I have no problem thinking the earth was here for billions of years prior to Creation Week. The figure we hear in the Bible time and time again regarding times before our creation is "eternity." Eternity is more than a little longer than 5 billion years.

I do not have any particular agreement with the 4.56 billion-year figure (or whatever scientists have changed it to now to accommodate their theories). In fact, I think it may well have been longer than any such figure.

Why is it that God would not have created life anywhere in the universe much before that which was made here? Ellen White tells of life forms on other planets, and I do not suppose these to have been created all at the same time, nor just in our era. I believe that the angels and beings on other planets may well have existed for billions of years. Certainly, they may not have either. But God is "from everlasting to everlasting." He could have made a new planet each year--or perhaps He started by creating the planetary shells, setting them in motion, then set about to add life forms to each one in its time. We simply do not know.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think it may burn out. God has options, of course, in how to manage things. But I would point out that in Revelation it does not say that the New Earth will not have the sun, it says only that it will not need the light from the sun. We are told that we will still meet together every seventh-day for Sabbath, and those days are defined by the sun. In fact, what is a day to us may not be a "day" on another planet. The word "day" is relative, and in our case our days and years are defined by the relative rotations of the earth on its axis and around the sun.

Enter some scientific theory.

Our sun is losing a tremendous amount of mass every day. On top of emitting a substantial amount of light (which I believe is not mass-less), there are gases that manage to escape the sun's gravity and sail away as well, such as by the activity of a solar flare.

Scientists believe in the "conservation of energy" theory. According to this theory, energy can never be created nor destroyed, but is always conserved. It can only change forms. (Or be relocated.) If our sun is losing tons (literally) of mass/energy every day, at some point, the energy must be used up.

It would be like lighting a Coleman lamp. Sure, the netting for the lamp contains some radioactive radium to help it glow so brightly when lit. But the lamp must run on fuel, and the fuel has a limited lifespan before it is used up. The lamp is not filling itself with more fuel as the fuel is burned. Someone like you or me could add fuel before the lamp burns out. Or we could just let it burn out. We could even bring in an entirely new lamp to replace the empty one.

I see God as having those same options with the sun. The sun is slowly burning out. At some point, should the mass lost by the sun never be replaced, the sun will be gone. God could either "refill" the sun, or replace it. And where I can think of a couple of options, God would have a couple thousand options.



I don't believe the sun existed prior to Creation Week. I believe it was a new portion of the creation. God created the sun on Day 4, and set the moon in place then too. Regarding the Light, I believe that since the sun is not made until several days later, the light that we see on Day 1 is a reference to the light of God's presence. He had come to earth. His presence was here. And God is light.



Looking more closely at the Creation Week passage, one can see some significant symbolism to it. Examine the following parallelism.



Then notice that we are told in Revelation that there will be "no more night." These things are highly symbolic, and go beyond a literal reading. God has, through His literal creation, spoken His profound truths to us.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Again, God is using some literal objects as lessons and symbols of a greater truth. Have you read from the beginning of this topic? I have explained in that thread some of the symbols I see in Creation Week, including this one.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You're saying that the earth has existed for eternity? Or matter? It's not clear to me what your point is here.



Your thoughts are that the earth is billions of years old, like 5 billion or so as the scientists say, but the sun is only a few thousand years old? Why would you think that? The especially confusing part is that scientists base the age of the earth on a principle, uniformalism, which you are rejecting with reference to the sun.

I haven't read any posts for months. What I posted here was just based on something I've been thinking about and trying to understand better.

No. Sorry if that wasn't clear. What I mean is that there is an eternity of time during which our earth might have had its beginning. I do not believe the earth has been here eternally. But since God has existed from eternity, He could have begun our earth at any time in the past--leaving a lot of room in that space of time for a date.



Yes, I would reject uniformalism. I do not believe the scientists can be much trusted with regards to dates for things.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I agree about science not being able to date things well. It seems to me unlikely that the universe would be existing for billions of years without there being life, and also unlikely that the angels and other life forms have been around for billions of years. There doesn't seem to be any hint of that which I can see in the writings of inspiration.

I'm not understanding your idea of the earth existing for billions of years, but the sun being created on the fourth day of creation, and existing for a few thousand years. Have I understood you correctly? If so, why does this seem logical to you?

EGW says that the sun on the New Earth will be seven times brighter than it is now. She goes on to say that the Moon will also be seven times brighter than it is now. Actually, she says that in reverse as quoted below:

That's from Isa. 30:26

Tom.

Nice to have both to read in front of us.

My idea for this is based strictly on my understanding of the Biblical record. According to the Bible, the essential elements of earth pre-existed Creation Week. It does not appear to be the same with regard to the sun.


That God says "Let there be lights" in this manner parallels the other creations where the same language of "Let there be..." or "Let the earth bring forth..." is used. All of God's creations during that week appear to start with "Let." But those things which were already there are not prefaced this way. Instead, the action which shaped those elements is the direct object, as in "be gathered." (And perhaps it would have been a more literal translation to say "be apparent" in place of "appear.")
Of course, I'm not a Hebrew scholar, and I'm open to further study. Yet from what I see, the wording of the chapter is very precise and intentional. The word choices in this chapter appear deliberately calculated, almost like legal documents--unlike some other passages in the Bible. And the parallels between this chapter and the rest of the Bible are wonderful.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.