Before the Big Bang

Nope, you are wrong.

Okay...Thank you...

First: I'm new here...so forgive me, please, if I'm breaking some protocall.This thread is the one that caused me to register.I agree with Jazzlover that this issue is really one confined to people who adhere to a strict evolution view point...i.e., atheistic evolution.I'm one of those people who interprets Genesis literally and believes that the entire universe and all in it was created in 6 literal days about 6000 or so years ago.So, in regards to this thread, I wanted to add a comment from that point of view. Satan, demons, and angels are also created beings. Therefore, one view (and one to which I presently adhere) is that all spiritual beings, with the exception of God Himself, were created in that 6 day period. One of the scriptures used to support this idea is Genesis 1:31, which says:

quote:

---

God saw ALL that He had made, and it was very good...NIV (emphasis mine)

---

Or Exodus 20:11, which says:

quote:

---

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and ALL that is in them...NIV (emphasis mine)

---

Satan is in the earth. In Job 1:7 we find:

quote:

---

The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the LORD , "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it." NIV

---

So, it appears, based on this verse, that Satan, angels, demons and the like were all created in those 6 days (just the creation of the higher spiritual beings was left out for some unknown reason). Finally, it is God alone (the God of the Bible) who is eternal.Genesis 1:1 says:

quote:

---

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. NIV

---

Therefore, before creation there was only God and time did not begin until the beginning (of course ).Just wanted to throw my .02 in as you seemed genuinely interested in this from a theological point of view as well as a scientific (although, admittedly from both sides, anything before the Big Bang, and actually much of what would have occurred during or even slightly after the supposed Big Bang are outside the realm of any science we deal with today, because, unless I misunderstand, part of the theory is that physical laws ~ i.e., science as we know it ~ were PRODUCED by the event.)For the record, I do not believe there was a Big Bang.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-28-2004 12:17 AM

---

I Interpret Genesis literally.

Welcome to EvC.You might want to check out http://EvC Forum: Genesis: is it to be taken literally?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hey Jar.Thanks for the link. I might read all 11 or so pages tomorrow or sometime. Is there a particular post you'd like for me to look at now. (Just glancing at it...I'm sure I would find it interesting.)

Nothing in particular. We've had lots of discussions on whether or not Genesis can be taken literally. Look them over when you get a chance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh. Okay, thanks.

Oh good, my fav.Are you prepared to defend that in anyway? Have a look at the Dates and Dating forum if you are. If not; well, look at what that says.

My fav? Ha! Ha!Yes. I AM prepared to at least TRY. But, I must say, I am no geologist.

Rats! I couldn't help myself. I HAD to read ALL 12 pages AND respond TONIGHT!Now, I ain't gonna get no sleep. (Enlish language knowingly mangled)But I did enjoy the thread, Jar. .

quote:

---

One of the scriptures used to support this idea is Genesis 1:31, which says:

​

quote:God saw ALL that He had made, and it was very good...NIV (emphasis mine)

---

So God created Demons and this was good?

Well, there are geologists who post here with some regularity. It is fair to ask them to clarify things.Generally the reasoning is accessable to those without specific geological training.One challenage is that it involves more than geology. Physics and biology are involved. In fact all of the sciences are linked so you can never be sure you won't get caught up with other disciplines. Some of them get very difficult. The big bang and cosmology here are examples of are area that, if you really, really need to dig into the base for yourself, you will need some graduate level courses in the needed math. So in the end, you are stuck taking someones word for it after assessing the reliability of that as well as you can.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-28-2004 12:39 PM

Charles Knight,Yes,
On day 7, the demons (including Satan) most likely would have been good angels. The phrase doesn't make sense to me otherwise, but I leave open the possibility that I am wrong (but that would be something I could only learn later, not in this lifetime).Satan's fall, which is not described in great detail, would have occurred sometime after day 7 and sometime before the unspecified day whereon Satan tempted Eve to disobey God's only commandment (at the time, there was only one commandment).Satan's falls seems to be described in Isaiah 14:12-17 and also Ezekiel chapter 28 starting at verse 12. Verse 15 says,

quote:

---

Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

---

So, it appears, that God created all things good but gave to the angels and to humans the CAPACITY to do evil (i.e., do things contrary to His will and commandments).This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-28-2004 01:20 PM

NosyNed,The few times I have tried discussing radiometric dating (in AOL chatrooms) were rather frustrating. The one time an amateur geologist happened to be in the room was actually refreshing as he would, on occasion, correct some of the more glaring errors of the more tenacious opponent (for instance, the fellow refused to accept that gases could move into, within, or out of rocks; the geologist tried ~ to no avail, as I recall ~ to help the fellow understand that they COULD do such things.)I am glad no one will require me to get a graduate degree to discuss the subject .To be fair, while I am a biscuit cook at Hardee's, I was quite the math guy in high school and I loved physics. My love for math stops short of Calculus though I did pull thru with good grades. Also, I have completed my junior year at a reputable college while attempting to earn a Bachelors in Accounting. I quit because I cheated on one test, and the guilt nearly ate me alive. I made fabulous grades until I cheated, at which time I became unable to focus properly and had lost the zeal I had for learning in that environment (in other words, learning there was no longer a fun experience).So, I am not too stupid, but, on the other hand, I am not too brilliant, either.In general, the posts here look fairly levelheaded. Hopefully, at least SOME of my input will seem thoughtful . So far, the people here seem friendly enough, and I look forward to some lively discussions on many subjects (these subjects usually being disallowed in other forums).This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-28-2004 01:35 PM

Thanks to your reply to my earlier point - I'll have to echo Ned's point and give you a slight warning (in a friendly sense).If you are going to follow the literalist path, you are going to run up against questions that will other require you to change your views or say "sorry that basic law of physics is wrong".