Friday, July 26, 2013

Black Holes Do Not Exist

This presentation given by Stephen J. Crothers via Thunderbolts Project on youtube unequivocally falsifies black holes:

Stephen J. Crothers: The Total Collapse of the Black Hole Theory

The presentation is a bit technical but can be more or less followed by a layman like me.  There is no question that Black Holes and singularities do not exist and that the Big-Bang is a non-event.  

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Earth and Moon from Cassini

An image of the Earth and Moon taken from the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft orbiting Saturn:

Earth:  an old dark star; the face of which God transfigured in the singular phenomenal manifestation described in the Genesis 1 prophecy.  God effused His Spirit to the Earth from Heaven and changed it's face!
Moon:  an old dead star that God placed in motion around the Earth in the unique phenomenal manifestation described in the Genesis 1 prophecy.

Monday, July 22, 2013

Genesis 1, 2, 3 are Prophecies not Myths

Drifting in and out
See the road you’re on
You came rolling down the cheek
You say just what you need
And in between
It’s never as it seems
Help me to make it
Help me to make it

If you build yourself a myth
You'd know just what to give
What comes after this
Momentary bliss
The consequence
Of what you do to me

--Myth by Beach House


Some people today use the key word: myth, to explain Genesis 1, 2, 3.  Genesis 1, 2, 3 is a creation myth.  This is a terrible, terrible misnomer.  It has confused the hell out of everyone. Most people are unaware of the study of the myths over the past two hundred years.  

I could care less if the secular people call Genesis 1, 2, 3 a myth. Who cares what they think?  What disturbs me is that Jews and Christians call their own Sacred Text a myth!!!  I thought the whole point about Genesis One and all the other books about the Bible is that they are not myths!!!  They may or may not be heavy on figurative concepts, and we may have to apply critical thinking and rational analysis to them, but they are not myths.  They are set apart from the myths.    

What is a myth?  A myth, like all words, is first and foremost a concept.  It is a word concept.  A myth is a type of text that relates objects in dynamic relations with other objects via objects.  Most of the objects are made up, and so the events.  A myth is a type of story that is heavy on the made up referents.  The myth mostly refers to objects that do not exist and much less to objects that do or did exist.  When a few objects that do/did exist relate with mostly objects that do not exist:  You have built yourself a myth. Myths are distinguished from pure fiction since there may be a few real objects and events referred to in the context.  But from what I have seen, these are far and few between.  Myths are also distinguished from fiction since, in spite of the fact that most of the referents did not exist, they are used in sacred rituals, traditions, etc.

The word myth is defined from parsing texts such as Enuma Elish. The contextual grammar reveals that this story is made up.  It matters not if the story is ancient or modern, passed down or not passed down, heavy on the figurative concepts or not.  You read it and your final parsing reveals that it is a myth.  Enuma Elish was a myth which never got passed down to the modern generations. Then it was discovered.  They studied it and clearly understood that it was a myth. Nimrod, and his successive pagan priests built themselves a myth.  Maybe their was something of a real event and real objects in that story, but for the most part it is made up.        

Traditionally, those who believe in Genesis 1-11 never thought of it as a myth.  The early Christians who used Genesis 1 for their Easter Vigil liturgy did not view Genesis 1 as a myth.  But in the past three centuries some scholars have been in the heat of love with myths. And then they started discovering myths in ancient ruins. It was only when myths like Enuma Elish were discovered in the 1800s that Genesis 1-11 started to be compared to these newly discovered texts. Modern scholars defined Genesis 1-11 as a myth.  The association was supported by the theory of evolution and the West's abandonment of Christianity.  Some in the 20th century tried to reconcile myths with science, but this never materialized because science is always changing their explanations and myths just made-up hogwash.  

Now even prominent Christians call Genesis 1-11 a myth.  It is as if Nimrod who Blessed Anne called "an instrument of Satan" is having his revenge on God.  You cannot even open up a modern interpretation of Genesis One without seeing Nimrod's legacy compared to the sacred author's legacy!  All those years Nimrod spent making up the histories of his gods has really payed off!!!

For seventy years, Nimrod busied himself with the histories of these idols, with ceremonial details relative to their worship and the sacrifices to be offered them, also with the forming of the pagan priesthood. (Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, Mysteries of the Old Testament)

Whoever naively calls Genesis 1-11 a myth is in way over his head. He has entered into a battle that began right after the Flood.

There are all sorts of theories about myths.  Scholars do not agree on a definition.  The concept myth is all confused.  And so some adopt the theory that myths are heavy on the allegorical elements and they use this to justify Genesis 1, 2, 3.  There is an enormous problem with this theoretical concept.  Figurative concepts are used in all literature.  If one ambiguously defines a myth as a text heavy on figurative concepts then one could apply that definition to half the Bible.  Heck even half of the literature on the internet is a myth under that definition, for people commonly use figurative concepts. Everyone employs figurative concepts in writing, even the scientists. You would literally have to come up with a computer model calculating the number of figurative concepts per plain word concepts in order to determine if a text is a myth or not.  And besides the type of literature heavy on figurative type concepts is poetry.  Myth and poem are two distinct concepts.  A story could be classified as a myth and a poem:  a poetic myth like Homer's stuff. Genesis 1, 2, 3 is clearly not a poem nor is it a myth, that is if you believe in it.

Prophecy and the Trees of Paradise   

Genesis 1, 2, 3 is not a myth.  It is rather a prophecy.  That is it's proper definition.  I recognized this from the moment I started seriously studying these texts.  This concept is the Christian concept of Genesis One begun with the Church Fathers and Doctors.  I agree with Saint Theophilus:

But men of God carrying in them a holy spirit and becoming prophets, being inspired and made wise by God, became God-taught, and holy, and righteous. Wherefore they were also deemed worthy of receiving this reward, that they should become instruments of God, and contain the wisdom that is from Him, through which wisdom they uttered both what regarded the creation of the world and all other things. For they predicted also pestilences, and famines, and wars. And there was not one or two, but many, at various times and seasons among the Hebrews; (Apologia ad Autolycus)

I hold that Genesis 1, 2, 3 are prophecies.  If this is old school then so be it.  This concept along with Inspiration establishes my context. These are my key terms I use to understand and explain Genesis 1, 2, 3.  I establish my key terms: prophecy and inspiration, and I use these to explain Genesis 1, 2, 3.  With prophecy and inspiration in mind all one has to do is decode the meaning using faith and critical thinking/rational analysis and because of the unique problems posed: creative thinking.  

I have always hoped that a clear defined meaning could be drawn out from all the words keeping the context coherent.  We are dealing with a linguistic text here, not a Math Equation or Logic. God and the sacred author had to have had clear definitions for each word that they employed.  If they used a figure of speech all one has to do is resolve it in its context.  Contextual languages define their terms by relating objects. Whether or not you believe in these objects and events is up to you.

Take for example the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  These word concepts refer to real objects.  In order to understand these objects, that is comprehend their meaning in context, one has to have a faith stimulation and help from God, stimulating wisdom, understanding and knowledge.  It makes sense that someone who does not believe would call these myths.  I on the other hand comprehend them as real objects that exist in the detached enclosure or disconnected organic sphere, called Paradise or the Garden of Eden.  Paradise is real object:  a strip of land with a sphere of atoms/molecules all detached from our network of atoms.  The trees are sacramental. Partaking of their fruits is to partake of a sacrament. To eat of the fruit is a figurative concept for taking in the stimulation of the fruit.  To eat is to take in that mystery which the fruit is meant to convey.  

Like in the expressions 'food for thought', or 'devouring a book'; the word eating is a common figurative concept deployed in all sorts of contexts, because we are always eating.  It is a fit figurative concept. It spices up life and helps to explain matters unapparent. And it is written that there are many trees.  So it is reasonable to think that some fruits in Paradise are plainly eaten to support the body.  Enoch and Elias are not starving to death up there in Paradise. There is a mingling of figurative and plain language in some of the words of these passages.  

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a type of sacramental tree that mystically instructs those who partake of its fruit.  This is clear from the Hebrew:

When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise . . . (NET translation)

The fruit of this Tree is a sacrament.  The fruit imparts knowledge to the partaker.  You do not necessarily have to eat it; just pick it and open it up.  When you open up the fruit you are instructed via words and motion pictures, like reading a book or watching a documentary or even experiencing a prophecy for that matter. You are stimulated by God via the fruit, e.g. your mind is woken up, your heart is exhilarated, you have new word concepts, you know more, you are invigorated, you are sparked, you are wiser, you are inspired, your heart is stronger: via the fruit. Just like receiving one of the Seven Sacraments, you change.  

The fruit is a potent sacramental, not on par with the Rosary, but still potent to the partaker.  God instructed Adam not to partake of the fruit of this type of tree as a test. Perhaps if Adam passed the test God would have instructed him through these sacramental fruits.  But he quickly failed.  As soon as he decided to figuratively eat of the fruit it was all over.  

Is this a myth?  To a secular person: yes.  To a believer, especially a Roman Catholic who eats the Resurrected Body and Blood of Christ Jesus, in the Sacrament on a regular basis: no.  How could it be?  A fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is nothing compared to the Resurrected Body and Blood of the Lord: the fruit of Mary's womb.  In fact partaking of the Body and Blood of Jesus when one is not initiated in Baptism or when one has not been reconciled to God after a serious culpable sin, like using contraception when one knows better, is analogous to Adam eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  He knew he was not suppose to eat it and he went and did it anyway.

The only way to validate a proposed description of the past is to be there and see it for yourself. Where were you when this and that happened?  God induced the sacred author to see it for himself and God inspired the sacred author to write what happened without error. And so what we have are prophecies from which we can draw definitive teachings.  The words of the prophecies define what happened.  That is what words do.  All one has to do is draw out the definitions of the words in their proper context. Language is not tautological.  The whole point about reading the Bible is that it gives you definitions that you can use on your journey of life.  If this were not the case then why read it?  If the Bible were ambiguous it would be useless.  It would be Math and Logic and Theories.    

The problems posed in understanding the Bible are solved by believing in the words, using critical thinking, reading with honesty and maturity, not caring what any secular person thinks, creativity and establishing the context.  If one establishes that Genesis 1, 2, 3 are myths he will never figure out what happened because the words are not mythical.  They are inspired-prophetic.  One could even say that they are sacramental.  They are not mythical. How do you think God 'feels' when you think his Word is a myth.  Enuma Elish is a Babylonian myth spawned from Nimrod.  Nimrod's myth is treated with more honor than Genesis 1, 2, 3.  Oh the backwardness of it all!!!!

Prediction and Postdiction        

Prophecies have the type of descriptions called prediction and postdiction.  Prediction is the description of a future event without error. Postdiction is the description of a past event without error. Genesis 1, 2, 3 has postdictions (my term).  As far as I know one can only describe a past event without error if he receives a stimulation from God called prophecy. Scientists cannot use tautological (unfalsifiable or unverifiable) systems such as Math and Logic to plug in variables and describe past and future events without error.  Their dating method and theories about the past are unfalsifiable and unverifiable.  Why? Because the only way to validate these proposals would be to jump into a time machine go back 200,000 years and see Mitochondrial Eve and every successive generation up to the present in order to empirically validate the dating method and theory.  They might get close, but the margin for error is too great.  They are not infallible or non-infallible.  Their methods are not critical in context to origins and destinies.     

How does one validate the proposal that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?  Go back in time, but this is impossible and so these theories lose critical weight in context to origins and destinies.  It is reasonable not to give them too much weight in context to origins and destinies.  Too much is at stake.  In fact they are arrogant in their proposals.  Some theories and dates could be mathematically valid or logically valid, but never empirically valid.  They are not facts of the Universal Movie, they are statements of facts.  So they presume to guide the human family with tautologies:  unverifiable--unfalsifiable proposals.  They are mad.  Their descriptions of the past and future can never be truths, in the meaning that religion has always used the term. In the Catholic Christian Religion truth is a proposal validated by the Resurrection of Jesus.  Science is not in the business of truth PERIOD.  

Theories might even not have any contradictions in terms of definitions (something I have never found) and still they are not validated by the senses because no one has been in the past. Events of the past are matters unapparent.  No one but God himself has the authority to teach proposals of the past as truths.  God pointed this out to Job.  

The scientists might get close to describing an event of the past or future without error, but they have no guarantee that the description is not erroneous. They are not prophesying.  Since when did a math equation or computer model become a Divine oracle? And there is no such thing as scientific dogma and doctrine.  In context to origins and destinies all science can do is relate discovered objects in a speculation buttressed by whatever the tautological Math and Logic has to offer, but these are not descriptions without error or even the august validated proposals (truths) on par with a prophecy of Sacred Scripture.  They are tautolgies: unfalsifiable-unverifiable. 

And even if the theory is rational, it is still not a validated proposal in context to the past, since no one was there to see it happen.  You can come up with a reasonable theory of past events and it is not a truth.  The past is unapparent.  It is less certain than coming to the reasonable conclusion that there is One God.  Only God knows the past as well as the future.  God stimulated prophets to predict and postdict. Scientists are not stimulated to predict and postdict.  They might get close, or they might not.  But this is not critical when the stakes of the origin and destiny of the human family are laid out.    

And you cannot treat the Sacred Texts as tautologies.  You cannot treat an inspired and prophetic linguistic term as a math variable, plugging in results (based on science which is ever changing) and still expect the Text to retain its original context.  Scientific theories or dating methods cannot verify or falsify or even validate the Word of God.  God and the sacred author had a specific meaning for every single word of their texts which transcend all tautology and scientific validation.  

Finding the right meaning provides the validated proposal for the context.  Since no one was their in the past, and God and the sacred author are not present to explain themselves God guides through the spiritual authority and stimulation such as faith, wisdom, understanding, knowledge. Hard science plays a very small role in interpreting any Sacred Scripture describing past and future events.  

Sunday, July 21, 2013

A Speculative Origin of Enuma Elish

Bel-Marduk is a Babylonian god who is elevated in the Babylonian creation myth called Enuma Elish.  This creation myth is often associated with Genesis 1.  Some speculate that Genesis 1 was an offshoot of Enuma Elish.  

So just who is this Bel-Marduk.  And where did his ridiculous myth come from?

Bel-Marduk is a concept generated from the life of Nimrod.  After Nimrod died he was worshiped as a god under the title Bel or the name Marduk.  After a few generations, knowledge of the association between Nimrod and Bel and Marduk faded away.  

Nimrod was a son of Cush who was the son of Ham.  He was a thoroughly evil and degenerate person.  He was the Hitler of his time.  Nimrod was involved in the project of building the immense city-tower called Babel.  Many tribes were associated in building this city-tower and Nimrod was one of the chiefs among them. When the work on the tower stopped Nimrod took power over remaining tribes who did not migrate from Babel.  So it is written in Genesis:

And the first part of his kingdom is Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar; from that land he hath gone out to Asshur, and buildeth Nineveh, even the broad places of the city, and Calah, and Resen, between Nineveh and Calah; it [is] the great city. (Young's Literal Translation)

Nimrod rose to power after the event of the confusing of the tongues.  He used the bricks of the halted Babel project to lay foundations for the cities that later united into the Babylonian empire. I do not think that Babel is Babylon.  Babel was built on a rise surrounded by a plain.  Babylon was built by the river. Nimrod had the bricks and stones moved.  The bricks and stones of the Tower were used to build a first foundation of Babylon, whatever it was.  I do not think Nimrod was ever a king-proper, he was simply the most powerful tyrant of the region.  He was a founder of cities and of a race.  Later these cities he founded had kings.

Nimrod was involved in all sorts of devilry, idolatry and astrology. For many years he worked on a system of idolatry chalk full of gods, idols, myths, pseudo-prophecies, and rituals which he passed down to his subjects (I take this and some other stuff from Blessed Anne).  He probably drew some concepts and names from the debris of Sumer.  He even made priests for his system.  Nimrod was also involved in famous hunting expeditions and sired many children. A daughter and granddaughter of his were also very powerful and later worshiped as goddesses.

Enuma Elish is a piece of hogwash.  It ultimately came from the idolatry and idolatrous system of Nimrod. Nimrod was the first to draw up the fictional histories of the Babylonian gods used in Enuma Elish.  The story probably got copied and recreated from the passing down of Nimrod's teachings and writings. The Tiamat/chaos elements were probably originally conceived of by Nimrod who lived not long after the Flood event.   Only there is a twist in all of this. Nimrod under the name of Marduk enters into his own fictional history and becomes the creator god!  Whether they knew it or not the Babylonians were worshiping a concept referring to Nimrod under the names Bel-Marduk.    

The fact that scholars actually take this stuff seriously and make claims such as Genesis 1 being heavily influenced by Enuma Elish is a testimony that establishments are confused, wild in their concepts and more or less full of hogwash.  That anyone would even conceive of Genesis 1 having anything to do with the piece of idolatrous filth known as Enuma Elish is naive, foolish and idiotic.

The holy writer of Genesis 1 could not have cared less about Babylonian myth.  I assume he did not even know that Enuma Elish existed. Some of the speculative associations and speculative events that circulate in books and institutions are just made up and treated like some wise doctrine.  It is as if Nimrod is having his revenge on God in the future; for today, one cannot even read a Genesis 1 commentary or interpretation without the filth of Enuma Elisha sullying it.  It was said by Blessed Anne that Nimrod resented God for having enacted the Flood.      

Genesis 1-2:3 is derived from a seer who saw and understood what God did.  God mystically induced him to conceptualize past events (perhaps in a prophetic dream) which he described in the script. Genesis 1 is a postdiction:  a description of past events without error.  Some of the word concepts he employs, such as evening and morning, one day, second day, third, etc. have specialized-prophetic meanings that refer to the unique phenomenon of God manifesting Himself in a miraculous transfiguration of the physical astronomical object:  Earth.  When God went to work it was like the Earth's first daytime, for Earth was an old dark wandering star prior to the events described in Genesis One.  These prophetic concepts have nothing to do with 24 hour cycles, or yearly cycles, or anything of a Western temporal concept.  It is not like the seer had a clock and was measuring the time God took to do his work then decided to use the word day as a figurative concept.  And the days of Genesis 1 certainly have nothing to do with the generations of Babylonian gods.


That is all one need know about Enuma Elish.  

for follow up see:

Genesis 1 & 2 & 3 are Prophecies not Myths  

Saturday, July 20, 2013

The Hebrew Designative Preposition in Gen 1:1

There is an important and meaningful Hebrew preposition used in the first verse of the Bible.  This preposition distinctly modifies the noun Heaven and the noun Earth. Sadly, it has rarely if ever been translated in all the versions of the Bible.  Even the literal versions of the Bible as well as the Hebrew interlinear that I use omit this article. I just came across this article while studying my Hebrew grammar.  I knew it prior to this but no one ever clearly explained to me the meaning.

Now that I know what it means, I am disappointed that almost no translator in history has even bothered to convey it or add it to his notes.  It matters not that this preposition has no equivalent in the other languages.  Once the translator understands this Hebrew word concept, all he need do is create a new mode of uttering and tracing the concept using the idiom at his disposal. In short he must generate a new spoken word as well as traced word and note what it means. Or just leave the Aleph-Thao in and everyone should be taught what it means.  Maybe it would be too awkward but oh well.  If God and the sacred author used this article to convey meaning, its 'presence' trumps eloquence.  Perhaps if this preposition had always been translated it would be accustomed to seem eloquent.  

How could this Hebrew prepositive article just be skipped over in the most prominent verse of the entire Bible?  This word concept is crucial in this context.  

The Hebrew preposition is an Aleph-Thao (I have no Hebrew font on this blog).  The preposition is composed of the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet.  What is its meaningful relation?

The baby understanding of this word concept is that it is used to introduce a semantically definite direct object.  This alone is enough to destroy any understanding of the Heaven and the Earth in Gen 1:1 as referring to a conceptual figure.  The Heaven of Gen 1:1 does not refer to a concept or figure of speech.  The Earth of Gen 1:1 does not refer to an object via figurative concept.  The Heaven refers to an object: that which has form.  God created this thing.  It is spatially separated, bound from its immediate surrounding.  In the case of Heaven it is disconnected from matter. It exists even prior to the main event described in Gen 1:1, and the self-same goes for the astronomical object called Earth.

But now lets get into the concept of this singular Hebrew preposition.  I take from The Hebrew Tongue Restored by the french man Olivet:

This is the designative preposition (Aleph-Tao), which I have mentioned as having no corresponding article. . .The movement which expresses this preposition with the nouns which it modifies, is that by which it puts them en rapport as governing or governed, as independent one of the other and participating in the same action. I name it designative, on account of the sign of signs, Thao, from which it is derived. It characterizes sympathy and reciprocity when it is taken substantively. Joined to a noun by a hyphen, it designates the substance proper and individual, the identity, the selfsameness, the seity, the thou-ness, if I may be permitted this word; that is to say, that which constitutes, that which implies something apart from me, a thing that is not me; in short, the presence of another substance. This important preposition, of which I cannot give the exact meaning, indicates the coincidence, the spontaneity of actions, the liaison, the ensemble and the dependence of things. (p. 116)

This incredible effort on his part is followed by an exact translation in English:

the-selfsameness-of-heaven and the-selfsameness-of-earth

The concept of this Hebrew preposition in context to God and the Heaven and the Earth can be taken in both meanings.  First, there is sympathy and reciprocity between God and the Heaven and the Earth.  This is established by the light event.  God created the Heaven and the Earth to be together in a mutual exchange; a harmony.  

Second, the Earth already consisted of a core, mantle and surface prior to the main event described in the third verse.  The Earth existed from core to surface, from inside to out prior to the main event. It was an essential object.  The Earth had a form.  It had all of its elements and molecules.  The Earth was on its own prior to God decisively choosing and performing His light concept with the Earth. Similar things can be said of the Heaven, but other than God living in the core, I do not know what the Heaven is made of.  I have never been there.    

What is fascinating about this writer, Fabre d'Olivet, is that in his subsequent section on Hebrew Tense, he, in spite of himself and custom, reveals the implications of this unique Hebrew preposition on the translation of Genesis 1:1-2:

One must first examine the intention of the writer, and the respective condition of things. Thus, to give an example, although, in the French and English word-forword translation, conforming to custom, I have rendered the verb bara, of the first verse of the Cosmogony of Moses, by he created, I have clearly felt that this verb signified there, he had created; as I have expressed it in the correct translation; for this antecedent nuance is irresistibly determined by the verb haitha it existed, in speaking of the earth an evident object of an anterior creation. (p. 191)   

Olivet explains that the two Hebrew tenses convey temporal continuity: from extreme past to present and from present to extreme future.  The context, or an inflection can restrict the action to some point on the conceptual timeline.  So now assimilating these concepts I could translate Gen 1:1-2 something like this:

In a beginning, God had created the form of Heaven and the form of Earth
And when the Earth existed as an astonishing-desert, etc. 
God said, "Let light happen."  And light happened.

The correct relation between the Heaven and the Earth is that God connects Heaven and Earth by the effusion of the Spirit and establishes a unique relation between the two objects in the light event.  In Gen 1:1 the Heaven and the Earth are not a figurative concept referring to the universe. They are not a merism.  This is a terrible and sloppy misconception. They are two distinct objects brought together by God in the light event.  God lives in Heaven. It is implied that God is miraculously acting upon the Earth from the Heaven.  God, from Heaven manifests Himself by sending a miraculous 'signal' to this object called Earth via the Spirit.  God from Heaven lights up the Earth. God stimulated the face of the Earth like the Sun stimulates your face. God miraculously transfigured the face of the Earth which had already existed for countless years.  

I have not mentioned this on the blog yet but nowhere in the third verse does it convey that God created or made light.  The sacred author simply writes:  And light happened. He does not write: And God made light, or And God created light.  People read this into the text because they do not understand what light is.  Light refers to a concept, a dynamic relation between objects (atoms) via an invisible mediator.  The physical mediator of light phenomenon had already existed for tens, hundreds, maybe even a thousand billions of years prior to the main event described in the story of Genesis One.  Light existed as soon as the network of atoms existed.  Light is just atoms quantum jumping, sending EM torsion signals to all other atoms of the network via a rope like entity connecting all atoms. The EM torsion signals physically affect the receiving atoms, inducing motion.  This is the model of the light event described in Genesis One, only the jumping atom is God and the receiving atom is the Earth and the Mediator between the two is the Spirit.  The light of Genesis 1:3 is a miraculous phenomenon consummated by God through the missive Spirit.  

The Earth existed billions of years prior to the main event.  It was a clearly defined and delineated and demarcated object, bound from its immediate surrounding, maybe among a first generation astronomical objects formed from within the network of atoms of our galaxy.  The Aleph-Tao article conveys the truth that the Earth had already been created, "in a beginning".  I think Earth was a star which at the time of the main event was a cinder of what was once a star.  It was a dark star.  A black dwarf.  And when it was this, then God lit it up the surface which was like a desert and had a froze over water supply.  When God initiated the light-event the surface broke out: it jumped, making the atmosphere. The underlying meaning of the Divine word concept; light; is that God initiated a singular manifestation, a dynamic relation with the Earth via the Spirit which culminated in the miraculous creation and motion of Adam and Eve.  The light-event is the symphony of God orchestrated from Heaven to the Earth.  It is one of God's greatest works where He shows forth such great purpose and prowess.
Genesis One is not a statement of creation ex nihilo.  God created the Earth as a definite astronomical object long before God initiated the transfiguration of its face in the awesome light event. Matter, the network of atoms, already existed when God created the Earth. God had created the Earth from the network of atoms prior to the main event.  Earth's core, its stable base, was gradually forged by stellar nucleosynthesis prior to the main event. Subsequent to fusion the Earth shed its outer layers, formed molecules and settled into a dark desert-like water-world not unlike more than a few observed planets and moons.  This all prior to the main-event.  

And God had created the Heaven from nothing prior to the main event.  In truth the first thing God did in context to creation was create the very object that He placed Himself in.  God lives in the Heaven.  Then he created the angels and matter.  Then he created the Earth from within the network of atoms.  Then after the Earth had naturally transitioned as a definite astronomical object for billions of years, when it was a dark star:  God initiated a singular relationship with it by sending forth the Spirit and transfiguring its face in the light event. No other astronomical object has ever or will ever receive the Divine miraculous signal.  Earth is elect.  This is why we will never find living entities on any other planet.    

The Hebrew verb bara takes on the meaning 'to make something from nothing' and 'to make something from something' in Gen 1:1. The Heaven is made from nothing.  The Earth is made from pre-existing matter. All these circular debates over the years as the the meaning of the Hebrew 'bara' in context to Gen 1:1 are nullified just by understanding that the Heaven and the Earth are two defined objects.  They have form.  They have essence.  God and the sacred author made this clear via the Aleph-Thao article, they placed in front of the noun Heaven and the noun Earth.  God decisively chose his concept of the Heaven and the Earth into existence long before the main event of Genesis One. The main event sealed the Earth with God's love and election.  It established a harmony between the Heaven and the Earth.  And in the end the plan is realized fully when God not only lives in the Heaven but he also lives on the Earth. God does not live on Mars or any other astronomical object. God lives on Earth.

Whether or not you agree with my little old school interpretation is up to you.  But one thing is indisputable:  

Our millions of artificial concepts have adulterated this Sacred Text. It is so simple yet so profound.  The manner in which God did his awesome work and the manner in which He conveyed His work is astonishingly lucid, direct, straightforward, clear-cut.  It was effortlessly beautiful.                     

Thursday, July 18, 2013

My Unique Criteria For Judging the Arrival of Adam and Eve: A Writing System

First off I want to say that I am not a Creationist.  I have come to respect the Creationists for their tenacity, but I cannot be labelled a Creationist or even a Fundamentalist.  What can you label me or my ideas?

There is no label for me or my ideas.  I am creating a new label. Have you ever come across anyone who

Thinks matter, i.e. a woven network of atoms (with physical twined EM threads mediating light and gravity), and the angels, simultaneously appeared from nothing maybe about a trillion years old
Thinks that the Earth itself is a star; coalesced in this network of atoms
Thinks that the Earth is tens to a hundred billion years old
Thinks that the Earth naturally transitioned to a dark star (black dwarf, cinder of what was once a star)
Thinks that the light-event described in Genesis One is a supernatural transfiguration of the Earth's surface
mediated by the Spirit sent forth from Heaven.
Thinks that Adam and Eve were created prior to the hominids in this unique light-event.
Thinks that with Adam and Eve's sin Earth with all the prototype plants and animals was punished and cycled in a fallen course for countless years, a cycle in which new types evolved out of old types.
Thinks that Adam and Eve were mystically cast out of Paradise to the surface:  thousands, millions, maybe even billions of years after Adam was created from some ground of the Earth in the light-event.

You can label me insane.  And that is fine by me.  

I do not outright deny this concept called evolution but I have it as a small petty place in Earth's history. Ultimately it means nothing to me.  Hominid and ape is a word which means nothing to me in context to origin and destiny.  I could care less about the hominids or apes.  Sure if I had charge over one, I would take care of it, but what do I have to do with them?  We are a part of something way bigger than anything Copernicus or Darwin or any other modern scientist can dream up with their limited resources.

I have my own criteria for judging the arrival of Adam and Eve to the ground in mystical event of their casting out from this organic sphere called Paradise.  This is the same Paradise Jesus took the good thief to on the day that he died.  Paradise is up and to the east from location of Adam's creation in the primitive Middle East.  It is up over the mountains, probably the Himalayas.  With their sin God disconnected Paradise from the Earth and cast Adam and Eve back down to the ground where and when He saw fit. Adam and Eve did not just mosey on out of Paradise.  They were at God's mercy.  God did not drop them off in the midst of the last ice-age.  God is merciful.  

Paradise still exists.  Enoch and Elias are there.  It has real trees. Yet Paradise is no longer woven into the web of all the atoms of the universe.  All atoms are connected to all other atoms via two threads twisted around each other. They are the physical EM mediators. This is how light and gravity are mediated.  But with Adam and Eve's sin the object called Paradise got disconnected from the network of atoms, thus even though it is very close no one woven into the network of atoms can get there. There is a disconnect, but it still has location relative to all the objects of the Earth.  

So what criteria can we use to determine the arrival of Adam and Eve from Paradise?  I suggest it is the appearance of a writing system.  There is no doubt in my mind that soon after Adam and Eve arrived there is the arrival of a writing system.  Once Adam and Eve established their spoken language, they began to establish a writing system. 

All life forms: from the single-celled organism to Einstein are intelligent.  Intelligence is the ability to conceive of concepts and apply them.  Every object that moves on its own can conceive of concepts and apply them. It is just a matter of the type of concepts an individual can conceive of and apply.  The individuals that have brains usually have the greater conceptual power.  

But no other animal other than Adam can conceive of and apply the type of concept called a word. Words are native to the brain of Adam and all his descendants.  Adam has the type of brain configuration (and whole body type and soul type) that can generate words.  The neurons, even the very atoms in Adam's brain give and receive signals, the relation of which is the word concept.  The ability to conceive of words and apply them in sequence is hard wired into Adam's brain and all the brains of his descendants.
Really a better way to explain it would be to say the whole body type of Adam is hard-wired to conceive of words and apply them. The entire body animated by the immortal soul generates the word from within and to without.  Our entire body is configured so that we can conceive of words and apply them in our brains and through our voice and through our hands in gesture or with the extension of the fingers in tracing.       

What are words?  Meaningful relations between two or more objects.  The word concept is a dynamic phenomenon.  A word is a definition picked out from in the movement of relating two or more objects of one's environment.  Adam's brain is one of understanding. It can pick out definite relations between two or more objects.  This is the word.  The purpose of the word is to convey meaning to oneself or to others.  And yet also the essence of the word is meaning.  Meaning attracts the word together, so to speak.  Meaning is the relation that is the word concept.  Meaning is the power and unity of the association that is the word. Adam looked at objects; and in doing so, defined relations.  The word is associated from within as well as from without.  And the word is applied from within and to without.  The word is a manifestation of clarity and specificity.  

The entire process of the word concept, both the conceiving and the applying is a complex and dynamic relation between so many objects: neurons, nerves, the soul, objects of the environment, light phenomenon, etc.   

The application of the word is both interior and exterior.  Within, the mind (interrelations of soul and brain) applies the word concept in the process of thought.  Once Adam generated the word an association of neurons is established in his brain and that association becomes stronger and stronger by repeating the word, within, to himself or to without, from himself via sound, gesture and traced characters.  Once a pool of word concepts is established in the brain these are used in sequence to generate more word concepts, and different types of words concepts such as figurative concepts, abstract concepts, inferential concepts, affirmative concepts, creative concepts, etc.  The word concept is an abstraction for all meaningful, clear, and defined relations made by the brain:  from the most general to the most specific.  Even the most general word concept is far more specific than anything the animals can conceive of, e.g. Ma.  Word concepts are of a higher order than the concepts of all animals unable to conceive of the same.   

Speech, gesture and traced characters are naturally inseparable from the process of the word concept.  These are the exterior application of the interior process of the word concept.  The process of exterior application is threefold:  sound, gesture and traced character.  There is no possible way of even conceiving of the word concept, itself, apart from the singular sound, gesture and traced characters of the word concept.  These unique manifestations are, so to speak, the native incarnation of the word concept.  And these three manifestations help to create more word concepts.  Technology, culture, work, religion and everything human is built on word concepts manifest-exterior.  No animal in history other than the children of Adam can do this.

As soon as Adam had a pool of word concepts he naturally started creating signs so as to manifest his word concepts and help him to think. Just like Jesus did, tracing meaningful word concepts in the dirt, so did Adam:

Then Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the earth.

Once Adam had the spoken words and a community of children; he began to establish a writing system. He or one of his children started coming up with ways of writing other than in the dirt. Wherever there is Adamic civilization; there is a writing system. Maybe this writing system is primitive or perhaps it struggled to get off the ground because of circumstance or lack of desire, but it is unspeakably absurd to think that those who had spoken language did not soon establish a writing system and develop it beyond tracing characters in the dirt.  This truth is so elementary it is taken for granted by even God and the sacred authors, for in the Bible they list no one inventing speech, gestures or traced characters.  Jubal is the generator of music, the harp and the flute, but it is a given that with Adam comes speech, gesture and traced character.  The very first thing God wanted Adam to do is name the animals!  And in all sanity you can believe that the signs came soon after that.      

The three elements which Adam and his children act to manifest word concepts are a unique and specific (in relation to animals) voice, gesture and traced character.  These are the sign:  the exterior means of relating the interior word concept. The voice, the gesture and the character go hand in hand and these are inextricable from the word concept.  As soon as people start conceiving word concepts they apply them via spoken words, gestures as well as traced characters. The voice, the gesture and the traced character is the sign of the children of God.  There is no rational way of understanding the word concept without its exterior manifestation; its exterior application. Granted there is no harm or damage or hard-pressed circumstances, or lack of desire:  If there is no exterior manifestation of unique and specific sound, gesture and traced character (in whatever form), the word concept does not exist in the individual or the collective.  
What meaningful relation can one explicitly pick out between Mankind and a hominid or any other animal? What clearly defines us from the animals?  Word concepts exterior manifest or applied via unique and specific and defined and meaningful:  sound, gesture and traced characters.  You can sure as hell believe that with the appearance of a spoken language their is the appearance of a writing system not long after.  And I am not talking pictures, drawings or markers. I am talking defined-meaningful-clear characters and script which can be interpreted by self and others.    

If the Africans living 60,000 years ago had the type of brain and body configuration that could relate the word concept they would have begun to establish a writing system.  If Adam and Eve appeared 60,000 years ago, show me the writing system from at least 58,000 years ago.  One cannot sanely argue that these were not invented until 56,000 year later!  So the mother tongue existed for 56,000 years without any writing system to show for it?  So we have an oral tradition that spans 56,000 years with nothing to show for it?  No one thought to write down his word concepts for 56,000 years?  

No.  If Adam and Eve appeared 60,000 years ago there would have been spaceships traveling to Andromeda by the time of Jesus. Computers would have appeared long before the Neolithic age.  The word concept builds technology.  If the Neanderthals had the word concept they would have built underground bunkers to protect them from the ice-age.

The African hominids, the Neanderthals et al had no word concepts. They had no word manifested in speech and gesture and writing. They communicated in grunts and drew pictures like babies.

There is something seriously amiss with the speculative concepts and speculated events of modern anthropology.  I do not deny the existence of the hominids, or even evolution, but I think they are confused. And I think their dates are confused as well as their ideas of civilization.  And I am not going to waste my life arguing against them.  Instead I will use Divine Revelation and common sense to come up with my own explanations.

Language appeared with Adam and Eve.  And by language I mean everything.  Spoken word, gesture and written word that only Adam and Eve's children use. Adam has a unique type of concept:  the word concept.  The characters relating this word concept were at first primitive but not long after Adam and Eve some were writing small scripts.  They used bark, gold plates, stones, and then papyrus or whatnot.  These got copied and recreated.  This is the sign of the children of God's arrival.  

Saint Jude quoted Enoch in his epistle:

{1:14} And about these, Enoch, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied, saying: “Behold, the Lord is arriving with thousands of his saints,{1:15} to execute judgment against everyone, and to reprove all the impious concerning all the works of their impiety, by which they have acted impiously, and concerning all the harsh things that impious sinners have spoken against God.”

Saint Jude quoted Enoch.  How could Enoch's specific words been passed down to Jude in all the complexity of the Old Testament without Enoch having written something himself?  And Blessed

Anne Catherine Emmerich:

Enoch, Noahs ancestor, opposed that wicked race by his teachings. He wrote much. (Mysteries of the Old Testament)

If Enoch was the seventh from Adam, and he was writing when did this happen?  And how did he learn how to write?  And how did his writings get passed down to me thousands of years later?  
If Adam and Eve appeared 60,000 years ago; where in the timeline is Enoch writing? 30,000 years ago?  Did he learn how to write from Uncle Neanderthal?  

With the appearance of Adam and Eve is the appearance of a writing system not long after.  This is a rational criteria for judging the time of their arrival in relation to all the speculated events of history.  

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Research shows Dead Stars Collide to Form Heavy Elements!!!

This story is fresh off the press:

All the Gold of the Universe Could Come from Collisions of Neutron Stars


“This question of where elements like gold come from has been around for a long time,” Berger says. Though many scientists had long argued that supernova explosions were the source, he says his team—which includes Wen-fai Fong and Ryan Chornock of the Harvard astronomy department—have evidence that supernovas aren’t necessary. These neutron star collisions produce all elements heavier than iron, he says, “and they do it efficiently enough that they can account for all the gold that's been produced in the universe.”

This is more like it!  I know people who, using good reason, have had this concept for years.  My fried Wolynski came up with a version of this concept before these Einsteins discovered it.  

This comes as no surprise to me.  There are not enough observed supernovae, so as to use them as a rational basis for the synthesis of the heavy elements.  So hopefully this will lead these scientists down a more sound track.  I still think they are way off with their concepts but this is a start. 

So I think Earth began as a star much larger than the Sun.  It did not fuse its heavier elements beyond iron and nickel. It rather 'sucked' them in as it migrated around the galaxy.  During its migration it assimilated elements such as gold, platinum, lead, etc. in the mines of space. When it stopped fusing and shed its outer layers in a series of novae it may have even assimilated some of its water supply from the debris of newer stars, like the example of the stray planet in TW Hydrae (see my blog).  

It transformed into a dark star (black dwarf) with a water supply somewhat like the moons Titan or Ganymede.  It wandered around until God transfigured it and placed it in orbit around a new light: our Sun.      

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

The Possible Original Genealogical Table of Genesis 11

Since I have been on the topic of Genesis genealogies for the last couple of posts I found something interesting from Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich's visions. This is a little excerpt from her description of Abraham's life is a possible supplement to Genesis 12:10:

But a famine occurred in the land. And Abram descended to Egypt, to sojourn there. For famine prevailed over the land.

Now Blessed Anne:

I also saw Abraham with Sara in Egypt. He went thither in obedience to a command from God; first, on account of the famine; and, secondly, to take possession of a treasure which had been carried there by one of Sara's relatives. The treasure consisted of triangular pieces of gold strung together to form a genealogical table of the children of Noah, and especially of Shem down to Abraham's own time. It had been taken into Egypt by a daughter of Sara's maternal aunt, who had gone thither with a pastoral tribe, some of Jobs lateral descendants, who afterward degenerated into a wild state. She had there hired herself as a servant. She had stolen that treasure as later on Rachel did the gods of Laban.

The genealogical table was made like the scales of a balance hanging on cords. The latter consisted of small triangular pieces strung together, and from them depended single collateral strings. On the gold pieces were figures and letters denoting Noah's, and especially Shem's descendants. When the cords were let down, the various pieces all lay together in the dish. I heard, but I have forgotten, the number of shekels (so the sum is called) to which the whole amounted. This family register had fallen into the hands of Pharaoh and the priests. They made on it various reckonings connected with their own unending chronological calculations, but they never rightly understood it.

This genealogical table which she describes could be the prototype of Genesis 1:11 wherein Abraham's line from Shem is described. It could have been passed down to Moses, and Moses could have copied and recreated it into a second or even third generation script of what we known as Genesis 1:11. The figures and letters on the gold pieces could be the shanah (years) of the ancestors, and perhaps other information. Pharoah and the priests were not able to decipher them since Shem's descendants had their own defined shanah; and with Heber (great grandson of Shem through Arphaxad and Shelah) the pure Hebrew tongue began around the time of the Babel event.

Heber is a direct ancestor of Abraham. The Hebrew letters are called by few: Chaldean. Chaldea is an ancient name for a region of the lower Euphrates and Tigris river valley. Chaldean is also the name of an ancient caste of sages. There is no nation of Chaldea proper at the time of Abraham or any time. There were just scattered tribes settled in a region after the time of Babel. There were some cities in the region. One was Ur. Setting aside the speculation where Ur may have been I will do a little speculative trace of the Hebrew tongue.  Please note that I reject the notion that the Hebrew is of Canaanite origin.  This is a mislabel, or a misunderstanding.  The Canaanites who first settled in the Canaan Abraham migrated to were not of Shem.  They were of Ham. Abraham and his sons probably adopted some of their language but he had his own primitive form of tongue with sound, gesture and most importantly:  traced characters which he brought with him out of Chaldea.  I think Abraham had his own durable proto-script, he passed down to his people.    

Abraham's ancestors were engaged in their work in and around Chaldea. Some of Abraham's direct ancestors came in and settled among the people of Ur. My opinion is that the pure Hebrew tongue was generated by Heber, a real human person, as well as his descendants in or around the ancient region of Chaldea. With the tongue the first form of the traced characters were developed. This is why the pure Hebrew is sometimes (now rarely) called Chaldean: the tongue is associated with the land it sprang up in. Some suggest the Hebrew characters are of Chaldean origin, but there was no Chaldean nation. All there was, were some tribes and cities spread about in a region beyond the Euphrates. 

With the grace of God, Heber was stimulated to a new language around the time of the Babel event. And I am certain Noah and even Enoch had characters which may have gotten passed down to Heber through Shem. Heber likely already had some characters to work with. And then with Abraham's migration, the Pure Chaldean language with its distinct sound, gesture and traced character went its own separate way. It assimilated some elements from Canaan and Egypt but providentially retained a proto-form of the Chaldean alphabet with the design of protecting the elect Hebrews from the Egyptian hieroglyphs with all the idolatry and devilry mixed up in them. 

This proto-alphabet is strong enough to retain its significance through all the endless developments of the characters.  And it used by Moses and the other Jewish writers, such as Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, etc.  Then later the Hebrew tongue is lost at the Babylonian Captivity, and Esdras has the Sacred Scripts marked up so as to protect it from foreign influence.    

But the time Moses appears, the Hebrew language is more developed, and Moses is the first classic Hebrew writer. Moses copied and recreated some primitive documents passed down to him, such as the Book of Job, genealogical tables, the Book of the Lineage of Adam, maybe Genesis 2, etc into a classic Hebrew.  And he wrote other chapters and books such as Genesis 1, Deuteronomy, etc.  

But traces of the pure Hebrew, were also left over in Chaldea and this is how I think branches morphed out from the people who Abraham left behind.  The pure Chaldean morphed and branched out with the movement of other Semites from Heber such as Job a grandson of Heber through Joktan.  An early example of the change is in the episode of Laban and Jacob.  By the time Laban and Jacob meet they each have some of their own words, but they are also able to communicate with one another since their tongue had a common origin in Heber. There was a primitive stock of tongue, with sound, gestures and characters in that region called Chaldea which Abraham's ancestors lived around and from which Abraham migrated.  That is where I think the proto-Hebrew tongue with sound, gesture and traced characters came from.  

The figures and symbols on that genealogical table Blessed Anne describes could have been a mix of symbols left over from the mother tongue and some new Chaldean symbols: some of the first of the Pure Hebrew/Chaldean language.

The Egyptians on the other hand were founded by Mizraim, a son of Ham. Mizraim migrated to the land named after him, i.e. Egypt after the confusing of the tongues at Babel. He and his descendants had their own tongue and made their own signs: the hieroglyphs. This is why Pharaoh and the priests could not understand the family register of Abraham. They could not understand the signs or the shanah: the revolving change of days Abraham's ancestors used.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

The 'Shanah' (Years) of the Patriarchs in Genesis

This is a follow up from yesterday's article.

Cainan lived seventy years, and then he conceived Mahalalel.

Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and then he conceived Jared
Enoch lived for sixty-five years, and then he conceived Methuselah.

These are the smallest number of recorded shanah for conceiving their sons (I am assuming their first sons), so following my interpretation I have to figure that these number of shanah would be beyond the threshold of puberty. I do not know what their times were for reaching the ability to procreate. Maybe their bodies matured quicker. In any case if my interpretation of a shanah holds up, lets just say that a shanah is a cycle of 84 days. 65 shanah would be 65 cycles of 84 days. This equals 5430 days. Divide this by 365 days and you have about 14.9 solar/sidereal years. Way back then, they married at any earlier age. Marriage and procreation was important to them to fulfill the Divine Blessing. They wanted to bear fruit and increase. They actually wanted sons and daughters.  This was precious to them.  And there were practical reasons why they married young.

The other married patriarchs conceived their sons in line with Noah at little later time in their lives than the above patriarchs:

Seth lived for one hundred and five years, and then he conceived Enos. (by my speculative calculations about 24 solar/sidereal years)
Enos lived ninety years, and then he conceived Cainan. (about 20 years)
Jared lived for one hundred and sixty-two years, and then he conceived Enoch. (37 years) 
Methuselah lived for one hundred and eighty-seven years, and then he conceived Lamech. (43 years)
Lamech lived for one hundred and eighty-two years, and he conceived a son. And he called his name Noah (41 years)

I also noticed that my conception of the 'shanah' does not hold up for the eleventh chapter of Genesis. Some of these post-Flood patriarchs are described to be around 30 shanah when they conceived their sons:

Shelah lived for thirty years, and then he conceived Eber.
Eber lived for thirty-four years, and he conceived Peleg.
Peleg lived for thirty years, and then he conceived Reu.
Reu lived for thirty-two years, and then he conceived Serug.
Serug lived for thirty years, and then he conceived Nahor.
Nahor lived for twenty-nine years, and then he conceived Terah.

So following my line of understanding I would think that these patriarchs who lived after the Flood modified their shanah to be greater than the shanah of the pre-Flood patriarchs. Maybe they decided to increase the days of their shanah to something like 180 days.  So thirty 'shanah' at 180 days per shanah would be about 14 solar/sidereal years.  

Saturday, July 13, 2013

How Long Did Adam Live?

{5:3} And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth.
{5:4} And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters.
{5:5} And all the time that Adam lived, came to nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. (Douay Rheims version based off of the Latin Vulgate)

The solution to this problem is, I think, fairly simple. On the one hand, when Adam reappeared on the ground in the event of God mystically casting him and Eve from Paradise, he did not live to be the days of 930 solar/sidereal years old. This is irrational, inconceivable, impossible. Anyone who defends the years defined as solar or orbital years in any manner whatsoever is not defending the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. All they are defending is absurdity. Nor do the years resolve to the number of solar/sidereal years in which Adam's teachings had influence in the world. This verse explicitly refers to the personal cycle of Adam's life, from when he arrived back on the ground from Paradise to his death.

The numbers do not resolve to esoteric meanings as in (Jewish numerology) in this context. God and his people are not like this. Yes we have mysteries and profundity, but no we do not have that which is esoteric.  Yes numbers are used to represent certain meanings, in certain contexts of Sacred Scripture, but not in this context.  If this were the case the whole fifth chapter would be some sort of code which had to be deciphered.  This would be absurd.  This is a Divine Public Revelation for the entire human family.  The underlying purpose of the lineage is to trace the Promise of the Messiah. The men listed in the genealogy of Genesis 5 are in accord with the Law of Moses, real ancestors of the Promised Messiah. Compare Genesis 5 to Luke 3. And Adam is everyone's first ancestor whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim or not.

The weak link in the interpretation of this passage of Sacred Scripture is not the numbers.  It is rather the interpretation and translation of the Hebrew word transliterated: shanah. To put it bluntly the Greek and Latin translators made a poor translation in place of the Hebrew word shanah. Saint Jerome should not have chosen the Latin annus (year) for this context. Saint Jerome had the best of intentions, but in this he made a circumstantial error. It was not his fault. By his time the Hebrew tongue was long lost. And he did not have a Hebrew grammar and his resources were very limited.  In any case, according to his work called Hebrew Questions on Genesis, Saint Jerome seemed to treat these as years used in the Roman calendar, and this is a mistake.  A shanah used by these pre-flood and post-flood patriarchs does not equal 365 days.   

The roots of the Hebrew word shanah signify an undefined concept of revolving-change(s), not the defined concept of a solar year or sidereal year, a Greek year or even a Jewish year. I take this from Fabre d' Olivet's masterful work titled The Hebraic Tongue Restored under the Cosmogony of Moses. He has this word translated in this context as 'revolving change' and he makes an argument from the root of the word shanah:

Its root is which we have just now seen to be that of number two and containing every idea of mutation, of variation, of passing from one state to another. Thus the word root, expresses a temporal mutation, relative to the being which is its object. . . finally, the last of these terms is shanah, which should mean every revolution which replaces the being in its original state. (p. 155)

Adam lived in 900 temporal mutations and 30 temporal mutations. These revolutionary changes are not representative of the days of the Earth's revolution around the Sun, nor the days of a year as calculated by Hipparchus or any Greeks.  The ancients did not agree upon and establish our standard a solar year or sidereal year so as to keep track of their days. How could they?  Adam and his close relatives did not understand the solar or sidereal year.  Nor were they even using the days of a Jewish calendar established by God through Moses.  They defined their own shanah.  

I assume, just on the stated fact that these numbers are so great, that a patriarch soon after the flood or perhaps Noah himself originally made this list.  The shanah of Adam and all were inscribed, probably on a stone or metal plate and then passed down for posterity.  They used a different scalar quantity than that of a single lunar cycle or solar year. They had a different standard. Time is an abstract concept.  Times associates memory and relative motion.  A metric is decided upon to trace motion to help recall. The metric is seemingly arbitrary and in context to the culture.  This is why these numbers do not make sense to us. There is no esotericism or figuration in these numbers.  The solution to the problem is found in a different understanding of the word shanah.  

The ancient patriarchs who recorded the Book of the Lineage of Adam used a different scalar quantity. They had no concept of what we call a tropical year (synonym: solar year) or an orbital year.  It is that simple. Their shanah was a cycle of whatever scalar quantity they decided upon.
So what does their shanah resolve to? I do not know! I was not there with the patriarchs defining a shanah for the tribe.  All I can do is make some suggestions.  Perhaps they had their own agreed upon number of days as a metric, e.g. one shaneh equals a cycle of twelve sevens, i.e. 84 days.  Once the cycle of days is complete they started to count again from one.  Or perhaps a single shaneh was defined as a cycle of three new moons.  In any case one shaneh encompasses so many days.  Perhaps their shaneh had something to do with prayer and penance.  One shanah equals one cycle of prayer and penance, but even this would be mingled with a count of days.  So a change of prayer and penance is 84 days.  

I have no definition of their shanah.  All I know for certain is that they defined their shanah different than subsequent shanahs of the nations.  Their shanah were not approximately 365 days.  And so it is a moot point.  So now who cares? All that matters is that someone stand up and make the point that these scalar quantities are not our own. They were not using our agreed upon metrics. They did not have 365 days in their shanah. They had their own standard of encompassing days.  These never got converted over to the Western tropical year or sidereal year when the scribes copied and edited the Sacred Script. 

The translators of Greek Septuagint LXX as well as Saint Jerome were lost to this point.  And so were the Samaritans.  And probably even most Jews. But he who first copied and recreated Genesis, I think Moses, understood his ancestor's shanah.  And he honored and respected their lives by recording their number of shanah.   
In this context, the Hebrew word shanah represents an unknown ancient metric. One shanah is a revolution of so many days.  When Adam and Eve were cast down to the ground from Paradise they probably soon decided upon a shanah so as to not lose count of their days.  For sake of utility they could have decided that their standard shanah would be 84 days or a cycle of three new moons (about 89 days). The shanah could have even had subdivisions, in other words, weeks.  They were probably the first to conceive of the concept, label it, define it and apply it.  Time is observer dependent.  We are the one's who conceive the concept and apply the same in any sort of arbitrary manner that suits us within Providence.
Adam lived for 930 shanah.  If a single shanah (really a shaneh) equals say 87 days then he would have lived to be about 222 solar/sidereal years.  In spite of the Fall, Adam had the prototype body so these are more or less reasonable. In spite of the truth that he inherited harmful mutations in his body, he still had the mission of propagating the human family, and so an age beyond 120 solar years is not so unreasonable.  After many generations the body of mankind had weakened. Later in Genesis, Abraham's duration of 175 shanah was based on a different type of standard than the earlier Genesis 5-11 shanah. He had some other manner of counting days since he grew up among the Chaldean, several generations after the Flood and the Babel event. 

After the Flood and after Babel, different tribes and nations used different manners of tracing days. Parts of Genesis were likely compiled and recreated by Moses or the other Jews from different written sources. And it is not clear where and when the ancients changed their scalar quantities. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich suggests that the sojourn in Egypt was much shorter than commonly interpreted:

From Josephs death to the departure of Israel from Egypt, there were about one hundred and seventy years according to our manner of reckoning. But they had at that time another way of reckoning, other weeks and years. This was often explained to me, but I cannot now recall it. (Mysteries of the Old Testament)

So it is recorded in Sacred Scripture that the Jews were in Egypt for about 430 shanah. These are not the days of a solar year or sidereal year. They are some other type of count.  They were using some other type of calendar.  No one ever converted the numbers to fit the new systems of keeping track of days.  

So much fuss over nothing!!!

The tribe or nation decided that so many days would be a shanah so that the shanah can be used to track all the days of their lives.  That is my interpretation.    

Time is not an object that has shape and location. It does not exist. It is observer dependent. It is time the West stop acting as if they are the cradle of civilization. If it were not for Adam and Noah grinding out their hundreds of shanah, whatever they were defined as, there would be no West, and no one would be able to dream up a romance about cosmological time and the mythical 13.8 billion years of the universe.  

And so in conclusion I think it should be clearly taught that these numbers modify an unknown ancient scalar quantity different than our own. The shanah used by the patriarchs relates a definite number of days decided upon probably by none other than Adam and Eve. Each of their 'shanah' was a duration of so many days which they agreed upon and decided to use in their lives.  Their shanah were of smaller duration than our solar/sidereal years.  The solar/siderealy years contain about 365 days, as opposed to their shanah which contained maybe about 87 days in pre-Flood times and over double this in post-Flood times.  Out of respect for the ancient patriarchs the numbers were never converted to fit our more refined temporal concepts based in astronomical observations.