than the event horizon(?)
there ought to be a large amount of
gravitational time dilation at the edge. That would
imply that time at the event horizon passes
much more quickly than time at the center
of mass? Is that right? So, at the center
of a 6000 year old universe, the age would
appear to be... 6000 years and at the outer
edge of the event horizon, that age would
appear to be related by some function of
the diameter (squared) of the universe.(?)
I haven't seen a problem in special
relativity for about, oh, thirty years, so
I'm guessing.
--->
Velocity and gravitational time dilation
combined-effect tests
Hafele and Keating, in 1971, flew cesium
atomic clocks east and west around the
Earth in commercial airliners, to compare
the elapsed time against that of a clock
that remained at the US Naval Observatory.
Two opposite effects came into play. The
clocks were expected to age more quickly
(show a larger elapsed time) than the
reference clock, since they were in a
higher (weaker) gravitational potential for
most of the trip (c.f. Pound, Rebka). But
also, contrastingly, the moving clocks were
expected to age more slowly because of the
speed of their travel. The gravitational
effect was the larger, and the clocks
suffered a net gain in elapsed time. To
within experimental error, the net gain was
consistent with the difference between the
predicted gravitational gain and the
predicted velocity time loss. In 2005, the
National Physical Laboratory in the United
Kingdom reported their limited replication
of this experiment.[1] The NPL experiment
differed from the original in that the
cesium clocks were sent on a shorter trip
(London–Washington D.C. return), but the
clocks were more accurate. The reported
results are within 4% of the predictions of
relativity.
The Global Positioning System can be
considered a continuously operating
experiment in both special and general
relativity. The in-orbit clocks are
corrected for both special and general
relativistic time dilation effects so that
they run at the same rate as clocks on the
surface of the Earth. In addition, but not
directly time dilation related, general
relativistic correction terms are built
into the model of motion that the
satellites broadcast to receivers —
uncorrected, these effects would result in
an approximately 7-metre (23 ft)
oscillation in the pseudo-ranges measured
by a receiver over a cycle of 12 hours.
--->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
One of the problems with the 'scientific'
approach to dating the earth is that there
is no absolute time reference in terms of
the position of our solar system in
relation to the 'center' or 'edge' of the
universe. There is only a reference to
other points in the universe. As far as I
know, there is no way to tell where the
center or the edge of the universe is.
If we apply the findings of velocity and
gravitational time dilation, it seems to
me that it would be essential to know the
point of reference of our own solar system
in order to arrive at a reasonable
'scientific' estimate of the absolute age
of the solar system. If that's the case,
then Ussher's method is just as good, in a
scientific sense, as radiometric dating,
since there is no absolute reference.
Whaddya think?
The concepts of time dilation don't make
much difference if you are say an
accountant day to day. It applies to
large scale, the scale of the
universe, and small scale, the
scale of sub-atomic particles, phenomena
and
of course, science fiction writing. If you
were to overlay the concept on a
distibution
curve, you would have one end at zero time
or infinitly short age and the other end at
infinite time or infinitely long age. And
everything else of some apparent age in
between. The idea being that in earth time
there is some point in the universe that
has no apparent age and there is some point
in the universe that has infinitely long
apparent age and the earth lies somewhere
in between those extremes. But, at the
end of the day, there is no absolute time
reference to be found. Just exactly how
old is the earth?
And then there is another big hurdle to get
over as soon as you begin to deal with the
text of scripture and that is to recognize
that all scripture is given by inspiration
and is not accessible by dialectic
technique. That means that as soon as you
implicitly take the approach of
thesis-antithesis-synthesis, you arrive at
the wrong conclusion, because the doctrine
of inspiration, as far as I can tell,
excludes the possibility of truth by
dialectic method. Well, it will work out
OK if what you really want is something
other than truth. In other words, Ussher,
in taking a literal view of scripture, is
applying the doctrine of inspiration in the
best sense. All other views are heretical.
I don't know if these guys, Ussher, Newton
and their contemporaries discuss this point
or whether it's implied or not. But in
order to approach the text with any
sincerety, you have to begin with a firm
grip on the doctrine of inspiration, I
would think. The text of scripture is a
a special case, and is not fairly treated
as any other text with the assumption that
men can improve upon the doctrine found
there. This is where modern critics miss
the boat. They assume that scripture is an
invention of man, rather than admitting
that it's THE revelation of G-d.
--->
Schleiermacher says: "It is only our world
-view that makes our knowledge of G-d
complete." Bismarck at one point writes to
his bride: "What strange views of the world
there are among clever people!"
From the forms and possibilities of world-
view thus enumerated it becomes clear that
what is meant by this term is not only a
conception of the contexture of natural
things but at the same time an
interpretation of the sense and purpose of
the human Dasein [the being that we are
ourselves] and hence of history. A world-
view always includes a view of life. A
world-view grows out of an all-inclusive
reflection on the world and the human
Dasein, and this again happens in different
ways, explicitly and consciously in
individuals or by appropriating an already
prevalent world-view. We grow up within
such a world-view and gradually become
accustomed to it. Our world-view is
determined by environment - people, race,
class, developmental stage of culture.
Every world-view thus individually formed
arises out of a natural world-view, out of
a range of conceptions of the world and
determinations of the human Dasein which
are at any particular time given more or
less explicitly with each such Dasein. We
must distinguish the individually formed
world-view or the cultural world-view from
the natural world-view.
A world-view is not a matter of theoretical
knowledge, either in respect of its origin
or in relation to its use. It is not simply
retained in memory like a parcel of
cognitive property. Rather, it is a matter
of a coherent conviction which determines
the current affairs of life more or less
expressly and directly. A world-view is
related in its meaning to the particular
contemporary Dasein at any given time. In
this relationship to the Dasein the world-
view is a guide to it and a source of
strength under pressure. Whether the world
-view is determined by superstitions and
prejudices or is based purely on scientific
knowledge and experience or even, as is
usually the case, is a mixture of
superstition and knowledge, prejudice and
sober reason it all comes to the same
thing; nothing essential is changed.
This indication of the characteristic
traits of what we mean by the term "world-
view" may suffice here. A rigorous
definition of it would have to be gained in
another way, as we shall see. In his
Psychologie der Weltanschauungen, Jaspers
says that "when we speak of world-views we
mean Ideas, what is ultimate and total in
man, both subjectively, as life-experience
and power and character, and objectively,
as a world having objective shape." For our
purpose of distinguishing between
philosophy as world-view and scientific
philosophy, it is above all important to
see that the world-view, in its meaning,
always arises out of the particular
factical existence of the human being in
accordance with his factical possibilities
of thoughtful reflection and attitude-
formation, and it arises thus for this
factical Dasein. The world-view is
something that in each case exists
historically from, with, and for the
factical Dasein. A philosophical world-view
is one that expressly and explicitly or at
any rate preponderantly has to be worked
out and brought about by philosophy, that
is to say, by theoretical speculation, to
the exclusion of artistic and religious
interpretations of the world and the
Dasein. This world-view is not a by-product
of philosophy; its cultivation, rather, is
the proper goal and nature of philosophy
itself.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/p
hilosophy/works/ge/heidegge.htm
--->
Read that last paragraph again. He states
explicitly that the goal of the (dialectic)
philosophical is to EXCLUDE religion. '...
brought about by philosophy, that is to
say, BY THEORETICAL SPECULATION, to the
exclusion of artistic and religious
interpretations of the world...' It's the
explicit goal of the modern 20th century
philosopher
to substitute SPECULATION for REVELATION or
inspiration, in defining a world-view.
I suppose at least I can give the fellow
credit for admission of the fact that he
would rather begin with a totally
speculative theory of origins, than to try
and tap dance through theistic mine fields.
He seems to understand the situation.
Well, what does that leave us with, as a
range of choices, once, by definition, the
single most relevant aspect of world-view
is tossed out the window? Like I said
before, EVERYTHING is theological. Once
that factical part of the world is
forfeited, there is no longer a rational
starting point, eh? Therein, lies a seed
of the escape from reason. You throw out
the basis for reason, a rational Creator of
a rational universe, and it leaves you with
...well, speculation alone. That's a
wobbly starting point. But it does allow
you to wobble off in just about any
direction that you choose, or even all
directions at once, since there is no
center-piece. Kool. More Kool-aid please.
Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was
also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of G-d, did not
consider it robbery to be equal with G-d,
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking
the form of a bondservant, and coming in
the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
He humbled Himself and became obedient to
the point of death, even the death of the
cross.
In this passage, the apostle Paul uses the
idea that there is an apparent image that
does not fully disclose everything. Here's
the greek wording from Strongs:
form: 3444
Morphe (mor-fay');
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Feminine, Strong
#: 3444
1.the form by which a person or thing
strikes the vision
2.external appearance
Verses six and seven use the word 'form',
while verse eight uses the word appearance.
That's from the greek 'schema', it has to
do with sensory perception, or what an
object looks like. It looks like butter,
but it's margarine.
The notion of apparent age is not foreign
to scripture. Remember, Jesus made his
entrance to earth, in the form of a baby.
Some things are 'apparent' in the sense
that there is no absolute reference to the
time structure of the earth. The absolute
reference has to be found somewhere else.
I prefer to think of the absolute reference
as G-d. Or in the context of this post,
the absolute reference is holy scripture.
Wow. It's been a wild ride on the Jesus
Bus today. You know, I had a few minutes
and the internet for a while, so as is my
habit on the weekend, I began to do a
little web surfing and writing about my
stray thoughts. There's always an
opportunity to explore some old ideas.
The whole point of today's post is the
scripture reference in II Tim. 3:16. It's
not the only reference in scripture to
Divine Inspiration. It's implied all
through the hebrew text. But there is no
other more important, and in my mind,
non-negotiable doctrine of scripture. Get
on the bus.
No comments:
Post a Comment