Compression of Time?

[Quasiblogo]

What if God, within the package of an instantaneous creation of an expanding universe by the spoken word, took the initial six "days", each ions of time, and within his own sovereignty, in a sort of "creation motion", compressed these vast increments of time so that (time within time), events truly happened over millennia of centuries and yet at the same time happened within the measurement of human days? The 7th day: there would no need to be compressed, as the Lord ceased from his works.

I am no science fiction buff, except for having read Asimov's trilogy and the Lord of the Rings. The paragraph above: I just don't see it as fanciful. And, wouldn't it be just like our heavenly Father for his sovereignty to escape the realm of explanation or discovery by humanity so that God may be God in all things?

I am not unsettled if the idea is wrong, and I'm not holding my breath that it is correct. In the interim, I'm more swayed by Old Earth and direct creation of humans via Adam/Eve.

 

[Jeshu]

It could be that Adam and Eve lived in Paradise for millions of years before they sinned. Cain did seem to fear people around him, after he killed his brother and God called him to account. While if he was on his own why would he have cared about what people thought? It wouldn't be part of his experience and therefore a non issue. The Scripture did not deem it important to tell us how long it was before Adam and Eve sinned, just that they did.

 

[disciple Clint]

What if God, within the package of an instantaneous creation of an expanding universe by the spoken word, took the initial six "days", each ions of time, and within his own sovereignty, in a sort of "creation motion", compressed these vast increments of time so that (time within time), events truly happened over millennia of centuries and yet at the same time happened within the measurement of human days? The 7th day: there would no need to be compressed, as the Lord ceased from his works.

I am no science fiction buff, except for having read Asimov's trilogy and the Lord of the Rings. The paragraph above: I just don't see it as fanciful. And, wouldn't it be just like our heavenly Father for his sovereignty to escape the realm of explanation or discovery by humanity so that God may be God in all things?

I am not unsettled if the idea is wrong, and I'm not holding my breath that it is correct. In the interim, I'm more swayed by Old Earth and direct creation of humans via Adam/Eve.

My feeling is that you are attempting to make the Bible a science book, not trying to be critical of you, but the purpose of the Bible is to reveal God to man and provide guidance for how to live the life He has blessed us with.

 

[Johan_1988]

What if God, within the package of an instantaneous creation of an expanding universe by the spoken word, took the initial six "days", each ions of time, and within his own sovereignty, in a sort of "creation motion", compressed these vast increments of time so that (time within time), events truly happened over millennia of centuries and yet at the same time happened within the measurement of human days? The 7th day: there would no need to be compressed, as the Lord ceased from his works.

I am no science fiction buff, except for having read Asimov's trilogy and the Lord of the Rings. The paragraph above: I just don't see it as fanciful. And, wouldn't it be just like our heavenly Father for his sovereignty to escape the realm of explanation or discovery by humanity so that God may be God in all things?

I am not unsettled if the idea is wrong, and I'm not holding my breath that it is correct. In the interim, I'm more swayed by Old Earth and direct creation of humans via Adam/Eve.

Hi. The main problem that I have with Theistic evolution is that the problem is that it panders to the vast amounts of time needed to create life in atheistic evolution, since the premise of evolution is that you need vast amounts of time that by chance of the mixing of various organic chemicals in the primordial soup to form life and through natural selection and mutation of DNA and RNA creatures evolved to what they are today.

It's a process that actively seeks to exclude God from the whole process with vast time and chance. How then can that be reconciled to Christianity when the very premise of vast time is to exclude God himself. I can see why atheist resent Christians who try to reconcile evolution and God ,since it was created to try to take God out of creation.

Not picking a fight just making a point according to what I see is a problem to the whole Theistic evolutionary view.

 

[-57]

What if God, within the package of an instantaneous creation of an expanding universe by the spoken word, took the initial six "days", each ions of time, and within his own sovereignty, in a sort of "creation motion", compressed these vast increments of time so that (time within time), events truly happened over millennia of centuries and yet at the same time happened within the measurement of human days? The 7th day: there would no need to be compressed, as the Lord ceased from his works.

I am no science fiction buff, except for having read Asimov's trilogy and the Lord of the Rings. The paragraph above: I just don't see it as fanciful. And, wouldn't it be just like our heavenly Father for his sovereignty to escape the realm of explanation or discovery by humanity so that God may be God in all things?

I am not unsettled if the idea is wrong, and I'm not holding my breath that it is correct. In the interim, I'm more swayed by Old Earth and direct creation of humans via Adam/Eve.

Compression of time opens the door for the process of evolutionism and Old Earth Geology.
Mixing this concept with the Bible does it severe harm. Most people are blind to the harm that it does.
Typically it departs from many of the foundational theological position the Bible holds. Such positions are no means for the fall and the localization of Noahs flood.

 

[-57]

It could be that Adam and Eve lived in Paradise for millions of years before they sinned. Cain did seem to fear people around him, after he killed his brother and God called him to account. While if he was on his own why would he have cared about what people thought? It wouldn't be part of his experience and therefore a non issue. The Scripture did not deem it important to tell us how long it was before Adam and Eve sinned, just that they did.

Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply. I would think if they lived for millions of years in the garden with no children...they missed that mark.

 

[-57]

Hi. The main problem that I have with Theistic evolution is that the problem is that it panders to the vast amounts of time needed to create life in atheistic evolution, since the premise of evolution is that you need vast amounts of time that by chance of the mixing of various organic chemicals in the primordial soup to form life and through natural selection and mutation of DNA and RNA creatures evolved to what they are today.

It's a process that actively seeks to exclude God from the whole process with vast time and chance. How then can that be reconciled to Christianity when the very premise of vast time is to exclude God himself. I can see why atheist resent Christians who try to reconcile evolution and God ,since it was created to try to take God out of creation.

Not picking a fight just making a point according to what I see is a problem to the whole Theistic evolutionary view.

The main problem with Theistic Evoism is they do away with the fall in the garden and our resulting sin nature. Sure, some might agree that we have a sin nature but they have no way of explaining the sin nature and keeping it in agreement with what the bible says. Because of this Theo-Evo fails.

 

[Radagast]

What if God, within the package of an instantaneous creation of an expanding universe by the spoken word, took the initial six "days", each ions of time, and within his own sovereignty, in a sort of "creation motion", compressed these vast increments of time so that (time within time), events truly happened over millennia of centuries and yet at the same time happened within the measurement of human days?

I've actually read a book suggesting exactly that.

 

[Radagast]

The main problem with Theistic Evoism is they do away with the fall in the garden and our resulting sin nature.

Well, no, they don't. You can't get rid of the Fall and be Christian.

Theistic Evolutionists have various ways of incorporating the Fall. The simplest way is to say that, at one point, God turned two pre-humans into humans (Adam and Eve), who then fell as described in Genesis.

 

[Johan_1988]

The main problem with Theistic Evoism is they do away with the fall in the garden and our resulting sin nature. Sure, some might agree that we have a sin nature but they have no way of explaining the sin nature and keeping it in agreement with what the bible says. Because of this Theo-Evo fails.

True,evolution explains sin as normal behavior.

 

[-57]

Well, no, they don't. You can't get rid of the Fall and be Christian.

Theistic Evolutionists have various ways of incorporating the Fall. The simplest way is to say that, at one point, God turned two pre-humans into humans (Adam and Eve), who then fell as described in Genesis.

Yeah, that's one way...you say the simplest way which suggest they have other ways..which means the other ways are not true. Considering the Bible doesn't teach the "simplest way"...I would think that way is also wrong.

If God turned Adam and Eve into humans from pre-humans...what about all the other people who were walking the earth? Adams parents, brother and sisters..aunts and uncles..cousins, neighbors...what of them? One would think these people would still be represented in todays modern population. How did sin then spread via one man?

How is evolving man the same as forming Adam from the dust the Eve from Adams rib?

 

[-57]

True,evolution explains sin as normal behavior.

Yes, sin now is normal behavior..as the fall caused a sin nature that started with one man...Adam.

The Theo-Evo sect has no way of explaining sin that is compatible with the Bible. Instead they twist the Bible to be compatible with mans flawed interpretation of science.

 

[Lost4words]

Genesis is not a science book. People interpret it too literally.

 

[-57]

Genesis is not a science book. People interpret it too literally.

Only those who need to refute YEC'sm use that argument.

No one ever said Genesis was a science book. Genesis is about the MIRACLE of creation. Fiat. God calling all into existence.

Once one moves away from that they also move away from Adam and Eve and the fall in the garden....which produced our sin nature and the need for a savior.

 

[Lost4words]

Only those who need to refute YEC'sm use that argument.

No one ever said Genesis was a science book. Genesis is about the MIRACLE of creation. Fiat. God calling all into existence.

Once one moves away from that they also move away from Adam and Eve and the fall in the garden....which produced our sin nature and the need for a savior.

Yes, miracle of creation.

Its peoples interpretation of it that is way off..

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

What if God, within the package of an instantaneous creation of an expanding universe by the spoken word, took the initial six "days", each ions of time, and within his own sovereignty, in a sort of "creation motion", compressed these vast increments of time so that (time within time), events truly happened over millennia of centuries and yet at the same time happened within the measurement of human days?

First, you would need to understand what the second dimension of time is, and what it is not. If the first dimension of time were compressed, then it would remain indifferent by its own measurement. In other words, if today were compressed into one second, we would still have to live through all twenty-four hours, and we would notice nothing different.

If we measure the first dimension of time by the second, then what it amounts to is God getting out of bed one day and writing a story that covered the span of an eon before he finished for the evening. We could say that there wasn't much to write about, with there being nothing but idle planetary motion, so it didn't take long. By that logic, anything is possible.

But the Bible starts with, "In the beginning." God had no beginning. Therefore, we must assume that the frame of reference being discussed is not God's time, but our own. That's why I must disagree.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Genesis is not a science book. People interpret it too literally.

Unfortunately, I find that the people who don't take the Genesis account fairly literally usually don't take it figuratively, either. Two monkeys might have fallen out of a tree, and natural history might remember it as the "Fall of Man," but it fails to capture the essence of the Biblical Fall and all of its moral implications. If it fails to grasp the moral significance, then it fails even to be a figurative understanding of the Bible. In other words, it's a total rejection.

 

[-57]

Yes, miracle of creation.

Its peoples interpretation of it that is way off..

Yes, interpreting it to incorporate evolutionism is way off....as shown by the complete lack of being able to explain our sin nature.

 

[-57]

Unfortunately, I find that the people who don't take the Genesis account fairly literally usually don't take it figuratively, either. Two monkeys might have fallen out of a tree, and natural history might remember it as the "Fall of Man," but it fails to capture the essence of the Biblical Fall and all of its moral implications. If it fails to grasp the moral significance, then it fails even to be a figurative understanding of the Bible. In other words, it's a total rejection.

But the Bible doesn't even come close to saying two monkeys fell out of a tree...It speaks of a man and women who disobeyed God...falling out of a tree isn't an act of disobedience.

Theo-Evos need to concoct strange stories...set up strange scenarios to make the evolutionary theology work...as you said "it fails to capture the essence of the Biblical Fall and all of its moral implications."

I've seen all types of scenarios presented...they all can't be right, but it's an attempt to mix evolutionism with biblical doctrine. The only right version is what. is presented in Genesis.

 

[Quasiblogo]

My feeling is that you are attempting to make the Bible a science book, not trying to be critical of you, but the purpose of the Bible is to reveal God to man and provide guidance for how to live the life He has blessed us with.

I believe what you say and only know enough science (or care about it) to have gotten my Spanish degree. I have to confess, was a question out of curiosity