It is blue by depth. It may not get bluer and bluer the more depth of it you look into. But depth it must have to appear blue to the naked eye.
You all have been claiming that it is clear or invisible, and now you are arguing, in effect, that it is not only not invisible (in the very bright light of the Sun), but that it is perceivably blue (in that light) at one-molecule depth.
Remember what is the more basic issue we are debating here: whether there a way for humans, with no technology, readily to deduce that the sensible substance (life-critically pressurized) of breath and breeze does not extend to the luminaries.
Iâm not sure. But Iâm ashamed that the moderator has edited out a little of my own faults in that degenerated-ness. It makes my otherwise-offending post look at least a little more level-headed and civil than I actually am at this point.
Iâm half out of my mind with frustration. I keep thinking that what Iâm thinking is perfectly clear in my words, but so far Iâm just getting more whiplash by the kind of replies being made to my words.
Iâm sorry.
I didnât think it would be a controversial topic. But Iâve just been trying to plug leaks ever since the first replies.
Iâm sorry to everyone. Thank you, Moderator Christy.
@Daniel_Pech, your frustration is not different from the frustration of Evolutionists. It doesnât matter what archaeology or physics can show you - - you modify the elements to fit the context in which you have absolute confidence - - much like the Victorian era âFlat Earthersâ, there was no way to convince them, short of sending them into orbit with their own eyes to be a witness.
Today, the equivalent barrier is that we cannot send YECs back in time, with their own eyes to be a witness. On a planet like Earth, surrounded by dozens of geological, chemical and physical indications of an age of 5 billion years - - we still have those who think you can peel away the âfalse ageâ of 5 billion years and see within it something that is only 6000 years old.
F[quote=âgbrooks9, post:98, topic:35941â]And then the Tower of Babel tells us that the builders thought they could touch the firmament itself⌠an idea that most any American 5th grader can laugh at.
[/quote]
Not sure about that George. I think that John. Walton said the towers of that time were meant as a temple space to allow the gods to come down to earth, and Babel was also so built, rather than being a way to access the heavens.
Guess we will know when the theme park is expanded, though that may be more to access credit cards.
Yes, that is what science tells us. If you had no concept of a gas, gravity, and a round earth why would you even consider that air doesnât reach the moon? In your experience air is every where including on the tops of high mountains. There is nothing that you can sense that would tell you air is limited.
Yes it is invisible. You can see blue light only when the sun is shinning and there is enough air to scatter the blue light. A one-molecule depth wouldnât work.
Sorry but the answer has to be no. The Bible says the sun and moon move through the sky (or air) and the stars are suspended from the sky so the Hebrew writers assumed air did extend to the luminaries.
It is beyond question that many of these towers were built to elevate humans more closely to the divine ⌠when the divine entity in question was the Sun, Moon or the other 5 planets.
The Greeks believed that a place like Mt. Olympus was a suitable dwelling place for a whole band of Gods, not necessarily those with a monopoly on the sky.
But even the Persian-influenced Greeks, and certainly the Sumerians and the Akkadians (and Egyptians) placed the ultimate resting place of the Gods in the Underworld. For some people at various times, while the Sun ruled the sky, it did not repose in the sky - - it was âin laborâ in the Sky. For these, the Sunâs home was also the underworld.
It wasnât until contact with Persiaâs Zoroastrianism that the Underworld became a uniformly unpleasant place ⌠with the best places being somewhere in the Heavens.
Mithraism, claimed to be Persian in Origin, was a Greco-Roman ânew religionâ with a very Persian idea: beyond the realm of the zodiac, where the 12 gods of the seasons âworkedâ, there was a higher and greater deity - - symbolized by a re-working of the Greek deity of Phanes - - a God that represented Eternity and the control over time. This deity was even more powerful than âold Gods of the Zodiacâ because instead of being confined to within the Zodiact, there was a deity that moved the entire zodiac in a 2200 year procession (a recent Greek discovery at the time).
Below is the lion-headed god behind the zodiac - - holding the âKey to Heavenâ in his right hand, standing on the sphere representing the Zodiacâs embrace of all Earth. This Godâs realm was beyond the zodiac, above and beyond time⌠a metaphysical idea which many (including myself) would say was Persiaâs unintended gift to the Greeks and to the Hebrew.
. . [Click the Image to see his feet and the sphere of the Zodiac!]
When God saw the tower being built - - did he confound Human language so they couldnât build any multi-story buildings? Or did he confound Human language in order to prevent them from building a particularly tall tower that could reach the realm of the stars?
On the former point, God does not seem to have had a problem with the Great Pyramid of Giza (which I was not built to provide physical access the realm of the stars) - - or any of the thousands of tall buildings that existed in the ANE.
But the latter idea, of reaching the realm of the stars, is the remaining possibility for Godâs motivation. If the scribe had really known that it was impossible, just building a tower that failed to reach the stars may have been sufficient punishment!
Genesis 11:4 includes this: "⌠let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name. . . "
If you look at the Hebrew, we see that the verb meaning âlet it reach untoâ is implied in the grammar of the word for Heaven.
If someone thinks that the tower was simply going to be âhigherâ to Heaven, then anything taller than a residence would do the job - - and there are at least hundreds of such structures.
But if the risk was not just to be âcloserâ ⌠but to achieve a closeness to the stars that would quite possibly put the stars âat handâ to the builders ⌠that would be a singular accomplishment.
I guess the answer comes down to your view of God. Would your view include a God who would strike down the speech of all humanity for building a tower that reaches âunto Heavenâ (aka: toward Heaven) - - or for building a tower that could reach âto Heavenâ!
NIV
Drag to re-order
Then they said, âCome, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches TO the heavens,
New King James
And they said, âCome, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is IN the heavens;
ESV
Then they said, âCome, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavensâŚ
HCSB
And they said, âCome, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top IN the sky.
NASB
Drag to re-order
They said, âCome, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach INTO heaven. . .
NET
Then they said, "Come, letâs build ourselves a city and a tower with its top IN the heavens
RSV
Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavensâŚ
YLT
And they say, 'Give help, let us build for ourselves a city and tower, and its head in the heavens
Good info, George. though I would argue that none of it goes to intent: Was the intent to touch the sky ala Jimi Hendrix or to provide a path for the gods to come down to earth? In any case, it does touch on the ANE roots of Genesis. Have a good day, gotta get to work. Seems like I check in far too often, maybe we need a thread on message board addictionâŚ
How close to a modern Western âconcept of a gasâ does a person have to have in order for that person to observe and understand the directly sensible basics of physical air? Must a person first have used various artificial instrumentation, and, or, have spent lots of time âphilosophizingâ about air, before that person rightly can be said to know diddly about air?
The human has the natural, God-given faculties to observe, and think of, the physical world in its own terms. You are limiting those faculties to merely the âpublishedâ words of those individuals and groups that are known to the Western World. Just because a person or people leaves behind no (a) such publications, and (b) no artificial scientific instruments does not mean they are dunces or worse about the physical world.
So an âeducatedâ modern- and Western-centrism clearly is naive and grossly simplistic. You may as well claim that unless a toddler is an engineer of bipedal robotics, then the toddler does not really know a thing about how to walk.
If you are right in that negative answer, then who of you in this thread just said that the average, ânon-scientificâ ancient did not particularly care about exactly what is what of the physical world, or of the claims thereto of their own societysâ fixated science geeks?..
Yet you are saying that the Bibleâs language on the matter of the motion and nature of the luminaries should be understood to be a dogmatic, hard claim. Then you keep saying that the Bible does not purport to be a book on such âhardâ claims of science. Which is it?
No, my frustration is that you all keep mistaking what I am even talking about. Some, or all, of you have claimed that air is âinvisible full stopââŚ
âŚClearly you did not consider in what ways air is entirely visible. All you wanted to do was confirm your bias that I, being YEC, am naive and backwards about the fact that a molecule of air cannot be directly detected by unaided human visual faculties!
My most advanced demonstration is not singular. It is a host of things, both positive on my side and negative on yours. But none of either that positive or negative do most if you here seem the least will actually to follow, admit, or give, since I have claimed that am YEC.
But I could as well not be YEC on the things I am claiming, since my claims to do rely on YEC.
Among my most advanced claims actually is one of the most commonly known facts of air: in the blight light of the Sun, the air, by bulk of requisite depth, presents blue.
Another of my most advanced claims is one that essentially every Space Age person admits: that blue becomes rather transparent to the wider cosmos when that bright overwhelmingly bright light is blocked by the mass of the Earth underneath the geo-locale. We all, here, know that (1) the atmosphere is a kind of window that opens at night, and closes at day; and (2) its blue is seen not at night to extend to the luminaries despite that we can tell that the Sunlight is upon and around the Moon.
No, youâre assuming slopply thinking on the part of someone who has said that himself is YEC. This is at least a small part of why you have kept mistaking what I clearly am talking about.
The first written language was pagan because they lost both their lives and all their books in a war, and we came latter and unearthed those books from the rubble and the centuries of dirt? This makes no good sense. It assumes that the most foundational evidence of humanity is that of such lost books.
I meant all such texts as claim that the sky is a solid dome and on which are affixed the stars. My position is that anyone who thinks so of the sky is someone whose brain is not working normally on the issue. Iâm therefore implying that anyone who, in position of leadership over a people, has such an abnormal brain either cannot be using his brain well or whose brain is developmentally deeply deficient in that and other issues.
Exactly. No one is questioning what you say because you are YEC. They are questioning what you say because you are claiming things that are completely unsubstantiated or demonstrably false. Yours is an entirely different brand of talk that has nothing to do with young earth creationism at all.
Iâve stated that many times already, in various wording:
If:
(A) God made humans normally capable of seeing (without any technology) that the sensible, life-critical air does not extend to the luminaries,
then
(B) there is sound reason to suppose that the Bible assumes the cosmic preciousness of the atmosphere.
This is why, in my OP, I cited and quoted YEC Danny Faulkner, who asserts, in modern-centric fashion, that 'the âconceptâ of the âthe atmosphere and space beyond is modernâ.
I think Faulkner is astro-centric: he does not see why the admittedly life-critical atmosphere should be implied in the Bible. So he thinks that Psalm 19:1 is astro-centric rather than a binary step-focused narrative: he thinks it says (Y) instead of (X):
(Y) âOuter space declares the glory of God, and outer space shows Godâs handiworkâ,
not
(X) âThe total realms above our heads declare the glory of God, and the life-critical atmosphere shows Godâs handwork.â
(X) is a progressive focus, in two steps, just like Genesis 1:1. Even Hugh Ross sees this to be how to make sense of 1: 2-18.
But both Ross (who is OEC) and Morris, Faulkner, etc, (who are YEC) utterly fail to allow the Bibleâs own admittedly ANE terminology to interpret the term âdarkness uponâ in Genesis 1:2.
My entire effort in this thread has been to demonstrate that Faulknerâs assertion is flat-out inconsistent with the YEC position on the general mental-empirical faculties of pre-moderns. Because that position has it that humans have not evolved from non-human primates, but, rather, have degraded from an original, bio-cognitively fully prototypical human couple.
Which âdemonstrably falseâ claims are those? Is it demonsrtable that I have been claiming that a molecule of air is visible to the unaided human eye in a pitch black lack of lighting???
No doubt, some of the wide range of claims that I am making are not as readily supportable as would preclude your own persuasion finding them necessarily false. But I have made such range of claims only to try to make my main claims (about the human cognitive-perceptual relation to the atmosphere) more apparent, since you all have kept mistaking as to what I am claiming about air and about what is the level of our God-given capacity to make the basic right sense of it!
We deeply disagree on that. My reasoning on why is far more complex than I have the ready practice of explaining to any of yoursâ satisfaction in a few short paragraphs.
I see myself in most crowds of all camps (YEC, OEC, EC, AT) to be like a toddler whose only connection to Bipedal Robotics engineers is over a text-based internet, and those engineers are the sort that know nearly nothing about actual human beings.
