Creationists False on Key Point

[miamited]

"Empty black space" is not nothing. If God created the universe out of nothing then He had to create space and time, too. The 'Big Bang' theory has a similar tenet, that space and time came into existence with it.

Hi speedwell,

I imagine that you do believe that, but to make something out of nothing has nothing to do with whether or not time exists. It merely means that there was no previously existing matter from which all that has been made was made from. Just because there is no physical material with which God built our realm of existence, there can still be time passing. I'm sure that there was time passing because the angels exist in time. They were rejoicing as God built this realm and the act of rejoicing requires the passage of time. The going forth and coming from the earthly realm to the heavenly realm which we are told Satan did in the book of Job requires the passage of time. Things cannot happen that there is no passage of time.

Take an automobile accident. It can be a very quick event with loud crashing and screeching metal, but the sound of the crashing and the screeching of metal means that time is passing. Just to hear the screech of tires would start at some point in time and then continue for a brief half second or so until you hear the crash. Time has passed.

I imagine you think of yourself to be very wise, but you honestly don't seem to have a solid grasp of what exactly time is. Time is not a material thing. It is merely the passage from one millisecond to the next and can even be broken down into smaller parts, but that should suffice for human understanding. It takes time for the angels to come to God. As the Scriptures declare about Satan, he was made perfect, but as time passed iniquity was found in him. There is time in the heavenly realm and there is time in our realm.

And yes, empty black space is nothing. There are no molecules. There are no cells. There is no matter of any kind. There were no light rays or dust in the 'space' in which God built our universe. It was merely black, empty space. I believe that a lot of these scientists that think they can make time stop or not exist are about as wise as the scientists that think they can determine the age of the universe through natural processes.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Dale]

Genesis does stress the time in which God created the earth, 6 (24-hour) days. The manner is supernaturally, a manner that we are not privy to. It does say that He created everything finished, complete and that man came from the dust of the earth - dirt. How did Moses know that the 17 minerals in our body are found in dirt?

It doesn't say 6, 24 Hour days, that is just your assumption. YOM, is the word used for day and has several meanings, according to the context. One is a 24 hour day, one meaning is a year, another is a PERIOD of Time and thier is a couple of more meanings.

When God creates the Universe, He is already living in the future also, because He encompasses ALL TIME, so why would He feel the need to HURRY UP the creation ?

This is so simply, I do not see how people distort it.
God created light on the first day. "... God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light DAY and the darkness He called NIGHT. So the evening and the morning were the FIRST DAY." Gen. 1:4, 5
And on it goes for each day.
Everyone knows the difference between day and night and the combination of the two = 24 hours.
Don't distort to mean something else. It's simple -- unless you're blind.
Another argument would be that on the third day, He created all the botanicals. How could they survive thousands or millions of years without the SUN WHICH WAS CREATED ON DAY 4? No, it was created literally on the next day and that day wasn't some spiritual day in God's domain where a day is like a thousand years or vice versa. No, time is a physical dimension and so time is in our domain. Evolutionists distort the Creation story -- a five year old can understand this.

A thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

--Psalms 90:4 NIV




8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

--2 Peter 3: 8 NIV




The mention of morning and evening doesn't really change this. If a day is a thousand years, then a morning is five hundred years.




This picture of a day being a thousand years, or a million, doesn't solve all problems with a six day creation. Ronald is right to point out that plants are created before the sun is created in the six day creation. It is a little confusing because light is created before the sun.




The answer to this quandry is not a literal six day creation. The answer is that the six days of Genesis 1 isn't intended to list everything that God created. Further, the exact order isn't a crucial point either. The crucial point is the creating power of God.

 

[Dale]

It is puzzling that literalists or Creationists apparently see no meaning in the first few chapters of Genesis unless they are literally true. Creationists keep telling us that the first part of Genesis can have no meaning except as a handbook of geography, astronomy, cosmology, biology and physics.


Actually, I have heard several sermons on Adam and Eve that had little if anything to do with whether this story is literally true.


Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

--Genesis 3:20 NIV



If Eve is the mother of all the living, then all men are brothers, all women are sisters, and all people are siblings. That is quite meaningful. The point is backed up by the story of Cain and Able, which follows. The Bible tells us that the first murder is a fratricide. It suggests that all murder is fratricide. Again, quite meaningful.

 

[Dale]

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

--Genesis 6:1-4 KJV




For literalists, the beginning of the sixth chapter of Genesis can be one of the most baffling chapters in the Bible. Some choose to spend time wandering in endless speculation about humans having sexual relations with bad angels but for most of us this is obviously a dead end.

There is actually a rather simple non-supernatural explanation for this passage. At one time in the past, there were those who had knowledge of the one true God. They understood God's ways. This group can understandably be called the Sons of God. There were others who did not understand God's ways. Perhaps the Sons of God were monotheists while the “daughters of men” were pagans, although Genesis doesn't spell this out.

A problem arose when members of the first group weren't careful about who they married. Men in this group married women who didn't share their religious beliefs, or whose consent to them was nominal. Or women in this group married men who didn't share their religion. In short, those who understood God's ways intermarried with those who did not. We can assume that along with intermarriage, those with the heritage of the Sons of God didn't pay enough attention to the education of their children. With every generation this knowledge of God's ways was diluted, watered down, and gradually lost.

One way that this passage is confusing is that it says that the children of these unions were “men of renown.” For literalists this sounds like Genesis is saying that there were those who had angelic blood, even though they were the product of a forbidden union. Yet it may mean simply that although the original heritage of the Sons of God was being diluted, it had not yet vanished. The “men of renown” lived at a time when morals hadn't deteriorated as much as they did later.


The Jewish people have always had a concern about intermarriage. They had this concern when the Old Testament was composed and devout Jews still share that concern today. Is it so surprising that this concern is found in Genesis?

 

[Dale]

You are a "theistic evolutionist", who is struggling with many Biblical concepts that you must distort and misinterpret in order to conform to your false belief. Almost half of Christians accept evolution this way because they either don't understand it, nor do they understand scripture.



It is not the foundation of our religion, but the origins of man are a foundation of who we are and where we came from. If you distort the origins, then who we are and where we came from is up for speculation. Hence Darwin speculated and was wrong. He speculated that we evolved from a primordial goo. Genesis says God created man, plants and animals complete with no evolutionary process -- a finished product. A peacock was always a peacock, a rose, a rose and man always man.




You misunderstand the Jewish style of writing; what appears to be chronological to you, is in fact a typical writing style used where the first chapter is an outline summation and then the second chapter goes back and fills in details. Let us make man in our image ... so God created man (which was Adam at that moment and shortly after Eve).
See you later guess it when you suggest this: "Either Genesis backtracks and inserts more material into the account of the sixth day, or Adam and Eve aren't part of the six day creation."



You are assuming there was a wall. It doesn't say anywhere about a wall. God kicked them out of the Garden and placed Cherubim to guard the garden. "Probably square ..." Another assumption.


Do you read anything about a wall here?


You are right, the Bible doesn't say anything about destroying the Garden or removing it. We don't add to the Bible in this regard, we just discern that the Garden slowly lost it's perfection due to sin. When sin was introduced, it began to change and distort the genetic code, and things began to die - not instantly, but in a cellular, biological way. Diseases, viruses, bacteria all began on that day sin was introduced, thereby distorting what was perfect. So the paradise just got corrupted and eventually turned into what we see today.
You see, the Garden was really the whole planet. It was all beautiful and we still see beauty today, it's just when we look close, we see the defects and of course where there were lush gardens, we see deserts that have expanded. That area, which contained four rivers (two exist today, the Tigris and Euphrates), is in Iraq and now desert.
This is the key point you overlook: What God was guarding was not so much the lush region of lush green land filled with fruits and vegetables that we still have abundantly today, it was the Tree of Life. They ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, so if they had then eaten of the Tree of Life, they would have remained in that sinful state forever - this is what God saved them from -- so He guarded it until whenever.
He would later send a Savior to rectify the problem. So we can assume that eventually that the of Tree of Life withered and died. However in Revelation, we do see a Tree of Life in Rev. 22, so He could have removed it or created a new one.??

Ronald says: “You are right, the Bible doesn't say anything about destroying the Garden or removing it. We don't add to the Bible in this regard, we just discern that the Garden slowly lost it's perfection due to sin.”




A funny thing about Creationists is that they claim to represent religious tradition. Yet they constantly put forward ideas we've never heard before. I've never heard a minister or anyone else say that Eden slowly lost its perfection after Adam & Eve sinned.


Ronald says: “So we can assume that eventually that the of Tree of Life withered and died.”


Once again, I've never heard a minister say anything like that.

It's much simpler to believe that the Tree of Life represents eternal life.


Ronald says: “You see, the Garden was really the whole planet.”

If the Garden of Eden was the whole planet, where did Adam and Eve exit to when they left?

 

[Revealing Times]

Yes, but all of this is also theoretical assumptions. You or I really don't have any idea of the reality of God's existence so far as how time works in His realm. What we know is that God says that He knows the end from the beginning. Now, we can imagine to ourselves how this might work in reality, but we don't really have any assurance that God doesn't experience time just like we do. That things happen and time passes in the heavenly realm much like it does in our realm. But, the truth is that we just don't know the reality of how God experiences time.

Hello brother, sugar has been up lately, had to rest up some, have Heart attack in April so I have to watch my sugar.

As per time, we can understand that God doesn't live in a realm of time, else he would have to have a creator, by living outside of time, He needs no creator, He has just always been. We are told in a few scriptures, which I will post later, that BEFORE TIME BEGAN, or BEFORE ALL TIME, so God tells us He created time also, or cause and effect. This is how God knows the future, he lives in all realms at once. Read below.

If God Created Everything, Who Created God ?
by Rich Deem
Introduction
How did God get here ?

Who created God ? It is an age-old question that has plagued all those who like to think about the big questions. Having grown up as an agnostic non-Christian, it provided me with a potential reason why there might not be any god. Various religions tend to solve the problem in different ways. The LDS church (Mormonism) says that the God (Elohim) to whom we are accountable had a father god, then grew up on a planet as a man, and progressed to become a god himself. Many other religions have claimed that gods beget other gods. Of course the problem with this idea is how did the first god get here? This problem of infinite regression invalidates such religions. Christianity claims that God has always existed. Is this idea even possible ? Does science address such issues ?

Richard Dawkins, among other atheists, thinks he has the ultimate proof that God doesn't exist. If God created a complex universe, wouldn't it take an even more complex entity to have created God? However, such logic assumes that time has always existed, rather than being merely a construct of this universe.


Christianity's answer
Christianity answers the question of who made God in the very first verse of the very first book, Genesis:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)

This verse tells us that God was acting before time when He created the universe. Many other verses from the New Testament tell us that God was acting before time began, and so, He created time, along with the other dimensions of our universe:

• No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)
• This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)
• The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)
• To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)

The idea that God created time, along with the physical universe, is not just some wacky modern Christian interpretation of the Bible. Justin Martyr, a second century Christian apologist, in his Hortatory Address to the Greeks, said that Plato got the idea that time was created along with the universe from Moses:


God exists in timeless eternity
How does God acting before time began get around the problem of God's creation ? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.

God exists in multiple dimensions of time
The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.

Why can't the universe be eternal ?
The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all. Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 was correct ! Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" that attempts to explain away the existence of God. Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.2 Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists. And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful intelligent design of the universe makes much more sense, especially based upon what we know about the design of the universe.

What does science say about time ?
When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning - at the moment of creation (i.e., the Big Bang).3 In fact, if you examine university websites, you will find that many professors make such a claim - that the universe had a beginning and that this beginning marked the beginning of time (see The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning). Such assertions support the Bible's claim that time began at the creation of the universe.

Conclusion
God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.8 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).

 

[Revealing Times]

This picture of a day being a thousand years, or a million, doesn't solve all problems with a six day creation. Ronald is right to point out that plants are created before the sun is created in the six day creation. It is a little confusing because light is created before the sun.

You guys get way to technical, I have often said the 3rd Day and the 4rth day were very close, whereas the first day was 9.2 billion years and the second day lasted like 3.5 billion years. I think God is speaking about the "Seasons" coming into being, FULLY, and the earth rotating on its axis in a way to bring forth Seasons. The Grasses started before this was finished. The lesser light was the moon, not the Stars. To me, all of these minute things are nit-picking, scribes could have written down the 3rd day and 4rth day events out of order. The facts are, God stated there was Darkness on the face of the Deep, and we now know that was the VERY FIRST THING TO HAPPEN, for 400 Million years.

 

[miamited]

Hi RT,

You responded:

As per time, we can understand that God doesn't live in a realm of time, else he would have to have a creator, by living outside of time, He needs no creator, He has just always been.

You can prove that theorem I'm guessing. As I said, I don't think you really understand time. It's a lot like the scope of the universe. It's very, very difficult for us to imagine that the black inkiness of space just goes on and on forever. Our minds like to envision some sort of end. Say a wall of some sort or just an end, but then we ask, "Well, what's beyond that point?", and the answer is, more space. For events to happen, there must be time. For the cherub angels to cry, "Holy, holy, holy. Is the Lord God Almighty!" The gap from their speaking the first 'holy' to the last word 'almighty' would be time.

So, I think it fine for one to make the argument that they know that God doesn't live in time, but to prove that is going to take more than just, 'well because God is eternal He cannot experience time'. Peter writes to us that God is being patient. That He waits. This requires that time passes. I'm more than happy to listen to your explanations and understandings of time and its relationship or actuality to God's existence, but the fact that God is eternal just means that He has always existed in every moment of time that has ever been. Just as with the black inkiness of the space of the universe, it goes on forever and so does time. There is no end. There is no beginning. To either space or time.

Your author wrote:

Richard Dawkins, among other atheists, thinks he has the ultimate proof that God doesn't exist. If God created a complex universe, wouldn't it take an even more complex entity to have created God? However, such logic assumes that time has always existed, rather than being merely a construct of this universe.

Again, and I will readily admit that I'm likely not nearly as educated and smart, based on formal learning, as he is, but...

Wisdom is something that we get from God. James writes that if we are lacking in that, that God is the source. I don't see the connection that Dawkins' theory rests on whether or not time is merely a construct of this universe. As I pointed out earlier, the Scriptures tell us that the angel that we know as Satan was created. At the time of his creation we are told that he was a most beautiful creature. But, as time passed, iniquity was found in him. This event, I believe, took place before our realm, this universe if you will, was created. Time seems to have apparently passed in the heavenly realm from the moment that Satan was created until he rebelled against God. So, at the very least, time doesn't seem to be only a construct of our universe. It also exists in the heavenly realm, however, and whenever, that realm was created.

How does God experience time and what it all means to Him? Well, for that answer I'm afraid it's going to take a lot more than the logical musings of the minds of men for any of us to know with any certainty that we know the truth of the matter. The Scriptures never say or allude to some fact that eternalness means that there is no time. It is merely an idea that men have come up with to answer their own thoughts on the subject.

Finally, in your author's conclusion he writes:

God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time).

So, he readily admits that there could be two answers. He exists outside of time or He exists within multiple dimensions of time. All of this he claims is proven by an equation. Ahhh, that the understanding of God could be so simple.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again RT,

I took a moment to look up the verses that were quoted by your author regarding the Scriptures and the mention of 'time' found in them.

In the passage of 1 Corinthians, it's going to be a matter of which translations you read as to whether or not the word 'time' is even what was intended when Paul wrote the words. Many, if not most, of the various translations translate it as 'before the world, or worlds, began'. Some translate it as 'before history began'.

Similarly, the 2 Timothy passage has several different readings. Some say before history and some say before the ages, but admittedly, many more say 'time' than the previous passage. The KJV renders it as before the world began.

Same thing with Titus and again the KJV renders it as before the world began. The Jude passage also has the same various translations of that is rendered 'time' in some versions, but again the KJV only says 'now and forever'. It actually makes no reference whatsoever to past time.

So, before we can answer the question regarding what these passages were actually meant to convey to the reader in regards to 'time', we would have to find out what Paul meant in writing the words that he wrote that have been rendered over the ages as 'time' or 'world's beginning', or ages,
etc.

These, of course, are just my thoughts on the subject and I'm ready and willing to admit that I may be wrong, but I haven't actually seen any substantive 'proof' that I am.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Revealing Times]

You can prove that theorem I'm guessing. As I said, I don't think you really understand time. It's a lot like the scope of the universe. It's very, very difficult for us to imagine that the black inkiness of space just goes on and on forever. Our minds like to envision some sort of end. Say a wall of some sort or just an end, but then we ask, "Well, what's beyond that point?", and the answer is, more space. For events to happen, there must be time. For the cherub angels to cry, "Holy, holy, holy. Is the Lord God Almighty!" The gap from their speaking the first 'holy' to the last word 'almighty' would be time.

So, I think it fine for one to make the argument that they know that God doesn't live in time, but to prove that is going to take more than just, 'well because God is eternal He cannot experience time'. Peter writes to us that God is being patient. That He waits. This requires that time passes. I'm more than happy to listen to your explanations and understandings of time and its relationship or actuality to God's existence, but the fact that God is eternal just means that He has always existed in every moment of time that has ever been. Just as with the black inkiness of the space of the universe, it goes on forever and so does time. There is no end. There is no beginning. To either space or time.

Sure I understand time, doesn't everyone ? Time comes via our universe, Einstein proved this when he proved Relativity. Space doesn't just go on forever, our universe has parameters, it has been mapped by microwaves via NASA. If God existed in time, he would have had to be created, it is the First Law of Causation unless he lived in multi-dimensions of time, either way God is not subject to time, as we are, that is the point, God is ruler over all time and needs not to have ever been CREATED...That is the whole point of the article.

You are dwelling on time, when the author is dwelling on God being eternal, inside or outside of time. Not having a need of being Created. Notice the name of the article ? If God created the Universe, who created God ?

I took a moment to look up the verses that were quoted by your author regarding the Scriptures and the mention of 'time' found in them.

"The World" is speaking of the Beginning or God Creating the Universe, which is where time comes from, but actually looking at the Greek word used here, it does mean time, not world..........
aión: a space of time, an age
Original Word: αἰών, ῶνος, ὁ

165 aiṓn (see also the cognate adjective, 166 /aiṓnios, "age-long") – properly, an age (era, "time-span"), characterized by a specific quality(type of existence).

This is the ultimate conclusion/point. God is not subject to the restraints of time, thus one year is as a thousand or vice versa. So God has no need of having been Created. Hence God is omni-present, hence the original point, God would not have to create anything in 6 actual days. He lives in ALL-TIME at once.

GB.

 

[miamited]

Hi RT,

No, Einstein's theory of relativity did not 'prove' that time does or doesn't exist. It merely claimed to have proved that time can fluctuate, compress or expand, based on some underlying changes in gravity, mass and energy. However, I readily admit again that such concepts are far and away beyond my limited abilities of understanding such things.

Here's a basic explanation and application of Eintein's theory:

Einstein's general theory of relativity explains gravity as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime created by the presence of mass and energy. As two stars orbit each other, gravitational waves are emitted - wrinkles moving out in spacetime. As a result, the binary slowly loses energy, the stars move closer, and the orbital period shortens.

"The observations disprove these alternatives, and thus give further confidence that Einstein's theory is a good description of nature - even though we know it is not a complete one, given the unresolved inconsistencies with quantum mechanics," van Kerkwijk added.

Notice in the explanation given in paragraph 1 that in this particular example the theory does nothing for time, but merely explains that the orbits of the two objects will shorten in duration. If this explanation is true, then yes, it would seem that you aren't particularly understanding of what exactly 'time' is. Here's the link to the site: http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...theory-relativity-proved-right-once-again.htm

Whether or not the person who wrote this article understands what they wrote, I don't know. My guess is that it was something written from mostly already existing copy that was perhaps put out by the scientists working on this endeavor, but I don't honestly know and quite frankly don't care, but it does explain that Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't about explaining or showing some formula that 'proves' time.

You then wrote:

You are dwelling on time, when the author is dwelling on God being eternal, inside or outside of time.

Well, our discussion is about time. You're the one who gave the information from this author who, yes, I agree is trying to explain that God is eternal. Of course, I don't need that to be explained to me. I already know that. But, your author does state in plain english and black print that, based on his understanding, there are two options as regards time and God because of this understanding that God is eternal. So, it doesn't prove your position (remember that it's your evidence) that you are trying to prove with this author's theory about God's eternality and time.

Finally, you closed your post with:

This is the ultimate conclusion/point. God is not subject to the restraints of time, thus one year is as a thousand or vice versa. So God has no need of having been Created. Hence God is omni-present, hence the original point, God would not have to create anything in 6 actual days. He lives in ALL-TIME at once.

All I can say is that you seem obviously convinced that this means that God does not live in time I suppose that's ok for you to believe that. However, the conclusions you draw from your belief about God and time and its application to the six days of creation, I know, is wrong. As I said somewhere way back there, God wrote the Scriptures for man to understand in man's language in man's definition of words. If God meant for us to understand that the six days were not days as we experience them, then He would have used some other word to describe the time that it took Him to create this realm. Quiet frankly He would have just left the word 'day' and 'morning and evening' out of the account if He didn't want us to understand that it was just a 'day' consisting of a regular 'morning and evening'.

I think it very important that we understand this about the Scriptures. God wrote them to man for man to understand. If He didn't want us to understand that it was 6 days, then He would have written it so that we would understand that it wasn't 6 days. He would also not have repeated it as the foundation for the law of the Sabbath. That's my understanding and belief and you are welcome to yours.


God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

 

[Revealing Times]

If I was trying to prove God doesn't live in time per se, why would I post a post that says God either doesn't live in time or lives in time but is not subject to time ? I think you forgot the original disagreement, so to speak. That God would not have ANY REASON, to try and create the Universe in Six Days, when he lives in the past, future and present all at once.

I think the post I posted backs that up, EITHER WAY, God is not subject to time. The earth is not 6000 years old, and to be honest, that thought embarrasses me when it comes up and I have to fend off the guffaws of people in the know. It is just not realistic, to me. But it is what it is, everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

 

[miamited]

Hi RT,

Oh, I don't know. Maybe comments like these:

If God existed in time, he would have had to be created,

God has no time in His Realm.

Led me to the think, obviously incorrectly, that you believed that God has no time in His realm.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again RT,

I'm sorry that my position causes you embarrassment when it comes up in your discussions with 'people in the know'. Keep in mind, however, that unless these 'people in the know' are born again children of God, thereby having the indwelling Spirit of God, that 1 Corinthians 2:14 does apply.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Some time after Darwin published his On the Origin of Species, the argument began about 'science versus Bible'. I have not been able to show to my satisfaction who 'started' the fight - other than a conviction Satan is behind it and egging it on as the dispute serves his infernal purpose. Both factions routinely blame the other.

Fast forwarding to the present, the argument is cast in - more or less - the following terms: The Young Earth Creationists (YEC) are self-proclaimed Christians who support the view of Bishop Ussher of Armagh in his interpretation of the first chapter (or so) of Genesis. In reality, the YEC faction has functionally declared Bishop Ussher's book (Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world") as equal to the Bible in value.

On the other hand, the deeply deophobic faction of the 'scientific' community aver God cannot exist, as modern science shows no evidence for the existence of such Person. This is predicated on the underlying assumption all evidence must be 'physical' in some fashion. The logic is every bit as circular as the claim "God exists because the Bible says so and since the Bible is the inspired message of God, it is reliable." (Both parts of which are true, but not dependent on the other clause.)

I've noted both factions tend to talk past each other. This accounts for every 'debate' having two winners, and each side claiming they won.

No one seems to like my view. Which is encouraging, as I find both factions to be illogical, ignorant of what they claim and adamantly denying anything and everything which doesn't line up with their own view. The Lord seems okay with my view - I've asked Him about it - so I can live with the condemnation of everyone else.

I have a question related to the subject if anyone cares to bite: Psalm 33, 9 reads, "For he spoke, and it (the world, from the preceding verse) came into existence, he issued the decree, (he commanded) and it stood firm."

From this, two claims are made. One is the often repeated claim that "God spoke the world into existence." Two is the not so popular claim of the Earth being the center of the Universe, as it 'stands firm.'

I have two questions for discussion for those who dare.

At what cadence or rate does God speak? (Also consult Psalm 90:4 and 2nd Peter 3:8)

Does anyone claim the Earth is the center of the Universe?

For three bonus points - redeemable somewhere else - what does 'world' mean in the context of the King James Translation?

I will respond to any actual answers. Deflections and insults will be ignored.

 

[Dale]

Creationists have very little curiosity about the natural world. One of the risks of being a Creationist is that when your children develop a sense of curiosity about living things, they will probably stop being Creationists.

Yet some parts of the Bible do show an appreciation of nature and even encourage curiosity about it. Take a look a Job 39, which is God speaking to Job out of the whirlwind. It talks about wild goats, wild donkeys, wild ox, hawks and eagles. It manages to spend five verses on the life of the ostrich.


Job Chapter 39:

“Do you know when the mountain goats give birth?
Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn?
2 Do you count the months till they bear?
Do you know the time they give birth?
3 They crouch down and bring forth their young;
their labor pains are ended.
4 Their young thrive and grow strong in the wilds;
they leave and do not return.

5 “Who let the wild donkey go free?
Who untied its ropes?
6 I gave it the wasteland as its home,
the salt flats as its habitat.
7 It laughs at the commotion in the town;
it does not hear a driver’s shout.
8 It ranges the hills for its pasture
and searches for any green thing.

9 “Will the wild ox consent to serve you?
Will it stay by your manger at night?
10 Can you hold it to the furrow with a harness?
Will it till the valleys behind you?
11 Will you rely on it for its great strength?
Will you leave your heavy work to it?
12 Can you trust it to haul in your grain
and bring it to your threshing floor?

13 “The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully,
though they cannot compare
with the wings and feathers of the stork.
14 She lays her eggs on the ground
and lets them warm in the sand,
15 unmindful that a foot may crush them,
that some wild animal may trample them.
16 She treats her young harshly, as if they were not hers;
she cares not that her labor was in vain,
17 for God did not endow her with wisdom
or give her a share of good sense.
18 Yet when she spreads her feathers to run,
she laughs at horse and rider.

19 “Do you give the horse its strength
or clothe its neck with a flowing mane?
20 Do you make it leap like a locust,
striking terror with its proud snorting?
21 It paws fiercely, rejoicing in its strength,
and charges into the fray.
22 It laughs at fear, afraid of nothing;
it does not shy away from the sword.
23 The quiver rattles against its side,
along with the flashing spear and lance.
24 In frenzied excitement it eats up the ground;
it cannot stand still when the trumpet sounds.
25 At the blast of the trumpet it snorts, ‘Aha!’
It catches the scent of battle from afar,
the shout of commanders and the battle cry.

26 “Does the hawk take flight by your wisdom
and spread its wings toward the south?
27 Does the eagle soar at your command
and build its nest on high?
28 It dwells on a cliff and stays there at night;
a rocky crag is its stronghold.
29 From there it looks for food;
its eyes detect it from afar.
30 Its young ones feast on blood,
and where the slain are, there it is.”

--Job 39 NIV

 

[Revealing Times]

Hi RT,

Oh, I don't know. Maybe comments like these:

Led me to the think, obviously incorrectly, that you believed that God has no time in His realm.

I was referring to being subject to time, I probably flubbed my lines so to speak. Point being, God is not subject to the restraints of time, I personally think, if you are not subject to time, as God isn't, that it matters whether or not you live in time or not. Point being, there would be no reason to hurry up time, when you live in all of time at once.

God created the universe and was living in the future when it happened. God is omnipotent and omnipresent.

 

[Revealing Times]

I have a question related to the subject if anyone cares to bite: Psalm 33, 9 reads, "For he spoke, and it (the world, from the preceding verse) came into existence, he issued the decree, (he commanded) and it stood firm."

From this, two claims are made. One is the often repeated claim that "God spoke the world into existence." Two is the not so popular claim of the Earth being the center of the Universe, as it 'stands firm.'

As per the Earth being the "Center" of the universe, many ask why the earth is the size it is just for earth to exist for us to be a stage to all cration.

Size of the universe

Our star, the Sun, is a slightly above average sized star (one of the 1021 stars in the universe) in an average sized galaxy (of which there are ~100 billion in the universe). The universe itself is currently tens of billions of light years across, and seems to be expanding ore rapidly as it gets older. It seems like complete overkill for God to have created so many galaxies when one would have been more than enough. The Hubble ultra deep field image below shows what the universe looked like ~2 billion years after the initiation of the Big Bang The tiny dots are not stars, but entire galaxies, tightly packed together in the early universe.

Universe size matters !

Besides spiritual reasons, there are also physical constraints on the minimum (and maximum) mass of the universe. The universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Without helium (comprising ~24% of the matter in the universe), heavy element production in stars is not possible, so that no rocky planets would have ever existed in the entire history of the universe.

Likewise, the universe could not have been a much more massive than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10/59 more massive, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10/80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (at 1.67x10−27 kg/baryon equals 1.7 mg of matter - equal to a grain of sand) would have made life impossible! The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

For both spiritual and physical reasons, the universe must be immense to fulfill the purposes of God, according to the Bible. The large size of the universe tells us about His power and authority, and is required for the formation of rocky planets.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

As per the Earth being the "Center" of the universe, many ask why the earth is the size it is just for earth to exist for us to be a stage to all cration.

Sorry, but this sentence is unintelligible to me. Could you rephrase it, please?

Our star, the Sun, is a slightly above average sized star (one of the 1021 stars in the universe) in an average sized galaxy...

I think you left out a word or two in this.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

- snip -

It seems like complete overkill for God to have created so many galaxies when one would have been more than enough.

The mistake here is the construction "It seems [to the writer]...

What you're saying is it seems like God doesn't know what He's doing?

And yes, I am familiar with the Hubble 'deep field' observations.

Besides spiritual reasons...

You've lost me again. There are NO spritual reasons for the size of the Universe. If you have some, please share them.

The universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Without helium (comprising ~24% of the matter in the universe), heavy element production in stars is not possible, so that no rocky planets would have ever existed in the entire history of the universe.

Entirely incompatible with current theory of cosmology. You are simply misinformed.

I'll remind you of what I posted:

I will respond to any actual answers. Deflections and insults will be ignored.

This is an obvious deflection.