This supplement extends the ideas initially presented in Appendix C4, The COI Universe but where Supplement 3 concentrated on technical features, this supplement deals with issues of Biblical compatibility, especially in regard to the Creation account of day 4.
“S10. The key to everything” was written after these Biblical Extensions and after “S7. In a moment’s frustration”. It is a much punchier, scripture first explanation, intended to show the need for a better understanding of Genesis 1-5, irrespective of the COI model. It shows that the COI model does provide that better understanding. This article still contains essential follow-up. I now recommend S10 as the start of your biblical introduction because it really does give you the key to understanding.
My COI universe model started with an imagined view of what creation might have looked like from the throne room of God. Because I assumed that God did not spend a lot of conscious effort on the 100 billion odd galaxies, each with 100 billion odd stars, I wondered if some mechanism for this could be proposed. Now I know the Bible declares that God named all the stars. If it exists He knows about it, but just as I might know and name all the trees in a forest, it does not mean that I consciously supervised every aspect of their growth, as God did on this earth in days 2 to 6.
The Bible also declares that God stretched-out the heavens and I have described this in chapter 25. However, I chose to see that as establishing or creating their distribution in space and I do not require it to mean that space-time was or is being stretched out. I feel that the expansion of space-time is conjecture created to support the Big Bang model. Hence, I seek another solution under the COI model.
Because I postulate an age of this galaxy of perhaps a million years I have not broken scripture because the observer and creator, Jesus, was travelling at the speed of light on the creation wave and in this frame of reference, (God’s frame of reference), that time was a blink of the eye. That is just basic physics.
I am not sure what you will find to challenge your personal understanding, but I see a fully self-consistent view of the Bible and the associated physics. It may be that you have only read the on-line sections and not yet read the “On Day 8” and “Page 1: God’s way” sections of the book where I suspect that all your concerns will be explained. So, please do that.
I must add this one thing because some people will mistakenly think that I created the “Page 1: God’s way” chapters to justify the COI model. But it was the other way around. I think this all started in 2008 when I was working on a series of articles called “The Models”, comparing various technical viewpoints with Genesis 1. My goal was to show the multitude of understandings that were encompassed by God’s word, but the verdict was clear as to which model was best. During this time I first saw God’s Timetable. In late 2012, I had finished most of the work in the chapters of the “Page 1: God’s way” and seeing Jesus’ role more clearly during creation, I revised Appendix C3 to reflect this. I suddenly realised that I had described a model of creation that I had never seen before and in the following few months, the COI model appeared as Appendix C4.
The Word of God has never encumbered me, but rather, it has been my inspiration.
In the COI model, Jesus rides the creation wave all the way to the centre of the universe. This can be seen as fulfilling Genesis 1 verse 1:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
For Jesus, this time is arbitrarily brief, from 1 minute to one hour or one day. At the end of this period there is a water-covered planet that had formed before the sun ignited, as described by verse 2:
The earth was formless and void and darkness covered the face of the deep.
Jesus switches his attention to this planet:
The Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
And then light floods this new world, fulfilling verse 3:
God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
Does this make you feel more comfortable with the COI model? This is almost a text-book understanding of the first 3 verses in Genesis 1. For sure I have proposed that the first two verses are just an introduction and that the COI model effectively all unfolds in verse 3. I have very good reasons for suggesting this. But I hope you can appreciate the COI model without feeling that your beliefs are compromised.
You have a moment now to consider something. Where you eager to attack a physical model because it did not line up with your perceived beliefs? I think many of believers will do this, especially because I have proposed a lot of things in Part 3 that “rocks the boat”. In fact, I am pretty sure I would do the exact same thing. I would hammer anything that did not line up with my view of scripture. But in this case, the COI model works both ways.
Now I would like you to consider the believer who believes that there is no God. OK, they are called atheists, but know for sure that they are faith based believers, believing in things unseen and unprovable. Loosely speaking they are described as secular. I think the COI model could work for them. Once they filter out all suggestions of God and Jesus they just need a shell of energy – a cosmic bubble, to kick start the universe. (Perhaps their god burped or fluffed?) Secular scientists will have to try and find ways to greatly inflate the age of the galaxy so that there is time for evolution to ‘create’ life. It won’t be easy because there are plenty of observations that demand a young galaxy. But here is the twist – the COI model does not define the age of the galaxy; it simply allows the age to be young. So I actually applaud even secular scientists who are prepared to follow what the data is suggesting, namely an earth centred, spherically symmetric universe.
Late update: (June 2016) I investigated the consequences of gravitational redshift in Red shift calculations. During these calculation I discovered that they predict the Hubble Constant H0, a fundamental parameter of the universe. However, the maths requires that the age of this galaxy must be less than 100,000 years in order to match the experimental value of H0. So the COI model does have a lot to say about the age of this galaxy. By the way, the age of the galaxy and the age of the earth are not the same.
Some of us may still be struggling to accept Genesis 1:1-2 as an introduction and the creation of the universe unfolding in Genesis 1:3, when light was declared. Here is another way to incorporate the COI model into the creation account. There is a little bit of repetition but also a nice surprise...
Go back to Appendix C3 and read how God scooped up a handful of water from the crystal sea in heaven. This handful of water in the palm of His hand became a spherical crystal, frozen in time. This crystal is the entire universe (heavens and earth) and fulfils Genesis 1:1...
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
God, and God alone, can see and describe the planet earth deep down at the centre of this water filled crystal, fulfilling Genesis 1:2...
The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
Then time begins with the creation of light in verse 3, and the universe transforms into the intricate structures we see today, as described in the COI universe model, from the outside—in. The separation of light from dark is the gathering of all matter into the stars that emit light leaving the dark, black void of outer-space in between, so fulfilling verse 4.
This is a near perfect match to scripture but understanding that God was picturing the whole universe, not just the earth in verse 2. Is that good enough to calm concerns? I have heard of an entirely different model for the universe’s creation that has some level of acceptance and is similar in some ways (Reference 3). It proposes that all the matter of the universe was contained in the water that covered the earth in verse 2. The water has to be about 3 light years deep from memory and on day two it is spread out to form the heavens. This now has to include the stars (second heaven) as well as the sky (first heaven). The advantage of this proposal is that the physics allows us to get time running faster on the outside than the inside to solve the distant star light dilemma. However, it offers no hint as to how the galaxies formed. I don’t favour this solution, but if you can accept that, then why not accept the COI Model.
Do you see what I have done? I have shown that verse 1 can be viewed as the creation of the universe, that is, the preliminary creation of the matter—space universe that is the starting point of God’s creation account. I have shown that verse 2 can be viewed as a description of this matter—space universe with the earth at the centre and all the matter of the universe represented in the water surrounding the earth. Further I have pointed out that there is already an acceptable understanding proposed that is very similar.
Personally, I did not start here. I started seeing verse 1 as an introductory statement and verse 2 as God’s chosen description of what He could see was to come. I believe this is God’s Way and this is what I tried to capture in Part 3 of the book. I think it is of the greatest importance to see His heart more than the physical details. This is the only view that fully reveals the truth of God’s word when it says that all things were created by the word of God and that all things were created by and through Jesus, the light of the world. Jesus coming was likened to the sunrise (Luke 1:78) and even in heaven He (the Lamb) is its lamp (Revelation 21:23). It all happened in His first spoken words, “Let there be light.” But, in the sheer overarching brilliance of God’s ways, there is a physical analogy behind verses 1 and 2, albeit a stretch of our imagination to see and understand what He did and what He saw, before the beginning of time.
I wondered if, in the time of Moses, the Israelites understood the ‘earth’ in verse 2 as just the dry land. This is because God named the dry land ‘earth’ on day 3. This makes the plain reading very easy to visualise. The starting point described in Genesis 1 verse 2 is just an unbounded sea where the earth is revealed on day 3, along with vegetation. Later, the flood of Noah’s day covers the land up, and then God again restores the dry land after the flood. And if you want to look at the “Reviewing Genesis 9:3” article, you will also see God restoring the vegetation. Finally Moses physically saw the waters of the sea divide overnight before him, to escape from Pharaoh and reveal the way to the Promised Land.
The unbounded dark sea; the sky lighting up before dawn, before the appearance of the sun; the dry land appearing. ...All these things are natural spin-offs of the plain reading of water covering the land; the images from the Genesis account, but still evident today in the tide that goes in and out but never passes the boundary God has set (Psalm 104:9, Proverbs 8:29). Though the initial creation was completed and ready in Genesis 2:1, God never stopped being God; a creative miraculous God, and His ways remained consistent after the flood and in the establishment of Israel. In the New Testament, 2 Peter 3:5-6 talks about the consistent use of water.
In Appendix C2, I made it clear that the Bible hints that the earth was circular and hence bounded, but that our perceptual framework pictures the heavens as above, like layers. God’s description is absolutely beautiful and communicates to mankind, over all ages, far more than we sometimes grasp. As our view of the earth and the universe grew we were able to picture the “earth, formless and void” in Genesis 1:2, as this planet, floating the dark void of outer space. This was great and a natural progression of our understanding that God had allowed for.
The problem is, this technical insight of the formless and void earth in verse 2 as a planet, is an assumption we have made based on our understanding of the day. What I am now asking is, can we step up another level and see the entire universe before time began in this water covered earth of verse 2. The COI model, as inspired by Appendix C3, makes this very easy. But alas, I am confronted by a paradigm demanding that verse 2 is just this planet. So, I need to remind you what the text demands...
I came across the following article on the CMI website that explores the significance of verses in Genesis 1:1-2.
Morning has broken … but when?
I am in awe of the detailed analysis that these two verses have received. I am reminded about the deep passions of the different positions taken by contributors to the subsequent blog. The author Russell Grigg and the subsequent blog moderator, Jonathan Sarfati demonstrate considerable insight into the Hebrew language constructs. After much discussion, Jonathan inserts a section in the blog titled, “Heavens and earth” and “Is v. 1 a summary statement (or heading)?” These quote from still more learned scholars. Here is my comment...
They just cannot figure it out! The style and linguistics all point to verse 1 as an introduction and summary statement that goes on to describe the initial state in verse 2. But assuming that verse 2 is describing a physical entity, the earth, that needed to be created; and finding no reference to its creation in an otherwise detailed methodical account; the reader is forced to assume that verse 1 is not a summary statement but a declaration of the creation of both the heavens and the earth in some basic form, with more detail only offered about the earth.
This is where I started in Part 3 of the book, but I broke free of the assumption about the earth, formless and void, as picturing this planet in its current form. I saw that this was simply God’s way of picturing the future and I gave tremendous support for this view in chapters 23, 24, 25 and 26 . I saw all creation as being done by the word of God and by the light of the world, Jesus, in verse 3. Then, as the COI universe model unfolded I saw a physical reality that verse 2 could be describing, namely, the matter—space universe; a sphere of water, where the earth would be at its centre but at that stage, before the beginning of time, it was still formless and void.
Whether or not the process proposed in my COI Universe model pans out technically, this broad outline allows us to glimpse the creation of the universe in a new way. The earth is restored to its privileged position in space and time and billions of years are written off. God’s sovereignty over time is asserted, both during creation, and through His subsequent timetable. That is a win-win scenario.
If you read Appendix C4 then you get the idea that after creating all the galaxies, God’s attention returns to our solar system and specifically to our planet, the earth. This is reasonable for an initial overview. But it was not my vision in Appendix C3. There, Jesus, seeing the last galaxy created, continues to zoom in on the creation wave until our planet alone is before Him. Now God is applying a lot of conscious attention to our earth.
I consider it reasonable that Jesus did not arrive to find the earth just as His Father had imagined it in Genesis 1, verse 2, where it was still formless and void – just in His mind’s eye. Our planet was His conscious focus as He ensured that every detail was what His Father had planned. I also consider it reasonable that the bubble that resulted in this solar system was especially ordained for this purpose and even created later than the rest of the galaxy. The following sections also deal with the special care given to our solar system, and in particular, the earth.
In Supplement 3, I described how the moon might have formed but it only began to orbit the earth on day 4, when the sun had ignited. This “just so” story helps to picture how the moon is explained by the COI model and also fits the Creation account of day 4. But there is a warning... The story makes it seem to happen as if by accident or coincidence – no God required. Now perhaps God ordained things so they would happen as in the story, or perhaps God acted in a more hands-on way to make it happen just as He required. This is not like the rest of the universe where I proposed that God gave it little conscious attention. What I need to show you is that the final result was nothing like a coincidence.
The moon has been seen to be a perfect companion for this earth in so many ways. I am probably only familiar with a few:
The moon was not put there just to give Neil Armstrong a place to park the lunar lander. It is just right, and probably even essential, for life on this earth. Whatever technical facade you wrap around the formation and appearance of the moon, you have to see God’s hand at work.
The Bible declared that God made the stars to shine on day 4. I have already explained in Chapter 25 how that does not preclude their prior existence, so I won’t repeat that explanation here. What I have done under the COI model is to allow all the solar systems in all the galaxies to first form planets and for the sun at their centre to then collapse and form what we now recognise as the sources of heat and light that sustain our solar system and lights up the heavens.
Furthermore, I have shown that all the light from distant galaxies would arrive at our galaxy at the same time as our own sun ignites. So the COI model is certainly consistent with the Genesis description of day 4. So I am going to claim a Tick on matching the day 4 description, but I need to let you in on a few subtle issues.
Even if our solar system was at the dead centre of the universe, it would be a big ask that the light of every star in every galaxy reach the earth at the same time. It helps a lot to factor in my proposed millennium days. But I still see another issue to deal with. I assume that all the stars in this galaxy were created at approximately the same time and many of of these stars are of the order of one hundred thousand light years from the earth. So I find it hard to get the light of all these stars appearing during day 4. The light of many would, especially the more obvious close stars, but the more distant stars would appear later.
Now, this is a good place to stop. But if you dare to consider that light from these more distant stars in our galaxy would need something like 100,000 years after day 4 to appear here, then you will presume that the COI model does not match the Bible, or worse still, the Bible is wrong. Look, if that is what you want, then you go down that road, but I know where it leads. Like all good physicists, I can conjure up some exotic solution, but it is often not convincing. So I am asking you to cut me some slack. I got all the stars in all the galaxies to light up on their respective day 4’s and to appear at the centre of the universe close to our own day 4. Hold on to that!
Now for more imagination: I have allowed that our solar system was created later than the rest of the galaxy because it was a custom job. This helps a little to get nearby starlight appearing on our day 4 but it still does not fix everything. In fact, you might get nearby starlight appearing before our solar system’s day 4. So I made this proposal:
God created our solar system, or earth, somehow separately from the rest of this galaxy and the universe and then released it into its current position on day 4. By separate, it could mean within its own time bubble so that it joined the universe at its day 4, after all lights sources were visible.
You see what I mean—exotic conjecture is not terribly convincing. Well, what explanation of a supernatural event is convincing to our understanding? The COI model brings the creation of the universe down to something we can understand. But the earth was always pictured by God as distinct from the heavens, that is, the rest of the universe. So I simply accept that this distinction also allows a supernatural intervention in the case of this planet and I rejoice in that. I have taken this as far as I can in the natural. Days 2 to 6 are all supernatural and I think it entirely appropriate to hand control back to God in regard to the final creation of the earth on day 1!
If you re-read that last section you will notice that I was really impressed at how the COI model was broadly able to explain all the suns lighting up on day 4, but when you looked at the detail, there were still issues. As I write this, I had been working intermittently on the COI model for the last 4 months. I was continually amazed as I saw more and more things that it explained. Suddenly I was a little irritated that I could not marry up the model with day 4 as well as I wanted.
Then I did what everyone does and proposed something exotic—not obvious from scripture. However, hardly had I started to apologise for why exotic solutions are not convincing than I recalled that creation was supernatural and that the earth was always unique and different from the heavens. I had been preoccupied trying to visualise the universe’s creation within my own understanding and suddenly I could again see the earth as unique and special in God’s eyes. Of course the earth, the last step in the creation of the universe, had to be seen as supernatural because that was the start of the days 2 to 6 which continues this supernatural creation.
So why am I giving you the summary? Because like me, you can be amazed at the COI model but we must not lose sight of our supernatural God. This model appears to be within our understanding simply because God ordained the physics so that when He applied the power, it all happened. But the rest of the universe, that is, the heavens, are just there for a starry sky. This world and this solar system is a custom job! The secular world may see benefits in the COI model but when it gets to day 2 they will dump the Bible. I cannot. What about you?
The funny thing was, as I looked back on what I thought yesterday was an exotic proposal, I realised that it was completely compatible with my initial vision where God zoomed in on this planet at the end of stage 1—to customise it to His specific needs. From the start I had proposed that the event horizon or creation wave implied the start of time as it surged into the universe, and now it surrounded this world. How reasonable that this world was so-to-speak in its own time bubble as Jesus worked on it day by day.
And the very best part: I started to recall scriptures that alluded to how God would do this sort of thing later in the Bible:
I had to work late and then pick my daughter up from choir practice on the way home, but I was exhausted. I decided to browse the Creation.com website for a break. It had a list of featured articles on the home page, and I took the one on top. It then pointed to another article, Reference 1, where Dr Russel Humphreys was using his own model for the creation of the universe to explain some features we see today. Dr Humphreys demonstrated a solution of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity that allows time to stand still inside a sphere (bubble) at the centre of the universe. Suddenly, what I felt was uncomfortably exotic turns out to be genuine physics, albeit very complex! I don’t know how things work in your walk with God, but I am amazed at the way He is able to confirm things. Let me be clear – I am not claiming that makes me correct, but that Russel and I are touching on something of God, so I recommend that you also look at Reference 1 below and other aspects of Russel’s work.
I hope you noticed how miscellaneous scriptures are fulfilled in the COI model, at least when viewed from the throne room. Clearly Appendix C3 depicts God holding the universe in the palm of His hand—the span of his fingers (Isaiah 40:12). But scripture actually alludes to the start of time in Genesis 1:5 where says that:
God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
In this verse God links the physical light and darkness to day and night which are a measure of time. Then God refers to evening and morning as one day, not the first day. The subsequent days are a second, third, fourth day etc, but the first occurrence is not the first day but one day. I see this as confirming that time was being defined or ordained by God, which is a major axiom of the COI process.
In Supplement 3, to help the secular world virtualise the process, I suggested that the starting point could be a ball of Pre-Time Energy (PTE). This is a nice concept to picture how the start of time progressively transformed the ball of PTE into this universe, all under the laws of physics within this universe. I am concerned that some people will see this ball of PTE as returning the creation of the universe to an impersonal, and hence God-less, process. I would like to turn around that perception...
First, it will always be impersonal to the secular world. That is to be expected. That is as far as they can allow themselves to go back. But I can go back to before the beginning of time and before this universe existed. That is where Appendix C3 starts and in that imagined description, God scoops up water that forms a perfect spherical crystal in His hand. Suppose I changed the wording and described that crystal as frozen in time. Now ‘frozen’ sounds simply like time was stopped, but suppose we picture time as removed. Mass and energy are interchangeable. Can you see it? I have pictured God creating the ball of PTE. In this ball, the mass or energy is bland, that is, boring and evenly distributed. Then symbolically through the appearance of light, time is seen to start from the outside in. But the process now redistributes the matter into the exquisite structures we see in our universe and through which we glimpse the majesty of God.
OK, I hope you are a little more comfortable that God is back in the equation. Actually, He was never out of it for me, but there is another twist I would like you to consider. God dwells in eternity. We don’t really know what eternity is but we know it’s different to here. We intuitively know, and physics confirms it, that everything here decays and will die. So in eternity things are different. We think of eternity as never ending time and that is certainly part of it. I heard a preacher suggest that eternity was not so much “never ending time”, as “time-less-ness”. Now, I have to tell you that I really hated that idea because I cannot imagine time-less-ness. My thoughts are all a time sequenced series of concepts. I could not find anything useful in what he shared. But when I recalled this, it helped me see time in eternity as somehow different to time in this universe.
Can you now picture God taking a small piece of eternity to form the ball of PTE? Then through Jesus, the laws of physics and time are established to transform this small piece of eternity into our universe. Is it harder to imagine God scooping up a handfull of soil and transforming it into Adam?
Update (Mar 2015): There are always options. My proposal is that some pre-existing ball of energy, or some pre-existing matter–space universe, is transformed into space–time plus matter from the outside – in. The appearance of time effectively fuels or enables this conversion. But if you like, as a believer, you can do away with this pre-existing universe and just accept that God supplied the energy. However, I am simply following my initial picture outlined in Appendix C3.
It occurred to me that some believers may view this as an attempt to appeal to secular scientists. For example, this helps them to see the mechanics behind the process without needing a God and might help them avoid some unpalatable problems with the beginning of time. Such an appeal might be viewed as a compromise. If that is you, then I suggest you wake up! As for me, I certainly hope they do see a model that helps with their problems. You see, I am not trying to hit them over the head with a Biblically compatible model, demanding that they believe in God. I would be delighted if they see a technically feasible model. I would be happy for them to stamp their name on research that affirms the process. It is only the witness of God that can enable them to transition to seeing God. Right now (Mar 2015), I see enough reluctance amongst believing scientists, to wonder if the secular world might not be fastest to run with this model.
I found an article that beautifully summarises the evolution of secular views about the beginning of the universe. If you follow the link and its references it will give you a good background, and shows just how much the secular world is struggling. See Reference 2.
At the end of time the final judgement occurs. Revelation 20:11 describes this as the “earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them”. The judgement of the living and the dead follows this. As other scriptures make clear, there really is no place to hide. Of course God knew this time even before He created Adam, as revealed in His timetable. Suppose that He has already ordained the collapse of the universe: from the outside in, at the speed of light to arrive here at this moment.
Matthew 24:29, talking more about the return of Jesus than the end of time, describes the stars falling from the sky. With some latitude, and knowing that the earth is virtually at the centre of the universe, doesn’t a collapsing universe look like everything falling inwards, to earth? Doesn’t this look just like the process I proposed for the creation of the universe? But the best is still to come! ...At the end of this universe, God says that a new heaven and a new earth will appear. Doesn’t that sound like the progressive collapse of this universe and the formation of a new universe? Oh dear, it really does seem that this is the way God works. Just as I proposed that God transformed a matter–space universe into this space–time universe by the addition of time, then perhaps the new heaven and earth is the addition of eternity to this universe.
Now some quick disclaimers. I have examined some hints in scripture about the end of this universe and observed that it seems to be a new universe replacing the current one. This gives extra credence to my suggestion that God transformed a matter–space universe (a handful of heaven), into this universe at the start of time. I also wanted to challenge presumptions that the creation of this universe has to be ‘ex nihilo’, that is, from nothing. I am comfortable with this, but I don’t actually think that things will unfold exactly as I suggested…
For example, if the universe is already collapsing or transforming at the speed of light, from the outside in, then we will not know about it until it is upon us. Certainly there are scriptures describing end times as coming upon us unexpectedly as did the flood in Noah’s day. But scripture has several views. There are scriptures suggesting the new heaven and earth already exist and are being prepared ahead of time for our arrival. But it is also true that our perception will be out-with-the-old, and in-with-the-new. What is, must pass away for what is to come. Do you have it? This is a challenge but not a definitive prediction of the way it will unfold. But I have a precedent from what will happen at the end of time to justify my suggestion for what happened at the beginning of time.
By the way, the end of this universe won’t happen until after the millennium reign of Jesus. So, in fact we will know about it. This is not an imminent doomsday prediction. Don’t get misled!
What more do you want? More mathematics? See how unending mathematical propositions have been reviewed in Reference 2, and totally failed. My proposal is based on physical analogues – things that are real and observed and so, if creation worked through these same laws ordained by God, then this would be expected. Recall Solomon’s wisdom, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10).
Hebrews 1:2 and 11:3 says that God created the world, but the Greek word translated as world or universe is ‘aionas’, which literally means ‘an age’. From context it seems to be translated as world or universe because it refers to creation. But in Hebrews 6:5 and 9:26, aionas is translated as the coming age and the consummation of the ages. So perhaps the Greek is more accurate than we think, where the creation is the start of an age because it is the start of time. But more than that, the physical COI model recognises the establishment of time as the key event at the start of creation, more so than space and matter appearing. The age to come in heaven, can also be seen as picturing a different time, namely eternity.
CMI released an article called “Did God create time?” in Jan 2016 and this is what drew my attention to the different uses of aionas discussed above. It’s pretty obvious that I think God created time, but time is not mentioned directly in the Genesis 1 account. However, Chapters 23, 24 and 26 demonstrate that light was the first step in creation and shows that light (the speed of light), is inseparable from time and space and matter. In fact, the COI model flowed from this revelation. So I find it encouraging that we can now see time created.
The Journal of Creation, Vol.30(1):p51-55, 2016 had an article “What does the Bible say about the fabric of space?” This looked at various scriptures that might hint at the attributes of space. I would like to show how some of these insights are fulfilled by the COI model.
Psalm 68:34, Proverbs 8:28, Job 37:18 use words that talk about the sky and shows that they reflect strength or hardening. In the COI model, the starting point is an even, diffuse, bland matter—space universe. We then picture the start of time as being like a shock-wave moving from the outside to the centre, compressing and transforming this matter into the exquisite galactic structures of this universe. So we can picture a hardening or casting attribute to the process of placing the stars in position.
Psalm 102:25-26, Hebrews 1:10-11, Isaiah 34:4, Revelation 6:14, and Hebrews 1:12 all talk about the heavens being rolled up or being like a garment (material) or a scroll, that will one day wear out. Well, by now you have heard me describe a wave surging from the outside in, even like a wave rolling up onto the beach. Suppose now you picture an elegant rug rolled up at one end of the hallway, and then given a push, so that it unrolls along the hallway. Isn’t that a good picture of the creation wave rolling into the centre of the universe and laying out the heavens as it goes? Then, as described in the preceding sections, at the end of time, the rug is rolled up from the outside in.
In chapter 24, I listed many references to the heavens being ‘stretched out’ like a tent or a curtain, e.g. Psalm 104:2. After unfolding a tent, the stretching out is completed by making it fast with pegs. This tent image combines the unfolding (rolling out) of the tent material and the making fast or strong (hardening). Still other scriptures listed in in chapter 24 describe the heavens as firmly established. I think the COI model does a very good job of capturing the attributes of rolling out, stretching, hardening, and being firmly established.
Look, I’m sorry if you wanted to picture the universe appearing like a magician waving his magic wand and there it is, so that it is clearly all supernatural. Or perhaps you don’t like any lower level details being filled in, as I have in the COI model, so as not to detract from the clear supernatural power of God being displayed. I have noticed that the majority of the battle over creation is fought by showing that secular solutions are tragically wanting in technical credibility, and by implication, it must have been done by God. But the secularists have one thing going for them, namely, no matter how poor their ideas are; it does not prove there is a god. Of course, they forget that it does mean they are pretty foolish to trust their solutions.
Now I have proposed a technical solution consistent with the Bible. Will you oppose it for fear that it might have some technical flaw and then the secular world can poke fun at my solution just as we point out the flaws in their solutions. Look, take heart—I have just described this as “my solution” so just blame me, and if it works just praise God. In my opinion the COI Model is good enough to depose the Big Bang Theory and close enough to the Bible to leave everyone without an excuse to doubt that God created this universe.
Everything I proposed here about the COI model was ‘dreamed up’ by me. It seems quite possible that other people have proposed something similar. I claim this as original work simply because I never read it anywhere. If someone else has proposed it then let them get the glory, but why aren’t these solutions on show? Even secular physicists are choking on an unpalatable Big Bang Theory.
Further valuable Biblical support is available in the following supplements:
S5. The COI Universe: A beautiful exegesis
S7. The COI Universe: In a moment’s frustration
...flush out the stumbling blocks.
S10. The key to everything
Humphreys, R., New time dilation helps creation cosmology, Journal of Creation 22(3):84–92, 2008; creation.com/dilation.
An eternal big bang universe by John G. Hartnett
Starlight and time—a further breakthrough by Carl Wieland. This is just a preview of the book Starlight, Time and the New Physics by John G. Hartnett