Mature Universe Theory

[RV_Wizard]

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Your challenge is to prove that "tohu wabohu" is a contronym.

I talked with my buddy Billy Joe Jim Bob.  He dated a Jewish girl once, so he's a expert on the Hebrew language.  He said that's just another term for "tofu waffles," which he says tastes plum terrible.  Jeremiah was warning that if'n those Jews didn't get right with the Lord, their enemies were gunna make them eat tofu waffles.

That's the original Hebrew according to Billy Joe Jim Bob.  That's the version I like so I decree that it's the truth and the ORIGINAL Hebrew.  You still believe those stupid English translations.  The Israelites were hill people so the proper translation is in Hillbilly.  

That makes as much sense as your argument.  I'm good with it.

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You brought up contronyms

You claimed they didn't exist.  

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

There is only the meaning of "tohu wabohu"

That plus your refusal to accept the proper definition, your inability to grasp that Jeremiah was quoting Genesis for effect, and your inability to explain the existence of the world absent light, heat, atmosphere, dry land, or any living thing.

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 You only accept the majority of English translations of Gen 1:2 which obviously isn't even a real thing.

Yes, because they come from the best preserved copies in Antioch, Syria.  They were translated by experts much closer to the timeline in which they were written.  Even with the corrupted versions out of Alexandria, Egypt, 85% of the new versions disagree with your interpretations.  

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

When God spoke the earth into existence, it was a solid sphere.

Prove it.  The surface was 100% water.  How solid is water?  

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

In FACT, no object in this universe can be "formless".

You've been proven wrong too many times to waste another second on this foolish thought.

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So you seem to believe that "tohu wabohu" can be used in polar opposite states of being,

Gee, what would a formless blob devoid of any form of life have in common with a desolate landscape in which all life had been extinguished.  I give up.  I can't think of a thing.

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

When He spoke the earth into existence, the earth was complete with all its elements.

I said that.  He then FORMED those elements into the world.  From the seas came fish and birds.  From the land came all land dwelling animals.  From the dust He formed Adam.  Then He wrote a book about it.  Ever read it?

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Because the earth became tohu wabohu, God had to restore it for man's use.

You don't think much of God if a bully wrecked His sand castle and He had to start over.  My God got it right the first time because He is perfect.  He created the heaven and the earth in only six days, complete with abundant life.  He didn't need to take millions of years like the fake god you share with other members of the old earth crowd.

 

[FreeGrace]

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

Your challenge is to prove that "tohu wabohu" is a contronym.

I talked with my buddy Billy Joe Jim Bob.  He dated a Jewish girl once, so he's a expert on the Hebrew language.  He said that's just another term for "tofu waffles," which he says tastes plum terrible.

I suggest that you never talk to him again about what Hebrew words mean.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Jeremiah was warning that if'n those Jews didn't get right with the Lord, their enemies were gunna make them eat tofu waffles.

Ditto

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

That's the original Hebrew according to Billy Joe Jim Bob.

He fits the description of an idiot.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  That's the version I like so I decree that it's the truth and the ORIGINAL Hebrew.

That doesn't surprise me.  Anything but just accepting how the Bible uses "tohu" in every other passage.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  You still believe those stupid English translations. 

I think you are confused.  You are the one who holds tightly to the majority English translations of Gen 1:2.  

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The Israelites were hill people so the proper translation is in Hillbilly. 

I'm starting to believe that you're losing it.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

That makes as much sense as your argument.  I'm good with it.

Again, that doesn't surprise me one bit.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You claimed they didn't exist.

Well, since you ignore context, why should I have expected you to grasp my challenge?

You are the one who brought up contronyms, in the context of "tohu wabohu" being used in Gen 1:2 as God's process of creation, and quoting from Jer 4:23 to describe total destruction of land.  

So if you don't understand context, you will just stay very confused.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 That plus your refusal to accept the proper definition

That's rich.  What is the "proper definition" of "tohu waboho", according to your hillbilly friend and the other one with too many names?

But never mind.  I'm not interested in what idiots think.  I've already proven what "tohu wabohu" means and how it is used.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

your inability to grasp that Jeremiah was quoting Genesis for effect

Well, the laugh's on you.  That is EXACTLY my point about WHY Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2.  The whole context in Jer 4 was coming DISASTER, and the total DESTRUCTION of the land.  So quoting Gen 1:2 was a perfect quote.  

Yet, you seem to STILL fail to understand what Jeremiah's effect was about.  So I'll tell you again.  Gen 1:2 describes that the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland, and he was warning the people of the land of what was coming.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

and your inability to explain the existence of the world absent light, heat, atmosphere, dry land, or any living thing.

The inability is on your side, for failing to grasp that the earth became tohu wabohu.  So God restored it.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Yes, because they come from the best preserved copies in Antioch, Syria.  They were translated by experts much closer to the timeline in which they were written.  Even with the corrupted versions out of Alexandria, Egypt, 85% of the new versions disagree with your interpretations.

I highly doubt your numbers.  So prove it to the whole thread.  Your extreme bias towards a young earth just because of the majority English translation shows that you aren't open to FACTS.

So provide a comparison between the Syrian manuscripts and Egyptian manuscripts.  And what do you mean by "newer versions"?  Versions of what, exactly?  You're not being clear at all.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

When God spoke the earth into existence, it was a solid sphere.

Prove it.  The surface was 100% water.  How solid is water? 

Are you trying to prove denseness here?  I'm talking about the planet.  Of course there was water on it.  You are just trying to be difficult.  Your eyes are closed tightly.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You've been proven wrong too many times to waste another second on this foolish thought.

The only proof you've provided is your extreme bias of an old earth and your distain for FACTS.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Gee, what would a formless blob devoid of any form of life have in common with a desolate landscape in which all life had been extinguished.  I give up.  I can't think of a thing.

I'm not surprised.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You don't think much of God if a bully wrecked His sand castle and He had to start over.

Why would you think that I think that?  Is your bias so thick that you just can't see the FACTS.  My view is directly from the Bible but you don't like the FACTS.  I never said anything about bullies.  That's just your strange fantasy.  

Do you believe that God allows His creatures freedom of action?  Has that idea ever entered your mind?

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  My God got it right the first time because He is perfect.

Well, see?  We DO agree on some things.  What you are referring to here is Gen 1:1.  Of course everything that God creates is good, meaning perfect.

Yet, you ALSO claim that "tohu wabohu" describes a process of God's creative actions.

Yet, The Septuagint translates "tohu" in Hebrew to "unsightly" in the Greek.  So are you going to reject the Greek as well and keep hugging your majority English translations?  You're kinda in a bind here.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  He created the heaven and the earth in only six days, complete with abundant life.  He didn't need to take millions of years like the fake god you share with other members of the old earth crowd.

Ex 20:11 doesn't use the Hebrew word for "create", which is 'bara', as found in Gen 1:1.  The verse uses "asah" for make.  

We "make" things OUT OF THINGS.  God "creates" thing OUT OF NOTHING.

But that FACT seems to be unable to penetrate your thoughts.

That's the difference between us.  And why you think there was some kind of "bully" who must be stronger than God and broke His creation all without God's ability to resist.

Just pitiful.  But that's the conclusion when FACTS are rejected in favor of lousy English translations that don't even make sense.  Like a formless earth.  That's rich.  And fallacious.

[RV_Wizard]

13 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 I've already proven what "tohu wabohu" means and how it is used.

You have?  To whom was it proven?  Do you have a name?  Other than yourself, who have you convinced?  Before I went off preaching doctrine contrary to what has been taught by the church for thousands of years, I would want more than a minority translation of two words which can be twisted to pre-suppose an existence prior to even the creation of light and dry land.  Oh, I've heard the nonsense about "Satan's flood," as if Satan EVER had the power to destroy something which belonged to God.

Of course, the sole motivation behind the gap theory heresy is so you can have a seat at the table with the old age proponents and say, "Yes... yes, the earth is billions of years old."  That's why it only came into existence recently.  Of course, Paul warned us that people would invent new gospels in the latter days, so we are not taken by surprise.

[RV_Wizard]

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Gen 1:2 describes that the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland,

Became from what?  You never answered that.  Technically, since there WAS NO DRY LAND before verse 9, it would have been a waste water.  This is what you can't grasp.  If you can't explain how the planet aged billions of years in the absence of anything, you can't claim a previous existence.  We have established there was no light, no source of heat, no life of any kind and no dry land.  How could this become a wasteland when it was never anything else?  To become something it must first be something else.  A dog cannot become a dog.  A cat cannot become a cat.  A gaseous or liquid ball devoid of life cannot become devoid of life.

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I highly doubt your numbers.  So prove it to the whole thread.

I did earlier, remember, when I counted all your various versions from Bible Hub and did simple division?

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So provide a comparison between the Syrian manuscripts and Egyptian manuscripts

From the Antioch manuscripts, we have the following English translations (not an all-inclusive list):

Wycliffe Bible (1388), Martin Luther Bible (1522), Tyndale Bible (1522), Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthews Bible (1537), Great Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops Bible (1568), King James Bible (1611), and New King James Bible (1982)

From the Alexandrian manuscripts, we have the following English translations (not an all-inclusive list):

Rheims-Douay (1582), Revised Version (1881), American Standard Version (1901), RSV, NASV, LB, NSRB, JB, TEV, NEB, NIV, GNB, NRSV, NAB, NCV, NBV, HCSB, NLT, ISV, ESV.  ALL modern Bibles are based on the less accurate Alexandrian manuscripts.   source

Contrary to what has been taught in most seminaries, these two manuscripts (From Alexandria, Egypt)are worthless, and hopelessly corrupt. Dean John Burgon, a highly respected Bible scholar of the mid to late 1800’s, wrote of these manuscripts, “The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and Aleph [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.”1 These documents are both of dubious origin. It has been speculated by some scholars that one or both were produced by Eusebius of Caesarea on orders of Emperor Constantine2. If this is true, then these manuscripts are linked to Eusibus’s teacher Origen of Alexandria, both known for interpreting Scripture allegorically as opposed to literally. Scholars have designated these manuscripts as Alexandrian, linking them with Alexandria, Egypt, the region responsible for early heresies such as Gnosticism and Arianism. Both are dated in the mid to late fourth century.  Learn

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

My view is directly from the Bible

Your view is based on modern heresy from corrupted manuscripts.

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I never said anything about bullies.

Who wrecked God's planet?

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Yet, The Septuagint translates "tohu" in Hebrew to "unsightly" in the Greek.

You quite obviously cannot be educated in the concept that words have more than one meaning.

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

We "make" things OUT OF THINGS.  God "creates" thing OUT OF NOTHING.

You really should try reading the Bible.  God very frequent created things from other things.  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass.  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth.  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing.  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground.  And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight.  And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman.

What was that crash?  It sounded like your claim being smashed into a thousand pieces.

 

[BeyondET]

On 10/24/2024 at 6:14 AM, FreeGrace said:

The Septuagint was written around 300 BC and is a Greek translation from the Hebrew OT.  

Brenton Septuagint Version

But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.

Unfurnished is a empty earth, unseen. Darkness is invisible electromagnetic radiation which is something.

Edited October 26, 2024 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

 I've already proven what "tohu wabohu" means and how it is used.

You have?  To whom was it proven?  Do you have a name?  Other than yourself, who have you convinced?

I've proven it with FACTS, but obviously your eyes and ears are closed tightly.  But don't worry about it.  God gave you the freedom to make your own decisions about which FACTS to accept.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Before I went off preaching doctrine contrary to what has been taught by the church for thousands of years

Well, you see, this is the whole problem.  You are more interested in what the majority votes for than for actual FACTS.  I care nothing for majority vote, esp when the FACTS refute their vote.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I would want more than a minority translation of two words which can be twisted to pre-suppose an existence prior to even the creation of light and dry land.

Are you not aware that truth (FACTS) have ALWAYS been in the minority?

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Oh, I've heard the nonsense about "Satan's flood," as if Satan EVER had the power to destroy something which belonged to God.

I really don't understand why you like to bring up totally irrelevant things.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Of course, the sole motivation behind the gap theory heresy is so you can have a seat at the table with the old age proponents and say, "Yes... yes, the earth is billions of years old." 

I have so thoroughly debunked that bit of nonsense.  Why you keep beating that dead horse is a puzzle.  But it does reveal how little you pay attention to what others post.

Just as I care nothing for majority vote that rejects FACTS, I care nothing for atheist scientists who claim the earth is way older than Adam.  But you do bring up a valid point:  YEC seems UNABLE to differentiate between an old earth from evolution.  That's sad.  While you opine that "having a seat at the table" with evolutionists is so evil, it actually provides a GREAT opportunity to explain to them what the Bible says about the FACT that God created the universe, and then restored it, all backed up with the FACTS that you have rejected.  

The YEC don't even have an opportunity to discuss with these evolutionists, because they are laughed away from the table, because of their baseless opinions.

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

That's why it only came into existence recently.  Of course, Paul warned us that people would invent new gospels in the latter days, so we are not taken by surprise.

Your opinion has already been given.  I've shown that the Septuagint, written around 300 BC, properly translates "tohu" in Gen 1:2, so you can quit the rank about recent views.  The Septuagint WAY precedes any English translation, so you have no point.

Not to mention when Jeremiah and Isaiah wrote their books, and clearly used "tohu wabohu" to describe the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land.  And Jeremiah quoted from Gen 1:2, fully understanding what Moses had written.

So what I believe clearly isn't from anything "recent" as you keep erroneously claiming.  What I believe comes DIRECTLY from the Bible.  Unlike your opinion, based ONLY on English translations of Gen 1:2.

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said:

Gen 1:2 describes that the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland,

Became from what?  You never answered that. 

Are you serious?  Don't you EVER pay attention?  Gen 1:1 is a statement of original creation of the universe and earth.  And what God speaks into existence is perfect.  These repetitious and ridiculous questions only reveal your extreme bias about your own opinion rather than looking at the FACTS.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Technically, since there WAS NO DRY LAND before verse 9, it would have been a waste water.

Again, since you are only looking through those heavily biased glasses, you refuse to see the FACTS about Gen 1:2.  So everything after v.2 is seen in a FALSE light.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  This is what you can't grasp.

lol.  You are the graspless one.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

If you can't explain how the planet aged billions of years in the absence of anything, you can't claim a previous existence.

I don't need to explain how the planet aged.  It's obvious.  It was created WAY BEFORE God created Adam.  Why isn't that simple FACT obvious to you.  And there is only ONE existence, so your last comment is absurd.  I've never said anything about a "previous existence".  It sure leads one to question how your mind works, since I've refuted that bit of nonsense repeatedly.  If only you would pay attention.  But it seems you have no desire to.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  We have established there was no light, no source of heat, no life of any kind and no dry land.  How could this become a wasteland when it was never anything else?

Your questions are beyond absurd.  

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  To become something it must first be something else.

Well, there you go.  Gen 1:1 is that "something else"; a perfect earth, along with a perfect universe.  But since you simply REFUSE to accept the FACTS of v.2, there is no way reason will replace your FALSE opinions.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  A dog cannot become a dog.  A cat cannot become a cat.  A gaseous or liquid ball devoid of life cannot become devoid of life.

What a ridiculous claim.  Of course they can't.  However, what you have repeatedly rejected is the TRUTH that a perfectly created earth CAN BECOME a wasteland.  It's STILL the same earth, so why you treat it as something DIFFERENT when it isn't is puzzling.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

From the Antioch manuscripts, we have the following English translations (not an all-inclusive list):

Wycliffe Bible (1388), Martin Luther Bible (1522), Tyndale Bible (1522), Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthews Bible (1537), Great Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops Bible (1568), King James Bible (1611), and New King James Bible (1982)

From the Alexandrian manuscripts, we have the following English translations (not an all-inclusive list):

Rheims-Douay (1582), Revised Version (1881), American Standard Version (1901), RSV, NASV, LB, NSRB, JB, TEV, NEB, NIV, GNB, NRSV, NAB, NCV, NBV, HCSB, NLT, ISV, ESV.  ALL modern Bibles are based on the less accurate Alexandrian manuscripts.   source

All of these are RECENT, compared to what Jeremiah and Isaiah wrote, plus how the Septuagint translated Gen 1:2.  

So, the reality is that it is YOUR translations that are more recent.  

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Contrary to what has been taught in most seminaries, these two manuscripts (From Alexandria, Egypt)are worthless, and hopelessly corrupt. Dean John Burgon, a highly respected Bible scholar of the mid to late 1800’s, wrote of these manuscripts, “The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and Aleph [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.”1 These documents are both of dubious origin. It has been speculated by some scholars that one or both were produced by Eusebius of Caesarea on orders of Emperor Constantine2. If this is true, then these manuscripts are linked to Eusibus’s teacher Origen of Alexandria, both known for interpreting Scripture allegorically as opposed to literally. Scholars have designated these manuscripts as Alexandrian, linking them with Alexandria, Egypt, the region responsible for early heresies such as Gnosticism and Arianism. Both are dated in the mid to late fourth century.  Learn

None of this addresses my question.  HOW to the 2 manuscripts differ in what Gen 1;2 says?  Are you able to show us?

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Your view is based on modern heresy from corrupted manuscripts.

I've just once again REFUTED your opinion.  My source is the Bible itself and when Jeremiah (600 BC) and Isaiah (700 BC) wrote, plus the Septuagint (300 BC).

So don't tell me about "modern" anything.  All of my sources are BC while all of your sources are WAY LATER.  Maybe you just haven't figured that out yet.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Who wrecked God's planet?

Ask God.  He didn't give details.  Why you keep asking such an absurd question does reveal a lot about you.  I don't deal in theories, as some have regarding what may have happened between creation and v.2.  

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You quite obviously cannot be educated in the concept that words have more than one meaning.

And once again your opinion is off the charts.  Of course there is.  But I ASKED specifically for you to prove that "tohu wabohu" is a contronym, and you FAILED to do that.

It is beyond absurd to accept that "tohu wabohu" can describes God's creation AND the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of land at the same time.  

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You really should try reading the Bible.

You really should pay better attention when posting to me.  All you've done is reveal how little you pay attention.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  God very frequent created things from other things.

This isn't the issue.  The issue is original creation, which is v.1.  The verse doesn't say, as you opine, that God began to create the earth, step by step, process by process, from a little bit here, and a little bit there.

That is really what your thought process is from all your questions/comments.

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass.  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth.  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing.  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground.  And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight.  And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman.

When restoring, of course God would create from things already there.  That is obvious.  Why can't you see that?

8 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

What was that crash?  It sounded like your claim being smashed into a thousand pieces.

Given your humor, I recommend that you keep your day job.

[FreeGrace]

7 hours ago, BeyondET said:

FreeGrace said:

The Septuagint was written around 300 BC and is a Greek translation from the Hebrew OT.  

Brenton Septuagint Version

But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.

Unfurnished is a empty earth, unseen. Darkness is invisible electromagnetic radiation which is something.

Of course that is what "wabohu" means;  empty, void, etc.  But that is not the issue with the Septuagint translation into Greek.  The focus is on the first word, "tohu", which is translated into the Greek as "unsightly".

So, if Gen 1:2 describes God's creation of the earth, then He's not much of a Creator, for the earth to be "unsightly".

However, since "tohu wabohu" is used in Jer 4 and Isa 34 to describe the total destruction of the land, the Greek of Gen 1:2 for "tohu" as "unsightly" fits perfectly as indicating destruction, not creation.

So, even way before we had any English translations, we have a Hebrew to Greek translation (Septuagint) written about 300 BC.  Jeremiah was written about 600 BC and Isaiah was written about 700 BC.

So my view is based on the biblical view, not English translations.

Thanks for the post.

[tim_from_pa]

On 10/21/2024 at 9:17 PM, RV_Wizard said:

Have you ever actually read Genesis one?  When you look at what the Bible actually says, the idea that there could have been a long time between verses one and two is ludicrous.

Light was created in verse three, meaning that the earth previously had no source of light or heat.  How could anything live without air to breathe?

Dry land didn't exist prior to verse ten.  How did dinosaurs roam the earth before there was an earth to roam?

In Romans, we are told that sin and death came into the world because of Adam's sin.  How could there be millions of years of death and evolution when death didn't exist until the fall of man?

Straw man,  NOBODY believes in a flat earth.

You are asking a person who read the Bible countless times if I read Genesis 1:1-2?  I think a more pertinent question or questions would be if you understand what I said.  If the earth would be covered in water from a judgement, that opens the possibility that it was dry earlier.  It was full of light and it could have had life. When God cleared the water and atmosphere, these things appeared in which He assigned their purpose in the recreated world for Adam. First earth age = angelic age and associated life, thus the reason for very aged fossils, etc. This earth age = age for Adam which is more recent.  Even science confesses to the fact that mankind as we know it is a recent phenomenon.  I won't comment on man-like creatures beforehand. This, as I understand it, is why there's such a severe battle between God's Kingdom and Satan's Kingdom.  The forces of evil are jealous that they were overthrown after all that time and given to Adam's race, and even tried to pollute man's lineage (Genesis 6:1-4). What the scientists see are the remains of the ancient age.

As for the strawman that nobody believe in a flat earth, I take it you haven't been around on social media and even a member of my own family started believing that to the amazement of everyone.  And the thing is that they use the Bible to prove it sounding convincing to unlearned people.  My point was if we can do that with space (by misinterpretation) we can do that with time.

Edited October 26, 2024 by tim_from_pa

[tim_from_pa]

On 10/22/2024 at 12:19 PM, Sparks said:

Unfortunately, the speed of light is not a constant, and the methods we use to judge great distances don't work past our own galaxy.  Light speed measurements work pretty well in our own solar system, but we don't know what affects light speed, out there. 

Here on Earth we have sped up light by 300%, and slowed it to a dead stop, and the experiments have been reproduced in various labs.  All kinds of things affect the speed of light, including temperature, radio active material, and gravity. 

Trigonometric Parallax is the most accurate measurement we have, but it is very limited because we cannot use it outside of our own galaxy.  This is due to the fact that we cannot get a very wide angle for our base measurement, as seen in the graphic below.   

The measurement you see in this illustration takes 6 months to achieve (Earth's position on one side of the sun, then on the other side), and that is all the angle we can use to measure (just 2 AU).  We need the stereoscopic effect of the stars shifting in the background behind our target star to use this method, but when we try to measure too far out, there is no stereoscopic shifting effect.  If there is no shift, the method does not work. 

Other methods, such as Red Shift, Inverse Square, and Cepheid Variables use a whole lot of assumptions, and to use Parallax to measure 14.6 billion light years is absolutely impossible, from Earth.

The crux of what you are saying is the speed of light is not constant. However, you do not address why it would change. There's more or less vacuum between us and even a distant galaxy.  So, why would it change?  Give some examples.  And exclude both relative and general theory of relativity.  There is nothing that massive and that fast between us at every angle.  Thus, even if there could be speed changes, it would only be selective and random.  I want to know what else you know if that would change the speed of light.