OK, since you mentioned it...

The Adventist Young Earth physicist/quantum cosmologist Russell Humphreys has an interesting theory. Actually two theories, or rather one theory that morphed into a second (ish).

He was concerned with the problem of starlight and time, in that we can easily observe stars that are millions of light years away, yet according to the Genesis account the earth is thought to be 7-10 thousand years old. So how does one account for the large discrepancy in timelines.

Now I'm not a physicist or a cosmologist but his writing makes for very interesting reading. His theory is well supported, and he cites other physicists and cosmologists extensively. He also cites Scripture for support. He also has a lot of opposition.

Some time around 2007-8 he toured Canada with It Is Written, and I went to one of his lectures.

Basically, he postulates that time is a substance and is not constant in its "passing." "Time" is a product of gravitational waves and the speed of light, which on Earth are constant, hence we think of time as constant. Since neither were "constant" in the first milliseconds of the creation of the cosmos, time itself fluctuated in various parts of the cosmos.

Er...Something like that...

Actually it was not Humphreys who toured with IIW but Daniel Lazich, another scientist who studies these and related things.

That's interesting, though I don't know much about gravitational waves. It seems that there's a lack of consensus among physicists about what time even is, or how to define it. I've heard that time is movement, but after looking it up there's people pointing out the problem with a definition that involves the thing being defined. Time being movement over time seems odd.

One thing we know is that the creation of this world was not the beginning of all existence. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:4,7)



In the way that I view things I'm assuming three things: that the speed of light really is constant, that objects throughout the universe are at the distances claimed, and that at the creation of the universe God didn't also create light already mid journey from every source of light. Any of those could be wrong.

If these are the case, and all of the universe was made 6000 years ago, we shouldn't be able to see anything more than 6000 light years away yet. Not only that, but Adam and Eve would have looked up to a completely starless night sky for the first few years. All throughout human history the amount of stars in the sky would be constantly increasing noticeably, including right now, as their light finally reaches us for the first time.

Since we can see things that are supposed to be billions of light years away, and keeping with the above assumptions, it seems that the universe as a whole is far older than this world.



I view the part of Genesis 1 that says the stars were made as referring to the planets of this solar system, which ancient peoples did refer to as wandering stars.

The fourth day involves the sun, moon, and stars. So, if you regard those stars as our nearby planets, it neatly fits as a day of creating all of the objects in this solar system besides the Earth.

What about heavens? For when the earth or life on the earth was created has no bearing on when the stars millions of light years away were created.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Before creation week, the earth was. It was covered by water. So the earth existed before creation week.

Here's another question that I think we can agree with:

Who tempted Eve?

For the most part I believe that Satan/the Devil/the Accuser used some form of early serpent/snake/dragon to interact with Eve resulting in her/their downfall. Much like the story suggests.

However, that being said, I believe that the story, although containing elements of truth or even factual occurrence, is highly allegorical. Close examination reveals too many logical questions to accept it sine quaestione. This has never really bothered me; what "actually happened" in the Garden doesn't change my reality. Nor the work of Christ. Man fell. God redeemed him. End of story.

What are some of the "many logical questions"?

To pursue that question is not really the intent of this thread, and I would rather not hijack the current discussion.

If you are really interested in the Eve/snake/tree story perhaps begin another thread.

Eve was tempted by "that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceives the whole world" (Rev. 12:9)

Genesis 3:4-5 "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:.. you shall be as gods"
John 8:44 The devil...he is a liar, and the father of it.


Lucifer became the devil BEFORE the six day creation week. He was already lurking in the tree of good and evil (his only access to the newly created humans) right from the start of their existence.

There are things in the universe that greatly predate the creation of our little area in the universe.