FANDOM

SouthWriter

aka Henry

Bureaucrat Founder
  • I live in Greenville, SC
  • I was born on January 10
  • I am male
A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • Just if you didn't know, about two to one year ago I was convicted by the Holy Spirit to do something different from Wikipedia, and rather then being "neutral" (which isn't possible) or leaning to modern scholarship we have longs icne moved away from that. I know you created this wiki to move away from that and I want you to know that the wiki is much more focused on glorifiying God then making everyone happy.

      Loading editor
    • Thank you for your input, SDS.  Here I want to be true to the Bible as the source material.  This means that each article is to be based on BIBLE study rather than comparing the Word to the world.

      Please feel free to add articles, especially articles with "dead" links.  Bible studies of people mentioned in the Bible is a good place to begin.

        Loading editor
    • I am not editongon here but suggesting a possible merge.

        Loading editor
    • I am sorry I missed your reply.  I have been away from the wiki for too long.

      Any way, I just came from editing at your wiki.  Perhaps we can work together, I liked the way you used footnotes to refer to the verses from which you  drew your points.  I added the Greek -- kurios and theos -- to the 'etymology' section after checking out an edit of the 'Trinity' section.

      It does appear that you have done more with your wiki than I have with mine. I can see you have a heart for the work that dwarfs my own!  However, since my style is different from yours, it is probably better if we have separate wikis.  Compare your article on Genesis to mine, for instance.  As I type this, I am also contemplating editing your article to 'improve' the grammar.  Much of it is technically correct, but awkward to read.  As it is, I will just be correcting factual errors (like the "600 years after creation" for the end of Genesis [Joseph's death])

      I welcome any articles you wish to produce for inclusion here -- even copies of what are found on your site.  I look forward to editing and contributing at your site as well.

      In Christ

      SouthWriter.

        Loading editor
    • That is exactly why we need more editors! I myself know how to make technical writing, but sometimes I do it awkwardly. Rest assured God has intended our own talents and missions. I see that you have just sumbitted some edits, lets get on Biblicalapedia chat and discuss about this a bit more.

      Could you also give me some more detail of how you think the content styles are seperate (in a way we are trying to be an alternate to Wikipedia and their NPOV, but use same of the same encyclopedia-like documentation). The thing is, I feel personally sometimes I am a bit to dictactorial over the content style. Though it should be an encyclopedia-form I don't want to be dominate in the writing style, otherwise that might discourage collaboration. God has seemed to call me to this ministry and so far God hasn't revealed anyone willing to step up and take a leadership position. I know in time God will reveal whoever He has planned to help me.

      We can try to scheldue through time zones, or pop in to chat if you see me on so we can chat about it.

      May God Bless

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Great wiki. Awesome wiki. Someone needs to do this. I'll try helping once I get the hang of how you're planning to do things round here.

    Oceans - Hillsong United

    Almost an anthem of my life at the moment.


    We will meet face to face one day. I'm looking forward to it already.

      Loading editor
    • View all 13 replies
    • The "talk" page format (that which is available in a separate tab) somehow alludes me on this wiki. I was able to set it up on the home page, but elsewhere I am stuck with "comments" at the bottom of the page. This discussion might be more effective at the bottom of the "Creation" page, but I will continue here because it is more like a "private" conversation.

      I realize that I was throwing scientific theory at you pretty hard. I am sorry if I confused you. My idea is that God indeed started everything "in one place" and then put stuff elsewhere. This does not mean He used the "big bang" (which denies the "laws of physics), but does imply a possible "big crunch" if left unattended. Based only on the visible universe, the mass of crunched matter-energy (down to neutrons), would be a sphere about 1.5 light years across. That, though, would not look like "water," so I discount that as a possible "what" of the "creation moment.

      What was "formless and empty" becomes "the deep," which is then said to be surrounded by the Spirit over "the waters." Those are the facts according to the Word of God. Now, what is the evidence from observing creation? Free gases tend to spread out into formless masses, and pure hydrogen, for example, would be empty of anything else but hydrogen -- formless and void. Scattering everywhere, it would be utter chaos. It needed the "hand" of God to form it into anything. The word picture is more like the "wings" of God, for He "hovered" over the mass.

      Once contained, the gas - be it organized hydrogen or loose particles, would compress on its own by the law of gravity. Soon hydrogen would fuse into the first eight elements. Amazingly, those elements are found in our oceans as air dissolved in water (H2O, N, O, CO2, He). The other three elements (Li, Be, and B) have excellent properties for dispersing electrons (ions) in the further creation of the universe after LIGHT is introduced (Gen. 1:3). Light is, of course, mid spectrum electromagnetic energy.

      I'll jump now to your questions concerning a "possible line of reasoning" for the rest of creation.

        Loading editor
    • Okay, I'm borrowing code from above! I'll start with your first question:

      God's ways are higher than ours. Yes. But what possible line of reasoning could there be that would end up with God putting in a load of information that can be taken to mean other than what actually happened?

      You go on to provide the "information" that you are considering, but let me deal first with the idea of "be[ing] taken to mean other than what actually happened." [Emphasis mine.] That is assuming that we humans are coming anywhere close to interpreting the information correctly. As you can see above, I took known information and quite easily explained how it could have come about -- actually happened'. And not only that, it just happens to fit the text. Your examples, though, deal with what came next (after "day one).

      Why would light seemingly originate from 17.5 billion years away unless it did?


      (1) Of course, original "Light" started at the edge of the universe after in had been contained into a sphere (Gen. 1:3). If that was a cloud of hydrogen, my rough estimate would be somewhere around 138 light years from the center. I might be way off, but even a magnitude of a thousand would be a lot smaller than 17.5 billion.
      (2) But by "day 4" that distance would be apparently around 4 to 5 billion light years away (or whatever the age of the universe is figured to be these days). The 17.5 billion light years is projected based on the observed expansion (movement) since the supposed "big bang." This is the "problem" of starlight and time. There are indeed answers that don't require assuming "deep time."
      (a) The first two days were the revolution of the original mass around its own axis (days) with the light of the "days" being the shikinah glory cloud of God's presence. Day 3, at the center of the universe, the earth had become a size near what it is now while the universe was created within a couple of thousand light years away, moving away at an accelerating rate from that day on.
      On day four, all the stars and other planets were formed, being "lit" by God, who then let his "light bearers" do their job. The light may or may not have been traveling at its present speed (THE constant of the general theory of relativity.
      (b) Light has only been measured inside the gravity well of our solar system. With the Voyager probes reaching the edge of that influence, strange measurements are causing scientists to wonder about some of their assumptions. We know that gravity slows light down (see below) and certainly bends it. So what really is the speed of light between the stars? Without knowing that, our measuring of space goes haywire! Other things, like the laws of motion and gravity, help, but we are left wondering nonetheless.
      (c) But assuming the Bible is true, the universe has an edge. With that assumption, the theory of relativity works nicely to show that time slows down under great gravity. If that gravity was caused by the sphere of water of Genesis 1:2, then time at the edges and time at the center would be vastly different. And remember, the earth was in the center where the gravity was greatest. The mathematics of it even show "negative" on a graph (meaning "zero" since time doesn't run in reverse). This dip below the line means time "stopped" at the "event horizon (something like a black hole, but not quite).
      Why create a dating method for rocks that would give answers that are millions of years old?

      That one is a lot easier to answer. The question is, who "created" the dating method? That's right, mankind. More specifically, scientists that wanted to find millions of years on the earth. This does not mean that Hugh Ross of "Reasons to Believe " is wrong, but it does not negate what "young earth" creationists at "Creation Ministries International " and "Answers In Genesis " teach either.

      (1) Dating rocks by fossils within them is circular reasoning, so it is easy to dismiss. One has to go to radiometric dating methods to get any large numbers.
      (2) However, when it comes to comparing isotopes and decay rates one has to take a lot of assumptions.
      (a) What was the original ratio of mother to daughter element?
      (b) Was the rate constant for the whole time?
      (c) Was there any leaching into the environment around the specimen.
      (d) And so forth.
      (3) Other methods of dating, such as erosion, sediment, planetary drift, and so on, all give vastly shorter periods than radiometric dating.
      (4) Dating methods, along with "time" itself, are man-made. However, God has given us a record that generally tells us how long mankind has been around. Working backwards, the population lands at eight people around the time of Noah. The evidence from genetics backs up three (or four) female and one male variant lines of DNA. Ancient Egyptian records, adjusted by Scripture and assuming exaggeration and/or co-regencies, back the Bible (which we accept as true).
      (5) Before man, like the dinosaurs for example, is a construct based on the assumption that these animals died out long before mankind came on the scene (thus denying the clear record in Genesis), even accepting evolution from ape-like ancestors. Again, the population projections alone rule this out. The fossils had to be laid down in massive flooding on the level of continent wide coverage -- that is, world wide. Fossils form no other way. Therefore, Adam saw dinosaurs, and so did Noah. After the flood, the few that rode the ark wondered away to become the "dragons" mentioned in folklore all over the world.

      Well, that was quite a load to put on you, David. But remember, I've been at this longer than you have been alive. I am a student of the Bible, though far from a "scholar" and I hope to let it speak for itself in this wiki.


      Or are we in fact looking at a picture of two faces when we should be seeing a vase?


      I only wish I could use an emoticon here. :-)  

      You know, one that would turn into an icon.  Anyway, Big smiley face!

      Yes, it is a matter of perspective.  The faces have us looking to the creature, man, instead of to the Creator.  To see the vase is to appreciate the "potter" that fashioned it. Same evidence, but totally different conclusions.

      I look forward to your work on this wiki.  Thank you again for reading what I have to say.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hey South, great wiki.

      Loading editor
    • Thank you, Wing.  Pick a link or chose your favorite Bible character or story and write an article from scratch.  You can even import Bible Commentary articles as long as you give due credit.  I am building this thing to be fully interactive, so put links in whenever you mention a person, place or event.  I aim to surpass the "bible wiki" as quickly as possible.  But I cannot do it by myself.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hey there! We're excited to have Holy Bible Wiki as part of the Wikia community! There's still a lot to do, so here are some helpful tips and links to get your wiki going:

    • Not sure where to begin? Stop by Founder & Admin Central and check out the Blog for tips on how to jump start your wiki and make it grow!
    • Visit Community Central to make friends via chat, learn about new features and get updated on Wikia news and upcoming features on the Staff Blog.
    • Take a look at our webinar series -- where you can sign up to interact with Wikia staff, as well as watch past sessions
    • Be sure to check out Wiki Features to see what features you can enable on your wiki!
    • Explore our forums on Founder and Admin Central to see what other wiki admins are asking.

    • Lastly, visit our Help Pages to answer any specific question you may have.

    All of the above links are a great place to start exploring Wikia. If you get stuck or have a question you can't find the answer to -- please contact us here. But most importantly, have fun! :) Happy editing!

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.