Jump to content


Photo

Let There Be Light


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
23 replies to this topic

#1 HSetterfield

HSetterfield

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Interests:my husband's research, our family, our animals, gardening, baking, reading, people...lots of stuff!
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • southern Oregon

Posted 28 December 2006 - 11:05 AM

I was reading the 'read only' material below regarding the creation of light. I think there was quite a bit of confusion between the presence of physical light in the creation and the fact that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness. Jesus told the woman at the well in John 4 that God is spirit. Therefore, if He is also light, that is a spiritual light. This corresponds to what is said in John 3 about men preferring darkness, which is not what we see in the physical world, where men definitely prefer light! So I think the two need to be separated.

Physically, light is produced when an electron is shoved out of its place in relation to the nucleus and then 'pops' back in. The energy released as it pops back in is released as a photon of light.

If we read Genesis 1, we see that God created from nothing (bara) time, space, and matter (In the BEGINNING, God created the HEAVENS and the EARTH). What is interesting to my husband and me, as science researchers, is that the words used in the Hebrew for 'heavens' and 'earth' are not what the children's storybooks tell at all. The word for 'heavens' is 'shamayim', and the meaning is 'that which is lofty, or lifted up.' The word for 'earth' is 'eretz', meaning 'that which is firm.' This firm stuff had no shape or intrinsic organization in the beginning, so it was not a nice round little ball as we see in the picture books.

The word which is translated 'deep' is actually a word which means 'surging mass'. And the word often translated as 'brooding' or 'hovering' is the same word which is used in the Greek translation as that word used when Paul's ship, in Acts, was DRIVEN before the wind in the storm.

Thus, what the Hebrew (and I believe Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a was written by God Himself, as He was the only eyewitness to this creation), seems to be indicating is not a quiet little creative act, but a massive, turbulent beginning. Thus, halfway through day one we hear "LET THERE BE LIGHT", and this may well be indicating that the atoms were coming together as elements and the electrons were being established in their places.

We have no need, folks, to be afraid of actual science. God has not lied in creation. All creation testifies to the reality and verity of His Word. I grew up being taught evolution, and therefore believing it and, when I started teaching, teaching it. It was when I finally had the time to read other than required reading, and when I needed to answer some questions from a student, that I started reading more and more from evolutionary materials and journals themselves, and started seeing the discrepancies. Then I started reading that 'stupid' creation stuff, to see what they were actually saying.

I'm now one of those 'stupid' creationists. The change in worldview took five very painful years of struggle, but one either wants the truth or wants the lie. It's a choice everyone must make. I wanted the truth. And all creation testifies to the truth of the Bible and the reality of God.

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 January 2007 - 07:18 AM

The subject you are posting about is one I have been studying for some time now. I never settle for finding truth about it until it meshes with the word, and answers most all, if not all, contradictions. The post you speak of is where a evolutionist had started a thread regarding another thread I had already done. Since then I have worked out new things in the word of God about this. Here is what I have so far.

1) Between the time "In the beginning", and the first sin. Time was eternal here on earth. Why? Time was not given the curse of death until man sinned.

2) In this period of time is when everything was created that had age, but without the passage of time.

a) All the planets, stars, etc... were created with age, but without the passage of time, because God cannot lie concerning time. But time being without sin made it eternal so age without passage of time was available in the creation until the first sin.

B) All life forms were created fully formed and ready to multiply during this eternal time until the first sin. Which includes all animals, and man.

3) Creation of the first light. God is light, and because His light is spiritual. What was done with it took on a dual meaning.

a) Why was the light separated? Because God's cannot have darkness. So when God manifested Himself to the physical realm (let there be light), His light shinned every where at once. Even through physical objects.

Side note: Every near death experience I have heard where someone has seen this light (in the tunnel of light). They always say near the same thing about it. They would say: The light just seems to shine straight through you. Which confirms how this light works. It has no darkness because it casts no shadows. Which is why it had to be separated to create darkness. Separation with no shadows confirms that boundaries were being set up.

B) What was the dual meaning of this first light? When the light was divided. On the physical side it created night and day. On the spiritual side it created the boundaries between good (light) and evil (darkness).

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

c) Since darkness is evil, was this when Satan was cast out of Heaven with 1/3 of the angels? Yes. This also puts Satan on earth in time to tempt Eve.

d) What are these boundaries being set up? Boundary one is the separation between what is physical, and what is spiritual. Which is also known as the first heaven.
Posted Image

c) First heaven? Does this mean there is more than one heaven? Yes.

2cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

d) So what exactly are the three heavens? "Heavens" in God's word are realms, both spiritual and physical. Heaven one is shown above. Heaven two is where Satan and 1/3 of the angels are that were cast down. And heaven three is where God is. So heaven one is a physical realm, heaven two and three are spiritual realms.

e) In biblical numbers. One is the number for unity. God made man to be in unity with Him.
Two is the number of division. God divided 1/3 of heaven because of evil.
Three is the number of resurrection, Divine completeness and perfection. And where eternity is. The trinity, etc...

So even the numbers of the heavens work with how the numbers of the bible work.

f) Do you have anymore verse support for this? Yes.

Genesis 1,
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Notice that heaven stays singular through out Genesis one during creation. Also notice that heaven is mentioned 7 times. 7 and 3 are the numbers of God.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

And once creation is finished, heaven becomes plural. Now notice the phrase: "And all the host of them". This confirms that not only were the 3 heavens created in Genesis one. But all that belong in those heavens (the host of each) was placed in each one. Confirming when Satan was cast down.

g) Do you have anymore confirmation of the three heavens in God's word? Yes.

II Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Deuteronomy 10:14 Behold, the heaven (1) and the heaven (2) of heavens (3) is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.

I Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven (1) and heaven (2) of heavens (3) cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

II Chronicles 2:6 But who is able to build him an house, seeing the heaven (1) and heaven (2) of heavens (3) cannot contain him? who am I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before him?

II Chronicles 6:18 But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven (1) and the heaven (2) of heavens (3) cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!

Nehemiah 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven (1), the heaven (2) of heavens (3), with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

4) So how does this eternal time (time until the first sin) affect the second light creation?

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Now why would it be said that the second light was to give light upon the earth, but the first light it was never said about it?
Because physical light has limitations. So God had to make the light shine upon the earth. Because if it were already doing this, then there would have been no need to say: to give light upon the earth: and it was so. Because it would have already been so. Anytime you see: "And it was so". Means it was not so until God made it so.

5) How does the eternal time affect light travel (speed of light)? It doesn't.

When God stretched the light, from the object that produced it, to shine upon the earth. Because speed of light is constant. The evidence left behind is that each object aged according to how far the light had to come to shine upon the earth. This falls in-line with the rest of creation where things are created and aged without the passage of time during the time before the first sin (eternal time).

6) Does not that make God a deceiver to make His creation in this manner?
Nope. Understanding eternal time before the first sin is knowledge about God's creation. And the laws of eternity. And how it was done. For if you only chose to see the physical side of creation, then you are deceiving yourself.

7) So how does this answer why the earth dates 4.5 billion years old?

Easy. God created a 4.5 billion year old earth, 6 thousand years ago (age without the passage of time). Which fits with all of the rest of creation. And also fits the eternal time (time before the first sin).

8) Is there anymore evidence that this eternal time creation existed?

Yes. After the first sin, and the curse of death put upon time. There was nothing else created that had age with no passage of time.

9) Can you give instances of where God could have created with age without the passage of time, but did not?

Yes. I can think of two right off the top of my head. In the book of Jona, the whale was prepared by God to swallow Jona. It was not created with age to be ready to do this. God took what was already created, and prepared it to swallow Jona.

Also Christ came down to earth, had to be born, grow up. And die. God could have just put Him here fully formed to die upon the cross. But eternal time was gone with the first sin.

There is more but post is already long.

#3 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 01 January 2007 - 09:33 AM

1) Between the time "In the beginning", and the first sin. Time was eternal here on earth. Why? Time was not given the curse of death until man sinned.

View Post


Another great post Ikester :) Well thought out and informative. I do have one small point to make, and I'm not going to make some big arguement out of it as it really is a moot point for me, but how can time have been eternal between "In the begining" and the curse?

Time must have ticked when Adam was in the garden or it would have taken forever to get anything done! Plus there must have been a definate point in time where he ate the apple. Therefore there was a finite period between "In the begining" and the curse, and probably can be measured by someone with a better understanding of bible chronology than myself.

Aside from that, lots of interesting reading :)

#4 HSetterfield

HSetterfield

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Interests:my husband's research, our family, our animals, gardening, baking, reading, people...lots of stuff!
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • southern Oregon

Posted 01 January 2007 - 09:58 AM

Let’s take your points one at a time, sir.


1) Between the time "In the beginning", and the first sin. Time was eternal here on earth. Why? Time was not given the curse of death until man sinned.

Genesis 1 speaks of six days of creation and the seventh day of rest. This is time. Genesis 1:14 tells us how to determine time. Exodus 20 and Exodus 31 both speak of the time creation took in very earthly terms. In Revelation 13:8 we read that Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Thus, time was operating from Genesis 1:1 and the fact that sin would occur was already known and accounted for. So I think the Bible disagrees with you about this one.



2) In this period of time is when everything was created that had age, but without the passage of time.

a) All the planets, stars, etc... were created with age, but without the passage of time, because God cannot lie concerning time. But time being without sin made it eternal so age without passage of time was available in the creation until the first sin.

First, a very rapid formation of the cosmos and its bodies is very much in line with both science and the Bible. Creation and formation are two different things. The very use of the verb ‘asah’ in contradistinction to ‘bara’ indicates time, for formation is a process. In addition, regarding your second point there, time cannot sin. We live in a time/space/matter continuum and this continuum is clearly established in Genesis 1:1.

B) All life forms were created fully formed and ready to multiply during this eternal time until the first sin. Which includes all animals, and man.

The verb ‘bara’ or ‘creation of something from nothing’ is used only three times in Genesis 1. First for the time/space/matter continuum of Genesis 1. Second is on day 5 for the animals and third is on day 6 for the humans. This would indicate that yes, the animals and humans were special creations. But, again, this has nothing to do with an absence of time, which is clearly indicated by the progressions of evenings and mornings as days 1-7 of Creation Week.

3) Creation of the first light. God is light, and because His light is spiritual. What was done with it took on a dual meaning.

a) Why was the light separated? Because God's cannot have darkness. So when God manifested Himself to the physical realm (let there be light), His light shinned every where at once. Even through physical objects.

If you check Jesus’ words in John 3, you will find He states that “Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” Now, if you check the physical world, you will find men fleeing darkness at every turn, preferring physical light. Thus it is spiritual light Jesus is talking about, which men spurn. These are two different things and should not be confused. The idiom “do you see?” is one which exists in some form in almost every language and culture, meaning “do you understand?” Although God does dwell in the Shekinah Glory, which is seen occasionally by men as a pillar of light (the Israelites) or a swirling light (Ezekiel), God Himself is NOT part of His physical creation, but outside of it, and physical light is just that – physical light. In the physical world, we cannot see in order to operate without light. In the spiritual world, we cannot understand truth without the Light of Christ, who IS THE Truth. But please, please do not think God is part of His own creation. He is outside of it entirely by nature and only entered it by giving up some of his godly prerogatives – see Phil. 2.

Side note: Every near death experience I have heard where someone has seen this light (in the tunnel of light). They always say near the same thing about it. They would say: The light just seems to shine straight through you. Which confirms how this light works. It has no darkness because it casts no shadows. Which is why it had to be separated to create darkness. Separation with no shadows confirms that boundaries were being set up.

Don’t forget that Satan parades as an angel of light – so who are we to identify the light these people saw? I would be very, very careful about this one…

B) What was the dual meaning of this first light? When the light was divided. On the physical side it created night and day. On the spiritual side it created the boundaries between good (light) and evil (darkness).

While this is a very common picture, it is not accurate. First of all, the Bible does not say light was divided, but that it was separated from darkness. That is different. On the spiritual side, darkness could not represent evil before sin. It was simply part of the natural order of things that God created. It should also be noted that physical darkness is a time of rest for a good part of the world of living things. This is not evil at all, believe me! After raising six children, I definitely looked forward to the darkness after sunset when they were in bed and all was quiet and calm! Physical darkness is NOT evil. It is spiritual darkness which RESULTS in evil.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

This is spiritual light, not physical light, for God is not part of His creation, nor is creation ‘part of God.’ Please do not confuse this issue, for if you do then you end up, logically, in a form of pantheism which is anti-biblical.

c) Since darkness is evil, was this when Satan was cast out of Heaven with 1/3 of the angels? Yes. This also puts Satan on earth in time to tempt Eve.

Satan was not cast out of Heaven at the time of Job! In fact, he is not cast out until the time of Revelation. But if you read Ezekiel 28, you will find that God is speaking to Satan through His representative (Ezekiel) and through Satan’s representative (the King of Tyre), for it says clearly
“You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and beauty.
You were in Eden, the garden of God;
…You were anointed as a guardian cherub
for so I ordained you.”
(start in verse 12)

Thus, Satan’s rebellion was AFTER creation week (when all was ‘very good’) and, clearly, before he tempted Eve. It is not impossible to think that the very reason Eve believed Satan was because she recognized him as the guardian cherub of Eden and thus felt she could trust him.



d) What are these boundaries being set up? Boundary one is the separation between what is physical, and what is spiritual. Which is also known as the first heaven.

c) First heaven? Does this mean there is more than one heaven? Yes.

2cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

d) So what exactly are the three heavens? "Heavens" in God's word are realms, both spiritual and physical. Heaven one is shown above. Heaven two is where Satan and 1/3 of the angels are that were cast down. And heaven three is where God is. So heaven one is a physical realm, heaven two and three are spiritual realms.

I think it would be better for you to let Bible explain Bible here. If you check your Concordance you will find the explanations are right there. There is the heaven where the birds fly and from which rain comes – the atmosphere. That is the first heaven. There is the heaven where the stars are – ‘outer space’. That is the second heaven. The third heaven is referred to in the Old Testament as God’s Throne. This is where Paul found himself in the spirit (or out of it, he did not know).

e) In biblical numbers. One is the number for unity. God made man to be in unity with Him.
Two is the number of division. God divided 1/3 of heaven because of evil.
Three is the number of resurrection, Divine completeness and perfection. And where eternity is. The trinity, etc...

So even the numbers of the heavens work with how the numbers of the bible work.

f) Do you have anymore verse support for this? Yes.

Genesis 1,
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

I’m sorry, but the word is ‘shamayim’ – and the ‘im’ ending indicates plural (cherub/cherubim seraph/seraphim are examples you may be familiar with), which is why translations of the Hebrew AND the Greek say that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Notice that heaven stays singular through out Genesis one during creation. Also notice that heaven is mentioned 7 times. 7 and 3 are the numbers of God.

"Shamayim" does NOT stay singular throughout Genesis 1. It is plural from the beginning. Please remember there were also seven days, and that indicates time.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

And once creation is finished, heaven becomes plural. Now notice the phrase: "And all the host of them". This confirms that not only were the 3 heavens created in Genesis one. But all that belong in those heavens (the host of each) was placed in each one. Confirming when Satan was cast down.

That may be logical to you, but it does not conform with the rest of the Bible nor with the Hebrew. “All the host of them” includes the prepositional phrase “of them” meaning “belonging to them.” The host of heaven in the physical realm include the stars, galaxies, quasars, etc.


4) So how does this eternal time (time until the first sin) affect the second light creation?

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Now why would it be said that the second light was to give light upon the earth, but the first light it was never said about it?

The first light to hit earth was from our quasar, which has since dimmed to almost nothing but a few x-ray bursts. It was not until the fourth day that the population I stars, of which our sun is one, were lit. The population II stars, the stars in the hubs and cores of the galaxies, were lit on day one. These are the ‘morning stars’ of Job. There are two distinct populations of stars in the cosmos, one being older than the other and higher in metal content. The Bible also refers to this difference by saying that there were some ‘morning stars’ on the first day of creation and that the sun, which would light up the earth when our quasar dimmed, was lit on day four. This also ties in with something called the plasma model of the universe, which shows how God formed it all in six days (four, actually) using the very rules and systems He set up to begin with.


Because physical light has limitations. So God had to make the light shine upon the earth. Because if it were already doing this, then there would have been no need to say: to give light upon the earth: and it was so. Because it would have already been so. Anytime you see: "And it was so". Means it was not so until God made it so.

The sun’s light was on the earth on day four. That was so then which was not so before. However the light which shone upon the earth to give day and night before that was also a physical light, as indicated by the fact that there was night when the earth’s revolution was turned away from it.

5) How does the eternal time affect light travel (speed of light)? It doesn't.

We haven’t a clue about that, actually.

When God stretched the light, from the object that produced it, to shine upon the earth. Because speed of light is constant.

That’s not what historical measurements show. That is also not what happens when you put a straw into a glass of water. It looks like the straw is ‘broken’ at the surface. This is because light travels more slowly in a ‘thicker’ medium. We KNOW the speed of light is not constant! That is not even a question. The argued point is whether the cosmos itself has remained a constant medium through which light to travel.

The evidence left behind is that each object aged according to how far the light had to come to shine upon the earth. This falls in-line with the rest of creation where things are created and aged without the passage of time during the time before the first sin (eternal time).

You have an interesting idea there, but it does not conform with what we know either in the physical world or from the Bible.


6) Does not that make God a deceiver to make His creation in this manner?
Nope. Understanding eternal time before the first sin is knowledge about God's creation. And the laws of eternity. And how it was done. For if you only chose to see the physical side of creation, then you are deceiving yourself.

Since we are convinced God has not lied either in His creation or in His Word, we find it quite easy to look at the data and see where it leads. I’m not trying to belittle you, sir, but you are leaning quite heavily on your own imagination and that is not something we are comfortable doing.

7) So how does this answer why the earth dates 4.5 billion years old?

Easy. God created a 4.5 billion year old earth, 6 thousand years ago (age without the passage of time). Which fits with all of the rest of creation. And also fits the eternal time (time before the first sin).

The radiometric dating of the earth is measuring atomic time. And sometimes quite accurately. But atomic time has not been constant. This is one very good reason God told us in Genesis 1:14 to use the sun, moon, and stars as our timekeepers. Gravity is constant.

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 January 2007 - 02:10 PM

Another great post Ikester :)  Well thought out and informative.  I do have one small point to make, and I'm not going to make some big arguement out of it as it really is a moot point for me, but how can time have been eternal between "In the begining" and the curse?


Time was ticking, but it was not ticking to an end (death). So time could tick all it wanted.

Time must have ticked when Adam was in the garden or it would have taken forever to get anything done!  Plus there must have been a definate point in time where he ate the apple.  Therefore there was a finite period between "In the begining" and the curse, and probably can be measured by someone with a better understanding of bible chronology than myself.

Aside from that,  lots of interesting reading :)

View Post


Time in eternity works at a different speed from the physical. Why? It is spiritual therefore not hampered by physical limitations.

2pet 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.

Science has already figured out that there are probably places, or realms within the universe that time moves at a different speed from what we are used to. So I believe that the verse above is about the difference in how quickly things work in eternity. And this would explain many things as well.

1) How are angels able to be somewhere just in the nick of time.
2) How God created all this in 6 days. He was moving a 1000 times faster because he was not limited by having a physical body.
3) Science has figured out the speed can actually slow down how time works (progress of time). This is called time dilation. http://www.pa.msu.ed...y/dilation.html

So the formulation for eternity just maybe going 1000 times faster. But the problem is: A 1000 times faster than what? For a baseline of speed is needed to figure it out.

#6 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 January 2007 - 04:09 PM

Let’s take your points one at a time, sir.
1) Between the time "In the beginning", and the first sin. Time was eternal here on earth. Why? Time was not given the curse of death until man sinned.

Genesis 1 speaks of six days of creation and the seventh day of rest.  This is time.  Genesis 1:14 tells us how to determine time.  Exodus 20 and Exodus 31 both speak of the time creation took in very earthly terms.  In Revelation 13:8 we read that Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.  Thus, time was operating from Genesis 1:1 and the fact that sin would occur was already known and accounted for.  So I think the Bible disagrees with you about this one.


What I have still has a few bugs in it, but I'm working them out.

1) What is time without the curse of death? It is time that passes but has no end.
2) What is eternity? Eternity has no death, or it would not be eternal.

So having time does not effect eternity unless it has death as the curse upon it. This is why time was created before anything else. There had to be a defining point which made one heaven (realm) different from the other. So God saying: In the beginning (creation of time) means that time would be applied to each heaven.

Granted time was not needed before the creation because there was only eternity. But as soon as other heavens were needed, a defining point between them was needed as well. How else do you explain how a day in heaven is like 1000 years on earth? Unless time exists in both. And time moves at different speed in heaven.

2) In this period of time is when everything was created that had age, but without the passage of time.

a) All the planets, stars, etc... were created with age, but without the passage of time, because God cannot lie concerning time. But time being without sin made it eternal so age without passage of time was available in the creation until the first sin.

First, a very rapid formation of the cosmos and its bodies is very much in line with both science and the Bible.  Creation and formation are two different things.  The very use of the verb ‘asah’ in contradistinction to ‘bara’ indicates time, for formation is a process.  In addition, regarding your second point there, time cannot sin.  We live in a time/space/matter continuum and this continuum is clearly established in Genesis 1:1.


And God being able to work 1000 times faster than time as we understand it, explains how the quick formations of how things happened. And since days are compared to years. Then a 1000 years as well. One day as we know it would have been 365,000 years (365 time 1000) in eternity. But even one day is like 1000 years. So we times 365,000 times 1000 and get 365,000,000 years. Then we times 365,000,000 years times 7 days for creation and get 2,555,000,000 years. And from this we can figure out how many days past before the first sin where time slowed up to as we know it now.

This is why as soon as Adam was created, he was put in a garden. It was separate from the rest of creation for a reason. The garden was where eternity was allowed to exist upon the earth. For why else was Adam and Eve made to stay there? Why else were they made to leave after they sinned, and not allowed to come back? The garden was different from the rest of God's creation. It was where God was, and was just like the verse says about a day being like 1000 years.

B) All life forms were created fully formed and ready to multiply during this eternal time until the first sin. Which includes all animals, and man.

The verb ‘bara’ or ‘creation of something from nothing’ is used only three times in Genesis 1.  First for the time/space/matter continuum of Genesis 1.  Second is on day 5 for the animals and third is on day 6 for the humans.  This would indicate that yes, the animals and humans were special creations.  But, again, this has nothing to do with an absence of time, which is clearly indicated by the progressions of evenings and mornings as days 1-7 of Creation Week.


Time dilation made time eternal.

3) Creation of the first light. God is light, and because His light is spiritual. What was done with it took on a dual meaning.

a) Why was the light separated? Because God's cannot have darkness. So when God manifested Himself to the physical realm (let there be light), His light shinned every where at once. Even through physical objects.

If you check Jesus’ words in John 3, you will find He states that “Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.”  Now, if you check the physical world, you will find men fleeing darkness at every turn, preferring physical light.  Thus it is spiritual light Jesus is talking about, which men spurn.  These are two different things and should not be confused.   The idiom “do you see?” is one which exists in some form in almost every language and culture, meaning “do you understand?”  Although God does dwell in the Shekinah Glory, which is seen occasionally by men as a pillar of light  (the Israelites) or a swirling light (Ezekiel), God Himself is NOT part of His physical creation, but outside of it, and physical light is just that – physical light.   In the physical world, we cannot see in order to operate without light.  In the spiritual world, we cannot understand truth without the Light of Christ, who IS THE Truth.  But please, please do not think God is part of His own creation.  He is outside of it entirely by nature and only entered it by giving up some of his godly prerogatives – see Phil. 2.


Revelation 21:
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

Verse 23 explains so many things. So I'll break it down:

1) No need of sun, neither of the moon: This is the very exact situation during the first creation of light. The sun or moon had not been created.

2) The glory of God did lighten it: This confirms the source of light when there are no objects to produce light.

3) Lamb is the light thereof: This is the substance of the spiritual light. Spiritual light is Christ Himself. Not photons, like the substance of physical light. Which means there are two types of light. One that we can observe and test, and one that we cannot (eternal light from Christ). One that only exists in the eternal realm. And was used during creation, while the eternal realms between good and evil, were being set up.

Side note: God's eternal light existed during creation, which is considered the alpha of our existence. And when God comes back for the thousand year reign, it will be the last thousand years we spend upon the earth (Omega). So God creates time, and then ends it (alpha-omega). And it is God's light that exists in both the beginning and end.

Verses 24-25:

4) Saved shall walk in the light of it: This confirms that spiritual light has the capability to sustain physical life as we know it. So it produces the heat needed for life to exist, just like our sun. So when the question arises about the first light, and plant life surviving, here's the answer.

5) For there shall be no night there: This confirms why light had to be divided. No night means no darkness (eternal light from Christ cast no shadows). So division of the light had to be done to create night and day, and the boundaries between good and evil.



Side note: Every near death experience I have heard where someone has seen this light (in the tunnel of light). They always say near the same thing about it. They would say: The light just seems to shine straight through you. Which confirms how this light works. It has no darkness because it casts no shadows. Which is why it had to be separated to create darkness. Separation with no shadows confirms that boundaries were being set up.

Don’t forget that Satan parades as an angel of light – so who are we to identify the light these people saw?  I would be very, very careful about this one…


But can Satan also project love through this light? This is what each person said about this light. True Love is something Satan cannot do. So he uses lust instead.

B) What was the dual meaning of this first light? When the light was divided. On the physical side it created night and day. On the spiritual side it created the boundaries between good (light) and evil (darkness).

While this is a very common picture, it is not accurate.  First of all, the Bible does not say light was divided, but that it was separated from darkness.  That is different.  On the spiritual side, darkness could not represent evil before sin.  It was simply part of the natural order of things that God created.  It should also be noted that physical darkness is a time of rest for a good part of the world of living things.  This is not evil at all, believe me!  After raising six children, I definitely looked forward to the darkness after sunset when they were in bed and all was quiet and calm!  Physical darkness is NOT evil.   It is spiritual darkness which RESULTS in evil.


You miss the point. On the physical side: Light created day, darkness created night. No good or evil was created due to what happened on the physical side. But, because God's light is spiritual. Darkness was also created in the spiritual realm, which is separate from our realm. So upon it's creation, a place for evil was created and Satan was cast into it. This does not mean that the dark we see is evil. It's only day and night as far as we are concerned.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

This is spiritual light, not physical light, for God is not part of His creation, nor is creation ‘part of God.’  Please do not confuse this issue, for if you do then you end up, logically, in a form of pantheism which is anti-biblical.


If there were no objects to make light, before the sun existed. Where did the first light come from?

Revelation 21:
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

Just like the creation. Here we have no sun or moon but we have light. And who produced the light? And what was the substance of that light? God says it, I did not grab this out of thin air.

c) Since darkness is evil, was this when Satan was cast out of Heaven with 1/3 of the angels? Yes. This also puts Satan on earth in time to tempt Eve.

Satan was not cast out of Heaven at the time of Job!   In fact, he is not cast out until the time of Revelation.  But if you read Ezekiel 28, you will find that God is speaking to Satan through His representative (Ezekiel) and through Satan’s representative (the King of Tyre), for it says clearly
“You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and beauty.
You were in Eden, the garden of God;
…You were anointed as a guardian cherub
for so I ordained you.”
(start in verse 12)

Thus, Satan’s rebellion was AFTER creation week (when all was ‘very good’) and, clearly, before he tempted Eve.  It is not impossible to think that the very reason Eve believed Satan was because she recognized him as the guardian cherub of Eden and thus felt she could trust him.


But how could he deceive Eve? And it was never said that either Adam or Eve knew anything about actual heaven. So this would be an assumption.

d) What are these boundaries being set up? Boundary one is the separation between what is physical, and what is spiritual. Which is also known as the first heaven.

c) First heaven? Does this mean there is more than one heaven? Yes.

2cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

d) So what exactly are the three heavens? "Heavens" in God's word are realms, both spiritual and physical. Heaven one is shown above. Heaven two is where Satan and 1/3 of the angels are that were cast down. And heaven three is where God is. So heaven one is a physical realm, heaven two and three are spiritual realms.

I think it would be better for you to let Bible explain Bible here.  If you check your Concordance you will find the explanations are right there.  There is the heaven where the birds fly and from which rain comes – the atmosphere.  That is the first heaven.  There is the heaven where the stars are – ‘outer space’.  That is the second heaven.  The third heaven is referred to in the Old Testament as God’s Throne.  This is where Paul found himself in the spirit (or out of it, he did not know).


If man's interpretation is wrong, then we are stuck in a wrong doctrine. I allow God's word to dictate truth in both doctrine and science. I don't use the phrase: Science and the bible. Because to me the word is always first. So the phrase to me would be: The bible and science. For science does not dictate truth, God's word does.


e) In biblical numbers. One is the number for unity. God made man to be in unity with Him.
Two is the number of division. God divided 1/3 of heaven because of evil.
Three is the number of resurrection, Divine completeness and perfection. And where eternity is. The trinity, etc...

So even the numbers of the heavens work with how the numbers of the bible work.

f) Do you have anymore verse support for this? Yes.

Genesis 1,
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.



#7 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 January 2007 - 04:10 PM

I’m sorry, but the word is ‘shamayim’ – and the ‘im’ ending indicates plural (cherub/cherubim seraph/seraphim are examples you may be familiar with), which is why translations of the Hebrew AND the Greek say that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Notice that heaven stays singular through out Genesis one during creation. Also notice that heaven is mentioned 7 times. 7 and 3 are the numbers of God.

"Shamayim" does NOT stay singular throughout Genesis 1.  It is plural from the beginning.  Please remember there were also seven days, and that indicates time. 


So what was the form and void about? Was it physical or spiritual?

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

And once creation is finished, heaven becomes plural. Now notice the phrase: "And all the host of them". This confirms that not only were the 3 heavens created in Genesis one. But all that belong in those heavens (the host of each) was placed in each one. Confirming when Satan was cast down.

That may be logical to you, but it does not conform with the rest of the Bible nor with the Hebrew.  “All the host of them” includes the prepositional phrase “of them” meaning “belonging to them.”  The host of heaven in the physical realm include the stars, galaxies, quasars, etc.


Yep, and that where the four firmaments come from.

Firmament (raki) means: Arch, expansion, or to be compressed.

Firmament one is the crystalline canopy. How did it form? The earth was surrounded by water. This water was not surrounded by a atmosphere yet. Which means it was exposed to both the vacuum of space, and the absolute zero of space. And since water boils in a vacuum, it froze while in the state of separation of molecules which with the magnetic field of the earth, created the crystalline canopy. And because this fits the definition of arch, or expanse above our heads. It fits in with the word.

Firmament two is our atmosphere. Because it fits the definition of being compressed (barometric pressure). And birds will fly in this firmament.

Firmament three is our solar system. It's fits definition of being compressed because of the gravity that holds it all together.

Side note: Three also means life. The first three firmaments were created to sustain life. The 4th fimament was created for us to see.

Firmament four is space beyond our solar system. A separate Creation that also fits the definition of being compressed because of gravity.

Because each fimament was a different creation explains why each is so different.

4) So how does this eternal time (time until the first sin) affect the second light creation?

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Now why would it be said that the second light was to give light upon the earth, but the first light it was never said about it?

The first light to hit earth was from our quasar, which has since dimmed to almost nothing but a few x-ray bursts.  It was not until the fourth day that the population I stars, of which our sun is one, were lit.  The population II stars, the stars in the hubs and cores of the galaxies, were lit on day one.  These are the ‘morning stars’ of Job.  There are two distinct populations of stars in the cosmos, one being older than the other and higher in metal content.  The Bible also refers to this difference by saying that there were some ‘morning stars’ on the first day of creation and that the sun, which would light up the earth when our quasar dimmed, was lit on day four.  This also ties in with something called the plasma model of the universe, which shows how God formed it all in six days (four, actually) using the very rules and systems He set up to begin with.


Science talking, or God?

Because physical light has limitations. So God had to make the light shine upon the earth. Because if it were already doing this, then there would have been no need to say: to give light upon the earth: and it was so. Because it would have already been so. Anytime you see: "And it was so". Means it was not so until God made it so.

The sun’s light was on the earth on day four.  That was so then which was not so before.  However the light which shone upon the earth to give day and night before that was also a physical light, as indicated by the fact that there was night when the earth’s revolution was turned away from it.


I refer you back to the verses in revelation when there was no sun or moon, and God glory shown. And Christ was the substance of the light.

5) How does the eternal time affect light travel (speed of light)? It doesn't.

We haven’t a clue about that, actually.


There are two possibilities:

1) Either God stretched the light to reach earth.
2) Time dilation of eternity made the light reach earth on the same day it was created.

When God stretched the light, from the object that produced it, to shine upon the earth. Because speed of light is constant.

That’s not what historical measurements show.  That is also not what happens when you put a straw into a glass of water.  It looks like the straw is ‘broken’ at the surface.  This is because light travels more slowly in a ‘thicker’ medium.  We KNOW the speed of light is not constant!  That is not even a question.  The argued point is whether the cosmos itself has remained a constant medium through which light to travel.


Well I said that to not confuse the non-believers. Yes light has been slowed down, stopped (stop light technology). And speeded up using sound waves at a certain frequency. But science is still out on this because it causes more problems for existing theories.

The evidence left behind is that each object aged according to how far the light had to come to shine upon the earth. This falls in-line with the rest of creation where things are created and aged without the passage of time during the time before the first sin (eternal time).

You have an interesting idea there, but it does not conform with what we know either in the physical world or from the Bible.
6) Does not that make God a deceiver to make His creation in this manner?
Nope. Understanding eternal time before the first sin is knowledge about God's creation. And the laws of eternity. And how it was done. For if you only chose to see the physical side of creation, then you are deceiving yourself.

Since we are convinced God has not lied either in His creation or in His Word, we find it quite easy to look at the data and see where it leads.  I’m not trying to belittle you, sir, but you are leaning quite heavily on your own imagination and that is not something we are comfortable doing.


Imaginations cannot be backed up using the word of God. Neither when God is made first in every way, and science second. Might be the reason I see what you don't.

7) So how does this answer why the earth dates 4.5 billion years old?

Easy. God created a 4.5 billion year old earth, 6 thousand years ago (age without the passage of time). Which fits with all of the rest of creation. And also fits the eternal time (time before the first sin).

The radiometric dating of the earth is measuring atomic time.  And sometimes quite accurately.  But atomic time has not been constant.  This is one very good reason God told us in Genesis 1:14 to use the sun, moon, and stars as our timekeepers.  Gravity is constant.

View Post


Psalms 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

How do you lay an old foundation? You use aged material.

ps 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

How do you make the earth out of course? If you make it out of the physical time-line as we know it, then it is out of the course of time as we know it.

Course:
Onward movement in a particular direction; progress: the course of events.
Movement in time; duration: in the course of a year.

#8 HSetterfield

HSetterfield

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Interests:my husband's research, our family, our animals, gardening, baking, reading, people...lots of stuff!
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • southern Oregon

Posted 03 January 2007 - 03:56 PM

ikester, I have been trying to figure how to respond to your post for a bit now. There is no way, because you have developed your own scheme of things apart from what the Bible says and apart from data and I don't have the imagination to argue with you. However, there are a few things that you asked or mentioned that I can respond to.

1. You asked what it was that was without form and void. I offer a suggestion that it was the initially created hydrogen and oxygen nuclei (as the Bible tells us that there was water at the beginning) stripped of their electrons and in a plasma state. Our sun is a plasma. The auroras are plasmas. Stars are plasmas. Plasma filaments can be seen throughout space. Work by Dr. Ed Boudreaux in Louisiana indicates that all the known elements can be formed in their known abundances from a water plasma under a high temperature in less than an hour. Work with plasma filaments in laboratories show that, as they approach each other and pinch in the middle, they will form all the known formations in the cosmos, including quasars, spiral galaxies, etc.

In other words, it may well be that we have been thinking wrongly about Genesis all along. God has been way ahead of us scientifically on other matters mentioned in the Bible (Orion disrupting rapidly, the Pleiades held together gravitationally, ocean currents all over the world, springs of water in the ocean beds, etc.), so I personally don't have a problem with the fact that Genesis 1 is not only telling us what happened in language we have been able to cope with through the years, but that God also used language which would help us understand, in our time, in a more technical way what may have happened and the processes He used.

2. It is becoming more and more apparent that it is not gravity which is holding things together 'out there', but the attractions of electro-magnetic currents and the zero point energy. However that may be, though, the Bible tells us that all is held together by the word of His power. How He is expressing that power is, for us, a fun part of scientific study.

3. The Bible speaks of one creation, not four.

4. I don't think you can compare the second creation -- heaven later -- with our creation now. The fact that Christ's resurrection body could pass through doors and walls shows us that the two creations are different. So what is light now is very physical -- the result of electrons' motions. What will be light then is different, as the Bible indicates.

5. Time dilation is an imaginary construct, as is 'stretching light.' While God can do anything He likes, and I would never deny that, He did tell us in Romans that the creation indicates quite a bit about Him, so I think that sticking with the data He has provided us with in creation is probably the safer way to go.

6. You stated: "Psalms 102:25 'Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.'

How do you lay an old foundation? You use aged material."

I think you have misunderstood what the Psalmist was saying here. "Of old" refers to 'long ago', not the age of the materials used.

You said you are seeing things I am not seeing. That may well be true. We are working from what the Bible says and the data in creation. That is all we have.

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 January 2007 - 06:14 AM

ikester, I have been trying to figure how to respond to your post for a bit now.  There is no way, because you have developed your own scheme of things apart from what the Bible says and apart from data and I don't have the imagination to argue with you.  However, there are a few things that you asked or mentioned that I can respond to.


Apart From what the bible says?

1.  You asked what it was that was without form and void.  I offer a suggestion that it was the initially created hydrogen and oxygen nuclei (as the Bible tells us that there was water at the beginning) stripped of their electrons and in a plasma state.  Our sun is a plasma.  The auroras are plasmas.  Stars are plasmas.  Plasma filaments can be seen throughout space.  Work by Dr. Ed Boudreaux in Louisiana indicates that all the known elements can be formed in their known abundances from a water plasma under a high temperature in less than an hour.  Work with plasma filaments in laboratories show that, as they approach each other and pinch in the middle, they will form all the known formations in the cosmos, including quasars, spiral galaxies, etc.


I see none of these things written in God's word. Do you disagree with that there were three heavens created? Or that the KJV version of the third heaven is incorrect, along with all the other verses that make the same reference by mentioning the word heaven three times?


In other words, it may well be that we have been thinking wrongly about Genesis all along.  God has been way ahead of us scientifically on other matters mentioned in the Bible (Orion disrupting rapidly, the Pleiades held together gravitationally, ocean currents all over the world, springs of water in the ocean beds, etc.), so I personally don't have a problem with the fact that Genesis 1 is not only telling us what happened in language we have been able to cope with through the years, but that God also used language which would help us understand, in our time, in a more technical way what may have happened and the processes He used.


I am always game for correction. But the correction has to be supported in the word of God. I have changed my views several times in searching for truth. And also have changed my website accordingly. I find that approaching the word of God in a more simple matter (like a child looks at things), I find more answers. When I make it complicated, I find more contradictions than answers.

For if God inspired His book to be understood by all generations, then what are we doing applying recent knowledge, when the knowledge is more gear towards when these things were not known?

2.  It is becoming more and more apparent that it is not gravity which is holding things together 'out there', but the attractions of electro-magnetic currents and the zero point energy.  However that may be, though, the Bible tells us that all is held together by the word of His power.  How He is expressing that power is, for us, a fun part of scientific study.


Words cause a vibration (frequency). Carl Baugh has done indepth research on this and has found that each planet actually vibrates to a musical note. He believes that the vibration of the whole universe as a whole, is a balance in which how the universe works. He has written a book on it. I have not read it yet. But plan to.

Also, our bodies produce a frequency that is unique to each person. Why? Our nervous system produces energy that goes through our whole body. Which means our body conducts electricity. And is why we can be shocked when we touch something electric. But since our body is completely electrified from our nervous system, every cell is also. And because each cell give off it's own frequency, and no two people have the same numbers of each cell. Everyone has a unique frenquency.

So we are related in this way to the matter created around us.

3.  The Bible speaks of one creation, not four.


2cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

What is the third heaven?

1) What is a firmament that is created once the water goes into the ground? The canopy.
gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

2) What is a firmament that separates the water above (the canopy) from the water below (oceans). It's the atmosphere.
gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Then the second firmament was given a distinction of being a heaven (realm).
gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

And who is the prince of the air?
eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.

3) What is the fimament that contains things that control days and years, and seasons?
gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

4) What is the firmament that is placed there to give "lights" upon the earth?
gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

http://www.yecheadqu...ation9.0.4.html

4.  I don't think you can compare the second creation -- heaven later -- with our creation now.  The fact that Christ's resurrection body could pass through doors and walls shows us that the two creations are different.  So what is light now is very physical -- the result of electrons' motions.  What will be light then is different, as the Bible indicates.


We are in agreement here. The three heavens are.
1) The one made for us, and all matter contained within it.
2) The one made for spiritual evil. One we cannot see, but is restricted to the air of our atmosphere. And hell below it.
3) Where God is. This one always existed, when the other two were created, this one got bumped up to the third heaven because God is above all.

The difference between the physical and spiritual creation: http://www.yecheadqu...ation9.0.1.html

The spiritual creation of light: http://www.yecheadqu...ation9.0.2.html

The physical creation of light: http://www.yecheadqu...ation9.0.7.html

You made the comment that Christ went through walls. This is proof that light that emits from Him does the samething. It goes through physical objects. So when the first light was created by the word of God, but there was no physical object to produce the light. The light was from Christ. This is why Christ is also called the light of the world

jn 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Christ was the light of the world from creation, to revelation (Alpha Omega).

Rev. 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Verse above confirms the exact conditions of the creation. No sun, no moon. The glory of God was the light. What was present when the first light was created? God and the earth. What of the two can produce light? God.

rev. 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

And the verses above confirm that God's light has no darkness (cast no shadows). Which confirms why it had to be divided.

Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Ever heard of outter darkness? "Good" is the hint of the light being a spiritual reference to good. So when you divide good, what do you divide it from? Evil.

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And because this light shined on both the physical and spiritual sides. It created night and day on our side as well when it was divided.

5.  Time dilation is an imaginary construct, as is 'stretching light.'  While God can do anything He likes, and I would never deny that, He did tell us in Romans that the creation indicates quite a bit about Him, so I think that sticking with the data He has provided us with in creation is probably the safer way to go.


I agree. I often throw stuff out on this forum to be tested. Not that I believe everything I post.

6.  You stated: "Psalms 102:25 'Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.'

How do you lay an old foundation? You use aged material."

I think you have misunderstood what the Psalmist was saying here.  "Of old" refers to 'long ago', not the age of the materials used.


I guess this verse should have said: Of 4.5 billion years have I layed the foundations of the earth. How do you measure time in eternity?

You said you are seeing things I am not seeing.  That may well be true.  We are working from what the Bible says and the data in creation.  That is all we have.

View Post


I can confirm most all with other parts of God's word. God is my truth, His word is my truth. Even on things we cannot see. Science is the very last thing I look to after I confirm it all using the word of God. This is why I see what you don't.

Flow chart of Me: God's word(KJV) says this. I come up with an idea--->I look for as much confirmation as I can in the word.----->I look at how each word is used, and break verses down for meaning.---->I look for both spiritual and physical hints to make sure what exactly is being talked about.----->I reconfirm the word again after I break down each word in a verse for physical and spiritual meaning.---->Then I draw a conclusion.--->And only then do I look to see if what I have found may work with what science says, or has found.

How I see you do it (correct me if I'm wrong): Read God's word----->come to a conclusion---->confirm it with science.

I go as deep as I can into God's word before science is even applied. So what I find I can confirm with several verses directly. Which has also taught me a valuble lesson. Anything in God's word, that you think means a particular thing. Can always be backed up in one or more places. If not, then you are missing something. Why did I go this direction of research?

I got tired of hitting dead ends, and using the same old arguements in debates. I decided one day that there has to be more to this than what we understand. And to find it, I had to let go of the information that was already out there, and dive into the word to see what it would tell me. I prayed that God would give me the wisdom of Solomon. And it's been a long journey of being remolded to find this wisdom.

A journey that has also taught me a lesson about man's doctrine. Where man cleaves to a doctrine and allow it to correct the word of God, and not let God's word correct it. That was a big eye opener as well.

This has also exposed to me that there are so many Christians that are more into looking right on every issue, instead of knowing truth. Truth is God's word period. And is why I go to it first, second, third, forth, etc... And only when I'm satisfied with the conclusion. I take a look at what science may have to offer. Because science cannot explain the spiritual end of creation. And this is where we are missing 1/2 of God's truth in His creation.

#10 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2480 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 04 January 2007 - 04:59 PM

OK, my turn to throw in a few cents worth. I’ll start out by saying I have plenty of disagreement in this thread to share with everyone, so please do not take too much offense. B)

To make a long story short, I do not believe scripture supports the idea that God created time, so by this belief alone I disagree with the primary points in Ikester’s thesis, and quite a bit of Helen’s reply. Oh boy, here we go… B)

If we read Genesis 1, we see that God created from nothing (bara) time, space, and matter (In the BEGINNING, God created the HEAVENS and the EARTH).


I realize this goes against traditional Christian teaching, but I’ve never been convinced by this argument using Genesis 1:1 that God created time. It simply says God created the Heavens and Earth. I think it is speculative to say time was also "created" simply because of the words "In the Beginning". I believe time is the progression from past to present to future. Since God existed before He created the heavens and earth, time passed, and has always passed, and always will pass. On the 4th day, God established a reference by which us humans can measure and place labels on this passage of “time”. He could have made the earth take twice as long to spin on its axis, and we could have been told that was a day. The point is, God did not "create" time, but He did provide us a way to measure and track the passage of time.

It is well-established that the Greeks taught “God outside of time”. I believe they also originated this idea, which was then permeated by Augustinian thought (Augustine was heavily influenced by Aristotle), and over time it made its way into traditional Christian thought. Greek pagan philosophy and Holy scripture are like oil and water. :) So consider this - Both the world, and a many Christians believe “God outside of Time”! How often do the world and Christians agree on something so closely related to theology? Virtually never, except in a few cases like this, which alone should give one pause (see 1 Cor 1:20; James 4:4, etc).

If God is outside of time, then there should be no time in heaven. But according to Revelation 8:1 time certainly passes in heaven. How do you explain Rev 8:1 without appealing to the Calvinist’s favorite word anthropomorphism? :)

Satan was not cast out of Heaven at the time of Job! In fact, he is not cast out until the time of Revelation.


I believe Satan was cast out of heaven immediately after the fall, and the Rev 12:7-9 is another war in Satan’s attempt to rise and conquer heaven (we know from Isaiah 14:13 this was Satan's plan). This subsequent attempt failed and Satan was cast down again. However, I don’t think either viewpoint can be dogmatic since God apparently choose to not reveal a great deal of details about Satan’s fall to us.

Thus, Satan’s rebellion was AFTER creation week (when all was ‘very good’) and, clearly, before he tempted Eve. It is not impossible to think that the very reason Eve believed Satan was because she recognized him as the guardian cherub of Eden and thus felt she could trust him.


Agreed. It is also possible Satan’s rebellion/fall began at the very moment he tempted Eve.

Ikester: d) So what exactly are the three heavens? "Heavens" in God's word are realms, both spiritual and physical. Heaven one is shown above. Heaven two is where Satan and 1/3 of the angels are that were cast down. And heaven three is where God is. So heaven one is a physical realm, heaven two and three are spiritual realms.

I think it would be better for you to let Bible explain Bible here. If you check your Concordance you will find the explanations are right there. There is the heaven where the birds fly and from which rain comes – the atmosphere. That is the first heaven. There is the heaven where the stars are – ‘outer space’. That is the second heaven. The third heaven is referred to in the Old Testament as God’s Throne. This is where Paul found himself in the spirit (or out of it, he did not know).


I have to respectfully disagree with your dogmatism on this. While I think the above may be correct, the topic of the firmament is pretty contested within Christendom. I know many a fine Biblical scholar who disagree on this, in fact Morris and Humprheys if I recall conflicted on this (one of them agrees with your version, but I can’t remember which). Another example that I believe is a reasonable solution is that the surface of earth is a firmament, as described here:

http://www.kgov.com/...heaven_on_earth

The first light to hit earth was from our quasar, which has since dimmed to almost nothing but a few x-ray bursts. It was not until the fourth day that the population I stars, of which our sun is one, were lit. The population II stars, the stars in the hubs and cores of the galaxies, were lit on day one. These are the ‘morning stars’ of Job. There are two distinct populations of stars in the cosmos, one being older than the other and higher in metal content. The Bible also refers to this difference by saying that there were some ‘morning stars’ on the first day of creation and that the sun, which would light up the earth when our quasar dimmed, was lit on day four. This also ties in with something called the plasma model of the universe, which shows how God formed it all in six days (four, actually) using the very rules and systems He set up to begin with.


This part was mostly speculative. I also know of no passage that says there were morning stars on the first day of creation. I do however find something appealing about Dr Boudreaux’s plasma model (I helped him with the PowerPoint slides). But his model speaks of no morning stars on day one.

IMHO, the light on day one was from Christ, as it will be in Heaven. “The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.” - Rev 21:23

2pet 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.

Science has already figured out that there are probably places, or realms within the universe that time moves at a different speed from what we are used to.


I believe the 2 Peter 3:8 passage is simply speaking of God’s patience, as the next verse (v9) indicates: “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

Beware that Old Earthers also appeal to this verse, and yank it out of context to claim the days of creation were long periods of time.

And so ends my two cents on this, for now anyway. :)

Fred

#11 HSetterfield

HSetterfield

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Interests:my husband's research, our family, our animals, gardening, baking, reading, people...lots of stuff!
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • southern Oregon

Posted 05 January 2007 - 08:55 PM

ikester, you wrote: I often throw stuff out on this forum to be tested. Not that I believe everything I post.

Quite frankly, that makes it impossible for me to have a serious discussion with you, since I post what I believe to be true, both biblically and scientifically.

I also was quite stunned at some of what you are saying, which I consider along the lines of urban myths. So I have to leave you to it.

Fred, you stated that you do not think God created time. If you read Isaiah 40:10, you will read that He states He knows the end from the beginning. This indicates to me that there IS an end and a beginning, and that He is therefore outside of it. So if He did not create time, who did?

I do understand your point about there being some kind of progression in the second creation -- the Tree of Life bears different fruits, the river FLOWS from the Throne, etc. I cannot claim to understand the concept of progression without time as we know it, but I am quite sure God created everything, including that.

Our time in this creation is, somehow, unique to this creation. We live in a time/space/mass continuum. This means that we cannot measure space or mass without time, nor mass without space or time, nor space without mass or time. The three are interlinked.

And the fact that the 'world' and Christianity agree about some things does not make those things suspect. God has placed a great deal in the hearts of all men, ref. Romans 2.

As far as 'the heavens' goes, I simply looked it up in a Concordance. There are three heavens referred to:

"rain from heaven" -- Deut. 11:11
"the rain and snow come down from heaven" -- Isaiah 55:10
This indicates the atmosphere is considered the first (or lowest) heaven.

"the stars of heaven and their constellations..." Isaiah 13:10
This indicates that 'outer space' is the next highest, or second, heaven.

"The one enthroned in heaven laughs..." Psalm 2
The Third Heaven, all the way through Jewish/Hebrew literature, is God's Throne.

Thus, when Paul refers to the Third Heaven, he is referring to in Hebrew terms, God's Throne or Residence apart from earth.

About the morning stars. They are mentioned in Job, by God Himself, as being present at creation. Astronomy recognizes two main populations of stars and the Bible seems to be in agreement. When the plasma model is considered, timewise the quasars lit up about halfway through day one. This would have been the initial light on the earth if the plasma model is correct. So far this model seems to answer a host of problems all the other models have (including the gravitational models) and agrees just about detail for detail with the account given in Genesis 1. There is still a lot of work to be done here, but it is exciting.

I know Boudreaux does not deal with morning stars; he was dealing with element formation.

And again, I would have to emphasize that this creation is quite different from the creation we will see later. In Genesis 1 we see that everything in the first 'bara' is a physical formation from the miraculously created initial 'stuff.' There is no reason to think, knowing what we know about light, that as soon as the Holy Spirit was the driving force over the surging mass that the electrons were not being jolted enough to produce photons of light -- let there be light.

If the light was of Christ, how could God say "Let there be Me"? That doesn't make sense to me. But then, I'm a California blond......LOL

I do agree with you about the use of 'a thousand years' and 'a day' in the sight of the Lord. But to me, this is simply another indication that He is outside of time and not subject to it.

God bless.

Helen

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 January 2007 - 05:00 AM

ikester, you wrote: I often throw stuff out on this forum to be tested. Not that I believe everything I post.


I test certain ideas about mixing science and God's word.

Quite frankly, that makes it impossible for me to have a serious discussion with you, since I post what I believe to be true, both biblically and scientifically.


Have you ever just posted something to get others opinions to help you come to a conclusion? I don't do this all the time. You just happen to come here when I was tested something. 95-98% if what I post I believe. Very seldom do I do a whole thread just to test something like I did the time dilation thing. That is the reason I used the word pondering in both the thread title, and in mt posts inside that thread. I wanted my idea to be challenged to help me come to a conclusion on it. And I have and will post it in that thread and I will thank everyone for their input.

I also was quite stunned at some of what you are saying, which I consider along the lines of urban myths. So I have to leave you to it.


Do you believe in once a myth always a myth? That an idea is always wrong because it has not enough evidence at that time? Or that an idea can become right because more evidence.

This is where you have fallen for a evolutionist-atheist twist on words. If a unproven idea, that supports a scientific naturalistic view does not have enough evidence to prove it yet. What is it called? A myth, or a hypothesis.

You see everything that has not been proven enough in creation is always called a myth. A myth more or less is calling it a lie. This is how atheist-evolutionists keep a lot of creation evidence from resurfacing that they have considered debunked. Calling it a myth implies that the person who wants to test it, is supporting a lie even before he or she can come to their own conclusion.

Like the moon dust theory. Do you consider it a myth (lie), or a hypothesis? And why? If your conclusion is drawn off of what others have told you in science, and being that science basically supports naturalism only. Why would they call it a myth when they cannot even answer the questions raised about it?

When Petterson did his test measuring dust particles (Ni in atmospheric dust = 14,300,000 Influx Estimate, tons/year) from the atmosphere in 1960. Did you know that science ran 13 more tests to try and prove this wrong? And did you also know that the results from each test were so far from each other, that not one could support the other?

And that Petterson's conclusion was made even before we went to the moon, about how much dust we would find. And that is how much we actually did find. You cannot guess that close to actual inches unless "your test" was the correct way to do it.

How much money and time, in 13 tests, did science spend to debunk this find to be able to call it a myth? Myths do not take 100 of millions of dollars to prove wrong. And myths do not start out with a scientific test that comes to a conclusion that becomes supported by the actual find. In fact, explain how a total un-scientific test predicted what we would find on the moon when we got there? But today is considered a myth?

Because if a test, proven right by the findings, becomes a myth. Then all of science becomes one big myth because this shows a bias for a category of evidence. And to be on level playing ground with all evidence as they claim, then they should treat current evidence the same way they treated the moon dust evidence. Otherwise there would be an explanation that is scientific, not an explanation that sounds like an excuse about the moon dust theory.

In fact, is the word "myth", even a part of science. Or is it a category made to put all evidence that supports creation into? Just like YEC is a atheist-evolutionist categorizing method to separate a certain group so that it could be mocked and made fun of. For I believed in Young earth long before I knew what YEC was. Which means the term was not thought up by those within religion itself.

Why do you think all these terms exist?
1) Old earth creationist.
2) Theistic evolutionist.
3) Young earth Creationist.

They exist because scientific views have separated the body of Christ in this fashion. The three groups above have one thing in common. They are suppossed to believe in a Creator. And if they truly believe in a Creator, then they should truly believe in what He says, correct? And which two of these three do not? And which if these three are using more science to support their belief? And what is the one who totally believes God?

What common denominator keeps these three apart? Science. This is why science is last on my list for support evidence. Science has already done enough damage to the body of Christ, because the scientists have chosen to go in only one direction to conclude that a certain subject be true above all others. And as long as science makes the decision to support only evolution findings, and call everything else a lie. There is very little about science that I will believe.

If you don't believe that science, through evolution, is waging a war on Christians. You need to read a section I'm currently working on here: http://www.yecheadqu...hame_part2.html
Make sure to click next at the bottom of each page.

And if you don't think that science promotes racism through evolution, I suggest you read this also: http://www.yecheadqu....org/shame.html

You might make the comment that this is because of evolution, which has nothing to do with science (or something along those lines). But what is science's biggest theory that they spend more money and time over all others? And yet refuse to correct known problems. So as long as science remains currupt through it's theory of evolution to wage war on Christians, and to promote racism. I will not trust anything they claim to be a myth. Because the same bias they show for race and religion has spilled over and currupted the scientific method. And is the reason science will always be last on my list when it comes to searching for truth about God and His creation.

That's my opinion which may not be the opinion of forum owner.

#13 HSetterfield

HSetterfield

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Interests:my husband's research, our family, our animals, gardening, baking, reading, people...lots of stuff!
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • southern Oregon

Posted 06 January 2007 - 09:14 AM

Have you ever just posted something to get others opinions to help you come to a conclusion?

Yes, but I identify it as such at the time.

Do you believe in once a myth always a myth?

A myth is a myth is a myth. The fact that a myth combines imagination with truth is what makes it a myth. I have spent years studying mythologies of ancient cultures. I have found that when you strip away the mythological elements you can often identify a core of truth. But that core of truth, of historical memory if you will, does not stop the rest from being a myth.

That an idea is always wrong because it has not enough evidence at that time? Or that an idea can become right because more evidence.

That's a wrong or right idea, not a myth.

This is where you have fallen for a evolutionist-atheist twist on words. If a unproven idea, that supports a scientific naturalistic view does not have enough evidence to prove it yet. What is it called? A myth, or a hypothesis.

Sorry, no. That is not what a myth is. First of all, there is nothing in science which we can actually prove. We can only identify supporting factors, data, and such. In addition, an hypothesis is absolutely different from a myth.

You see everything that has not been proven enough in creation is always called a myth. A myth more or less is calling it a lie. This is how atheist-evolutionists keep a lot of creation evidence from resurfacing that they have considered debunked. Calling it a myth implies that the person who wants to test it, is supporting a lie even before he or she can come to their own conclusion.

Quite frankly, I see as much prevarication in the creation camp (for whom I spent some time editing) as in the evolution camp. I'm interested in REAL science -- looking at the data God has given us in His creation. He has not lied to us in either creation or in the Bible.

Like the moon dust theory. Do you consider it a myth (lie), or a hypothesis? And why? If your conclusion is drawn off of what others have told you in science, and being that science basically supports naturalism only. Why would they call it a myth when they cannot even answer the questions raised about it?

The moon dust argument (from either direction) is highly suspect because of the different ways different people have interpreted a paucity of data. We need more data and less pronouncements.

When Petterson did his test measuring dust particles (Ni in atmospheric dust = 14,300,000 Influx Estimate, tons/year) from the atmosphere in 1960. Did you know that science ran 13 more tests to try and prove this wrong? And did you also know that the results from each test were so far from each other, that not one could support the other?

I'm very aware of that, thank you.

And that Petterson's conclusion was made even before we went to the moon, about how much dust we would find. And that is how much we actually did find. You cannot guess that close to actual inches unless "your test" was the correct way to do it.

What has not been taken into account is how recently the cratering on the moon occurred, and that would have taken care of a lot of dust (please keep in mind I am YEC, OK?). In addition, the marias are the result of lava flows and this geologic activity would have also affected the amount of loose material on the surface of the moon. I do not consider the moon dust argument to be a good one for these reasons and a number of others. There are too many solid, data-driven arguments against long ages and evolution to have to depend on arguments as inconclusive as the moon dust argument.

How much money and time, in 13 tests, did science spend to debunk this find to be able to call it a myth? Myths do not take 100 of millions of dollars to prove wrong. And myths do not start out with a scientific test that comes to a conclusion that becomes supported by the actual find. In fact, explain how a total un-scientific test predicted what we would find on the moon when we got there? But today is considered a myth?

That is the wrong use of the term.


In fact, is the word "myth", even a part of science.

Only insofar as ancient myths seem to contain a core of actual historical memories which may aid us. Other than that, no.

Why do you think all these terms exist?
1) Old earth creationist.
2) Theistic evolutionist.
3) Young earth Creationist.

It couldn't be because they are descriptive of people's worldviews, could it?

What common denominator keeps these three apart? Science.

No. Scientific interpretations. Actual science is the search for truth regarding the physical world.

This is why science is last on my list for support evidence.

That entire statement is an oxymoron. If you are looking for evidence, you are looking at science. Science is centered around evidence.

Science has already done enough damage to the body of Christ, because the scientists have chosen to go in only one direction to conclude that a certain subject be true above all others. And as long as science makes the decision to support only evolution findings, and call everything else a lie. There is very little about science that I will believe.

You depend on science everyday of your life, whether it is typing how much you hate in on your computer, to cooking your toast or driving your car or seeing the doctor. If you really want to disprove evolution, then really get into science. The data itself proves evolution impossible. It is just the scientific interpretations you are railing against, not science itself.

If you don't believe that science, through evolution, is waging a war on Christians.

You have mis-stated it. Evolution, through science, is waging a war on Christians. Science, in is real form, is simply an examination of creation and the facts of creation point straight toward the truth of the Bible.


You might make the comment that this is because of evolution, which has nothing to do with science (or something along those lines). But what is science's biggest theory that they spend more money and time over all others? And yet refuse to correct known problems. So as long as science remains currupt through it's theory of evolution to wage war on Christians, and to promote racism. I will not trust anything they claim to be a myth.

"They" didn't claim some of what you said to be urban myth, I did.

Because the same bias they show for race and religion has spilled over and currupted the scientific method. And is the reason science will always be last on my list when it comes to searching for truth about God and His creation.

Well, searching for the truth about God begins and ends in the Bible. Searching for truth in creation begins and ends with data. It does not begin and end with imagination. It is imagination which drives evolution, not science. They just claim science. They are wrong. The study of God's creation is too precious and, actually, too much fun, to allow them to claim it as theirs. I love God. I love the Bible. And I love science. I find absolutely no argument between the Bible and what God has shown us in creation. I don't have time or energy for paranoia at my age!

#14 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2480 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 06 January 2007 - 10:36 AM

Hi Helen,

And the fact that the 'world' and Christianity agree about some things does not make those things suspect. God has placed a great deal in the hearts of all men, ref. Romans 2.


Indeed God has, but from Romans 1, 2 Pet 3, Psalms 14:1, Matt 7:13, etc, we know the world in general suppresses, and/or are willfully ignorant of these things. So I truly do believe that when the world and Christians are on the same page, it definitely warrants suspicion. There is just too much of a powerful track record to support this. Just look at the liberal churches in the world. Where they find themselves holding liberal theology, is where they agree with the world. You have to admit it is extremely difficult to think of examples where the world and some theological doctrine in the Bible are on the same page. Seriously, can you think of any examples, beyond the one about time? I really can’t think of any. I think that even in regard to matters of science that has any implication on the Bible, it’s hard to find examples where the world is on the same page with creationists, which speaks loudly to 1 Cor 1:20.

If you read Isaiah 40:10, you will read that He states He knows the end from the beginning.


It is interesting you bring up this verse, because this is one of the passages that contradicts “God outside of Time”. The verse actually says he declared, or predicted, the end from the beginning. This is supported by the rest of verse 40:10, and the verse that immediately follows:

And from ancient times things that are not yet done, … Isa 46:10
Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it. - Isaiah 46:11

You have to admit that on the surface this verse does not fit ‘God outside of time’. It speaks of doing something in the future that he has not yet done. Because theologians have a problem with this, they declare Is 40:10 and 11 anthropomorphisms. Most of the time conservative theologians will go with the simple, straightforward rendering of passages, as they should. It’s how we rebut the Old Earthers. But when it comes to the doctrine of God and time, like OECers they rely on anthropomorphisms. B) Please do not take offense to this, but I think it’s an important contrast to make - if we are going to hold OEC to certain standards, we need to try our best to adhere to these same standards, even when our fallen mind tells us to go elsewhere. God’s word is straightforward, and we should always appeal to the simple rendering (Prov 8:9, PS 119:130), God outside of Time is an Augustinian doctrine founded in Greek pagan philosophy, and IMHO it's why it doesn’t fit with scripture.

About the morning stars. They are mentioned in Job, by God Himself, as being present at creation


Yes, but you said they were lit on day 1, which scripture does not say (it says the stars were created on day 4), so this is just a guess on your part B)

Yours In Christ,
Fred

#15 HSetterfield

HSetterfield

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Interests:my husband's research, our family, our animals, gardening, baking, reading, people...lots of stuff!
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • southern Oregon

Posted 06 January 2007 - 10:52 AM

I guess we'll find out about time later, Fred.... B)

ITM, simply because the plasma model fits the biblical description so precisely, at least so far, it is fair to say the first stars, mentioned in Job as morning stars and in astronomy as population II stars, were formed and lit up on day one. Population I stars, of which our sun is one, and which are in the spiral arms of the galaxies, appeared later. Mathematically, it appears they lit up about midway through day 4.

The model may be wrong, but it does answer a lot of astronomical problems with things we can see and test.

Sure, it may have all been a miracle start to finish. God could do it any way He wanted. On the other hand, it is certainly not heretical to see if it is possible that He used the very processes He invented and which we can explore...

#16 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 January 2007 - 03:01 AM

HSetterfield,

According to science, would the Creator (God) be a myth or a hyphothesis?

#17 HSetterfield

HSetterfield

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Interests:my husband's research, our family, our animals, gardening, baking, reading, people...lots of stuff!
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • southern Oregon

Posted 07 January 2007 - 09:07 AM

HSetterfield,

According to science, would the Creator (God) be a myth or a hyphothesis?

View Post


Science cannot pass judgment one way or the other as science deals with the physical world.

However science, in honesty, has to admit the reality of the 'un' natural and therefore must admit the possibility of God. Since He cannot be tested, this would not be an hypothesis. Since no one story about God is being considered, it would not be a myth.

God is either real or imaginary. Neither would qualify as hypothesis or myth. Again, hypothesis is out, as that is something that can be tested. Myth is out, because if He is real, He is real and that's that. If He is imaginary, then there is no core of truth to it and that would disqualify Him as a myth.

You cannot say that if a person believes in something that is not real that he is therefore believing in a myth. That is not what a myth is.

The term 'urban myth' was coined to express those stories or ideas which contain a core of truth somewhere but which have been so exaggerated or built upon by imagination that the story itself is not true.

I am glad that you are asking about definitions, however, as making sure people are talking about the same thing is primary to any discussion.

#18 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 January 2007 - 11:21 PM

Science cannot pass judgment one way or the other as science deals with the physical world. 

However science, in honesty, has to admit the reality of the 'un' natural and therefore must admit the possibility of God.  Since He cannot be tested, this would not be an hypothesis.  Since no one story about God is being considered, it would not be a myth.

God is either real or imaginary.  Neither would qualify as hypothesis or myth.  Again, hypothesis is out, as that is something that can be tested.  Myth is out, because if He is real, He is real and that's that.  If He is imaginary, then there is no core of truth to it and that would disqualify Him as a myth.

You cannot say that if a person believes in something that is not real that he is therefore believing in a myth.  That is not what a myth is. 

The term 'urban myth' was coined to express those stories or ideas which contain a core of truth somewhere but which have been so exaggerated or built upon by imagination that the story itself is not true. 

I am glad that you are asking about definitions, however, as making sure people are talking about the same thing is primary to any discussion.

View Post


So today it's ok for a science teacher to say to a class: God is a possibility, even though the scientific method cannot support this? How long would that teacher have their job, as students get home and tell their parents they were taught religion in science class today?

Today science, through the evolution theory, is being used to push God out of everything.

We have a different view on science because you trained to be a scientist. I did not. And because I have no personal connection to it, because of time and money spent learning it to a higher degree, I can look objectively at what it does do to a Christian's faith in it's current state of how it is being taught.

I see more Christians losing their faith to it, then gaining faith from it. Which in my book labels it as the enemy. What goes along with God, does not separate people from God. And it would also allow you the choice of chosing God without being separated from others who do not. But knowing what I do know, I also know what currupted it, and why. And as long as scientists remain silent and allow this curruption. I will use very little of it to ever support or explain anything to do with creation.

God is God, and His creation reflects that. And science in general is not even remotely interested in searching for the real truth about it.

Example: How long has Noah's ark been on that mountain? Why has not science brought it down to examine? If the human missing link were found on that very same mountain. Right next to the ark. Which would get a billion dollar grant and brought down that mountain to find truth. And which would be left, even though it was right next to them?

If that is not bias curruption that only goes into one direction, then the smartest minds are in a world of imaginary delusions where truth is only what they want it to be. And not where the evidence leads them.

#19 HSetterfield

HSetterfield

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Interests:my husband's research, our family, our animals, gardening, baking, reading, people...lots of stuff!
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • southern Oregon

Posted 08 January 2007 - 08:47 AM

So today it's ok for a science teacher to say to a class: God is a possibility, even though the scientific method cannot support this?

Yes, it is OK to say that.


How long would that teacher have their job, as students get home and tell their parents they were taught religion in science class today?

That's not teaching religion; that's respecting it. Teachers are supposed to respect it, not teach it in public schools. Whether or not I agree with that is not the point. But I did teach and yes, it is fine to agree that God can exist in a public school.


Today science, through the evolution theory, is being used to push God out of everything.

No, you have it backwards again. Evolution/secular humanism, using science, is pushing God out of everything.


We have a different view on science because you trained to be a scientist.

No, actually, I did not. I ended up teaching it as part of junior high general education and from there got very much interested when I wanted to know the truth about the evolution/creation debate. That is why I tell people my field of interest was in genetics and biology; but I only had general education courses in both in college/university. They were not what my major was.


I did not. And because I have no personal connection to it, because of time and money spent learning it to a higher degree, I can look objectively at what it does do to a Christian's faith in it's current state of how it is being taught.

I'm VERY aware of what it does to faith. Whenever my husband and I speak to groups in churches or colleges or conferences or even private meetings, there are folk to approach us afterwards thanking us because they thought that science and faith were at war. One of our major points is that it is interpretations of science which are being used to attack the Christian faith. Science itself is a search for truth and if you are interested in finding the truth in creation you are interested in science and you needn't be afraid of the data -- God has not lied in His creation. But we have seen great numbers of students who have been pulled away from their early faith because of public education and we have spent years fighting the lies they are told. Don't tell me I don't know about what it does. We are in the middle of the whole thing.


I see more Christians losing their faith to it, then gaining faith from it. Which in my book labels it as the enemy.

That's up to you. You must have very little faith in the fact that God has used creation to show a lot about Himself, including strong evidence for His very existence.


What goes along with God, does not separate people from God.

Science does not separate people from God. We know a good many strong Christians who are fine scientists. Have you ever read the book "In Seven Days"? It is a collection of testimonies by Ph.D. scientists regarding their belief in the reality of Creation Week being seven real, literal days.


And it would also allow you the choice of chosing God without being separated from others who do not. But knowing what I do know, I also know what currupted it, and why. And as long as scientists remain silent and allow this curruption. I will use very little of it to ever support or explain anything to do with creation.

Again, that is up to you. But my husband is a fine scientist, as are a number of Christians, and we are doing everything in our power to show what the data really gives evidence of (that Genesis is telling the straightforward historical truth). However as long as we have to fight people like you, too, it does make it harder...


God is God, and His creation reflects that. And science in general is not even remotely interested in searching for the real truth about it.

You are painting all of science with a much-too-broad brush. I assume you do not see doctors for medical treatment. I assume you live in a cave with no electricity and you are only going to the library (by walking, of course) in order to use the computer you are communicating on here. I assume you grow all your own food and slaughter your own animals if you eat meat. I assume you make the cloth for all your clothes and then sew your clothes yourself with needles you have made yourself. I assume you have never taken a plane anywhere, for you would not DARE trust the laws of physics science has been working with to make flight possible.

Do you see what I am saying? What you are fighting is NOT science but the interpretations those in control of science are giving the data. And that is a VERY different proposition.



Example: How long has Noah's ark been on that mountain? Why has not science brought it down to examine?

Because, so far, it's not there. My husband has been involved, one way or another, with almost every expedition that has gone up there prior to about three or four years ago. Allen Roberts (one of those kidnapped a number of years ago on one of the expeditions), John McIntosh, and many of the others are close personal friends. NONE of the possibilities of things that appeared to be the Ark have panned out. Every one has been some kind of rock or ice/rock formation. The earliest settlement of Noah and his family OFF the Ark may have been found, but the Ark itself, no.

Along those lines, I have wondered if, with all that wood available (and for years it would have been the ONLY wood available...), Noah and his sons and later grandsons did not dismember most or all of it to build their own homes. Why live in caves when that wood, coated with pitch for waterproofing, was available?



If the human missing link were found on that very same mountain. Right next to the ark. Which would get a billion dollar grant and brought down that mountain to find truth. And which would be left, even though it was right next to them?

Oh my -- haven't you been reading anything in even the popular press? EVERY time they find some kind of bone it is declared the 'missing link.' And they all get funding! In the meantime, I can guarantee to you that if the Ark were actually found, Turkey would capitalize on it in a minute for the money.


If that is not bias curruption that only goes into one direction, then the smartest minds are in a world of imaginary delusions where truth is only what they want it to be. And not where the evidence leads them.

So why are you so afraid of studying the evidence?

#20 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 January 2007 - 12:51 PM

Do you see what I am saying? What you are fighting is NOT science but the interpretations those in control of science are giving the data. And that is a VERY different proposition.


When it comes to beliefs in God. What makes the Mormon religion so different from the others? They worship God correct? But because the ones who control it have corrupted it, does that make the religion ok Just because God is supposedly part of it?

The ones who control it shape it, and mold it to it's final form.

And if you want to get technical about science. Science means knowledge. It is people who invent things like computers. Was every inventor required to have basic knowledge of science? Did they have education in science? No. A lot of inventors did not have education in science. They had a gift of understanding that came from the Creator.

It's like the difference between someone who can play an instrument, or sing. Compared to someone who does not. Or cannot. If the gift is not given, they won't be able to do it.

You are painting all of science with a much-too-broad brush. I assume you do not see doctors for medical treatment. I assume you live in a cave with no electricity and you are only going to the library (by walking, of course) in order to use the computer you are communicating on here. I assume you grow all your own food and slaughter your own animals if you eat meat. I assume you make the cloth for all your clothes and then sew your clothes yourself with needles you have made yourself. I assume you have never taken a plane anywhere, for you would not DARE trust the laws of physics science has been working with to make flight possible.


And you know how many times I have this same thing said to me by atheist-evolutionists? And in the same mocking manner I see here. And this is the very first time I have had a YEC say this to me, or have I ever seen them say it to one another.

And because of the separation I now feel because of science, in this thread. It proves the point even more. For the very same tactic that a non-believer uses to mock and discredit a believer is the very same one you use.

All I see through every post is to conform to your knowledge, or way of thinking. No body else's opinion is welcome that is different. For if it supports known science, you accept it. If it supports God's word more, I am accused of using my imagination. All of these things are evolutionist-atheist tactics that do nothing but separate. And it all promotes a debating game called the one up game. Which only promotes pride, which is not of God.

So why do you resort to evolutionist tactics to debate other believers?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users