Guess it is me standing corrected. I remembered it wrong. I didn't remember the B.C. So, your calculations would fit in.

Not so. It says He made the heaven, the earth, and the seas and everything in them.
What is God's definitions of those terms?

You seem quick to jump to conclusions and accuse others of things before they are determined. I am, of course, biased regarding me, but I think Vaster gave good advice and see no need for you to lump him with me. I am only disagreeing with one of your base assumptions. There was no intent to insult you. Obviously you know quite a bit more than I do on some topics. There's no need to get upset when someone disagrees with you. If I am wrong, merely point out how. But I have yet to see how God's definition of heaven and earth is wrong. You assume heaven and earth means one thing. The same as I once assumed by listening to others repeat things. I assume heaven and earth means another. If you think it's trivial, I can't do much about that. I don't see it a trivial thing to question when most of what you are saying is based upon whether the universe existed or not before creation time of life on this earth. Is it not proper for others to question and verify if the base assumption is correct?

Oh, I agree. But do you disagree with God's definition of what he defined as heaven, earth, and sea?

I guess with my growing lack of tact and an apparent communication gap there may be more to each others view points than either one of us presently realize. We both concur that all things that truely exist were created by God. (To justify this statement, sin must be viewed as the antithesis of order and that perfect order is creation.) The issue breaks down to when?

You've correctly pointed out that Gen 1:2 fails to state the words "and God made the earth and the waters". For matter to justifiably exist (water is a form of matter as it is composed of hydrogen and oxygen atoms of which retain gravitational mass) it must exist within a frame work of both temporal and spacial dimensions.

This would effectively be defined as a beginning point. Genesis 1:1 seems to summarize this event. If you take a careful study of the Hebrew word eh'-rets (index #776) in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, it's meaning is "to be firm". This is the word that was translated to earth in Gen 1:2. It really isn't the planet Earth that we're talking about, it's the existence of protons and neutrons. (Of course this point can be debated day and night until God settles the dispute for us.)

All of these points still do not solve the dispute of whether the beginning of the heavens and the earth occured at the start of the week of creation or before. I thought that the refences given clarified on that point but I guess everything is debatable to the Nth extreme. Why is this a point of contension?

It has to do with the age of matter as is calculated in science. For the most part, I believe that science's calculations in regard to nuclear decay rates are in fact accurate. It is slowly becoming revealed in cutting edge physics that time has a much different rate at the quantum scale.

Ignoring the FF model, this at first glance means absolutely nothing. However, consider how both FF and BB start out with a universe that is in the quantum mechanical scale of area. The point suddenly becomes the heart of the matter. (no pun intended)

This point evidences another massive problem for the massive time periods proposed by BB. (Remember, the form of time flow in QM isn't what we rely on at the macro scale.) This mechanism freely explains why matter is so aged by nuclear decay rates within a very short period of time and is in fact quite fundimental that it be as such.

It is my suspicion that the reason for our conflict of understanding is caused by the lack of understanding of the FF model. If there is a superior physical model to explain the observed data that remains in harmony with the Bible and SOP I'd love to see it.

Huh? No, that isn't so. My take on the meaning of heaven in Genesis 1 is the area in which objects move. More to the point: the literal fabric of time-space itself.

I've already defined earth as the literal composition of matter i.e. protons and neutrons. (In this modern age of physics perhaps it would be superior to say time-space knots or maybe quarks, leptons, and bosons.)

JCS


kland


Are you for real? The ball is in your court. It's time I start to hear some solid proofs supporting this proposed theory of time-space and matter existing before the seven day week of creation (within the visible universe). Feel free to use scripture, Strong's concordance, the Hebrew & Greek interlinear Bible, SOP, and the 28 fundamental beliefs. I will openly study your statements without personal bias.

My interest is in the truth regardless of the expense. Many years ago I disconnected from the Adventist faith and started over from scratch. I did this because I was raised SDA and noticed that everyone who is raised in a manner has a bias towards it. I wanted to discover the truth for truth's sake, and NOTHING ELSE. I desperately tried to visualize the atheist view point regarding the Big Bang.

Physicly, the consept doesn't work. So then I followed a logical process to find the true faith of which would evidence it's self in mankind's earliest recorded history. (Yes, I was still desperately trying to distance myself from Adventism.) I discovered that the Genesis story is recorded in Sumerian cuniform tablets of which pointed to the Sabbath.

The only people who observed the Sabbath were the Israelites. The Israelite prophets pointed to Christ. The New Testament then pointed to Ellen White's work. I considered other churches like the Seventh Day Baptists but they lacked the spirit of phophecy. I commenced in testing Ellen White. She is not only a prophet but a spiritual leader as well making her an apostle.

Going back to the issue of Genesis, if I were to accept this belief of matter to exist (within the visible universe) before the week of creation as fundimental Adventist doctrine, it would force me to reject the church due to my fundimental system regarding following foundational truths.

Maybe this is where there is some misunderstanding. I took you to mean planet earth. But you say the literal composition. Which I don't see any real difference relating to time of creation.

I guess I'm having a hard time to start hearing about FF seriously until you can get me past what the Bible says. See, I take the Bible first. I have pointed out scriptures which contradicted what you are saying about planet earth existing before Genesis 1 (At least what I think you are saying ). That is Genesis 1:8,10 where God defines what heaven and earth is.

To me, God is not defining planet earth. You just said you are not defining planet earth. So, I am confused.

dual use. Could mean either, meaning non-conclusive for any individual verse.
Of interest, He set the lights in the firmament what he called heaven. Would that be what Adam would see and understand and for many centuries people believed about the heaven and canopy, and pillars, or the heaven as we know it? People say the sun is up in the sky. They don't really mean the sun has moved, nor do they mean anything to do with the universe. They point up. They see the sun. It moves across the sky. The same "sky" they breathe.

Earth has varying meanings and used many times. I see, from a search of the word, it being used for what people see tangible - dry land.

Now so that you don't misunderstand, I am not saying this means the earth did exist way before or couldn't be created at nearly the same time. What I am saying is Genesis 1 does not support it being created during creation week as outlined in the verses. Planet earth could exist before or it may not (meaning it existed only slightly before). I'm just saying Genesis 1 does not address it. In fact, it strongly indicates planet earth, (not in it's current form, or shortly after God rearranged it) existed before God said "Let there be". It may have existed seconds before or it may have existed 4.5 billion years before. I don't know. Genesis 1 doesn't say.

I have been watching as science finds out that the long ages that once thought existed are having some problems being supported. Most recently I have read with amusement where these pre-humans or whatever they choose to call them are existing way before they thought. Then there is the eye of octopuses. Everything seems to be run together or started at the same point. Another recent thing I saw was about canyons in the ocean. How'd they get there. Maybe they weren't the typical canyons?

Anyway, who knows how old the planet earth really is. Opinion almost seems to change daily. The only point I'm addressing is whether Genesis says the earth, planet earth, terrafirma, was created during the first verses. God's act of separating the waters, and creating dry, may have affected the internal properties of the rock.

Perhaps a question is what is the definition of time. God may have created time, and did as we know it as far as sunlight ruling the days is concerned. This could very well fit within parts of your model. I'm not saying give up on your model, just make sure base assumptions are correct. Or necessary.

Foundational truths? I am not aware of Adventist doctrines which say planet earth is around 6,000 years old. And except for the Ellen White quote, which I commented on, maybe you could present something else from her.

The Bible does not say the earth is 6,000 years old. Rocks and fossils do not say the earth is billions or millions of years old. They both present evidence. Some conclude, therefore the earth must be 6000 years old. Others conclude it must be 4 billion. Both are conclusions. I agree that from the Bible, studying the recorded genealogy, life appears to be less than 10,000 years old. Assuming it means the planet earth, involves assumptions from Genesis. Now, maybe there is something else in the Bible, or something else from White that would cause me to change my mind.

I see nothing here that discredits the Bible, Ellen White, nor the foundations of the church. Many do believe, because they have been biased from people repeating others, that planet earth is 6000 years old. Reading the comments from the commentary suggests to me it may more likely be closer to 7,000. SDA commentary. Many repeat that vegetables weren't permitted as food until Cain. I have yet to see it supported from the Bible or White. It is important to me to not make the Bible say what it doesn't. That doesn't mean it's not true -- it's just not in the Bible. Kind of like who did Cain marry? The Bible doesn't say his wife came from Adam. We can assume so. It also doesn't say Adam and Eve had sex. Other than knowing each other three times. We can assume.

Shall we assume planet earth was created 6,000 years ago? Maybe. The Bible doesn't say. Should the assumption be held as high as the just mentioned things. I don't think so.

Does your model give support for the assumption? Perhaps so. All I'm saying is the Bible indicates planet earth with it's waters existed before. Don't know how far before. Or in what dimension. Maybe in the same as the other worlds as brought up. But if so, then, as far as the Bible addressing us is concerned, the earth did exist before Genesis - with water.

(Perhaps of relevance you could speak of these other worlds being in a different dimension and whether they exist from our viewpoint? I say they do. This could be a key point?)

I don't know if this conveys my thoughts correctly. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

OK, I think everything you've stated are excelent points. The discussion returns to whether my model is antibiblical. Studying your view points carefully, the stance that FF conflicts with the Bible is unproven. It may also be stated that one can not fully prove that everything in FF is fully proven with the holy word either.

If FF becomes an accepted theory, it would most definitely pave a road evidencing truth to the physical claims made by Genesis. The First Flash model does not distract from scripture. If it is tested to be true it may actually work to support it. As far as where the water and earth came from in Genesis 1:2 FF makes no claims. FF deals with how the fabric of time-space (composing the visible universe) expanded to it's present form.

What I've said in regard to how the Earth was created is purely conjecture and does not serve any part of the FF model. My arguement regarding preexistant matter is purely theological in nature. When I said the ball is in your court I meant it. I want to hear some hard facts on this subject. I want to know the truth.

Studying your last post futher, I've determined that my original understanding of your view doesn't match up with your actual one. I still do not fully understand what your view point is.

To simplify and to clarify my own I'll state the following. Based off of the Bible and SOP I conclude that the heavens and the earth were created in the week of creation. The heavens define the fabric of time-space composing the visible universe. The earth is all of the time-space knots composing "matter" within the visible universe. The week of creation occured over a duration of seven complete Earth rotations relative to the pressence of God in Heaven. A single Earth rotation relative to Heaven is equal to one complete Earth rotation relative to our star Sol (the Sun in other words).

Though Genesis 1:2 doesn't clearly define when earth and water were created, other passages of scripture define that #1 God created all things in the beginning, #2 that the heavens and the earth were created in the beginning, and #3 that the heavens and the earth were created in the week of creation. Deductive reasoning indicates from this that all created things were created in the week of creation.

This is an oversimplification, but I feel reasonably safe to say that Scripture supports that all of the visible universe was created within the week of creation. I feel very uneasy with anyone's claims that attempt to dispute this.

I'm already expecting some hot water over this. An evening and morning can not be defined without the Earth moving relative to a second object. If the light refered to in Genesis 1:3 is literaly light, it isn't the Sun. Verse 16 refers to a greater light created on the fourth day to rule the day. This can only be the Sun. If the light in verse 3 isn't the Sun (verse 16), the moon (the lesser light in verse 16), or the stars (verse 14), it only leaves the light from the light horizon of which scientificly marks the beginning of the universe. If this light originates from God in Heaven and reflects off of the sea of glass, and if the sea of glass is the light horizon, then Earth's motion could only be determined relative to the presence of God in Heaven.

I know there are alot of ifs in my hypothesis, but nothing else seems to make any sense.

The idea that the light horizon served as Earth's only source of light for four days seems really odd unil one considers how close it was to Earth at that time using FF. (0-16 light days away) Considering how luminous this horizon was, 16 light days distance was plenty close.

And I'd agree with that. Excepting we have different definitions of heavens and earth. I'm going with what God called them. I just heard an Adventist Pastor speaking about the universe saying that God created it at some point, we just don't know exactly when. And although your model makes some assumptions, I have not said your model is anti-biblical, but that one of your assumptions is not found in the Bible. Don't you think parts of your model could be correct while your assumption that the universe was created 6,000 years ago may be incorrect? What if William Miller said our whole foundation is based upon the Lord returning in October and if I reject that I have to reject the faith. His calculations were correct, but His assumption of what the sanctuary was incorrect. He continued and came to a much better understanding.

I'm not so sure about that. And I'm not talking about the earth moving relative to the Sun, I followed what you meant there. And not that I'm clinging to belief one way or another, but there are some issues with evening and morning and then the sun either not being created or as I say, not "ruling" till day four (read more below). In studying the character of God, that His law is really His character, it would not be out of line to conclude that the Sabbath, the seventh day as we know it, was not some arbitrary spontaneous thing created during creation week or just because the earth had a certain spin rate, but that there has always existed a Sabbath. That it is part of who God is -- His nature. Therefore, would it not follow that he set up our earth to match His character? He created plants and animals and it was perfect. Would He not put the correct spin, besides the correct tilt and everything else, so that it matches His character? So, I would reword your statement to say that creation occurred over a duration of seven God-days and part of that creation was to rotate the earth to match it. So it's kind of what you said, but a little different.

I did a search and could not find where all things were created in the beginning.
Not knowing what verse you had in mind, but one could be
All things were created by Him. Nothing about the beginning or when.
Another is:

Which could mean His works were from the beginning of the world, or it could mean known from the beginning of the world.
Looking at other versions:

Ac 15:18 (NKJV) "Known to God from eternity are all His works.
Not quite saying the same thing here.

Ac 15:18 (ASV) Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old.
Ac 15:18 (MKJV) All His works are known to God from eternity.
Ac 15:18 (RSV) says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.'
And these are quite different than saying He created all things from the beginning of the world.


Maybe you have other verses which I could not find? See, as Vaster says, I may be blinded by my biasness and cannot find what you have in mind.

Where was God during creation? Unless you are leaving God in heaven and Jesus doing the creation? But then, Jesus is the Lamb, the Light.

I have in mind, 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.

A question would be, what is the evening and morning. Did God leave or dim? I think it has something to do with the seven days and the Sabbath, but can't say I understand it.

http://letsfocusonlife.com/?p=2358

This link enlightened me as to why this pre creation week stuff is so wide spread. It's creping into our schools!