Comments on: A theory on creation

By: Alexandra

Alexandra — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 01:56:35 +0000

Your theory is very interesting, and I think you make some interesting points. I don’t know that we can know because we were not there, no matter how we interpret anything.
What I question is why you are certain that days were 24 hours long, as we measure them. Infinity is nothing to God. In fact, God is infinite. We are incapable of understanding both micro and macro. We are not programmed that way. Does time mean anything to God? Is time chronos or kairos? Do you think God is limited by space or time? I suspect that our explanation of seven days, to create and rest, is a metaphor for a concept that we are incapable of understanding. Whether it is actual or not, who can tell?

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:15:57 +0000

Cowboy, you are pretty right on the money. The Bible refers to the first earth and the third earth. We are in the second earth. First is prior to the re-creation. Third is future paradise regained. The gap is not a theory, it is truth. This explains the fossils and the dinosaurs etc. The destruction of the first earth coincided with the fall of Lucifer.

By: Elena

Elena — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:32:50 +0000

Heehee…JAC… :o)

By: Wes

Wes — Sun, 27 Mar 2005 01:13:23 +0000

If we trust the Bible as our authority (and I do), we’re left with many questions about the history of the earth and the history of the universe. The Bible is not and was not meant to be “The History of Everything That God Created.”

I certainly agree w/ you, on this.

That being said, I have theorized in the past that the description of creation was the creation of our portion of the universe, not the entire universe.

That’s logical, Arielle.

By: JACIII

JACIII — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:23:48 +0000

oops! I forgot. No hyphen here.

By: JACIII

JACIII — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:23:15 +0000

Interesting DC. You really did some homework there.
-

By: Dumpster Juice

Dumpster Juice — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:24:59 +0000

I should have added that I personally don’t have any problem accepting a 6 day Creation, and a 6,000 year old earth. If He wanted to make it in 6 seconds He could have, I only offered the above for those more science-minded and/or skeptical.

By: Dumpster Juice

Dumpster Juice — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:45:29 +0000

The best explanation for the age of the earth is in “The Science of God” by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He argues that the age of the earth is both 6,000 years old and billions. He explains using Einstein’s theory of relativity that from the perspective (in other words, position while this was all happening) of the author of the Genesis account, creation took 6 days. An ever expanding universe would support this.

Furthermore, there may have been other men at the time of Adam, but he was the first to recieve “Neshama”. That is, God breathed His Spirit into Adam.

The thesis of the book is that we should allow science to explain the natural world, and God explain the supernatural. Parts of the book can be read here: http://www.prophecyrevealed.com

By: Arielle

Arielle — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 04:23:45 +0000

I’d have to agree that it’s treading dangerous ground to theorize too much about possible gaps in the creation story.

That being said, I have theorized in the past that the description of creation was the creation of our portion of the universe, not the entire universe.

I’m very skeptical of the idea that the earth had any sort of life prior to that described in Genesis.

By: digitalcowboy

digitalcowboy — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 04:23:26 +0000

Though I agree that God did not go into the kind of specifics he could have, regarding the creation, he did choose to spend the first two chapters of the first book of the Bible devoted to the subject. His choice of placement indicates the weighty nature of the subject.

I disagree. The placement was logical. I don’t think creation is unimportant but I find the placement to be more of a “Once upon a time…” kind of thing. You have to start somewhere. The point I’ve been trying to make (apparently clumsily) is that if we were meant to know the details, He would have spelled them out. He didn’t. If we trust the Bible as our authority (and I do), we’re left with many questions about the history of the earth and the history of the universe. The Bible is not and was not meant to be “The History of Everything That God Created.”

By the way, you can’t insult me easily and certainly not over this. I’m not married to this theory. I don’t really care. It was posted as a mental exercise for me. However, I don’t think any of the scriptures you posted disprove it really. You’re opening the door to the whole predestination/God’s omniscience argument with that and I don’t care to get into.

Thanks for reading and commenting. This is a discussion, to me, that is nothing more than barbells for the brain and I don’t think it matters a bit.

(I believe the literal interpretation of creation being completed in 6 24 hour days, by the way. I just don’t think that’s all that’s there. I should have made that more clear.)