The Time Bubble Theory

[time]

Why not? If God dicated it, as you claim, then how can you not look at it as an exact order?

Well, you have I guess to ask for a little wisdom. Not everything is literal. But if we can take it as literal, we should. You know, He did say that some of these things were hid from the 'wise', but revealed them to babes. Treat Him like a real person, and don't look at His writings as dumb and dumber, and you will make some good progress.

 

[time]

How many clay tablets did moses brig with him up the mountain? Or did he use extremely rare and expensive papyrus scrolls?

I heard a christian legend (or was it Jewish?) that the tablets were actually sapphire! Either way, if superman could carve out a little clay, and use his laser eyes to carve things God would have no problem! Heck you'd probably even have trouble even setting a bush on fire, and not having it get burned for hours.

 

[time]

You know, I'm really glad you said this. So the preponderance of the scriptures is that day is 24 hours. Let's look at Genesis 2:4b:

This means you weigh things as to what they usually mean. Not that you look for some silly thing to twist and tinker towards the topsy -turvy theology that tickles your traditionial thinking!

 

[Aggie]

1. That's why they put the "evening and morning" in those days before the creation of the sun. To make sure the reader understood it was a regular day and not the indeterminant length of time.
2. The authors deliberately tie the creation's 6 days and day of rest to the 6 days of work and the Sabbath. They can't do this if you have indefinite amounts of time for each "day".

It's very odd that you should by trying to convince ME of this, since I no longer view the Bible as inerrant. but just to play devil's (or Jesus's) advocate, here I go:

I viewed morning and evening as symbolic in this respect as well, in this case the dawn and dusk of each age. I have not looked for other places in the Bible that these words are used symolically in the same way that I looked for "day" being used this way, but I suspect that there are some. Each of the several eras through which life evolved ended with a catastrophic mass extinction that destroyed most of the planet's life, and when it evolved back to its previous diversity it was quite different from how it had been before. This is what I thought of as "evening and morning".

The second point is much easier to understand--the Bible has other examples of a tradition God gives to humans that's modeled merely on an analogy. For example, the Lord's Supper is supposed to be modeled after us eating Jesus's flesh and drinking his blood. Well, no one ever really DID eat his flesh and drink his blood, except maybe for rats and insects in the tomb where he was buried for three days, so you could ask why he wants us to have a tradition based on something that never really happened. The answer is that he has deliberately provided a symbolic description of what happened because it's much easier to base a tradition on a symbolic account of this event than on a literal description of it.

It's easier to model the Lord's Supper after eating Jesus's flesh and drinking his blood than modelling it after him absorbing the punishment for our sins, so he uses that analogy to make it easier for us to have a tradition based on it. Likewise, if He wants humans to have a day of rest every week, it's easier to base this on God's creation of the world if His creation is described as taking place over 6 of 7 days, rather than 14 Billion years. It's exactly the same principle.

 

[time]

It's easier to model the Lord's Supper after eating Jesus's flesh and drinking his blood than modelling it after him absorbing the punishment for our sins, so he uses that analogy to make it easier for us to have a tradition based on it. Likewise, if He wants humans to have a day of rest every week, it's easier to base this on God's creation of the world if His creation is described as taking place over 6 of 7 days, rather than 14 Billion years. It's exactly the same principle.

We could second guess God I suppose. Why the Lord's supper? I think of it mainly as a time to remind us His flesh and blood were sacrificed for us. Without which, we would have no life. Sort of like eating, you eat or die. Anyhow He may have some deeper thing in there somewhere I duno. Saying He made the world in one week, just to get us to celebrate a certain day when it really took Him, you say billions of years, is taking the long way round! Would have saved a lot of time to write a sentence saying, 'take a break, kids'. I was born a catholic, and that sounds a little like some of them might come up with to emphasize their perceived importance of going to church. ha. No, I think He didi it like He said, in several real mornings and evenings. Guess we'll have to disagree on this.

 

[armed2010]

I prefer the timecube to the timebubble

 

[time]

Well, here's an answer on the time ideas I got at another forum

The ring around the supernova took 9 months to get 9 light-months away from the star--why would it take so long if everything outside our 'bubble' was happening so much faster? Further, what does a time bubble have to do with measuring the distance to a star anyway? I don't see how a time distortion would throw off a distance measurement based on a paralax or triangulation measurement. ...

I think the san deigo guy was saying pretty well this too. Sounds like a good answer. I guess the time theory the way I saw it was short lived. I can think of some possible answers, but, I'd say that ends the theory for now. Thanks.

 

[SanDiegoAtheist]

Well, here's an answer on the time ideas I got at another forum

I think the san deigo guy was saying pretty well this too. Sounds like a good answer. I guess the time theory the way I saw it was short lived. I can think of some possible answers, but, I'd say that ends the theory for now. Thanks.

Yes, that was what I was trying to say. Same applies for the neutrino burst I mentioned that we observed before we actually saw that supernova. Many other cosmological phenomenon we can also measure accurately from Earth (such as the rotation period and decay of pulsars, rotation of gas shells around black holes, periods of Cepheid variables, and so on)

If our time ran at a much slower rate than the rate at which time ran outside of our "Bubble" (to give a appearance of "older age" to the rest of the universe), then when we observe apparently distant cosmological events, they should appear to take place much faster than we can predict based on what we know of physical laws.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

 

[time]

Yes, that was what I was trying to say

OK, thanks for the answers.

If our time ran at a much slower rate than the rate at which time ran outside of our "Bubble" (to give a appearance of "older age" to the rest of the universe), then when we observe apparently distant cosmological events, they should appear to take place much faster than we can predict based on what we know of physical laws.

Although I've let the theory go, as far as publicly goes, as you may have guessed, I'm not one to let go entirely until I'm really convinced. Your points are enough to where, since there could be kids reading these things, I can't make too much of something that just maybe ain't right. --But.... the 'theory' didn't conceive of a 'slower rate of time' out of our area, but of a concept where time did not exist there. The problem you illustrated of course, was how could things behave as if time did exist, when, out there, (says the idea) it didn't. Why would we see things that seem to act in the same way they do here, if they were different. Even if there was some glimmer of hope, I don't suppose you, an atheist, would want to let me know? So, I guess I'll have to shelve it. Thanks again. God bless.

 

[SanDiegoAtheist]

OK, thanks for the answers.

Although I've let the theory go, as far as publicly goes, as you may have guessed, I'm not one to let go entirely until I'm really convinced. Your points are enough to where, since there could be kids reading these things, I can't make too much of something that just maybe ain't right. --But.... the 'theory' didn't conceive of a 'slower rate of time' out of our area, but of a concept where time did not exist there. The problem you illustrated of course, was how could things behave as if time did exist, when, out there, (says the idea) it didn't. Why would we see things that seem to act in the same way they do here, if they were different. Even if there was some glimmer of hope, I don't suppose you, an atheist, would want to let me know? So, I guess I'll have to shelve it. Thanks again. God bless.

Yes, thats the other correlary, if time were purely local to our area, then events outside of the bubble shouldn't appear to behave in a fashion such that it appears to use the same metric of time that we have here. Your supposition though is incorrect. If there were some evidence for a "time bubble", I'd have no problem mentioning it - I'm not tied to any particular interpretation of how the universe works (and I've changed my opinion on it a number of times in the past 15 or 20 years due to new information which the scientific community has gained). Of course, technically, it appears likely that we do live in a "time bubble" - it's just that the extent of it is the current extent of the universe (in most theories, the Big Bang did not just form the matter and energy for the universe, but time and space as well).

BTW, there are lots of Christians that are also believers in an Old Earth and an Old Universe (even in the US, which has probably the largest concentration of fundamentalist Christians in the world, the view among Christians is pretty evenly split). I think Galileo summed up their beliefs on the parts of the Bible that many Christians currently take as literal (such as Genesis):

"The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go"

From what I've seen, many Christians see no conflict between an old universe and God creating it - they believe that while God DID create, the method he chose to use was the "Big Bang" to form the universe, and evolution to create life. It does make sense that a God would use a metaphor to describe his creation to early believers - since they wouldn't have the knowledge to understand (at that time) how evolution, or an old universe would be possible - they simply wouldn't have the words or many of the concepts. It's hard enough as it is to explain those concepts to modern people - imagine trying to explain a "quantum fluctuation" or genetics to a bronze age human.

Besides, if God did use a Big Bang and evolution, to give a reasonably accurate description of his methods (as fundamentalists seem to believe Genesis is), the Book of Genesis would be much longer than the rest of the Bible all by itself.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

 

[time]

it appears likely that we do live in a "time bubble" - it's just that the extent of it is the current extent of the universe

Yes the more I think about it, the more the whole creation seems to be on the same clock. Well, I must admit, I've only looked at the cosmological sciences closely since the last four days or so! So I guess my attempt at a theory should give me some sympathy for people who have spent most of their lives at it, when they find out it was wrong. Besides I think I may be on to something new! Seems like at about the time when the bible is telling us, I believe, that there will be no more time something curious happens. The heavens and earth depart like a scroll, and we see a new heavens! So, I haven't quite got a grasp of it yet, but it sounds like what we see now in our physical world is different than what it will be as the eternal one is revealed like a big movie curtain opening up!
To see it right now, we'd then have to be a spirit, since "God is a Spirit". Some places in the bible people have had their eyes opened, and saw spiritual things all around them normally not seen. So some type of lens, or veil or something will be peeled, or 'scrolled away and we'll see the real deal. Meanwhile I suspect, what we see in our 'time mirror window view' of the heavens only appears to have taken so long to have happened. And perhaps we can only see it the way it now is is because time is now a part of it. Hmm, it's never easy to figure these things out, because even after there is a new heaven, the sun etc. will still be here. But we won't need it for heat, light, or time, yet it'll still go around.
I wouldn't dream of changing my mind on the bible, or the creation, or God. It's simply a matter of when we will see things clearly.
And I suppose if I come up up with any potential theories, I'll try and run them by some creation science folks first.
OK, thanks.

 

[time]

Yes, that was what I was trying to say. Same applies for the neutrino burst I mentioned that we observed before we actually saw that supernova. Many other cosmological phenomenon we can also measure accurately from Earth (such as the rotation period and decay of pulsars, rotation of gas shells around black holes, periods of Cepheid variables, and so on)

I would ask for examples of each of these claims.

If our time ran at a much slower rate than the rate at which time ran outside of our "Bubble" (to give a appearance of "older age" to the rest of the universe), then when we observe apparently distant cosmological events, they should appear to take place much faster than we can predict based on what we know of physical laws.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

Thinking about this for awhile, and looking at some other threads recently here, what you say is actually not correct. Maybe this time bubble idea was alright after all.

 

[time]

Yes, thats the other correlary, if time were purely local to our area, then events outside of the bubble shouldn't appear to behave in a fashion such that it appears to use the same metric of time that we have here.

Why not? They would appear here as they must appear here, dictated by the forces and laws we have and time and space. Time would 'come down' only the way time exists here in our bubble. I don't see how it COULD appear any other way.

 

[Loudmouth]

Talk about a time bubble . . . responding to an eleven year old post . . .

 

[time]

Some things are timeless.

 

[time]

This statement is particularly amusing as in it u refute your entire argument as well as the story of creation. You r absolutely right in this statement. Thus, on Day One, when there was NO EARTH, there could not POSSIBLY have been days or a morning or an ...

Time did not start to exist when God created the earth, I would think. Otherwise there could not have been a day for which earth was created.

This seems to prove that time exists beyond the boundaries of earth...even in the creation era!

 

[SkyWriting]

Matter of fact there are many studies that show that eyewitness testimony can often be incomplete or false, even though the person giving the testimony thought it was true, because the brain is not a camera and can record events much differently than what really happened.

I don't think photographs are allowed either.

 

[SkyWriting]

Time did not start to exist when God created the earth, I would think. Otherwise there could not have been a day for which earth was created.

This seems to prove that time exists beyond the boundaries of earth...even in the creation era!

The earth was created in a place time did not exist, as we know it.
The cosmos was also created in this timeless state.
This would account for our inability to understand it's size and scope very well.
Scientists even have invented the inflation theory to cover for the reality that
the cosmos seems to be bigger than the speed of light would allow for.

Likely "time" began after The Fall which started the beginning
of death and all Creation was then affected as well.

 

[SkyWriting]

Some things are timeless.

The human soul.

 

[time]

The earth was created in a place time did not exist, as we know it.
The cosmos was also created in this timeless state.
This would account for our inability to understand it's size and scope very well.
Scientists even have invented the inflation theory to cover for the reality that
the cosmos seems to be bigger than the speed of light would allow for.

Likely "time" began after The Fall which started the beginning
of death and all Creation was then affected as well.

If that is true, I wonder how the woman in prov 8 witnessed God creating the world? Maybe we don't really know the nature of time, or time outside of our frame of reference here.

For all we know, this universe, that was created in six days by Jesus may not even be the only one ever created by the Father or Jesus? If there is any truth to that multiverse thing, it would have to be along those lines.

I have wondered if some angels, like the ones around the throne of God, may have already been here when this world was made? I realize that it says all things were created by Jesus, but perhaps that means all things in this universe?