Time and Eternity: Creation and the Theory of Relativity

Age of the Earth:

Those who assert a “Young Earth” fail to identify its age, and those who advocate an “Old Earth” fail to identify “when the Earth originated;” for, in neither assertion is found the phenomenon of creation; namely, the instantaneous generation of space and matter: An instantaneous, generative event that would otherwise require thousands, millions and even billions of years. Although both camps appear sincerely interested in the truth concerning the Earth’s age, the “Patience of God” (see the above section) is omitted from the equation.

The “Divine Ratio” demonstrates that which is axiomatic; specifically, that “All created things are older than the duration of their existence.”

Humphreys (1994) stated:

“Six Real Earth-days: What this new cosmology shows is that gravitational time distortion in the early universe would have meant that while a few days were passing on earth, billions of years would have been available for light to travel to earth. It still means that God made the heavens and earth (i.e., the whole universe) in six ordinary days, only a few thousand years ago. But with the reality revealed by GR, we now know that we have to ask— six days as measured by which clock? In which frame of reference? The mathematics of this new theory shows that while God makes the universe in six days in the earth’s reference frame (“Earth Standard Time,” if you like), the light has ample time in the extra-terrestrial reference frame to travel the required distances. None of these time frames can be said to be “God’s time” since the Creator, who sees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46: 10, Rev. 22: 13, John 8: 58, and more) is outside of time. Time is a created feature of His universe, like matter and space. It is interesting that the equations of GR have long indicated that time itself had a beginning” (Kindle Locations 113-122).

Humphrey’s (1994) quoted Ken Hamm as stating:

“I have been actively involved in the creation ministry for over 15 years, having visited many different countries and spoken to hundreds of thousands of people. I have also had the unique opportunity of mixing with the world’s leading creation scientists, observing them admirably defend Genesis creation despite the probing attacks of antagonistic evolutionists. Creationist research has exposed many of the weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary philosophy, and has provided answers in such areas as geology and biology. These contributions have given public speakers such as myself a good degree of confidence to give “reasons for what we believe” when challenged by opponents. However, if I were asked whether there were any major places of weakness in the creationist armor, I would have to admit that it has been (till now at least) in the area of cosmology. One of the most-asked questions directed to me at our seminars and through the mail goes something like this: ‘If the universe is only thousands of years old, how do you explain the millions of years it takes for light to travel from distant stars?’ I have heard creation scientists attempt to solve this seemingly insurmountable problem for those who believe the Bible’s account of a young world. Ken Ham, B.App.Sc., Dip. Ed.” (Kindle Locations 48-66).

Custance (1988) stated:

“BEFORE WE COME to consider the spiritual aspects, it seems desirable to review briefly the bearing which the Theory of Relativity has upon the “time” taken for Creation. To begin with, the possibility of a real acceleration or deceleration of Time in certain given circumstances introduces the question of whether time was needed for the Creation at all, or whether it might have been instantaneous…Its evidence of ‘age’ is probably not a deception deliberately introduced by the Creator for some unknown reason. The age is real. Whether we argue for 4,000,000,000 years or twice or half this amount — it is not important at the moment — it seems clear that the Universe is very old…But what does such a concept mean, and was it necessary for God to work so “slowly”? Could He have created it all, as was once supposed, in a moment of time? Was there any fundamental advantage in establishing the time-consuming process which seems to characterize geological change, if such changes could actually have been in some way vastly accelerated ‘to save time’?” (pg. 2).

The Bible’s Doctrine of Relativity (as demonstrated in the Divine Ratio) resolves this embarrassing difficulty, because nothing is “hard” for the Godhead, He Himself provides the “proof” within His inspired Scriptures. That is, the phenomenon of creation is described in the Theological field of Physics in the term “Relativity.”

Although Creation Physicist Dr. D. Russell Humphreys demonstrated a formidable effort to demonstrate the possibility of Einstein’s Theory of relativity being a “solution” to the apparent contradiction between science and the Bible, the ‘Patience of the Godhead’ warrants the Bible Interpreter’s attention; especially, since the Interpreter’s chief task is to “sanctify the Lord in His heart.”

The 360-day Prophetic Year

Baxter writes:

“In his book, The Coming Prince, Sir Robert Anderson has shown, with the corroboration of the Astronomer Royal, that Nehemiah’s date was the 14th March, 445 B.C. And now, what kind of years are we to reckon? We are not left in doubt. The interrelation of Daniel’s visions and those of John is patent to all; and a comparison of the two will settle it that the prophetic year is a lunisolar year of 360 days. Both Daniel and John speak of “a time, and times, and half a time” (that is three and a half “times”); and both make it clear that three and a half “times” are three and a half years (Compare Dan. vii. 25; ix. 27; Rev. xii. 14; xiii. 5). But John goes further and splits up the three and a half years into days (compare Rev. xi. 2, 3; xii. 6, 14), showing us that the three and a half years equal 1,260 days. This settles it that the prophetic year is one of 360 days. So then, from the edict to rebuild Jerusalem, down to the cutting-off of the Messiah, was to be 483 years of 360 days each. Was the prophecy fulfilled? It was. Once only did our Lord offer Himself publicly and officially as Israel’s Messiah. It was on that first, memorable “Palm Sunday.” Sir Robert Anderson rightly emphasizes the significance of this. “No student of the Gospels can fail to see that the Lord’s last visit to Jerusalem was not only in fact but in intention the crisis of His ministry. From the time that the accredited leaders of the nation had rejected His Messianic claims, He had avoided all public recognition of those claims. But now His testimony had been fully given, and the purpose of His entry into the capital was to proclaim openly His Messiahship, and to receive His doom” (Kindle Locations 12292-12304).

Further, Baxter records:

“What then was the length of time between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and this climactic public advent of Christ— Christ—between the 14th March, 445 B.C. and the 6th April, A.D. 32? Sir Robert tells us that it was EXACTLY 173,880 DAYS, THAT IS, 483 PROPHETIC YEARS OF 360 DAYS! Again, if this is not evidence of Divine inspiration, then nothing is” (Kindle Locations 12319-12322).

The Bible’s Doctrine of Relativity (as demonstrated in the Divine Ratio) provides the “proof” of the 360-day prophetic year, affording the Bible student the sought-after “‘Q.E.D.’ (sometimes written “QED”) which is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase ‘quod erat demonstrandum’ (‘that which was to be demonstrated’), a notation which is often placed at the end of a mathematical proof to indicate its completion” (para. 1).

Retrieved from  http://mathworld.wolfram.com/QED.html

Six Literal Days

Baxter (1986) wrote:

“A discrimination must be made (the Bible certainly makes it) between the original creation of the earth and its subsequent reconstruction with a view to its becoming the habitation of man. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the six “days” in this first chapter of Genesis do not describe the original creation of the earth Those who suppose or assert this are obliged to treat the six “days” as vast periods of time, so as to square Genesis with what modern science has shown us concerning the vast antiquity of our earth. Yet in all truth they fail thus to reconcile Genesis and geology; and what is worse, they involve the Scripture itself in unresolvable self-contradictions” (Kindle Locations 501-506).

The Bible’s Doctrine of Relativity (as demonstrated in the Divine Ratio) provides the “proof” of the literal six days, the ‘in time’ creation event, affording the Bible student the sought-after “‘Q.E.D.’ (sometimes written “QED”) which is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase ‘quod erat demonstrandum’ (‘that which was to be demonstrated’), a notation which is often placed at the end of a mathematical proof to indicate its completion” (para. 1).

Retrieved from  http://mathworld.wolfram.com/QED.html

Flat or Spherical Earth

Clarke (1837) stated:

“Time signifies duration measured by the revolutions of the heavenly bodies: but prior to the creation of these bodies there could be no measurement of duration, and consequently no time; therefore, in the beginning must necessarily mean the commencement of time which followed, or rather was produced by, God’s creative acts, as an effect follows or is produced by a cause” (Kindle Locations 207-210).

The Bible’s Doctrine of Relativity (as demonstrated in the Divine Ratio) provides the “proof” of the Spherical Earth, affording the Bible student the sought-after “‘Q.E.D.’ (sometimes written “QED”) which is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase ‘quod erat demonstrandum’ (‘that which was to be demonstrated’), a notation which is often placed at the end of a mathematical proof to indicate its completion” (para. 1).

Retrieved from  http://mathworld.wolfram.com/QED.html

1: 1,000 & 1,000: 1

Clarke (1837) stated:

“Many have supposed that the days of the creation answer to so many thousands of years; and that as God created all in six days, and rested the seventh, so the world shall last six thousand years, and the seventh shall be the eternal rest that remains for the people of God. To this conclusion they have been led by these words of the apostle, 2 Peter 3: 8; : One day is with the Lord as a thousand years; and a thousand years as one day. Secret things belong to God; those that are revealed to us and our children” (Kindle Locations 449-453).

Baxter (1986) stated:

“…We find the saints ‘reigning with Christ a thousand years’ (verses 4-6). During that thousand years Satan is interned in the abyss (verses 1-3); but at the end he is released; whereupon he immediately goes forth to deceive the nations, and there is a swift, last, violent insurrection (verses 7-10). The purpose of this is finally to demonstrate the utter incorrigibility of Satan, and the irremediable failure of Adamic human nature—even after a thousand years of perfect government; thus immediately preparing for the final, general judgment at the ‘Great White Throne’ (verses 11-15) and the winding up of the present order” (Kindle Location 24510-24514).

The Bible’s Doctrine of Relativity (as demonstrated in the Divine Ratio) provides the “proof” of the 1 day to 1,000-year ratio, affording the Bible student the sought-after “‘Q.E.D.’ (sometimes written “QED”) which is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase ‘quod erat demonstrandum’ (‘that which was to be demonstrated’), a notation which is often placed at the end of a mathematical proof to indicate its completion” (para. 1).

Retrieved from  http://mathworld.wolfram.com/QED.html

Day-age Theory

“Adherents of Day-Age Theory often point out that the word used for “day” in Hebrew, yom, sometimes refers to a period of time that is more than a literal, 24-hour day. One Scripture passage in particular often looked to for support of this theory is 2 Peter 3:8, “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” This passage certainly reminds us that God stands outside of time and we should not doubt the occurrence of a future biblical event (viz., the second coming) simply because it seems to be taking a long time from our limited human perspective. According to opponents of Day-Age Theory, then, 2 Peter 3:8 has nothing to do with the length of the creation week”

Retrieved from https://www.gotquestions.org/Day-Age-Theory.html

The Bible’s Doctrine of Relativity (as demonstrated in the Divine Ratio) provides the “proof” that 2 Peter 3:8 has everything to do with the creation week, proving that a literal day need not be expanded to an indefinite time period, affording the Bible student the sought-after “‘Q.E.D.’ (sometimes written “QED”) which is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase ‘quod erat demonstrandum’ (‘that which was to be demonstrated’), a notation which is often placed at the end of a mathematical proof to indicate its completion” (para. 1). Retrieved from  http://mathworld.wolfram.com/QED.html

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s