Why did God take so long to create everything?

[Kat]

This is from the 06 conference 'THE FATHER'S WILL?'

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,3720.0.html -------

John 10:30  I and the Father are one!

They're not the same person, but 'one,' there's a difference. But one, same spirit, same mind, same attitude, same character, same power, same strength, same wisdom, same purpose, they are one.
v
So He is God, but He is not His own Father. Jesus Christ came to reveal the Father; Luke 10:22; John 6:46;

Matt 11:27, Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him.

Nobody knew anything about God the Father, until Jesus Christ revealed Him. The only God that anybody knew was Jesus Christ.
v
If you want to come up with an analogy of where God is in His own realm, as far as time goes. The closest physical analogy you could come up with is a circle. Not starting back there and going this way, that way is the past and this way is the future. 

Now if the realm of eternity is as a circle, can somebody point to where eternity begins on a circle? Can anyone show me, on this circle, where eternity ends? You can't, can you.

Now I'll give you another little mind boggler, not only can you not show me where it begins or where it ends, I'm telling you it has no beginning and it has no end. It doesn't move in a circle, it is a circle. Therefore time has nothing to do with eternity. 

Even your dictionaries most of them, not all, say eternity is an endless period. Eternity has nothing to do with time, time starts here and goes to there. 

Eternity is like a circle, you can't find the beginning and you can't find the end. Because it has no beginning and it has no end. Therefore in that sense a circle is ultimate truth. So God knows there can never be any thing more perfect than He is. That's where He introduces Himself to us. We are introduced to a being who is perfect.
-------------------------------------------------------

Since God the Father embodies a timeless eternity - therefore being apart from time or outside of time and time exists only within the created universe. It's God the Father only, He is eternal, because Jesus Christ is part of creation.

John 16:28  I came forth from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father."

Wasn't 'time' part of God's plan worked out in wisdom from before this creation? It must be, so the Father perceives something like time one way, but it might appear differently to the finite beings contained within it.

His existence is not actually spread out in time or space, as the existence of material objects are, but His existence is all at once. So it is not that the Father has always existed for as long as time has existed, but that God does not exist in time at all. He is apart from His creation, transcendent over it.

God is outside of time and time exists only within the created universe, all conscious beings are built to perceive time as a chain of events. since the brain presumably perceives time through information processing of external stimuli (experiences) and obeys the laws of causality. This creation is contingent on time and its changes are marked by time. Time is not a substance or a thing, but a relation between things, or more exactly a relation between changes in things.

Using the analogy Ray had of the circle, maybe it's like the idea of the Father possesses life all at once, as the center of a circle with time being represented by the circumference. The relation of the center of the circle to one point on its circumference is the same as its relation to any other point on it. To the Father all points in time are equally 'real,' not just the present. And this circle can expand out continuously.

Luke 1:33  And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end."

The Father has self-existence/sufficiency, is perfection. So that He is changeless, will not change for the worse and does not need to change for the better.

The future is undetermined from the perspective of human beings, but in fact it is fixed and certainly determined by a sovereign God.

I struggle with these ethereal ideas and I've read these encyclopedia articles, though I do not agree with much of any of the theologies from philosophers throughout history, I did put together most of these thoughts from the article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/

People with minds more attuned to this feel free to show me the error in any of this.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[Gina]

Like I've imagined on many occasions, eternity WILL BE A VERY LONG TIME. What will we do with it?

~Theo

I can only imagine.

Not to be snarky, but no one can give you a satisfactory response to that question because no one knows the answer to that - and how could we?  We haven't gotten there yet!  See? 

Who wants to bet God knows what we'll do with all that time? 

My bad! My question was a rhetorical one. I wasn't expecting anyone to know. I know this is something that hasn't been revealed to man.

But I do remember Ray say something about God using His chosen ones to bring the rest of humankind to salvation, and later THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE. His statement is very intriguing and brings up more questions. I'm sure you have thought about this already.

Here it is!!!:

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,13817.msg121839.html#msg121839

Ray's words:

Here is where we really get to what OUR salvation is all about. We, the BODY of Christ, who ARE the SONS OF GOD will be used to SAVE THE REST OF THE WORLD AND THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE!! "Or are  you not aware that the SAINTS shall judge the WORLD?... Are you not aware that we shall be JUDGING ANGELS..."

More questions indeed....

Oh yes, I see where you were going with that.  Yes, I do remember that, and I, too, wonder about that myself.  God will prepare those who He elects to bring salvation to all.  From my vantage point at this moment in time, I imagine it'll be pretty exhilerating if you're one of the elect, and humbling if you're one of those being called to salvation and going through the lake of fire.  One thing is for sure, no elect person will be "lording it over" anyone.  But the elect must have a backbone.  That's essential. 

[indianabob]

Hi Gina,
Liked your reply.
One question though; what did you mean by the last sentence?

One thing is for sure, no elect person will be "lording it over" anyone.  But the elect must have a backbone.  That's essential. 

What I'm wondering is when do we need the "backbone" or the courage of our convictions or what else that may mean? Is it an attribute we develop during this life or a gift? And why is it needed after we are spiritual and have real humility along with the power to speak with authority?

I would like to learn a little more on this topic.
Indiana Bob

[Gina]

Um hm, I see you're back to your old ways, iBob.   Alrighty then...Tell ya what? Watch this gif while I formulate my reply.  Check out the backbone on that guy!



(Nooooo!  Don't answer that, Gina -- trick question!!)

[cjwood]

Wasn't 'time' part of God's plan worked out in wisdom from before this creation? So that the Father perceives something like time one way and it might appear differently to the finite beings contained within it. His existence is not actually spread out in time or space, as the existence of material objects are, but His existence is all at once. So it is not that the Father has always existed for as long as time has existed, but that God does not exist in time at all. He is apart from His creation, transcendent over it.

kathy, the above statement is so awesome.  such a great explanation reflecting God the Father's glory.  and power.

claudia

[Oatmeal]

In this thread reference has been made to:

1.   Einstein's theory of relativity
2.   the Big Bang
3.   the expansion of the universe at an ever-increasing velocity the further objects become from one another
4.   black holes

1.   Einstein's theory of relativity

Professor Herbert Dingle, once a relativist, who as a relativist wrote "Relativity for All" and "The Special Theory of Relativity", and an article on the subject in Encyclopaedia Britannica, changed his mind, a scientific repentance.  He later wrote in his book Science at the Crossroads, which can be downloaded from the Internet, a simple easy to understand refutation of the theory of special relativity.  Here is the refutation, from page 7:

It would naturally be supposed that the point at issue, even if less esoteric than it is generally supposed to be, must still be too subtle and profound for the ordinary reader to be expected to understand it. On the contrary, it is of the most extreme simplicity. According to the theory, if you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respect to the other, they must work at different rates (a more detailed, but equally simple, statement is given on pp. 45-6, but this gives the full essence of the matter), i.e. one works more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the 'moving' one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves. The question therefore arises: how does one determine, consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly? Unless  this question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A --which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false. But, as I have said, more than 13 years of continuous effort have failed to produce either response. The question is left by the experimenters to the mathematical specialists, who either ignore it or shroud it in various obscurities, while experiments involving enormous physical risk go on being performed.

2.   the Big Bang

Here is a website: http://www.cosmologystatement.org, in which is detailed an open letter to the Scientific Community and which was published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004.  There were 34 original signers.  Many more have since signed.

The first paragraph and up to the first sentence of the second paragraph says:

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.

(The end of sixth paragraph): ...in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

3.   the expansion of the universe at an ever-increasing velocity the further objects become from one another

Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who has found evidence that disagrees with the theory that the more the red shift that a galaxy displays the further it is away.  He has observed bright quasars with a large values of red shift linked to galaxies with a low value of red shift, and even two galaxies that are linked together but with different red shifts.  Galaxy NGC 7319, with a red shift of 0.0225, has a quasar in front of it with a red shift of 2.114.  Because these observational results mean that red shift is not an indicator of speed of recession, or distance from the earth, this kills the Big Bang theory, which is based on such assumptions.  This is not acceptable to mainstream science.

What happened, or is happening, to Dr Arp?  Here is a quote from electric-cosmos.org:

Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time.  One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all.  Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination.  Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them.

We are told that scientists know the detail of the distance to the stars, but according to Scripture:

Jeremiah 31:37
Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

4.   Black Holes

A couple of quotes from the Introduction of The Electric Universe by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott:

This is a universe filled with black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and other incomprehensible objects and forces, all with one thing in common: they remain unseen and inaccessible under known laws of physics.

and:

In their devotion to mathematical abstractions, cosmologists wrote themselves a blank check, with the freedom to invent anything necessary to save the theory when observations didn't fit.

And an appropriate quote from Professor Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, in regard to mainstream cosmological science:

They defend the old theories by complicating things to the point of incomprehensibility.

Oatmeal

[Kat]

Hi Oatmeal,

None of this is surprising to me. I've been reading for days trying to find some answers to basic questions and what I find is that most of the theories are based on fallacies or man's incomplete understanding of things.

Where philosophy is concerned there is the almost universal belief of free will and that God is eternal (which the Father is) and then they can't explain the person of Jesus Christ as a eternal Being, (which you can't, He isn't).

It is so hard to read through all the jargon to get to any real solid knowledge. Like you're saying, many times in their stupidity to save a 'pet' theory, they cover up truth... that's the way God intends it.

2Th 2:11  And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,

Rom 1:22  Professing to be wise, they became fools,

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[indianabob]

Hi Oatmeal and Kat, thanks for your counsel.

There is a reason why much of science theory, that which cannot be demonstrated, ends up in comic books and TV fiction. It is the exercise of the human imagination, which thing is fine for immature youth, but lacking in those who by this time should be using strong meat, verifiable facts alone.

A lover of real science, Indiana Bob

[Oatmeal]

Thank you for your reply Kat.  It was very encouraging to me.

I hope that I have not offended anyone in the use of their words in any of the 4 headings.

Oatmeal

[Dave in Tenn]

General Relativity is used in real-life applications every day.  Your GPS would not work without taking it into account.

I don't want the last word, but I'm compelled to remind everybody of this:  The bottom-line of what Ray taught was that what is TRUE in the scientific sense is TRUE in the Scriptural sense.  We are not going to resolve scientific debates here on the forum.  It's not going to happen. 

Study all you want to.  Nobody will ever be convinced of anything if their hearts and minds are already made up.  No amount of data, observation, reasoning, mathematics is sufficient for everybody, even if everybody could understand it.  As long as there is a "question", the mind of man will seek to fill the void.

This forum is to discuss what Ray teaches on Bible-Truths.com. 

[Oatmeal]

I am posting this now to provide more indication right now of the pauperism of mainstream science, and by thus showing the necessity of proving doctrine from the Scriptures rather than from science.

In this thread I made mention, with some evidence, in regard to:

1.   An easy to understand refutation of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity written by a scientist who once taught Relativity.
2.   An open stand made by scientists against the big bang theory who stated that without hypothetical entities/fudge factors such as dark matter and dark energy, things that have never been observed, there would be a fatal contradiction between observations and the predictions made by the big bang theory (the protest web site has now been discontinued but a copy of the protest can be found on the Internet).
3.   Red shift not being an indicator of speed of recession or distance from the earth.  Because this finding stands against the big bang theory this finding is ignored by mainstream science.
4.   Black holes.

In one of the replies to my post the simple to understand explanation of the falsity of the theory of Special Relativity (which theory preceded the theory of General Relativity) was ignored and a defence made of the theory of General Relativity:

General Relativity is used in real-life applications every day.  Your GPS would not work without taking it into account.

This is saying that General Relativity must be true because scientists are telling us that practical science says that it is true.  This has similarity to someone saying that eternal punishment must be true because pastors are telling us that the bible says that it is true.

In the first case, the easy to understand refutation of the theory of Special Relativity is ignored and no effort, or no apparent effort, is made to consider the refutation.  In the second case the easy to understand (if God gives the understanding) refutation of the Scriptures is ignored, and no effort is made to consider the refutation.

The bible (correctly translated) does not say that eternal punishment is true, even if pastors claim that it does, and practical science does not say that Relativity is true, even if scientists claim that it does.

The fact that radio waves travel faster east to west than from west to east has nothing to do with the theory of Relativity, but is to do with the Sagnac effect, which effect can be explained without any Relativity input whatsoever (although some may force-fit Relativity into the explanation).  The Sagnac effect is well understood and is used to detect rotation.  I do understand why radio waves travel faster east to west than from west to east and I do not understand Relativity.  I question whether there exists anyone at all who truly understands (the doctrine of) Relativity.

Mainstream philosophical based science may claim what it wants to claim, but a real life engineer working on a practical level does not need to take Relativity into account when writing a computer software program to co-ordinate with GPS satellites.  Google "Ron Hatch" in association with "GPS" and "relativity".

Perhaps someone would like to bring up the Hefele-Keating "experiment" as proof of Relativity:

The original test results were not published by Hafele & Keating, in their famous 1972 paper; they published figures that were radically different from the actual test results which are here published for the first time. An analysis of the real data shows that no credence can be given to the conclusions of Hafele & Keating.
-   Alphonsus Gabriel Kelly, Hafele & Keating Tests: Did They Prove Anything?, 2000 (this quote can be viewed on the Internet (Google Books))

In regard to the eclipse photographs of 1919 (touted as proof of General Relativity), Stephen Hawking in his book A Brief History of Time, admits: "later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."
Page 32 – Bantam Books April 1988 (downloaded from the Internet)
Page 20 – updated version downloaded from the Internet.

Remember also, as in the Sagnac effect, that a Relativistic explanation for something does not prove Relativity true.  If a then b.  b is found to be true.  This does not prove a to be true, because b could be caused by c.

It is very likely that Relativity was invented or unveiled in an attempt to circumvent the findings of the Michelson-Morley experiment (and possibly other experiments), which had a result much lower than expected, but still a result, and which result was claimed as a null.


Oatmeal

[indianabob]

Thanks Oatmeal for the reference to Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. I found a book on that research in 1995 and was able to learn enough to realize how biased both private and Government funding can be. I was at the time working at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois and had the good fortune to have access to their expansive library of facts and fiction.

The Logical flaws of Einstein's Relativity by Leonard Parish 1977

One of my favorite phrases is that we know Relativity is true because science would not operate without it being true.

Also, the professors in the Physics Department taught their graduate students that they needed to have a working grasp of politics as their source of funding if they expected to remain in that field of endeavor.

Just one persons experience with "research"

[Dennis Vogel]

I have to tell you I have not read any of this. But IMO "Why did God take so long to create everything?" Because that's how long it took according to the laws God created.

Hundreds of years ago some famous astronomer calculated the distance from the earth to Jupiter but dismissed his calculation because he could not believe God would waste so much space between the two planets.

Fun video: http://youtu.be/4Z9rM8ChTjY

[indianabob]

Dear Friend Dennis,

I like your hypothesis, but I really wonder whether God has to publish a set of laws to obey before God can begin creating.

With the level of wisdom and power that we attribute to God why couldn't God just apply God's intuition. For example why could not God just establish the laws while God was creating instead of prior to creating the earth and the rest of the Universe.

God is not a man that he should test a theory before creating to see if the materials God "found" in the universe could be manipulated to the desired end.
The laws of God including natural laws, are in place for the benefit of man rather than for God's benefit or need.

Just wondering whether we limit God's "POW" factor. Can't God just will it to be and there it is?
I don't think God is limited by the speed of light. Most likely God limited photon velocity for our benefit
I agree that God is outside of time, but IF God's angels have to travel in the Universe why cannot they just will themselves to be a trillion parsec away and be there instantly; at the speed of thought?

That's what my wife does. She thinks of a task for me to perform and expects it to happen. 

Any who, that's what I might do if I could. (smile)

[Kat]

Just wondering whether we limit God's "POW" factor. Can't God just will it to be and there it is?
I don't think God is limited by the speed of light. Most likely God limited photon velocity for our benefit
I agree that God is outside of time, but IF God's angels have to travel in the Universe why cannot they just will themselves to be a trillion parsec away and be there instantly; at the speed of thought?

Bob, you said "I agree that God is outside of time," that's just it, God is not limited to any physical aspect of this creation. He is not trapped within the slow development/evolution of this creation through a process over time, no He is omnipresent.

Isa 46:10  Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,'

Rom 4:17  (as it is written, "I HAVE MADE YOU A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS") in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;

The "POW" factor is a reality to Him... what do you think the big bang was? This universe is what He has created for us, with all it's 'laws' which are consistent... gravity always pulls things in, no need to worry that it might stop working that way. Science has helped determine some of these things for us, or at least given us things to consider.

God is certainly not limited, it's just from our finite perspective that things may seem limited, certainly not from His perspective.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[indianabob]

Dear Friend Kat,
Very much appreciate your reply.
However, have to disagree slightly.

The "big bang theory" is just that, a theory that has recently come into disrepute due to further examination over time. From one perspective it states that God lit the fuse and stood back and let the concentrated energy/matter expand to fill the previously created infinite space.
There is NO observational evidence that it MUST be true. There is only interesting theories that change every generation and never seem to achieve full success.

So my point then would be that when expounding scripture it is best not to use science theories in our explanation as if they were proven facts & inspired of God as our work in scripture truly is.

Scientist postulate ideas out of an honest curiosity about how things work and that is fine, but after they work on proving a theory for a few years they can get hung up on their favorite paper that got them their doctorate and accompanying fame.

Without credentials in the science publications they don't achieve tenure and get promoted to Department Chair with the increase in salary or hundreds of new students that support the research grants necessary for professional success such as their own efforts to find some new way of viewing the mysterious Universe.

Professional researchers are not much different than professional churchmen in that regard. It is all about looking good and attracting donors. So if we common folks cannot verify that their theories meet the test of demonstrability then we should handle them with care and reasonable doubt.

Sorry to be so long winded.
Thanks for considering my view point. Indiana Bob

= = =

"The "POW" factor is a reality to Him... what do you think the big bang was? This universe is what He has created for us, with all it's 'laws' which are consistent... gravity always pulls things in, no need to worry that it might stop working that way. Science has helped determine some of these things for us, or at least given us things to consider.

God is certainly not limited, it's just from our finite perspective that things may seem limited, certainly not from His perspective.

mercy, peace and love
Kat
[/quote]

[Joel]

Bob,
You asked "Can't God just will it to be and there it is?"
The way I see it the answer is yes, of course.
Jesus showed this to the crowds, and especially to his disciples many, many times.
Matthew 21:18-22 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!

Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If you have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if you shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Jesus no doubt taught a great lesson to the disciples about faith using that fig tree. The disciples actually saw, and heard Jesus give the command unto the fig tree, and saw it wither.
If someone else came along and noticed the withered tree, their conclusion may be, it died from lack of water, fertilizer, or from disease, over a longer period of time.
When the fact is Jesus himself caused it to die swiftly.
If Jesus would have removed the mountain as he said could be done, how would that have been seen by the disciples, and anyone else that didn't know what was actually happening?
Mountain is blown apart like it was a volcano?
Mountain is destroyed by a giant earthquake?
Mountain rises out of the sea, and plunges back in, and goes out of sight? Or some other way.

How old is God's physical creation that we see today? 6,7,8,10 thousand years? 2,3,4, or more billions of years? I don't know.
All I know is, GOD the FATHER created it through THE WORD, The LORD, and SAVOIR JESUS CHRIST.
Anyway, there is much to think about, and obviously more to learn.

Joel

[Dennis Vogel]

Dear Friend Dennis,

I like your hypothesis, but I really wonder whether God has to publish a set of laws to obey before God can begin creating.

With the level of wisdom and power that we attribute to God why couldn't God just apply God's intuition. For example why could not God just establish the laws while God was creating instead of prior to creating the earth and the rest of the Universe.

God is not a man that he should test a theory before creating to see if the materials God "found" in the universe could be manipulated to the desired end.
The laws of God including natural laws, are in place for the benefit of man rather than for God's benefit or need.

Just wondering whether we limit God's "POW" factor. Can't God just will it to be and there it is?
I don't think God is limited by the speed of light. Most likely God limited photon velocity for our benefit
I agree that God is outside of time, but IF God's angels have to travel in the Universe why cannot they just will themselves to be a trillion parsec away and be there instantly; at the speed of thought?

That's what my wife does. She thinks of a task for me to perform and expects it to happen. 

Any who, that's what I might do if I could. (smile)

Tit 1:2  In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

If God used other methods then that would make God a lair.

Example: If God supernaturally placed dinosaur bones in the Grand Canyon then that would make God a liar because dinosaur bones do not belong in the Grand Canyon. That would be trickery / lying.

[Dennis Vogel]

I also suggest you watch http://youtu.be/2PNgXMHGS2U

[indianabob]

Hi Dennis,
I listened to Ray's recording and I think I get your point.
Wisdom is the principle thing and God got or birthed wisdom before he built the worlds.
- - -
This then took preparation. It means that God had a plan and followed it. Thanks for that.
- - -
My previous comments should have said that God didn't NEED to take billions of years to see His plan and His work come to fruition; once the work began. So my question then would be why do scientist believe, in their opinion, that God needed that much time?
You have said earlier that God's doesn't lie so then what we see in the Universe or on earth must be correct or a valid illustration of how God did it.
But then this very forum is all about millions of leading churchmen seeing and not perceiving the true facts, because God has let Satan blind them. Could that not also apply to scientist??
- - -
I don't know of course how God relates to time in God's own existence. I just do not see any scientific evidence that God's birthed wisdom and God's subsequent perfect plan took billions of years to come into existence. Could be, but the so called evidence of research scientist (astrophysicist) is questionable and should not in my view be treated as fact the way we treat scripture as fact. e.g. the fact that we do not yet know how large the Universe is should keep us from assuming facts not in evidence. e.g (the red shift question)
- - -
2. (subject to correction) I also don't see your point in the story about dinosaurs in the Grand Canyon. I don't say or believe that it was necessary for God to miraculously place dinosaur bones in the grand canyon. Did someone else state that?
- - -
Also why do you say that dinosaur bones DO NOT belong in the Grand canyon?
I have not previously heard that on the forum, but maybe I missed it.

And also, if you care to comment, why are we using dinosaur bones to estimate the age of the earth? I've heard several hypotheses, but not sure how the forum treats that subject.

I really liked your comment from the earlier letter about small miracles
such as God putting a thought in our mind that changed our way of thinking or perceiving what was important. I guess I always assumed that God had a direct connection with the mind of every human and could just prompt us with interest and curiosity when the time was right. 

Kindly offered and subject to correction.
Thank you for your patience, Indiana Bob

Dear Friend Dennis,

I like your hypothesis, but I really wonder whether God has to publish a set of laws to obey before God can begin creating.

With the level of wisdom and power that we attribute to God why couldn't God just apply God's intuition. For example why could not God just establish the laws while God was creating instead of prior to creating the earth and the rest of the Universe.

God is not a man that he should test a theory before creating to see if the materials God "found" in the universe could be manipulated to the desired end.
The laws of God including natural laws, are in place for the benefit of man rather than for God's benefit or need.

Just wondering whether we limit God's "POW" factor. Can't God just will it to be and there it is?
I don't think God is limited by the speed of light. Most likely God limited photon velocity for our benefit
I agree that God is outside of time, but IF God's angels have to travel in the Universe why cannot they just will themselves to be a trillion parsec away and be there instantly; at the speed of thought?

That's what my wife does. She thinks of a task for me to perform and expects it to happen. 

Any who, that's what I might do if I could. (smile)

Tit 1:2  In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

If God used other methods then that would make God a lair.

Example: If God supernaturally placed dinosaur bones in the Grand Canyon then that would make God a liar because dinosaur bones do not belong in the Grand Canyon. That would be trickery / lying.