Starting to doubt

[Freth]

2nd Peter 3:8 but, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Some scriptures Christians take literally and some things they feel are metaphors. Many may disagree but this scripture is telling us God, nor anything he does is subjected to time. On man's given knowledge of the time frame, a million / billion years may have passed between when scripture says God said let there be light and/or what man calls the big bang singularity and the creation of Earth.

God called the Earth to bring forth life - first he called the Earth to bring forth plants - then he called the sea to bring forth living creatures - then he called the Earth to bring forth beast of the field. According to evolution - the Earth gave life to the plants first _ then the sea gave life to living creatures _ then the land gave life to the beasts of the fields. All those events in scripture and scientifically coincide with each other in occurrence. Time is for man to calculate his lifespan with - time is death and death is upon mankind. Genesis 3:8 and the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. (God formed man, God breathed the breath of life into man, God created a special Garden for man to live in and put man inside the garden.) God made man last - according to the evolution man is last. In Scripture a week can mean 7 years - but a day has to mean a literal day when it could mean millions of years. God told Adam the day he ate from the Tree of knowledge he would surely die, Adam lived hundreds of years, but he did not make it to 1,000 years _ ( 2nd Peter 3:8). God is telling man don't base what he does on our time frame.

Genesis 3:22 and the Lord God said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Tree of Life, and eat, and live forever. ( Mankind had immortality before Adam disobeyed and ate from the Tree of knowledge.) Romans 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. 1st Corinthians 15:21 For since by one Man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the Dead

28:13 Thou has been in the Garden of God; every precious stone was died covering, and the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the Jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, the carbuncle, and gold; the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thou pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou was created. __ Earth is God's Garden, he created the Earth billions of years before he placed man here. Ezekiel 28:14 when Satan held a title of cherubim, he walked the mountain of God, the stones of fire __ this did not just occur six thousand years ago. A war happened as written in the book of Revelation - Michael and his angels fought and the devil and his angels - the devil lost - him and his angels were cast down to earth. This is a war that took place - it took place before the devil seduced Eve in the garden.

In the book of Job, the behemoth and the Leviathan are mentioned those are dinosaurs - not hippopotamuses elephants are large animal. Read their descriptions.

The book of Genesis told man to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth why did God say replenish.?

The last days, after the death burial and resurrection of Christ, The last days began - even the calendar was changed. Jesus said he came to set family against each other - he said the gospel must be preached to All Nations as a witness then the end will come. Book of Daniel chapter 12 in the last days knowledge will increase and people will be moving to and fro - yes, knowledge has increased vastly in the past hundred years and people are not sitting still,they are moving to and fro - day and night constantly. The closer we get to his return the more intense all the prophecies will become and they are being fulfilled except the days of Noah and the revealing of the Antichrist. Man has determined that day in some cases mean literally day and it doesn't in all cases.

I understand what you're saying, it could be considered as being in the last seconds of time today.

Was it all just for Jesus - Jesus is the creator as John 1: 1-3 says in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made.
It is all about his Mercy - it's all about judgments.

Regarding 2 Peter 3:8 (also, Psalms 90:4), I believe this is the key to understanding the timeline of earth's complete history, which does not give wiggle room for millions or billions of years.

Six days of creation point to six thousand years of earth history, for the controversy between Christ and Satan to be played out in its entirety. The seventh day of rest would point to the thousand year reign of Jesus after the second coming; the second coming brings a close to the six thousand years of earth's history.

Consider, that if a thousand years is as a day to God, then this controversy over sin has only been about six days of time in heaven. God is literally wrapping up His case against sin within six days (or six thousand years). Quite quick to God, but quite slow to us.

Regarding moving to and fro and knowledge increasing, it is a type in my view.

• The book of Daniel was shut up until the time of the end (Daniel 12:4). Only then, at the appointed time, would there be a moving to and fro through scripture to understand Daniel and Revelation and knowledge of God's word and its prophecies would be increased. This actually happened. It continues to happen to this day, that knowledge of the word is increased and we still move to and fro through scripture.
• Knowledge increased with the internet going public and subsequent smart phone technology. People move to and fro through the internet, exchanging knowledge. However, the more knowledge we obtain, the more lost society becomes and ends up going to and fro, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth (2 Timothy 3:7).

There is a danger in adding to or taking away from scripture (Revelation 22:18-19). I don't think we can add millions or billions of years, because it would be an assumption on our part; it's not in scripture. By two or three witnesses will every word be established (Matthew 18:16).

God bless and Happy Sabbath!

 

[hedrick]

Sheila, I have to ask...what exactly is your problem with someone telling and someone reading? I did not recall anyone stating "sheila told us anything"!
You are throwing a useless and quite frankly poorly thought out argument against those of us who can read your profile where you have written next to Faith "Baptist".

Either you are a Baptist or you are not a Baptist. The point is, I was surprised that a Baptist would take this view (ie theistic evolution) as a doctrine in the first place!

Your retort "who told you I was a Baptist" seems to be very very offtopic to the question posed to you concerning what you believe as a Baptist.

The simple answer, and I am quite sure that most others on this forum would agree with, would be to outline how Darwins theory fits in with your own world view? (which we believed based on your profile was Faith=Baptist).

This is an opportunity for an explanation on how theistic evolution works for you and your own world view.

We can all learn from that...isnt this important to you?

I have stated, that based on the Genesis story and Darwin's own early notes about how mankind originated, his views are heresy and opposed to said creation story! (that is my belief on this topic)

Not all Baptists are conservative. The American Baptists are a mainline denomination, and before the ideological purges a few decade ago, there were even moderately liberal Southern Baptists.

 

[The Barbarian]

Regarding 2 Peter 3:8 (also, Psalms 90:4), I believe this is the key to understanding the timeline of earth's complete history, which does not give wiggle room for millions or billions of years.

Figurative verses don't convert well to literal history.

Six days of creation point to six thousand years of earth history, for the controversy between Christ and Satan to be played out in its entirety. The seventh day of rest would point to the thousand year reign of Jesus after the second coming (which brings a close to the six thousand years of earth's history).

Also, consider, that if a thousand years is as a day to God, then this controversy over sin has only been a week of time in heaven. God is literally wrapping up His case against sin within six days (or six thousand years). Quite quick to God, but quite slow to us.

Unfortunately, there's no support for that in scripture. And abundant evidence He left in creation for billions of years.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

There is a danger in adding to or taking away from scripture (Revelation 22:18-19).

So adding a YE to scripture is a mistake. Fortunately, you're also wrong about it being a danger. That's not how you will be judged. Jesus is quite clear on that. All the pilpul and theology in the world won't save you. Just follow the directions.

Easy to understand, and hard to do. But elaborate new doctrines won't do the job.

 

[tdidymas]

Six days of creation point to six thousand years of earth history...

Would you be interested in attempting to answer my question here:
The light travel time problem
tks

 

[tdidymas]

Unless one can find a solution to the very explicit nature of the Biblical narrative for creation...

Would you be interested in a discussion on the age of the universe here:
The light travel time problem

 

[The Barbarian]

Darwin concludes: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"

Yep. Creationists have repeatedly tried and failed to do that. Few of them even bring up that subject, anymore.

Charles Hodge argued in his 1874 critique "What is Darwinism?" that "Darwinism", defined narrowly as including rejection of design"

Actually, he was off base on that, as well as other things. Michael Behe, for example, accepts Darwin's four points, but insists that design is part of it.

We know the Catholic church created a lot of confusion when...

The Vatican stated its official position in a 1950 papal encyclical, which held that evolution was not inconsistent with Catholic teaching.

Technically, it pointed out that evolution is not inconsistent with Christian belief.

Unless one can find a solution to the very explicit nature of the Biblical narrative for creation, i believe Darwins theory has no place in Christianity.

The error you make is to assume that the creation story is a literal history, when the text itself tells us that it is not.

But Darwin's theory has no place in Christianity in the same sense that atomic structure has no place in Christianity. There are many things that are true that are not part of Christian belief.

I do not disagree that God has provided the earth with the capability to adapt to the changing world...however, that is a far cry from what Darwin states in Chapter 4 of his book referenced above.

Darwin concludes: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"

Well, that should be testable. Just find an counter-example. If you can't, maybe that's a tip-off.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Yep. Creationists have repeatedly tried and failed to do that. Few of them even bring up that subject, anymore.



Actually, he was off base on that, as well as other things. Michael Behe, for example, accepts Darwin's four points, but insists that design is part of it.



Technically, it pointed out that evolution is not inconsistent with Christian belief.



The error you make is to assume that the creation story is a literal history, when the text itself tells us that it is not.

But Darwin's theory has no place in Christianity in the same sense that atomic structure has no place in Christianity. There are many things that are true that are not part of Christian belief.



Darwin concludes: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"

Well, that should be testable. Just find an counter-example. If you can't, maybe that's a tip-off.

And here we go...now your replies are showing cracks all over the place...the reality is, the creation story is to be taken literally because it is written that way. If you refuse to use simple comprehension because you can't accept the differences between world views and science, then so be it. As for me, I have no problems with those inconsistencies mainly because the science falls in a complete mess long before it even gets to evolution. It cannot explain the origins of the energy that created the big bang. Whether you think that is relevant or not is your choosing...for me and many others it is relevant because non Christians tie the big bang and evolution together. One cannot compromise on the creation story...fundamentally, an Almighty Creator God is opposed to evolution.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Would you be interested in a discussion on the age of the universe here:
The light travel time problem

I will take a peek...without having looked I already have a simple answer to this age question...God created a mature working system. Adam wasn't born a child...he was fully grown, as were the animals. Why would the earth and our known universe be any different?

 

[The Barbarian]

And here we go...now your replies are showing cracks all over the place...the reality is, the creation story is to be taken literally because it is written that way.

As you have seen, the text itself says it's not literal. If it was a literal account and not figurative, it would not have mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them. No way for YE creationists to dodge that problem.

If you refuse to use simple comprehension because you can't accept the differences between YE creationist world views and the Bible, then so be it. The obvious inconsistencies in the YE revision of Genesis make it impossible to fit His word.

As for me, I have no problems with those inconsistencies

I get that. And the good news is, it won't affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of your new doctrine and insist that all Chrstians must accept it.

It cannot explain the origins of the energy that created the big bang.

Doesn't have to. It merely describes the universe, but doesn't say why there's a universe. For most scientists, it's something God created.

for me and many others it is relevant because non Christians tie the big bang and evolution together.

That's another misconception that's constantly tripping you up. The big bang theory was proposed by a Christian priest, and was most notably opposed by an atheist (Fred Hoyle) who tried to ridicule it by using the term "big bang." He was offended, I suppose, because it meant that the universe was not eternal, and suggests that it was created.

One cannot compromise on the creation story.

Not true. That's exactly what you've done. As I said, that won't endanger your salvation in itself, unless you put that above Christian doctrine itself.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

As you have seen, the text itself says it's not literal. If it was a literal account and not figurative, it would not have mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them. No way for YE creationists to dodge that problem.

If you refuse to use simple comprehension because you can't accept the differences between YE creationist world views and the Bible, then so be it. The obvious inconsistencies in the YE revision of Genesis make it impossible to fit His word.



I get that. And the good news is, it won't affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of your new doctrine and insist that all Chrstians must accept it.



Doesn't have to. It merely describes the universe, but doesn't say why there's a universe. For most scientists, it's something God created.



That's another misconception that's constantly tripping you up. The big bang theory was proposed by a Christian priest, and was most notably opposed by an atheist (Fred Hoyle) who tried to ridicule it by using the term "big bang." He was offended, I suppose, because it meant that the universe was not eternal, and suggests that it was created.



Not true. That's exactly what you've done. As I said, that won't endanger your salvation in itself, unless you put that above Christian doctrine itself.

Babarian, your arguments are now falling into the category of supposition and irrelevance to the facts.

If you are a Christian (and i am now starting to doubt that), you either follow the Bible or you dont. The Bible starts off in Genesis 1:1 with a very powerful, straightforward and easy to understand statement

"In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

Moses illustrated the creation story very specifically and very directly. There is nothing arbitrary about the 7 days of creation...each one is specifically named, what was completed on each specific day is stated, and then finished with the very pointed statement "and the evening and the morning were the x day (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh).

God then completes the Genesis creation story by saying in Genesis 1:31

"And God looked upon all that He had made, and indeed, it was very good."

We do the exact same thing today whenever we complete something...we stand back and we look at it and rate our achievement. We get that principle from God himself (because we are made in His image).

I am sorry but everything you have said is in denial of the Genesis Creation story and is therefore NOT biblical doctrine. If its not biblical doctrine, you are not following the Christ of the Bible...you are following Darwinism as your source of all authority. It is a fallacy that any early science should be taken first and then the bible doctrine manipulated according to that earthly science. It contradicts the Bible and is therefore heresy!

I will not be commenting any further on your posts about this...it has been explained to you and you will not listen. You are in a very small minority within the Christian movement on this and there is but a simple single reason why that is the case, you prefer science over Bible for truth and that is your choice. I however, will never make such a compromise because it dectracts from the doctrines of the Bible
(it is a shame that you cannot see this, however that is your world view. i believe you are in gross error here)

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Regarding 2 Peter 3:8 (also, Psalms 90:4), I believe this is the key to understanding the timeline of earth's complete history, which does not give wiggle room for millions or billions of years.

Six days of creation point to six thousand years of earth history, for the controversy between Christ and Satan to be played out in its entirety. The seventh day of rest would point to the thousand year reign of Jesus after the second coming; the second coming brings a close to the six thousand years of earth's history.

Consider, that if a thousand years is as a day to God, then this controversy over sin has only been about six days of time in heaven. God is literally wrapping up His case against sin within six days (or six thousand years). Quite quick to God, but quite slow to us.

Regarding moving to and fro and knowledge increasing, it is a type in my view.

• The book of Daniel was shut up until the time of the end (Daniel 12:4). Only then, at the appointed time, would there be a moving to and fro through scripture to understand Daniel and Revelation and knowledge of God's word and its prophecies would be increased. This actually happened. It continues to happen to this day, that knowledge of the word is increased and we still move to and fro through scripture.
• Knowledge increased with the internet going public and subsequent smart phone technology. People move to and fro through the internet, exchanging knowledge. However, the more knowledge we obtain, the more lost society becomes and ends up going to and fro, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth (2 Timothy 3:7).

There is a danger in adding to or taking away from scripture (Revelation 22:18-19). I don't think we can add millions or billions of years, because it would be an assumption on our part; it's not in scripture. By two or three witnesses will every word be established (Matthew 18:16).

God bless and Happy Sabbath!

Are you suggesting here that the second coming will be after the earth has reached the end of 6,000 years?

I am yet to read any such statement in SDA fundamental beliefs.

I agree that it is possible that God might stick to such a timeline, however, are there any Biblical references to this? (i would genuinely be interested in reading any research on this doctrine)

My gut tells me that God wouldnt stick to such a timeline. That infers predestination to my way of thinking and i believe that the timeline for Jesus Second Coming is very much dependant on us (all the world) rather than a Sabbath day rest policy!

I start to think "predestination" when we start date setting. When God gave the Israelites a timeline to sort out their problems prior to the Gospel being given to the Gentiles to carry to the world, yes it could be asserted that this was because he predestined that it would take 2000 years after the cross for the earth to be able to fulfill all the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, however, i do not personally feel comfortable with that view. Jesus specifically said, "no one knows the hour or the day when he would come again"... "only the Father knows this". I take that to mean that yes God can see into the future, however, it is up to mankind to take the Gospel to the world and the Second Coming date is dependant on this.
In spite of that, it is an interesting principle and i would love to read any research on it just the same.

 

[Freth]

Are you suggesting here that the second coming will be after the earth has reached the end of 6,000 years?

I am yet to read any such statement in SDA fundamental beliefs.

I agree that it is possible that God might stick to such a timeline, however, are there any Biblical references to this? (i would genuinely be interested in reading any research on this doctrine)

My gut tells me that God wouldnt stick to such a timeline. That infers predestination to my way of thinking and i believe that the timeline for Jesus Second Coming is very much dependant on us (all the world) rather than a Sabbath day rest policy!

In spite of that, it is an interesting principle and i would love to read any research on it just the same.

I'm not saying it's an official SDA belief, but I've seen many SDA pastors mention it (e.g. Doug Bachelor) and I happen to believe that it is so. As to why...

• The foreordaining of things before the foundation of the world (before creation).
• The time prophecies that had to be fulfilled to the year and even to the season.

I do agree that there is leeway. In the grand scheme of six thousand years, a few dozen years, even a few hundred years one way or the other wouldn't make a difference, if God chose to wait until the right time. However, I do think God has it nailed down ahead of time and knows the general outcome of things enough to know it will be approximately six thousand years of earth's history and that the second coming will be "on time" according to His will. I think God can wrap things up within six thousand years and not have it be predestination. I should note that the time prophecies have ended, so there is no prophetic timetable for the second coming, thus it can be adjusted; however, I think we can know the approximate time based on the six thousand year principle.

Those are my thoughts. I may have more later that I didn't think of, but it's my belief. As to whether that's official SDA or not, I don't think it matters one way or the other really.

 

[The Barbarian]

Babarian, your arguments are now falling into the category of supposition and irrelevance to the facts.

"The less the supportive data and the more declaration the greater the likelihood of horsefeathers."

If you are a Christian (and i am now starting to doubt that)

You should be very careful with that behavior. That kind of attack is not welcomed by moderators. I won't report you, but some people might.

you either follow the Bible or you dont.

I think you want to follow the Bible, but some of it is uncomfortable for you to accept. So you've added a few things. As I said, that error isn't one that will lose your salvation in itself.

Moses illustrated the creation story very specifically and very directly. There is nothing arbitrary about the 7 days of creation...

Actually, the six "yom" of creation are not periods of time, but categories of creation, as early Christians realized. As I showed you, the text itself says that they are not literal days.

You denial of this part of the creation account is a modern revision of His word. If its not biblical doctrine, you are not following God's word in the Bible...you are following YE creationism as your source of all authority.

Darwinian evolution isn't part of the creation story any more than electronics is. Neither are these phenomena denied by scripture. Those things are not what the Bible is about. It's about God and man and our relationship. That's all it needs to be. Be content with what He gives you; it's all you need for salvation, if you will only accept it.

I will not be commenting any further on your posts about this.

Probably just as well. Hearing about some parts of the Bible seems to upset you a lot. I'll be taking part when I have something to contribute, but don't feel compelled to respond.

You are in a very small minority within the Christian movement on this

In fact the vast majority of the world's Christians belong to denominations that accept that evolution is consistent with His creation. Would you like me to show you? You prefer YE creationism over the Bible for truth and that is your choice. As I said that, in itself will not harm your chances of salvation, so I have no need to "convert" you.

May God bless you and give you some peace in this matter.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I'm not saying it's an official SDA belief, but I've seen many SDA pastors mention it (e.g. Doug Bachelor) and I happen to believe that it is so. As to why...

• The foreordaining of things before the foundation of the world (before creation).
• The time prophecies that had to be fulfilled to the year and even to the season.

I do agree that there is leeway. In the grand scheme of six thousand years, a few dozen years, even a few hundred years one way or the other wouldn't make a difference, if God chose to wait until the right time. However, I do think God has it nailed down ahead of time and knows the general outcome of things enough to know it will be approximately six thousand years of earth's history and that the second coming will be "on time" according to His will. I think God can wrap things up within six thousand years and not have it be predestination. I should note that the time prophecies have ended, so there is no prophetic timetable for the second coming, thus it can be adjusted; however, I think we can know the approximate time based on the six thousand year principle.

Those are my thoughts. I may have more later that I didn't think of, but it's my belief. As to whether that's official SDA or not, I don't think it matters one way or the other really.

now that you mention it, yes i think i do recall Doug Bachelor making mention of this somewhere...although it escapes my memory as to exactly which of his videos contained this???
It could certainly be that within a few dozen or few hundred years one way or the other this principle could be used. Having said that, i wonder how disheartening such a belief would have been to those early church members if they had known this?
Would such a statement back in the first and second centuries had an adverse affect on the spreading of the Gospel?

I havent thought much about this yet so my thoughts below are preliminary off the cuff remarks...

The dilemma that i see:

1. On the one hand, one could argue that by keeping people in the dark about there still being 2,000 years to go until the second coming, Jesus was telling a white lie to improve marketing results??? OR

2. On the other hand, telling them "i wont come until the end of 6,000 years is complete" would have people questioning the need to even bother becoming a Christian because its still 2,000 years away?

I fear that this sabbath day rest second coming doctrine may be at least part of the influence in the 1844 error. We know that was from a study of the sanctuary service and the prophecies in daniel etc, however, surely the sabbath day rest part also flowed into it!

 

[Freth]

now that you mention it, yes i think i do recall Doug Bachelor making mention of this somewhere...although it escapes my memory as to exactly which of his videos contained this???
It could certainly be that within a few dozen or few hundred years one way or the other this principle could be used. Having said that, i wonder how disheartening such a belief would have been to those early church members if they had known this?
Would such a statement back in the first and second centuries had an adverse affect on the spreading of the Gospel?

I havent thought much about this yet so my thoughts below are preliminary off the cuff remarks...

The dilemma that i see:

1. On the one hand, one could argue that by keeping people in the dark about there still being 2,000 years to go until the second coming, Jesus was telling a white lie to improve marketing results??? OR

2. On the other hand, telling them "i wont come until the end of 6,000 years is complete" would have people questioning the need to even bother becoming a Christian?

I fear that this sabbath day rest second coming doctrine may be at least part of the influence in the 1844 error. We know that was from a study of the sanctuary service and the prophecies in daniel etc, however, surely the sabbath day rest part also flowed into it!

I linked a video to the an example of Doug Batchelor on the subject. Click here to go to the specific timestamp.

Imagine how Daniel felt when he was told to shut up the book until the time of the end. Or the disciples who surely knew that Jesus wouldn't return in their lifetimes. There was a great work that had to be done and I think they knew that we all meet in the end and that only one generation would be living in the last days. Still, it doesn't matter, as we all get to see Him coming in the clouds. Maybe we, who would be alive, will see Him coming from afar sooner than those who would be resurrected, but not by much... which makes the knowing a bit less of a game changer as far as faith is concerned, in my opinion.

Ecclesiastes 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Would you be interested in a discussion on the age of the universe here:
The light travel time problem

A very good question and one that has absolutely raised my interest throughout my Christian walk.

I have resolved the "time" aspect of the question very very easily...God created man in his own image. Adam was created a man...not a baby, the earth system was mature and fully functioning. I have no evidence in the Bible to the contrary, therefore I have no reason to believe space is any different.

My unresolved problem is this...the question is not about time, the real question is why would God allow a supernova to explode in the first place?

Could it be that sin has reached far beyond just the earth?

Is it that God and the unfallen worlds exist in another universe that is another dimension we cannot and will not be able to see prior to the second coming?

Is the nature and influence of sin only that which we can touch, or does it extend beyond that which we are also able to which we are also able to think, feel, see, and hear?

For example, when king David heard that Absalom had an army marching towards his stronghold, he fled. Now we know that one of the reasons David fled was to spare his city the destruction that a battle with Absalom would bring. My view is that this story has a lot more relevance to the plan of salvation than we give it credit...ie that it is also a parrallel with what God has done with the earth and the universe. The way to limit the destruction caused by sin and the ongoing battle (if you like) was to withdraw for all intents and purposes to a place far away out of reach. It has nothing to do with who is more powerful...in Gods terms it is about the destruction that would be caused by him remaining inside the city. We know for example, that man cannot look upon God in all his glory and live. That is just a fundamental fact of what sin has done to us...i would argue it is the one thing that is not within Gods power to prevent. The reason, God and sin fundamentally cannot co-exist in the same space!

So sin extends out into the universe as far as you can see, feel, hear, AND THINK!

Does this mean God is in a dimension of thought and feelings rather than that which we can touch, see, smell, and hear? Quite likely the answer to that dilemma is yes!

Christians who question the mature universe doctrine are therefore stating, Satan cannot corrupt light. If he can tempt us with thoughts, why cannot he also corrupt the time it takes for light from an exploding supernova to reach the earth? Has God said somewhere that Satan cannot do this? (He let Satan afflict Job with sores all over his body and killed all of Jobs family)
Does this answer your question?

 

[The Barbarian]

I have resolved the "time" aspect of the question very very easily...God created man in his own image.

But since God is a spirit and a spirit has no physical body, the "image" is in our souls and our minds being able to know good and evil. God makes this clear:

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

My unresolved problem is this...the question is not about time, the real question is why would God allow a supernova to explode in the first place?

Why would God allow a hurricane to form in the first place?

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Here "evil" is used in the early meaning of "misfortune" not "wickedness." And you have your answer.

Christians who question the mature universe doctrine are therefore stating, Satan cannot corrupt light. If he can tempt us with thoughts, why cannot he also corrupt the time it takes for light from an exploding supernova to reach the earth? Has God said somewhere that Satan cannot do this? (He let Satan afflict Job with sores all over his body and killed all of Jobs family)

He needed God's explicit permission to do it. You're granting way too much power to Satan, here.

No, in the absence of specific scriptural support, any tinkering by Satan as to the speed of light, is mere fantasizing.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

But since God is a spirit and a spirit has no physical body, the "image" is in our souls and our minds being able to know good and evil. God makes this clear:

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.



Why would God allow a hurricane to form in the first place?

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Here "evil" is used in the early meaning of "misfortune" not "wickedness." And you have your answer.



He needed God's explicit permission to do it. You're granting way too much power to Satan, here.

No, in the absence of specific scriptural support, any tinkering by Satan as to the speed of light, is mere fantasizing.

I dont dissagree with any of your points, however, my response was simply a different angle in relation to the question posted by tdydimus.

He has already had other answers and rejected them. It therefore needed an apologetic approach to look at this from a different angle. I think i have very clearly raised valid points that are not contradictory to the Bible in any way. Your rebuff is certainly worthy and the usual response. It does suppose that the Devil is bound only to the confines of the "flat earth movement"! This dilemma requires thinking outside that box and i am not saying it is not without its flaws (some of which you have raised)

 

[hedrick]

FYI: The OP hasn't logged in since making the original posting.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

FYI: The OP hasn't logged in since making the original posting.

The response I gave about the speed of light
Dilemma from supernovas came in answer to a post replying directly to one of my posts ...it was just 24 hours ago. I don't think it matters the O.P hasn't been back...does it?