Blurbs usually come late in the book's development.

Your film link begins inauspiciously by accusing Carlson of lying completely about the filmmaker, Camron Wiltshire, and taking credit for Wiltshire's work. Bit of tar pit there to avoid.

Second strike, it says Carlson is a 32nd-degree Freemason. Well, there.

Yeah, numbers create patterns available to anyone, and particular numbers encoded in the mass and orbit of the earth are for signs and seasons, such that nearly 30 days and nearly 360 days are governed by moon and sun, as a testimony. In the 22nd minute he doesn't say much to add to that. Synchronies and number patterns are great, they just don't go very far, because the Bible indicates their primary use is to encapsulate something already taught openly, not to disclose something untaught. Numbers can be twisted in any direction, so they are not to supplant good teaching, they supplement it. Will keep this one open for a little while too.

(You have a lot of development there so I've written a lot, I trust your patience and discernment as you review it.)

I never said all jews crucified and rejected Him.

Great! But you think that Jew, a proper noun, should be lowercase, even though lowercasing is registered in dictionaries as offensive? And would lowercase Judaism not be just grammatically improper? (It's literally a proper noun.) And would you use other racial terms judged offensive? Obviously it's common on this forum, but I bring it up since I'm talking about stumbling blocks.

But, more to the point, let's practice parsing to illustrate how I receive your words.

Rabbinical judaism is the tradition of the Pharisees and the Sadducees developed after the destruction of the Temple .... Do you know why they pray at the Western Wall? .... the Messiah already came and they rejected Him and crucified Him

The first "they" could have antecedent as "Rabbinical [J]udaism". The second "they" cannot, so it must be either "the Pharisees and the Sadducees" or a generic reference, but you imply it's not a generic. And it's wasn't "the Pharisees" or "the Sadducees" as a collective who did it, but some of them, seeing as many Pharisees became Christians or were sympathetic (Hillel, Gamaliel, Nicodemus, Joseph, Paul, Acts 21:20). When the Bible uses a collective like this it's clear in context that it means some, but in English a collective like "the Pharisees crucified Messiah" is easily mistaken as being a delegated group activity attributable to all members rather than an activity of individuals. So, since you affirm you don't want to say it was all Jews, I suggest continuing sensitivity to whether your words might be mistaken that way.

By "them" I'm referring to the pharisees and the sadducees who later consolidated the hebrew sect that we now call Judaism.

See, there you refer both to people in 33 and literally to the same people consolidating much later, even if we propose that the Yavneh meetings started in 70. There are very few people who were active in both events, but by collective language you're speaking not only of both connected groups but also of all the connections of Rabbinical Judaism. That's a technical solecism, I'm confident you don't mean it, which is why I say there are more adequacies and contexts out there to glean.

As far as the Church goes, those people are heretics and don't worship the same God as Christians do.

And that would literally mean a very few people, but has the risk of painting a very broad brush. About the only historical person who I know might have contributed to both events is Yohanan ben Zakkai and since I don't know that he did I can't count him as a heretic. Now, we might point to anathemata that relate to Judaizing (none relate to Judaism as we now use the terms), but those are generic and not directed at any people-group but at individual behavior. So you leave the door open to the idea that all Rabbinical Jews today are special heretics for collectively crucifying Jesus and consolidating Judaism. But this is not a valid anathema (and we've discussed individual authority to make ecclesiastic proclamations). All non-Christians are generic heretics for not having come to Christ, and all non-Christians "crucified Christ" in the same sense I did; but that is not what people mean when they make Rabbinical Jews a special case. They mean that Judaism is itself as a system opposed to Jesus Christ, and the facts I've observed on the ground is that Judaism as a system tries very hard to take no position for or against Jesus Christ and to avoid taking such a position at great lengths. Even the separate allusion to Jews not wanting to mark with an "X" out of conscience is an avoidance of a position out of developed conscience and not an opposition. So, it's true the Rabbinical Jews are "heretics" in the same sense that all men are without Christ, but the fact that their Scriptures describe the true God in great detail indicates that we shouldn't preclude the idea that they might find the true God who is in Jesus by following the same Scriptures we use.

what Scripture calls false jews

"False Jews" is not the text. Perhaps you've fallen into a trap laid for some by intending to mean Jesus's words "which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie". Since Jesus says they're not Jews, they're not Jews. That leads to people objecting that many Rabbinical Jews are not Jews at all. In their own self-authoritative opinion. But Jesus always upheld the right of the Jewish nation to decide who was a Jew, and in general people-groups have the right to self-identify and to determine who is and who isn't a member (to say otherwise would be to say Americans can't enforce their border). So we don't get the right to "other" the Ashkenazi Jews, for instance, and say they're not Jews. Today's Ashkenazi have both Semitic and external (probably Khazarian) lineage, and the Jewish polity at large accepts this, and we don't get to say they made an error 1,000 years ago because that would be one nation (us) warring against another.

They are rightly in charge of their own genealogical records, and throughout the Old Testament we are shown how they operated this right, and when they took in foreigners (notably Rahab and Ruth, Jesus's grandmas) as being full Jews by naturalization. King David himself was accepted nationwide despite being known as 1/8 Moabite; he was chosen not because of blood but because of Ruth's citizenship vow (after being dissuaded three times) being held as normative in all court proceedings. So all the quibbling about a discovery a thousand years old is exceedingly disrespectful, as much as when today's "full-blood" Americans are being accused of being abusive slaveowners.

So I say all that from the standpoint that the Church must evangelize Jews and that Scored has a few common stumbling blocks that are easy to contribute to, but that the Church should logically reject. And I've said these things 5 years and not had any valid refutal. I say nothing against the Gentiles being grafted in, but I do say we are upheld by the root (Jesus) and the covenant people were largely Jewish/Israelite for almost the entire OT. So we don't get to diss the modern Jews when we remember how many OT Jews are saints in heaven watching us right now; instead we wait to point out our criticisms until we have established entree to speak where we will be heard and understood. That is done by demonstrating our ability to respect all Jewish history and treat the Jewish nation considerately: in fact, tongue in cheek, to treat them as considerately as any other goy (nation, Gen. 25:23).

Now, I see the side issue is also interesting to you. I don't see the Torah laws "transformed" from legalism to liberty. The fact is that the covenant people (excluding the idolatrous mixed multitude with them) could only ever have approached God via Christian liberty and not via legalism. That is why it's said Abel offered the first recorded sacrifice by faith. I was shocked when I realized my church had, by lapse, led me to believe that all the OT animal sacrifices were under a legalist system as if people earned something thereby. No, the ones who wanted to earn (like Cain) were excluded, God's soul hated their sacrifices; sacrifices could only, like any other work, be offered in gratitude for what God had already done and in faith for what he would do next. Jesus was circumcised, and had pigeons sacrificed for him (Luke 2), to fulfill righteousness, namely to demonstrate that according to the highest standard of the highest law he was scrupulous. And that law includes the right heart and cannot be kept without it (Deut. 30).

So when Jesus teaches on the law he never contradicts Moses (though he contradicts extraneous elder tradition like "hate your enemy"). He strengthens Moses by revealing the hidden heart matters that Moses fully meant but alluded to only indirectly as matters of conscience rather than formal law of human relations. Like every other prophet Jesus restores people to the fullness of righteousness from the heart. Therefore he didn't "transform" it (but many people were so steeped in idolatry that restoration of their original did look like transformation). To the faithful Jews, of which up to a million accepted his message within the generation, he made it safe to keep the original Torah again.

And another thing I was shocked by was that this continued after his resurrection. There are a few Scriptural proofs of this, but let me refer you again to Acts 21, where Paul pays for sacrifices that were offered in the then-standing temple. That's enough to illustrate the general trend: sacrifices could only be offered rightly from a heart that accepted what God had revealed (including the new revelation unique to that generation). The literal myriads (Greek) of Torah-observant worshippers in Jerusalem were offering a lot of sacrifices in that day: Luke's language could not mean less than 30,000 temple-honoring Messianic Jews. Therefore those Messianics, including over a million of the first members of your Orthodox Church who testify from heaven along with the OT saints, were continuing what Hebrews calls sacrifice by faith. Rabbinical Jews slaughtering chickens do not appear to be sacrificing by faith because even if they had the authority to substitute the chickens for themselves they don't demonstrate they have the heart. But Abel and Jesus and Paul did sacrifice animals by faith. (Now, without a temple, there are no authorized sacrifices today, except one, the Passover, which in the Torah was house to house. As a Christian who teaches the Hebrew roots I know Messianics who argue it is proper for Christians to slaughter and eat a lamb for Passover at home (not at the church altar because that is not the law), and, while it would be an affront for someone not in the body of Christ to do so, I can't tell them they're sinning when they in good conscience eat lamb for Passover in exactly the same way Jesus himself did.) Further, Ezekiel 40-48 indicates many future temple sacrifices when Jesus returns, and, although there are several eschatologies and I don't argue them, it's clear that on Jesus's return if he wants animal sacrifices he'll get them. (They may look more like time-honored American cookouts than we expect.)

This leads to the objection: Something changed at the cross, so certain things "good" before are "bad" after. I don't see that being the change. The things that were bad after the cross were bad for not being from the heart, in the same way they were bad before the cross. The change was that the body of Christ was wide-open to Gentiles, and at the first Orthodox Council (Acts 15) it was recognized that Gentiles had the laws of Noah and not of Moses. Both legal systems point to the same God via the same requirement of trusting in the Anointed as God reveals him; they just apply to different nations. The Messianic Jews continued, as I showed, to keep the Torah as perfectly as it could be kept, and the Gentiles continued to honor the generic statement of the Ten Words (given to all nations) that the Council stated, which is one formulation of the Laws of Noah. So when the church's demographic became largely Gentile the operative demonstration of righteousness among them was (as always) the Laws of Noah, or effectively the Ten Words; but in our day the question of operative demonstration of righteousness, via changed heart, is being shifted back to recognizing that Jews are free to keep the Laws of Moses unto Jesus, just as Moses that great saint did.

As I said in the summary, the "bad" was always works righteousness and legalism, it was never bad to strive to keep the law of Moses in liberty and gratitude as Jesus himself did. All NT objections to continuing to keep Jewish traditions were directed at doing so out of legalism ("under the law"). That's why Paul's legal defense in court was that he had not violated the Laws of Moses one whit: because he did so not under the law (but yet under Christ's law of liberty). He did so with full revelation of the fulfillment of the Law and its nonabolition, and its restoration in Christ. Sabbath is another can of worms that took me much longer to resolve: the fact is that the Lord's Day does have significance in pointing to the spiritual rest we have in Christ, but that does not change the significance Sabbath had in the Laws of Moses as kept and taught by Jesus (who spoke of Jews keeping Sabbath many years in the future, Matt. 24). Like circumcision, the physical does not necessarily deny the spiritual, while if there is no circumcision of the heart then both are denied.

TLDR: That's a lot but I'm happy to share what I've gleaned. I'm hopeful that as I've learned from other Orthodox you too will be open to dialogue. Accepting the many millions of Jewish saints in covenant history means right evangelism of the people today, recognizing that nobody was ever saved except by faith in God's Messiah, the promised seed of the woman. It also opens the door to understanding what true legalism really was and what true Christian liberty (including liberty to keep the law) really is. If you find repulsion in these thoughts, please consider that they are my best present understanding after years of studying the covenant, and I am always open to more (I don't know that I'm called to vow to Orthodoxy because I believe I'm called to evangelize Jew and Gentile with the gospel I've received). But I trust in the Spirit that you will see that there are some lines that you may not have been taught, as I was not taught them in my church but had to get them from the Word and the Spirit and in fact the primitive Church; and that we might be able to build bridges strengthening the relation of covenantalism to Orthodoxy (as I hinted with my enfolding of Orthodox theology as it reflects on Calvinism).

There are several whole books on the Christian mazzaroth. I have an angle on it that might go to book length but that probably goes to my time management. The four cardinal signs relate to the four horsemen and four living beings (who connect to compass points), so that informs the subdivision into twelve (and ultimately into 72 as we've discussed, maybe even to 216 and 2,160). But what I have doesn't go so much into prophetic events as it does personality types and ways of doing things in the four corners of the world. I'll need to post what the community can accommodate.

Comments filed under Alan T. Fail will be ridiculed, with words if necessary. We return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast of unaware Skil.

I thought Carlson's whole point was that there were 16 events that destroyed all civilization smaller than the million-ton level. Are we saying now that these civilizations weren't destroyed? See, we could have a narrative where you keep starting from near-zero, we could have a narrative that some quadrants (where there is no cataclysm) we build on the previous one well and have an exalted culture, we could claim the immediate past is of the first category and could hope the immediate future is of the second category, but it still might be the first. There's no reason in this theory to choose between the ultimate worst fate and the ultimate best fate, the theory only specifies that it will be one extreme or the other. Do you see some way of deriving more from it than that?

Judaism is premised on Christ not being the messiah

Yet.

To evangelize Rabbinical Jews (which is as sensitive as evangelizing Muslims), it's important to thank the historical people for preserving the covenant for thousands of years, among which Jesus and all the Church founders were born. The fact that one group said Jesus has done enough to be judged Messiah now, and the other (eventually) said Jesus hasn't done enough to be judged Messiah now, leads to the bridge-building method of dialoguing with Jews about how we would recognize Messiah before he finishes his work. I don't see a Christian eschatology in which we fail to pray for the coming of the Messiah who will rule over Israel and the world, and if he wants a physical temple as Ezekiel 40-48 hints then I'm sure he'll get one. So the issue is the let the Jews, who seek to keep their theology pure of outside influence, find Jesus in that historical theological testimony, because he's there everywhere. Without stumbling blocks, and also without compromise.

1. Actually, in Acts 3-4 the very Jews who called for Jesus's death became hundreds out of the first 5,000 members of your Orthodox Church. I've posted the exegetical proof but I trust you see it on plain reading (I don't think Tradition would interpret it differently than plainly).

2. Yes, dual covenant is contradictory and I've never taught it; Jews are only saved by accepting Jesus, just as the Old Testament Jews were saved by believing in a Messiah to come before his name had been revealed. There are no two covenants of salvation. However, many nations have various national covenants for good or ill in the Bible, and the Jewish people have some of the best and the worst of the covenantal promises, and their preservation is pretty good evidence that they have a national promise from God to remain a people forever just like Egypt has the same national promise from God to remain forever. In fact, Egypt is told by Zechariah that if they reject the Messiah they will get drought, which is similar to what Israel is told. National covenants are not related to salvation by faith proven by works.

So the "chosen people" (not a Biblical phrase), the people of God, were a mixed multitude for two millennia, then mostly Jewish for two, then mostly Gentile for two, which Paul tells us in Romans 9-11 is a brilliant and balanced plan for the world. He concludes with how much greater it will be to see Jews evangelized en masse again (like they were in his day, when Acts 20 21:20 says many myriads in Jerusalem alone were Messianic Jews): he says in fact it means the time of eschatological resurrection is here when that happens.

Side point, circumcision doesn't disregard Romans unless it is used as a work for independent merit. The good works we do, whether they look like Jewish law (e.g. baptism) or not, can only be done in gratitude for what we have received by grace and Christ's merit. There's a lot tied to that but it's tangential to your point.

Overall, you've got it pretty well right, and the issue is only that there are additional facts that open up the context of what is happening. I'm confident Orthodox would agree with evangelism to the Jews of the message of Jesus being God, Christ, and Savior, but those who have been working through this issue closely for the last ~150 years have recognized that much of the work is pre-evangelism, removing the rocks (and stumbling blocks) and watering and plowing up the hard ground. That also includes getting the church "more adequate explanation" as to how we can facilitate what Paul says will happen.

The OP, with help from Bill Craig.

45. Jesus's self-concept, each detail attested by multiple independent sources, included being Christ, unique Son of God, unique Son of Man, king of God's kingdom, unique teacher of Israel, unique forgiver of sins against God, and a wonder worker.

46. The evidence Jesus claimed these things is fully comparable to the generally accepted historical evidence that others like Julius Caesar claimed these or similar things.

47. The same evidence shows Jesus had high personal morality, sanity, and character with no signs of deception or lunacy.

48. Theories that Jesus's self-concept was inaccurate do not account for the historical fact that that self-concept was attested and therefore conceived by someone at least as unique as the self-concept itself was.

49. The accuracy of Jesus's self-concept, in which he had access to powers of the Cosmos, is the theory with best explanatory power.

Jesus prevents extinction, nobody else.

I do have a little evidence on Nazis shielding pedophiles generically, if you accept Levy-Lenz.

Yes except for the last: if you're the only one posting that's forum sliding by definition.

I apologized for that, I'm confident I brought it to their attention and my intent was only to support others who wanted more order, so I got hit by unintended consequences, and I could see why you'd blame me for the actions of others. IMHO the solution is for regulars here (I've been mostly a longtime lurker) to demonstrate more unity in their desire. I posted a vote to that effect this week, a formal vote seems a better way of proceeding than clucking to each other. If you prefer anarchy, say no to mods directly when called on. But Among Us is also anarchy and maybe you're the sus one to favor anarchy. See, meta can be sliding too.

Do you need a second at an exorcism, Vlad? Anytime.

(We might get a mod someday who cracks down on that language. Also we have an Orthodox member here, whom I've been politely debating with, who might look down on it too, to say nothing of other Christians. Verbum sat.)

Hi Turtle, I've been telling people for five years to "Name The Jew For Real", because people think it means to speak about some shifting collective called The Jews, but it would actually mean to identify those evildoers (like George Soros ne Gyorgy Schwartz) who are actually the ones doing the evil.

Jesus Christ is Lord and God. u/guywholikesDjtof2024 has also confessed that. Obtaining that confession is a pretty good test of someone not being a Rabbinical Jew. It's funny to me how you suggest not wasting time on him or on similar accounts while you waste your time on him and not on direct exposure of folks like Ghislaine Maxwell daughter of Robert Maxwell ne Jan Hoch.

Jesus, God the Son, you mean. I think you were upset because I take Romans 11 literally. When you use your favorite card, unstated minor premise, to connect the dots from that all the way to my having an ahistorical Jesus (but OP literally links a defense of the historical Jesus, twice), you're overplaying your hand.

The sidebar treats contributors as persons not to be attacked. Obviously most people recognize that the Golden Rule teaches that you treat others like humans if you want to be treated like a human. I'm pretty sure the view of dehumanizing anyone, though it's been applied a couple different ways here, won't pass muster with the community at large. If you had a conspiracy theory about how Nazis all individually engaged contracts with the devil to become objectively something other than human, that idea hasn't really been tested with the community, but I don't think you have the evidence.

You might be surprised, but I do ask people not to misquote the Talmud. In particular, since people are so anxious to criticize it, I point out that it hurts their case to speak inaccurately about it because it makes them look either uninformed or likely to be shilling to make Talmud hatred look dumb. I say that if one is going to criticize it they should go for its actual excesses, such as excessive superstition about demons, hypercasuistry about life regulation, and extreme insularity; and they should not criticize based on telephone games starting in 19th-century German broadsheets but still echoed in uninformed memes today.

The Talmud and Judaism do not make it an official teaching that Jesus would be a false prophet or illegitimate. The Bible does state that members of Jewish sects held this, and so on rare occasions we have seen individual Jews repeat this; in the whole Talmud there's only one actual negative charge against Jesus given by one person as a minority view (Rabbi Ulla). There are a couple anecdotes about a "Yeshu" character who is an amalgamation of three people named Yehoshua in three different centuries, which includes Jesus, but that framing doesn't constitute teaching.

Nowadays rabbis have recognized, rightly, that it's self-destructive to defame Jesus, and since Judaism has very few official positions there is actually no congregational rabbi or rabbinical org delivering any clear English statement against Jesus as a Jewish doctrine. I've offered the challenge for years of finding any such testimony, and so far we've only turned up one YouTube in Hebrew that might qualify. Rabbis are too cagey to defame Jesus directly, they'd much rather ignore the question entirely and let the Jewish people think what they want. Because I believe in Romans 11 creative evangelism to the Jews about Jesus being their Messiah (and completing the Messianic work that they seek), I ask that no stumbling block be placed so that they have the freedom to hear and work through the good news we have for them after millennia of both sides breaking down the communications. Thank you for asking a good question, I trust you understand.

No, an anon joke has a Yeshu in the afterlife speaking of boiling excrement, quite a bit different than what you said. Not a problem, by my count that is the single most misquoted thing on Scored.

Entered into mod queue for removal of call to violence at mod's discretion.

More: https://communities.win/c/Nazi/p/16ZWykVBwL/what-evidence-suggests-the-sex-i/c

what I DONT want to talk about

...

PRIOR TO the last Saharan wet period. This means they are at a minimum 6,000 years old (“but that’s impossible!” He shouts).

"The African humid period ended 6,000–5,000 years ago during the Piora Oscillation cold period. While some evidence points to an end 5,500 years ago, in the Sahel, Arabia and East Africa, the end of the period appears to have taken place in several steps, such as the 4.2-kiloyear event." I have no problem putting the sphinx 5,000+ years ago. It looks like you have no problem putting it 40,000+ years ago.

So I'm gathering you want us to have a kumbaya upheaval, and that logically such a golden age might have happened many times before, even as whatever ages there were got destroyed at the "set times", and there's no knowing whether we're at a total or near ELE or at a rapture. We can predict that intensity is higher at this present moment than in other centuries (by either the Christian or the astrological route), but we don't know what's coming without more information than the whole OP and associated theory will give us.

Then my counsel would be to get as much Bible as you possibly can in the hopes of defeating the ELE that you've seen so often before. Doesn't seem like Carlson, Chang, Ching, giants, pyramids, Gospel of Thomas are the ones preventing the ELE, fren.

how much you dislike the fact that every society on the planet throughout all of history has recognized the significance of the Zodiac

I just affirmed much significance to the zodiac. Bullinger and Kennedy have whole books on the Christian meaning of the zodiac. That's why it's so important to distinguish primary from secondary. Primarily, Aquarius is the Baptizer.

do you think light is

The tests from Galileo to Michelson relied on physical apparatus catching the light. In 1983 they switched to measurement of cesium radiation and then krypton. So people aren't doing mirror interferometry anymore. If they did, it might help "prove me wrong".

So you can’t answer

It's not my job to know Mrs. Noah's name (it was Emzara).

The erasure of all known laws of physics otherwise doesn’t save much.

I didn't erase them. BBT shows them inapplicable in the Planck epoch, which as I said Hartle and Hawking fit another whole universe into. Because Christians believe in transfiguration, that's another inapplicability range, that will also prevail in the future. So it seems fitting for it to prevail in the Garden.

we don’t actually see it

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:E.coli-colony-growth.gif&oldid=671921067

What number is that?

Technically, one (full ELE), because you can't have more than one, and because the second law over billions of years would force one sooner or later, because it would extinguish rather than create life, unless you invoke WAP. Oh, you did. Well then, thanks, you just proved that something guides destiny beyond what scientists can explain and reifies this universe rather than any other in the MUH. The fact that all life hasn't been extinguished means more than evolutionary factors are at work, which means evolution as a mechanism is unnecessary and so are the billions.

So you can’t answer the question?

By saying the Oxygen Holocaust corresponds with Day 3 I point out it doesn't look to me like an ELE but like a special creation of plant life in which animal life isn't considered.

So there’s no evidence for the 100 billion people who died in the past because “there are only 8 billion alive today.”

False comparison, the living come from others in their species, but with no macroevolution you don't get the narrative that this species comes from a thousand others.

what

The fact that you propose with some seriousness the extinction of about 7 billion humans as some kind of necessity is clearly shill territory and I have no idea why you went there except your nihil narrative.

You still didn’t answer the question.

When you asked what limit I wanted you to source, I referred you to your limit of seven billion needing to be lost. I don't see any other question this refers to.

Inability to sustain such a population with the resources available

Malthus was an idiot. Greater population means greater labor resources, and fuel resources are nowhere near exhaustion.

“I don’t want my people to be exterminated” is a moral justification.

Then stop implying loss of seven billion is inevitable.

Because “hang on” effects can’t exist, definitely.

That's what Revelation assures, yes.

when the laws of physics have to break down due to the slowing of light, and therefore the day when Christ will return

Good falsifiability test! That one is asymptotic, but granularity suggests that even with quantum effects you could calculate out an eventual max date (just like scientists have already calculated a heat death date and not gotten smitten for it). I'll get a tab open to work on it in spare time. Anyway I think that would be the end of the millennium and not the beginning, but it would still be good eschatology either way.

Now go ahead and pretend you “thought of that” eventuality in your model before reading the preceding paragraph.

I had thought of the application of Tipler Omega Point theory to VSL, but didn't apply the particular test you suggest, no. So I complimented you on it.

Already linked directly to five of them. And those are just the big ones.

Which is why it's odd for the billions-trusters that life continues.

We’ve seen it happen.

Stars keep being formed. We see them formed.

We’ve seen it happen.

No, we have no photo of a supernova actively triggering a molecular cloud, we've seen snapshots of various stars in a molecular cloud and made a Just So story ("model") from it.

[citation needed]

I forgot, they assumed our bete noire, dark matter halos, so that their spirals would hold up; without it spirals don't last. "The presence of dark matter (DM) in the halo is inferred from its gravitational effect on a spiral galaxy's rotation curve. Without large amounts of mass throughout the (roughly spherical) halo, the rotational velocity of the galaxy would decrease at large distances from the galactic center .... However, observations [show] rotational velocities do not decrease with distance from the galactic center."

And made to look old, thereby rendering your god as a deceiver.

Dated canard; Adam wasn't told he or the universe looked old, he was told exactly how old it was. Nowadays people deceive themselves.

galactic collisions prove the outgassing of material that then may go on to coalesce into its own independent galactic shapes, irregular, elliptical, spiral, or otherwise.

Not for long without dark matter halos. They're young.

It’s what happens to every other idealized sphere of matter at every other scale when external motion is applied, so yes, it does.

"Despite various proposed models aimed at elucidating the mechanisms behind the formation of spiral arms in galaxies, none of these models have garnered conclusive confirmation. As a result, there is presently no reliable method for describing the evolution of spiral patterns in galaxies."

you either accept objective reality

I accept your story as a story of heavy metal expulsion. I also point out its irrelevance.

Nobody's observed creation of a solar system.

Okay, shoot yourself.

Wow!

Implicit in the claim.

It's not implicit that VSL would entail changing "material composition of the Universe" whatever you mean by that.

Exact opposite implication on my part.

I excepted the LRDs, which nobody understands yet, and pointed out that the existence of spirals at high redshifts boggles astrophysicists because they are so well-developed so "early". Well, if spirals are rapidly coalesced by accretion then they keep a simple structure from their origin and the wonder is that they haven't lost that structure in the present day.

And they just so happened to look like meteor craters, and not like any form of erosion ever recorded, but it’s totally erosion. Right?

By different rocks I was referring to geologic layers. Apparently you were referring to different rocks in craters instead. I agree with eroded craters, but not with there being any evidence that erosion proves billions, as you haven't brought any.

the Flood didn’t cause the meteor craters that observationally predate all of human history

If you mean they're in the range of tens of thousands, irrelevant.

Gobekli Tepe, which was humans recording the end of the Younger Dryas Period at a time that aligned with a measurable cosmological event.

Haven't heard that, and Graph would be interested, but it would still be in the thousands range.

still not your timeframe.

I defined my timeframe five different ways, from ~5,800 to ~100,000. In the title I summarized this as thousands. I'm not here to defend my calculation, I simply show it for honesty and immediately admit others. You act like agreeing with thousands proves thousands wrong.

And that’s how all the fossils were created, right? The ones separated by hundreds of meters of depth?

Yes, polystrate fossils demonstrate that hundreds of meters can be deposited within a year.

So… death existed before Adam.

I don't believe so, but many YECs who go for the 100,000 range keep the special Creation and still put Adam on Day 6. What we don't have is a giant physical death epoch before Adam, which you proposed without defense.

It doesn’t. That’s the point.

If you stretch Gen. 1-11 you can get to 11,000, but I'm not arguing that intramural quibble.

throwing out all physical observations that have never changed no matter when they were observed

Uniformitarian fallacy again. Next research note: find other standard-model physical observations that change with time. Falsifiable, they ought to exist.

Light speed is constant.

Right now it's defined that way by circular reference to radioactivity. This definition changes the interpretation of many kinds of data.

Other than the physical impossibility of it while retaining the known laws of physics.

I showed you the models. Maybe you wanted to get specific with your hand-waving.

So… wrong math, since the error ranges were wrong.

Circular, you haven't established why nobody's corrected what the error range should have been and what faulty assumption led to your charge the math was wrong.

We did. They’re better now.

We did not correct the older measurements or demonstrate why they gave answers outside our defined rate now; we just threw them out without wondering why. Suppression of evidence, that's a conspiracy!

The reason light speed isn’t a perfect 300,000,000 is that we guessed in the past

Not true, Asimov wrote an article on why the closeness relates to other coincidences of resonance with the decimal system.

I’m honestly surprised you didn’t mention that as “evidence”

Now you know why.

and therefore prove The Day by which Christ must return, and so you didn’t want to draw attention to that.

I said I'd love to draw attention to it. Funny how you don't rake the heat-death calculators over this way.

Plants. Animals. Things we know God created before Man.

1-3 days before. Do you want to come out of the day-age closet maybe?

you think they’re the same.

I don't think they're the same, they're both part of the curse, which is why the Hebrew says "die and die" (idiomatically, "surely die").

If physical death and sin death are the same (Bible says otherwise), no physical interactions took place between any matter before the first bite of the fruit.

You still forget satan. But this doesn't follow. I don't say they're the same, I say they both began at a point. I don't see your mechanism for concluding physical interactions couldn't happen without physical death.

A couple of minutes, at least.

Okay, so you didn't forget satan, but your long digression implies you think him irrelevant to initiating either physical or spiritual curse.

lead with this next time. This is fascinatingly stupid. You should have made your OP an explanation of this. It’s at least interesting and a genuinely new way of looking at things. You might lead someone sane to a lateral thought that solves a real problem if you expound on that.

I didn't think I'd need to lead with c having a higher value and a breakdown process being initiated just to get others to explain their belief in billions. I'm glad I could apprise you though.

If entropy existed at all, that’s death.

No, the transference of abundant energy into heat doesn't mean life forms must die without a trigger.

you admit death without sin is irrelevant in a pre-Fall world, because the laws of physics ensure no information loss despite mass-energy state changes.

In your view of pre-Fall world, death exists and is information loss. In my view, there is minimal information loss that does not necessitate death.

They do if you want to keep claiming the laws of physics haven’t completely changed.

Except I do claim they've changed. So I'm free to assemble the snapshots differently. Since they have no answer for the stumpers about why clocks haven't run out like spiral arm degradation et al., they are forced to narrative assemblies that don't work.

Which are recorded to have happened, yeah.

Yeah, the formation of earth was a crisis, and the flood was a crisis, and both are recorded by plenty of evidence.

Different amounts of the isotope left. Can’t happen if they were all created at once.

Uniformitarian fallacy. When I've seen discussion of this phenomenon, there are several explanations, including leaching of the isotope.

Yes... didn’t.

I did read it. The age is determined by radio dating, not erosion.

what.

When you say "if not [dated in billions], they would have eroded by now", the literal implication is that younger craters eroded but craters dated in billions didn't. I assumed you meant something else. If you're saying a crater didn't erode, that indicates it's young. If you're saying it did, I asked how old you could prove it to be by that process. I gave a date in the myriads.

Ah, so they wouldn’t accept the Bible?

The Bible should be accepted, not by appeal to authority, but by recognition of it containing the best explanation when one has grown past relying on tutors. Now the Bible says nothing from which you could infer physical death before Adam, so I ask where you get it from.

The heavens don't proclaim billions.

Thanks for admitting God doesn’t lie.

Checkmate. You don't intend to prove OP title wrong, you're just having fun sharpening your theories without being pinned down. Having finished the OP game, I'm happy to go on playing another.

God made the stars, he had the symbols first (Job 38:32 has Mazzaroth, a technical term for the 48 signs), which is why I alluded to just those four. You filled in the primary details, there isn't much more to make into a thread. It's consistent with God to make the pattern 2,157+ years and then round it for simplicity to 2,000 years (and also to 2,160 for arcana). So the fact that these things can be warped is secondary, and we have the job of sifting out the primary. For instance, the primary of Aquarius would be the Baptizer, but I thought to myself (before you said "women") the secondary might be the intersex person, bearing water and all.

I might have seen that link when you posted it, but if so I shrugged it off because it doesn't sell by itself. Since we've taken it up again you've been pretty roundabout toward getting people to look for Rapture by telling them human civilization was wiped out (about) 16 times. Just a repeat of a methodology tip.

I don't need an asteroid to tell me that the Garden, the Flood, and the Tribulation (with Rapture) are comparable upheavals to each other, Peter explicitly says so for exactly those three in 2 Peter 3. And he could include the Cross for his own era too. But those are the cusps. If we link the Garden with the beginning of Taurus, the Flood with the end of Taurus, and the Tribulation with the beginning of Aquarius, we sorta preserve the alignment Carlson wants to see, and it's understandable if he wants to find other cabal-dated events that tie to and extend his theory (connected to 1/3 of the whole period with hundreds of years swing for error). I don't see that as proof, which is why I suggested the geologist conspiracy almost in jest, but in terms of devils twisting numbers for their ends we already have plenty of evidence of that so it's not so much in jest as when I began. But we also have the church testimony that arrives at the same result simply by matching "third day" with "as a thousand years" and seeing the connection to the prior four thousand, which has been a regular strand in theology. So we could argue millenarianism is at a great peak like it was in Jesus's day, without needing any reference to confirmation in God's mazzaroth.

What I'm concerned about is trying to make some general rule out of it that gives credence to Bible opponents. The Creation of the Garden is consistent with the Big Bang when VSL is applied; thus it would not be one of the climate events described. The Flood is consistent with the 4.6kya event and Carlson's #16. The Tribulation does seem consistent with the entry into Aquarius and the bride is ready come what may. So I'm good with that overlay.

As soon as people try to push Creation back into the far remote, though (by gap, or day-age, or just ignoring Genesis altogether), they feed a very nasty bunch of antitheists that have been trying to deny special creation whenever they could and only found a British respectable way to do it with some permanence in 1859. Before then people had enough common sense that it couldn't take over the industry of inquiry. Nowadays Carlson is probably unaware that he's still paying rent to those same leeches by citing their logically fallacious Just So Stories complete with math that changes from one tale to the next. (Y'know, I shouldn't say this is unique, the Egyptian tales had the same retconning problem and they were pretty empire-wide so I suppose there are ways it's been worse in the past.) So I militate against these ideas to peel back to what can be defended clearly. And, funny thing, every time it's become very easy to find the assumption and the person spinning the yarn and to point out that it's just an assumption that need not be made.

So that's why the idea of citing several alignments, if they can be cherry-picked and their inclusion criteria need not refer to any specific cataclysmic profile, and being arbitrary with tying them to God's mazzaroth as some kind of causality, doesn't take with me. It doesn't add anything prophetic to what I already have, and it attempts to take away from what I have and replace it with cabal astrology. Without doing more analysis I'll repeat my probing question to see where you want to take it: "You've also described the Leo era as one big cataclysm from Younger Dryas to end of Wisconsin Ice Age, and the pyramid and sphinx are designed therein to survive that extant crisis, and presumably the next one?" Specifically, are you saying the pyramids and sphinx were all built during the Wisconsin Ice Age? (Ice in Egypt would certainly solve the sand problem! /s)

Okay so you want the whole thing built in Leo. And you've also described the Leo era as one big cataclysm from Younger Dryas to end of Wisconsin Ice Age, and the pyramid and sphinx are designed therein to survive that extant crisis, and presumably the next one?

But if we went full credulous and favored the "neatness" of the theory, the reason that meteors and volcanoes follow this exact timeframe (and presumably never any other to that degree) would still be unstated. The mechanisms you propose don't match up, as there's nothing in the earth's axial tilt that makes these epoch significant for space phenomena.

What is significant is a bunch of Homo sapiens seeing (for now let's stick with) bull, ram, fish, man in the sky, and creating a narrative of epochs of roughly 2,000 years out of that, and then fitting all kinds of other data around it. And in particular both demons and humans would have an interest in using that to claim a greater correlation with past events. So that gives me a little more credence for the idea that the greater phenomenon is the selling of the narrative than the actual sky events. For instance, if we get enough people believing we should have an ELE between now and 2700 AD then maybe we can manifest it; that's a much greater causative potential than the fact that the Sphinx literally sees Aquarius this next Easter morn. I mean, it would stand to reason that much more would be made of what the people are excited about the sphinx seeing, than could be made of a clockwork dislodging of an asteroid or tectonic shift that some how relates to the distant constellation.

Because you and the sources never jump to THE END IS NEAR even though the natural corollary is that the dawning of the Age of Aquarius brings extinction and a total civilization wipe. You've taken several tries of not formulating evidence just for me to get to this much understanding of the evidence on my own, in spite of the "help" given. You're not one of those creepy glowies who keep feeding the other person hints until the other draws the conclusion on his own and thinks it his own and gets blamed for being the millenarian, are you?

Look, 9/11 becomes just a visualization exercise under that hypothesis, of course we know the cabal wants us to believe the cataclysm is nigh. What good is a predictive theory if it isn't used to predict anything except that if I apply the narrative it predicts my own demise? I already have a fine, much more detailed narrative theory connected to cataclysms during the coming of The Man, thank you very much. Better ending too.

So (without arguing the math and science) why don't you just jump right to the end being near with this theory? 35,100 more weeks!

While suspending my judgment for the purposes of the roundtable, how does the pyramid point to this whole cycle of cataclysms? What value would it have had in relation to any of these events, other than to be something that might survive global flood? And your big reason for backdating the sphinx is that the sphinx would then be looking at Leo at sunrise in spring only rather than in winter only? And you don't know what brought on the cataclysms on this list (as opposed to others) but it just neatly aligned with these precession eras as if some hand were guiding them to align?

How about this: A real conspiracy would be if geologists conspired to ensure that cataclysm dates would align roughly with precession dates such that they could be compiled into such a list later to prove the zodiac had power. That seems a lot easier than having spirits actually align all these events and actually cause all that damage for real. It also seems wiser not to ascribe too much to those spirits when we know they like to lie about numbers and correlations. Just spitballing.