@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?
3 Likes
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
2 Likes
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?
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
My understanding is that Satan, as the devil, doesn’t appear at all until the New Testament. The serpent in Genesis is not identified as anything other than a snake, and the Satan of Job is one of God’s buddies or henchmen, and the term isn’t a name but a job (small j) description. My further understanding is that he’s an invention of late pre-Christian theology, perhaps of the Essenes.
There is zero physical evidence for your Lucifer hypothesis - 100% speculation.
Your time hypothesis is also speculative, but not to the same degree. I don’t have the physics/cosmology background to fairly assess it. But even if it is completely consistent with data, I don’t see any way to actually test it.
From what I know this is pretty much correct, though certain symbolism and meanings associated with the serpent in Genesis 3 makes it possible to identify him as a spiritual being, even solely from the perspective of the Old Testament. (Michael Heiser’s work world be a reference for that.) The New Testament -Revelation, specifically - alludes to the serpent as being Satan and describes his fall in one of the visions, though, IIRC, it isn’t clear if that’s referring to his original fall (prior to or in Genesis 3) or his defeat because of the work of Christ.
1 Like
I am going to go ahead and disagree with you on the 100% speculation. The reason is that in an argument such as this one, there comes a point when it actually starts to become compelling, and thus, speculation becomes overshadowed. I am gonna think that since the pieces fit so neatly here, that the word compelling should now start to be used in conjunction with this argument, rather than speculation.
What compels one person may not compel another.
Let’s use another example. I come around the corner and find a tree branch sitting on the dented hood of my car. I am parked under a tree. Someone comes along and tells me that a supernatural deity created a completely different history in a parallel dimension in which a tree branch fell of a tree, and then brought that parallel dimension into our universe so that it now has a tree branch sitting on my car. I think the simplest and most compelling explanation is that a branch fell of the tree in our universe and fell on my car.
The hurdle you are going to have to get over is the much more compelling explanation of the standard laws and process in our own universe creating the very things we see. You have yet to come up with a reason why we need your convoluted explanation, other than to appease your religious beliefs.
1 Like