Not really. The bible doesn’t say exactly when Satan fell. So it’s not assuming anything more than the position saying that he fell much earlier than Genesis 3.
I think this makes very clear that Scripture is not giving us the whole story, but just that of Adam, Eve, and their descendants. The back story has many details left unsaid.
It is completely untestable, so it can neither be proven nor disproven. Will you admit there is zero supporting evidence, in science or in scripture?
We know that angelic and demonic realms are outside of our four spacetime dimensions, and therefore we can say nothing at all about their time dimension(s).
I knever heard of this lucifer thing. The bible says on day one GOD created light and divided the light from the dark. There was no need for another source for light. so light is explained as created unrelated to sources. Saying there is a light problem from distant stars is saying the light from same stars is from the stars. Genesis says its not from the stars. Who you gonna believe?
As a YEC you must allow, a option, that light does not have a source or speed. Instead something just moves through the light ether/field. why not?
no other culture when talking about origins ever mentioned light as important. This because the bible was created by God and not a human culture.
Hey speir what evidence do you have that light moves from here to there? This must be settled before distant light issues come up!!
@structureoftruth is right that this is the hypertime idea. I also suggested this a few weeks ago: A Speculative Proposal: Divine Time to Explain the Days of Creation Remember, @r_speir?
@dga471, it is easier to follow your description.
Hmm, to use one of Mr/Ms Speir’s favourite bits of rhetoric, it looks like on this thread it’s:
- RSpeir: 0
- Everyone else: 1
No, there is nothing remotely acceptable to me about this. It’s ad hoc, and there’s nothing in scripture that would validate any of it, and scientifically it sounds extremely dubious. And having lucifer be the one to provide light for the Earth during creation week? What’s that about? I don’t think this deserves much consideration myself, but why not have Speir write this proposal up and submit it to the Journal of Creation?
No I will not admit that. Lucifer was a created pure subject of God and fulfilling a creation role until he fell. Scripture calls him son of the dawn, son of the morning. I don’t know what could be more clear.
And for the physical science behind the idea? How will you or anyone reverse it? I would like to hear from professionals rather than simply complaints from the regular crowd. To the professionals, please reverse the idea using physics. As always, I welcome a full physical rendering.
Remotely? I think you are taking offense at the Lucifer idea and throwing out the good. Two reviewers out of 3 agreed with the physical idea and wanted to publish at AiG.
Mull over the Scriptures about Lucifer and I think you will see that the idea fits perfectly.
I’m not an expert or really equipped to evaluate the cosmology of it. It sounds strange to me, but hey, like I said, submit this idea to the Journal and see where it goes. Competition between competing hypotheses is good.
I remember, but also consider that your idea is not YEC. I am simply trying to get everyone around the table like Swamidass envisioned. YECs have been excluded far too long with people like Rauser basically labeling them misguided and harmful to the Church. If this idea works for now, why not allow YECs to hold a competing model even if every single detail is not yet figured out? I mean, you and Swamidass haven’t got it all figured out either. Give a chance. Make some peace.
Hang in there. Keep the purity. Don’t let anyone rob it from you. If you think I have gone too far, then ignore me as well. Who am I anyway? Keep Jesus and keep the faith. You are doing just fine.
That was talking about Creation Week, not about the present day. Genesis nowhere claims that the light we have visible today is not being produced by stars. In fact it implies the opposite, because God created the stars “for signs and for seasons”.
I added a comments to that thread to note a couple of the problems that I see with it.
There is nothing in Genesis even vaguely suggestive the Lucifer provided light for days 1-3. You are taking a single mention way too far.
Regarding physical evidence, I admitted your hypothesis could not be disproven. However, there zero supporting evidence, either. There is equal physical evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I could go on. You have forgotten that he said in his heart that he would ascend above the stars of heaven and usurp the throne of God. Have you forgotten that angels are likened to stars in the Bible? And how would such a brazen idea enter a being like this except that he was first chosen in his unfallen state to shed brilliant light upon the new earth? His glory must have been enormous to illuminate the planet. It all went to his head. It all fits. How can you ignore this being that you are an evolutionist and Bible-revisionist yourself? And you recoil at my idea? That is actually ironic.
You are YEC because of what is written in the Bible. Why formulate a hypothesis that isn’t even hinted in the Genesis creation account? It is logically inconsistent.
I admit, it is interesting speculation! But it is nothing more than speculation.
Are you sure? Maybe you are trained in physics/cosmology and are authorized to make this statement? What if @PdotdQ comes on and blasts my idea out the window? So far he has been silent, so maybe you are right.